Catholicism is not compatible with Christianity

[JonC]

You both are wandering away from the subject. Catholics and Protestants have killed each other unjustly. Heck, they have even killed their own. Where you both should be is examining and defending based on Christian doctrine. For Walter this is central to the RCC, to DHK this is central to Scripture. Ultimately, if RCC doctrine is Christian, then non TCC doctrine is not, and vice versa.

 

[Walter]

Walter, is it true the board no longer allows Catholics to participate if they were not first Baptists? If this is the policy, I do not agree with that policy as there could be saved Catholics.

On a side note, I and and both sides of all my family were Roman Catholics. They are Polish and like most Polish people from Chicago grew up Catholics. Only my immediate family (parents, brother, sister) left the church due to their doctrine conflicting in regards to salvation with the New Testament. ( I know you believe it does not). However, I do have a question for you, my mother before she met my father was a Catholic nun. The entire time she was in the convent (many years) she was never instructed or suggested by church authorities to read the Bible, nor did she, why do you think this is? Do you think a typical Baptist church encourages their members to read the Bible? What was your experience in this regard when you were a Baptist? Also, both of my parents knew nothing in regards to the purpose of the, birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ (the atonement) despite being baptized members of the church, regular mass attenders, attenders of confessional, and in a family in which both sides were all practicing Catholics, do you think the message was being preached, but they all "just didn't get it" until they read the Bible or is it just left out all together?

God bless,

Brother Joe

I noticed I had not answered your first question. When I first started following the threads on the Baptist Board it was around 2002. At that time there were many Catholic participants in this forum. I was not a member but followed the threads. I was very anti-Catholic at the time. As I followed the discussions I realized I really didn't know sic-cum about the Catholic Church. Several Baptists on this board converted to the Catholic Church during that time and even DHK admitted for that reason alone he was sorry Catholics were ever allowed here. Eventually, as more people announced their conversions to the Catholic Church (my aunt was one of them) the purge of all Catholics took place and only those of us who were Baptist when they joined the BB were allowed to stay. I did not convert until a member by the screen name of 'Thinkingstuff' (at that time a Baptist) convinced me that I needed to take a closer look at the teachings of the Catholic Church. 'Thinkingstuff' eventually converted to the Catholic Church and continued to participate here for quite a while after. I suspect the purge of Catholics off this board is almost complete as other than myself, I haven't seen another Catholic participate for a long time. Most have moved on to participate on boards which have a policy of welcoming Catholics. I know of a couple that eventually were banned for proselytizing. I agree with you, if Catholics are allowed to come here and you hold the truth, you should have nothing to fear. Catholics would be saved, right? I still have contact with some of the members who converted from the Baptist side of the tracks to the Catholic and, so far, none have returned to become evangelicals again. But there you go!

BTW, I will say that I only know of one actual Catholic apologist
that was participating on this board during those years when Catholic were allowed to join. At the time Carson Weber was a student at Stubenville and has since started a Catholic apologetics site. The rest were 'garden-variety' Catholics. The board has the right to determine who may and may not participate on this site, and I'm glad they have allowed me to remain. I have done my best to follow the rules and although there have been times when I have been caught up in the heat of the moment and posted thoughts I have regretted, I have also apologized and asked forgiveness for my words.

 

[DHK]

I see you continue to ignore the fact that Catholic Churches have been burned and Catholics murdered as well.

No I didn't see that. I only saw the statement that [Catholics have used the law...[/quote]

However, let's move on.
I read the Pope's address today. Here is something that has always bothered me. See what you think.
The Pope said:

The pope said child Jesus was calling on everyone to rethink the way they treat others.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/pope-christmas-urges-return-essential-values-212921842.html

The problem is that the child Jesus doesn't call anyone to rethink or do anything. The child Jesus doesn't exist. He has gone through his earthly life, died, was buried, rose again, ascended into heaven and now sits on the right hand of God. Yet we still see images of Mary holding Jesus, and a great emphasis of Mary and the "child Jesus" which doesn't exist any longer.

It is true we celebrate Christmas or what should be the birth of Christ. I heard an excellent sermon recently which stated very plainly that one cannot celebrate Christmas without also celebrating Easter.
IOW, Christ came to die. If all one thinks about is the birth of Christ, they fail. They must, at this season, think of the reason why he was born, that is "He was born to die, to take away our sins, to be a sacrifice for us, that we, by believing in Him might have eternal life.

The child Jesus can do nothing for us. He doesn't exist. He is no longer a child. He died and is risen, conquering sin, death, hell and Satan, and now sits on the right hand of God, all victorious. He demands of his creation, that is all mankind to believe in Him as Savior and Lord. That is the meaning of this season. Without that the entire meaning of the birth of Christ is lost.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I noticed I had not answered your first question. When I first started following the threads on the Baptist Board it was around 2002. At that time there were many Catholic participants in this forum. I was not a member but followed the threads. I was very anti-Catholic at the time. As I followed the discussions I realized I really didn't know sic-cum about the Catholic Church. Several Baptists on this board converted to the Catholic Church during that time and even DHK admitted for that reason alone he was sorry Catholics were ever allowed here. Eventually, as more people announced their conversions to the Catholic Church (my aunt was one of them) the purge of all Catholics took place and only those of us who were Baptist when they joined the BB were allowed to stay. I did not convert until a member by the screen name of 'Thinkingstuff' (at that time a Baptist) convinced me that I needed to take a closer look at the teachings of the Catholic Church. 'Thinkingstuff' eventually converted to the Catholic Church and continued to participate here for quite a while after. I suspect the purge of Catholics off this board is almost complete as other than myself, I haven't seen another Catholic participate for a long time. Most have moved on to participate on boards which have a policy of welcoming Catholics. I know of a couple that eventually were banned for proselytizing. I agree with you, if Catholics are allowed to come here and you hold the truth, you should have nothing to fear. Catholics would be saved, right? I still have contact with some of the members who converted from the Baptist side of the tracks to the Catholic and, so far, none have returned to become evangelicals again. But there you go!

BTW, I will say that I only know of one actual Catholic apologist
that was participating on this board during those years when Catholic were allowed to join. At the time Carson Weber was a student at Stubenville and has since started a Catholic apologetics site. The rest were 'garden-variety' Catholics. The board has the right to determine who may and may not participate on this site, and I'm glad they have allowed me to remain. I have done my best to follow the rules and although there have been times when I have been caught up in the heat of the moment and posted thoughts I have regretted, I have also apologized and asked forgiveness for my words.

Walter,

I seem to recall a Catholic on this forum not too long ago by the name "Lakeside". I believe he was later banned, but how could he have joined if he was Catholic, do Catholics have to lie about their faith on their profile in order to gain access? Brother DHK is a moderator and engaged in debates with Lakeside often regarding him trying to propagate and defend the Catholic positions. The board seemed to show Lakeside some tolerance.

As far as your offer of me attending a Catholic church, I would never do such. I was baptized into the Catholic church when I was a baby. Many years later after I had left the church I found a baby baptismal certificate issued by the church stating something to the effect of "by this act you have become a child of God". That is works salvation via the form of baptismal regeneration and even worst for an infant, if anyone truly believes such a doctrine they are trusting in works and are under the "curse of the law" and unregenerate.

 

[Walter]

Walter,

I seem to recall a Catholic on this forum not too long ago by the name "Lakeside". I believe he was later banned, but how could he have joined if he was Catholic, do Catholics have to lie about their faith on their profile in order to gain access? Brother DHK is a moderator and engaged in debates with Lakeside often regarding him trying to propagate and defend the Catholic positions. The board seemed to show Lakeside some tolerance.

As far as your offer of me attending a Catholic church, I would never do such. I was baptized into the Catholic church when I was a baby. Many years later after I had left the church I found a baby baptismal certificate issued by the church stating something to the effect of "by this act you have become a child of God". That is works salvation via the form of baptismal regeneration and even worst for an infant, if anyone truly believes such a doctrine they are trusting in works and are under the "curse of the law" and unregenerate.

Yeah, I remember Lakeside posting here. Not sure how he/she got back on the board. Lakeside had been banned once before if I remember correctly. Not even sure what Lakeside's purpose was here. I am actually here to continue to learn and discuss the Christian faith.

I know you believe baptismal regeneration to be "a work". We believe it is a "work of God". I compare it to the story of the woman who was bleeding. Her faith was "If I can only touch the hem of His garment, I will be healed." So, she elbowed her way through the crowd, succeeded in touching the hem of Jesus' garment, power flowed from Him, and she was healed. Jesus said, "Someone touched me!" She 'fessed up, and Jesus said to her, "Your faith has saved you."

Notice that the woman had faith, but that it wasn't the mere possession of faith healed her. In the same way, our faith itself does not save us. It wasn't until she acted upon her faith did she get healed. To be saved, we have to act upon our faith.

However, Jesus did say, "Your faith has saved you," even though it was the power of Jesus that did it. Now, why could He say that her faith had saved her? Simply as a manner of speaking. Her faith was strong enough to enable her to do the 'work' of accessing Jesus in the throng, no small feat. On top of that, she was bleeding and hence 'unclean' and not supposed to be touching anyone at all! That's why Jesus could say her faith saved her because without it she wouldn't have done what was needed. Hence, her faith was the first link in the chain that saved her.

So, we get baptized not simply to be obeying Jesus, but because baptism is the way Jesus has set it up that our sins be washed away, and we be put in union with Christ. That's why Jesus commands it. Of course if we do not have faith in Christ, we won't be baptized, and hence won't get saved. See Mk 16:16.

Wish I could spend more time here, but I will be away for some time and hopefully can check back in when I return. Blessings!

 

[DHK]

, why could He say that her faith had saved her? Simply as a manner of speaking. Her faith was strong enough to enable her to do the 'work' of accessing Jesus in the throng, no small feat. On top of that, she was bleeding and hence 'unclean' and not supposed to be touching anyone at all! That's why Jesus could say her faith saved her because without it she wouldn't have done what was needed. Hence, her faith was the first link in the chain that saved her.

So, we get baptized not simply to be obeying Jesus, but because baptism is the way Jesus has set it up that our sins be washed away, and we be put in union with Christ. That's why Jesus commands it. Of course if we do not have faith in Christ, we won't be baptized, and hence won't get saved. See Mk 16:16.

Wish I could spend more time here, but I will be away for some time and hopefully can check back in when I return. Blessings!

All men have faith. Her faith saved her. Why?
It is not faith per se, but rather the object of the faith. The object of her faith was Christ. She went directly to Christ as you noted--struggled to get there. Why? She had faith or confidence that if she could just get to Christ she would be healed. It is only Christ that can heal; it is only Christ that can save.
Baptism cannot save; neither can the RCC.
It is Christ that saves. The object of our faith must be Christ and his saving work.
He is the one who said:

"I am the way the truth and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me."
It is not religion, baptism, church, confirmation, sacraments, works, etc. It is Christ and him alone.
It is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone that saves a person. The RCC has nothing to do with it. This woman is a good example of that. The object of her faith was Jesus Christ and him alone. Thus she was healed.

 

[Revmitchell]

The washing away of sins is completed in the shed blood of Christ. This is communicated clearly by scripture like:

Eph_1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

Notice here there is no mention of Baptism. In fact there is but one verse of scripture that even comes close which is:


Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."

The difficulty with using this verse as a proof text for the requirement of Baptism for salvation is that it is the only one of its kind. Further difficulties is that Paul himself was already born again prior to his Baptism.

Baptism is only a picture of the real thing and intended to communicate to the public our identifying our lives with the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:4-6)

We must all be witnesses of our rebirth. One who is not bent on being such a witness is not saved.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

The washing away of sins is completed in the shed blood of Christ. This is communicated clearly by scripture like:

Eph_1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

Notice here there is no mention of Baptism. In fact there is but one verse of scripture that even comes close which is:


Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."

The difficulty with using this verse as a proof text for the requirement of Baptism for salvation is that it is the only one of its kind. Further difficulties is that Paul himself was already born again prior to his Baptism.

Baptism is only a picture of the real thing and intended to communicate to the public our identifying our lives with the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:4-6)

We must all be witnesses of our rebirth. One who is not bent on being such a witness is not saved.

Well said Rev Mitchel!

 

[Bro. James]

Well said Rev Mitchel!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A somewhat late bit of trivia for the worldwide church called Christendom: there are remnant sized groups who are Christian, i.e. following Jesus, the Christ who are neither Catholic or Protestant. They have been persecuted to death by Rome and Wittenburg, etal.

This thread is a bit ambiguous in that the modern definition of a Christian is so ecumenical/worldly as to be undefinable. As long as Man defines orthodoxy, this will not change. God is not the author of confusion. Man has been getting it wrong since the Garden of Eden. The Light is still out there--most folks are not really looking for the True Light.

This still boils to: if the holy see is right about authority coming through Peter, the first pope, then all others are usurpers--Rome has delegated authority to no other entity. If this is false, Rome is the usurper and so are her daughters--they have not authority since Rome has none. It cannot be: all of the above.

Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Let me say that it's actually refreshing to see a Roman Catholic posting on a thread regarding the RCC. Since the 'Great Purge' it seems like most of these threads have been merely an anti-RCC echo chamber. Although in my journey I ultimately could not join either the RCC or the EOC, I do miss the old days with such RCC posters like Carson Weber, Brother Ed, and Thinkingstuff, some knowledgeable Lutherans (whose names escape me at present) and my fellow Anglican, Matt Black, among others. It seemed to make for more compelling discussions when more viewpoints were presented and ably defended.

PS: it's good to see you posting again, Walter.

 

[Rebel]

Let me say that it's actually refreshing to see a Roman Catholic posting on a thread regarding the RCC. Since the 'Great Purge' it seems like most of these threads have been merely an anti-RCC echo chamber. Although in my journey I ultimately could not join either the RCC or the EOC, I do miss the old days with such RCC posters like Carson Weber, Brother Ed, and Thinkingstuff, some knowledgeable Lutherans (whose names escape me at present) and my fellow Anglican, Matt Black, among others. It seemed to make for more compelling discussions when more viewpoints were presented and ably defended.

PS: it's good to see you posting again, Walter.

I also like to see people from a variety of backgrounds posting. Disagreement actually be a healthy thing.

 

[JonC]

Go ahead and tell me exactly what you are having a problem with in what I said bro and I will attempt to address it. Pretty caught up in another thread at the moment!

Internet Theologian,

Just a reminder. You had offered to address these issues earlier. It is a little difficult reconciling a couple of your comments with Scripture, but I am confident this is just because there is a need for clarification. I am putting in bold the comments that I am asking you to explain, and in red those passages that I am not sure how you reconcile. Again, I'm sure this is a difference of definition and I appreciate your willingness to explain your position.

You mentioned in #50 that “Justificaiton is rendered once upon the elect of God and is eternally determined” and in post #62 that “Faith is evidence of conversion, a gift from God and not the cause of our justification whatsoever.”

Considering that Paul tells us God justifies by faith (Rm. 3:30), and that we have been “justified by faith” (Rm. 5:1), that it is our faith that is “credited as righteousness” (Rm. 4:5), and that we are “justified by faith in Christ” (Gal. 2:16), I was not exactly clear on your intent and definitions.

I agree that faith was a gift, and that the cause of our faith is God. But I am not sure what you mean about faith not being the “cause of our justification whatsoever” and how that statement reconciles with “we are justified by faith.”

Insofar as definitions go, how do you define justification (is it God declaring us just; is it positional; is it legal; is it a covenantal justification – i.e. in regards to the Abrahamic Covenant; is it speaking of a moral righteousness; etc.)? How do you define “conversion” (is it renewal; process; summery; event; etc.)?

Anyway, brother, I appreciate your offer to address these difficulties. I am not questioning your conclusions but I am asking for clarification. Thanks again.

 

[JonC]

Internet Theologian, by selecting "dislike" on my request that you explain what on the surface may appear as a contradiction to Scripture in your comments and to define the terms you use, I am taking it that you are unwilling or unable to give an answer. The reason I asked was in answer to your invitation. I certainly did not mean to put you on the spot or "call you out" on anything here. It is important that we be able to provide an answer for our faith, but I also know that all of us have areas where we would struggle to articulate a good defense. Perhaps this is something you may want to consider and a doctrine you may wish to fortify in the future.

Except for those few issues, you were fairly clear in your position. If this is something that you plan on teaching to others then I suggest working out your stance a little more, and certainly we can all benefit from looking at our theologies with a critical eye. If you are interested, J.I. Packer and John Piper (both Calvinists) have written on justification (you may find their works helpful). I just wanted you to know that I did not mean to appear as if I were putting you on the spot. I had taken your invitation as sincere when in retrospect it may have simply been an attempt to avoid an inadequately defended topic, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up.

 

[nailah783]

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. -John 3:16-17

This is all the Bible says that makes you saved. To say that one denomination is more saved than another is wrong and is not scriptural. How one denomination chooses to worship and reverence God does not make them any less saved. Show me where it says that in the scripture, and I will admit that I am wrong.

 

[JonC]

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. -John 3:16-17

This is all the Bible says that makes you saved. To say that one denomination is more saved than another is wrong and is not scriptural. How one denomination chooses to worship and reverence God does not make them any less saved. Show me where it says that in the scripture, and I will admit that I am wrong.

Denominations are not saved, people are.

Sent from my TARDIS

 

[DHK]

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. -John 3:16-17

This is all the Bible says that makes you saved. To say that one denomination is more saved than another is wrong and is not scriptural. How one denomination chooses to worship and reverence God does not make them any less saved. Show me where it says that in the scripture, and I will admit that I am wrong.

Some "denominations" for lack of a better word, preach the truth and some do not.
Some deliberately lead people to hell; others attempt to preach the truth and lead people to heaven.
Some have false teachers; some have teachers ordained of God.

There is a very distinct difference in many "denominations."
Would you go to that denomination labeled "Jehovah Witnesses"? "Mormons"? Why or why not?
They too will use John 3:16-17.

 

[Salty]

HMMM, can a person who attends a Baptist church which teaches false doctrine - still be saved.

Many Roman Catholics remain in "The Church" because of tradition, family, ect.
Granted - they need to come out into a Bible Believing church -
But the most important issue - Are they saved by Grace - thu Faith of the Blood of Christ - + nothing -nothing?

 

[DHK]

HMMM, can a person who attends a Baptist church which teaches false doctrine - still be saved.

Many Roman Catholics remain in "The Church" because of tradition, family, ect.
Granted - they need to come out into a Bible Believing church -
But the most important issue - Are they saved by Grace - thu Faith of the Blood of Christ - + nothing -nothing?

They are not saved because of anything the RCC teaches, but in spite of it.
I was a Catholic for 20 years. After I was saved I didn't come out of the Catholic Church for two years. I guess I am one of those people you are referring to. Every person grows at their own rate. When I came face to face with the Word of God, that the Catholic teaching was directly contrary to what the Bible taught then I had to make a decision. But it took two years to understand that. Once a person understands that difference they must come out. If they don't are they really saved? Tradition doesn't save people.

There are some Baptist churches that deny the fundamentals of the faith and are very liberal. I know of one American Baptist Church that is like that. They had a female pastor. This was years ago, and I don't know what has become of the church since then. Within the "Baptist 'denomination'" there are all kinds of Baptists. I don't like the word "denomination" when referring to Baptists. There are so many different kinds. There is too much diversity to call it a denomination, and since they are independent by nature the word "denomination" doesn't really fit.

 

[relling]

Some "denominations" for lack of a better word, preach the truth and some do not.
Some deliberately lead people to hell; others attempt to preach the truth and lead people to heaven.
Some have false teachers; some have teachers ordained of God.

There is a very distinct difference in many "denominations."
Would you go to that denomination labeled "Jehovah Witnesses"? "Mormons"? Why or why not?
They too will use John 3:16-17.

Hi DHK,

You wrote that some denominations "deliberately lead people to hell".

Can you tell me the name of just one of those denominations and what proof you have they "deliberately lead people to hell"?

Thanks,

Ray

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK,

You wrote that some denominations "deliberately lead people to hell".

Can you tell me the name of just one of those denominations and what proof you have they "deliberately lead people to hell"?

Thanks,

Ray

I can give you my own testimony.
I grew up in the RCC. In 20 years I never heard the gospel preached one time. The RCC doesn't preach the gospel. The preach a message of works, and that message will lead people directly to hell.
Look at their Catechism. Look up "new birth."
It defines new birth as baptism. That is baptismal regeneration. They believe that baptism saves particularly being baptized into the Catholic Church. That is heresy, and that is leading people to hell.

The new birth is not baptism and has nothing to do with baptism.
It is regeneration, a work done by the Holy Spirit of God as He works through the Word of God to bring a person into a right relationship with Christ.
Salvation has nothing to do with a church, a denomination, a sacrament of any kind, etc. Salvation is a relationship with Christ; it is not a religion. Those who define salvation by their religion or their church or denomination are out in left field. Salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. It is by grace through faith that one is saved, and that not of yourself. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.
There are not works involved in salvation. It is God's gift to man. It needs to be accepted by faith. It is not a religion, a denomination, etc. Salvation is in a relationship, not a religion.