Christians Evangelizing Catholics

I agree with the vast majority if your most recent post Craig. Virtually all of my friends are Catholic. My desire is to show them the love of Christ and what He has done for me while sharing with them how I came to know Christ as my Saviour.

At the same time, it is wrong to support false teaching whether it is sourced in the Catholic church or evangelical circles.

 

Very many Baptists believe that doctrines from sources other than the Bible are either of little value or totally wrong. And they believe that this is a VERY important doctrine. However, that very doctrine is NOT taught in the Bible but comes from extra-biblical sources and human reasoning just as many Roman Catholic doctrines do. And many Roman Catholic doctrines are not so wrong as they are misunderstood. And, as I have posted, ALL Baptists believe very strongly in some doctrines that other Baptists believe are NOT taught anywhere in the Bible. Some examples are very obvious as they are taught by very few Baptists, i.e., millennial exclusion and millennial punishment. We also have the example of KJOism, a doctrine that is very greatly injuring the Baptist faith and is a doctrine based exclusively upon superstition and lies. Most certainly the Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach any doctrines comparable to KJOism.

 

Thank you for clarifying that KJVOism, millenial exclusion and punishment, and others are NOT accepted by mainstream evangelicals. Only a very small segment of evangelical society accept these clearly unscriptural doctrines.

 

Absolutely! But telling your friends that their church is of the devil is not the most effective way to get them to change their beliefs. Help them to grow in Christ by causing them to see Christ in you and your daily walk and their false doctrines will ebb away as the Holy Spirit uses you to touch their lives.

 

C4K,

Gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre nostro et Domino Iesu Christo.

 

Since we are using that wonderful language, in dealing with our Catholci friends let us remember

fortiter in re, suaviter in modo

We must be unswerving in our purpose of seeing men come to Christ, but our manner should never offend,

 

You are discounting a third, and far more likely possibility, given the frailties of human nature: they are partly right and we are partly right, they are partly wrong and we are partly wrong.

If the 'plain teaching' of Scripture were so plain, how come there are so many interpretations, just among Baptists, let alone other churches? Calvinism vs Arminianism, myriad brands of disputed millenialism and other eschatologies, charismatic vs cessationist, to name but a few.

Oh, and what Craig said on church history (but with less polemic )

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

So many interpretations----

Yes, indeed--ever since the fall of Adam, mankind has been trying to figure out ways to save himself from his depravity.

We are living in a "new age"--now we are striving to become gods, not just godlike. That is really nothing "new". Satan beguiled Eve with a similar notion.

There is still only one way to get right with God--through the shed blood of His only begotten Son.

All the interpretations, higher textual criticisms, dogmas, papal bulls, baptisms, etc. etc. cannot save the soul. Only Jesus saves. There is none other named in heaven or in earth whereby we must be saved. One need not be a ThD to understand--in fact a little child can see it.

We have convoluted God's plan--but He is still calling out His sheep--inspite of our depraved ways.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I don't think any Catholic would argue with 'Jesus saves'; the differences come between us when we seek to say how that specifically happens

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

C4k,

I could try to argue strictly from the Sola Scriptura standpoint, but then, as has been rightly pointed out on this board, my faith, and the teachings of the church, would fall apart. You guys are smart (I know this instinctively, but the use of Latin helps...cheers to that by the way), so I need not give you the history lesson, but sola scriptura is a relatively new idea. While it was an early idea in the infancy of the church, it was a vast majority, that died out until ressurrected again in the 16th century. That being said, I can try to argue from the standpoint, but I would not expect much of a fight from me! (^: Thank you for your kind words C4K.

DHK,
The reason I asked was that I was instructed earlier that extra biblical interpretations were sometimes ok, but the Unbiblical ones were not. Some of what you posted could be biblically supported, the problem there being that I would be told I am reading the Bible wrong. Some of the other ones are in extracannonical books never condemned by the church, but never cannonized. Some other doctrines that have come from the these books, other than a substantial portion of Mariology, are the beliefs of divorce (from the Shepard of Hermes, and Didache) must on the church's belief of war and just war doctrine (I forget which ones exactly, though St. Augustine quotes them in "City of God,") and her love for Greek philosophy (St. Clement of Alexandria). I guess, if we can keep this from reducing itself to the tired old "you are reading this wrong," argumet, I would like to hear the difference from ok extrabiblical doctrine, vs flat out unbiblical. I'll give you a hint of an answer that will lead to us speaking past one another, "::insert any Bible verse:: says that you should not worshor idols." The reason that would not work is that you would not have given the church fair time in her consideration of what rememberance is, and thus you have created a straw man, which we know if one of the big 20 logical fallicies. C4K is right, however, we are speaking past each other, and that should be remedied.

Brother James,

We actually agree on something here, and that should be an a priori proof of God's existence in itself! (^:

Craig, as always, thank you for your kind words, and insite.

Matt, good question!

And since we are all writing in the most beautiful language to ever grace this fine Earth (no, no bias, really!) I will give my full closing blessing.

Pax gaudium, amorque, Christi semper tecum sint,

Stephen

 

Exactly. I haven't read through this entire thread but I think that many here would not only say that Catholic doctrine is extra-Biblical (as you have admitted with your statement) but also anti-Biblical, meaning that Scripture flatly contradicts many Catholic doctrines and describes non-"justification by faith alone" soteriologies as a different gospel worthy to be condemned with the strongest terms (e.g., "let him be accursed").

I think it is safe to say that Paul would not have been a signer of ECT.

Andy

 

This "talking past each other" due to [sola scriptura]is the key problem and meaningful dialogue is very diifcult. I have had many fascinating discussions with Catholic friends and this is alwasy the place where our conversation is stymied.

Thanks once again for being such a gracious visitor to ur shores.

 

C4k,

Just because that is our point of divergence does not mean all is lost. What I mean by that is this, while Protestants mostly hold to Sola Scriptura, I do not believe it is a heretical belief. Yes the Council of Trent proclaimed them ananthema, but that was because they were entering uncharted territory, and believed it safe to err on the side of caution. Vatican II lifted such ananthemas, though spiritually, they had already been lifted thanks in large part to the works of Pope John XXIII and Carl Barth among many other names. The church believes Sola Scriptura is dangerous, but not heretical...lucky for us, God rises above such pety disputes and his grace pervades all human understanding, Alleluia!

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

Not actually. What I have said represents the consensus of evangelical theology for all of church history. I have not entered anything that evangelicals dispute about. This is not hte least about personal interpretation. It is about the clear revelation of Scripture. It is easy to see why those who have adopted a higher authority such as the RCC can struggle with what I have said. They have someone telling them something different than the Scripture. But for those who accept that in Scripture God has given us everything necessarily for every good work, there should be no question. What it seems to indicate is that some have too low a view of God's revelation and too high a view of their own intellect and abilities.

I haven't bashed any Christians for whom Christ died. I have not said one words about Christians. My comments have been directed at Roman Catholic theology, not at Roman Catholic people. There are no doubt Christians in the RCC, and they are saved in spite of the RCC doctrine, not because of it. Accusing me of attacking Christians seems to indicate that you didn't really read what I said, and didn't think critically about the issues at hand. You responded with a cheap shot that wasn't true.

[ December 13, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

IF this is so, then God is mostly wrong.

Because not all those things fall into "plain teaching." We should all be aware by now that all Scripture is not equally clear. There are some things that are explicit in Scripture, and somethings that are not. WE can and should grant latitude on those which are not. But there are some things that the weight and clarity of Scripture preclude any legitimate difference. We can legitimately disagree on millennial teachings to some degree. We can legitimately disagree to some degree on the spiritual gifts. But Scripture is crystal clear on soteriology. There is no room for disagreement. This is not a matter of interpretation in the colloquial sense. IT is matter of revelation.

 

Only for the last 500 years. If what you say is true, then Jesus wasn't doing a very good job (after Matt 16:18) for all of those in the Church who lived prior to 1517...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

IF this is so, then God is mostly wrong.

REALLY?? What about the references in the Pauline corpus to salvation by grace and faith alone vs. the passage in I Peter to which I've already referred, and James 2:14-26? It's insufficient to say that both the latter verses must be interpreted in the light of the Pauline passages -why not the other way round? And on whose and what authority do you arrive at that conclusion and say that your interpretation is correct?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Only for the last 500 years. If what you say is true, then Jesus wasn't doing a very good job (after Matt 16:18) for all of those in the Church who lived prior to 1517... </font>[/QUOTE]Notice i said it was the consensus of evangelical theology. RCC has never been evangelical, whatever else it may be. Prior to 1517, there was evangelical theology, but it was not as widespread as it became after 1517 due to the Reformation and the printing press. Evangelicals have always agreed with what I said.

 

Not sure what 1 PEter passage you are talking about. Someone asked about 3:19-22 and taht was already answered. It does not contradict Paul at all.

James was answering the question about what kind of faith saves. He was not denying that faith alone saves. He was describing the characteristics of saving faith. It is easy to see that his teaching and Paul's fit together very well. Paul himself says very similar things in his own writings.

I wouldn't say that. The passages stand in teh context of SCripture and all Scripture is the basis for right interpretation. If you interpret Paul in light of James and Peter you come to the same conclusion: that salvation is by faith alone and true saving faith results in a changed life.

The authority of Scripture. Had God wanted to say something else, he would have done so. For instance, had God wanted to teach RCC theology, he could have used words that would have communicated that very clearly. But the only way to arrive at RCC theology is to subject the word of God to the teaching magesterium, which violates a number of biblical teachings, including the fact that Scripture is profitable for every good work. The word "every" underlines the sufficiency of Scripture. We do not need anything else (such as the teaching magesterium) to be equipped for "every good work." God's word is all we need. The RCC can arrive at its position only by denying certian teachings of Scripture and by distorting others to fit into its scheme. In the end, Scripture is self attesting and self-interpreting. Not all of it is equally clear, but on doctrines like salvation it certainly is explicit.

 

But that is a totally circular argument! I asked on what authority do you interpret Scripture and you answer "Scripture's". You have already accepted that there are a myriad of interpretations of Scripture so that won't do as a stand-alone statement.

I was the one who asked for the interpretation of I Peter 3:21; fine, you gave your interpretation. But there's the rub: it's YOUR interpretation. Why should I trust yours better than the Pope's? And James does, to a degree, contradict Paul: Paul says our salvation is by faith not by works so that no-one can boast; James, equally clearly, says faith without works is dead. Which is right, and on what authority?

Yours in Christ

Matt