Cooperation with Catholics

GD.
You wrote:

But to Catholics at the time of the Council of Trent, anathema meant the same thing. And the reason is that they taught that salvation came through the receiving of the sacraments not to mention the masses that had to be said in order to lessen the time in Purgatory. And sadly this is still taught today in Catholic churches.

So then, for those outside the Catholic Church system they believed that they had no hope. The Jewish leaders that ran the Temple held the same threat in the time of Christ over fellow Jews. So your point is moot.

 

Charles.
You wrote:

The fact is that no true believer (Rom. 8:14) would ever dream of becoming a priest who would try to conjure up the Spirit and body of Christ into a wafer and then offer it up as a "bloodless sacrifice" to the Father for sin time and time again. (Heb. 10:12-14)

And don't you mean, Jesus' sacrifices?

Here is a Catholic explanation of this abomination:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/link/e-litur.html

And now the truth:

http://aloha.net/~mikesch/index_8.htm

I might recommend that you order one of these pamphlets:

http://www.harvesthousepublishers.com/kit.cfm?EdID=100244&ProductID=5074297

 

Jack,

You can believe whatever you want. I thoroughly disagree with nearly everything you have said.

You turn Jesus' gospel into a hate-filled legalism. Your loss.

 

Posted by Charles Meadows: This has nothing to do with a sentimental attachment to the RCC. I just think we in the fundamental protestant traditions have lost the idea of non-judgmental Christian love. And we do so claiming to be "biblical".

We are to judge everything in light of the scriptures. RCC doctrine and practise is clearly designed to keep folks out of heaven. It is a FALSE religion.

There is no such thing as non-judgemental christian love when it comes to judging false doctrine. And no flexability concerning the RCC's role as a christian church.

We should of course love and pray for those entangled in this web of deception.

The problem I have found is that when I try to discuss Jesus with a catholic, most of them are "all set". They are not interested in the truth of the bible and are therefore without excuse before God. God must be worshipped in Spirit and truth. One without the other does not make a christian. We must seek Him to find Him.

 

The scripture describes a narrow rather than broad road that leads to salvation.

I will make no apologies for what the Bible teaches. People will either accept it or reject it but I see no biblical reason for believing that God compromises what He has declared so that more people will get in.

They aren't just wrong... they constitute another gospel other than the biblical one. I don't say this out of pleasure or any sense of superiority- There are many people of all denominations including Baptists who add works to what Christ has done in one form or another. Scripturally, one who does this is not saved... and it isn't something that you, me, or anyone else can necessarily discern from knowing them.

I agree- that is very sadly the truth.

This is really a yes/no question... but one that is answered from the very depths of a person's soul. How can you "slightly" believe that you need to add something to Christ's sacrifice to save yourself or preserve your salvation?

Yes... and the effect isn't that they just lack academic knowledge. Many so-called fundamentalists have slipped into a cultic dependency on leaders/pastors. In many if not most cases, these folks are ardently KJVO but can't really understand the KJV for themselves. So, instead of getting a Bible they can understand and study, they avoid Bible study and instead follow another's wisdom.

I know people including someone very close to me who exhibit this behavior.

I don't think failure to state the truth even when someone passionately, devoutly holds a false belief demonstrates anything but love.

Would it be "non-judgmental Christian love" to let a friend blinded by drunkeness to stagger out in front of a speeding bus?

Charles- Please show me where I have unlovingly judged a person or their spiritual condition. It isn't about me or my opinion... or you.... or even whoever holds these false beliefs. It is about the biblical truth of the gospel.

How can one be more loving than to proclaim the necessity of having faith in the total sufficiency of the person and work of Jesus Christ? What is more loving than declaring the grace of God plus nothing from the sinner?

 

The Anti-Catholicism and ignorance on this thread is appalling and enough to give one a very serious headache!

You know, I have seen a lot of quotes here from Anti-Catholic sources that really don't get Catholicism right or are taking things out of context. For example, someone posted a list of "Catholic inventions," with dates and such. Anyone who knows history knows how inaccurate that list is. Is that all most of you can do, just cut and paste things from Anti-Catholic websites?

Most Catholics don't even care about what the Catechism says, or what St. Alphonsus Ligouri said about Mary. If you were to bring these up to them, they'd stare at you blankly as if you were crazy. Most Catholics just believe in Christ Jesus and trust in Him. They don't go into much detail about Mary, saints, or whatever. Most Catholics don't even bother much with Mary, anyway, according to Catholic sources I've read.

Brothers and sisters, what I am trying to say is that it is pointless to argue about Catholicism either amongst ourselves or with Catholics. Here's a better idea: instead of attacking Catholicism and trying to hopelessly bury Catholics with an avalanche of quotes from the websites of the Baptist Taliban (Brother Cloud, Jack Chick, et. al.), why don't you just present why YOUR faith, as a Baptist Christian, is so much better? Believe it or not, it is the very simplicity of the message that will win the argument and get Catholic folks to think. The Bible gives one assurance that they can KNOW that they have eternal life, and that one is saved by faith in what Christ has done for them already on the cross. You don't need to add or subtract anything else from that, and Catholics will appreciate you for it.

 

Scott,

Charles- Please show me where I have unlovingly judged a person or their spiritual condition. It isn't about me or my opinion... or you.... or even whoever holds these false beliefs. It is about the biblical truth of the gospel.

How can one be more loving than to proclaim the necessity of having faith in the total sufficiency of the person and work of Jesus Christ? What is more loving than declaring the grace of God plus nothing from the sinner?

I'm not saying that YOU have judged another. But look at how many denominations there are. They all have different theologies. None is perfect. Each reflects human understanding of the scriptures. It is abundantly clear from reading the Gospels that Jesus knew people's hearts. Paul was speaking against those who would attempt to pervert Christianity. A person who believes in Christ who is sincerely trying to live the best life possible is NOT attempting to pervert Christianity.

My point is that you too are attempting to define what is saving faith and what is not. I do not agree that the Bible teaches this degree of exclusivism. Now one who says that Christ is not divine or did not rise has no savior indeed. But saying that anyone who is not purely sola fide is not a Christian is way out of line. In fact I'll go out on a limb and say that Jesus specifically cautions us NOT to adopt this type of attitude.

 

That is true. All of us have a sin nature that battles our spiritual nature and prevents perfect vision.

However, I am IFB because I believe that we are correct on the essentials and have a high level of confidence that we are correct on most other things. I believe this because of what the Bible says literally and in context.

That is untrue. The Spirit enlightens believers in their interpretation of scripture. The failure comes from how our personal sin impacts our personal understanding.

That has everything to do with exactly what "believes in Christ" means. Does it mean that they believe in the complete sufficiency of His provision of grace? "Believe in Christ" is too ambiguous. Many who cry "Lord, Lord" will be rejected.

Then your point is absolutely, positively 100% incorrect. It is untrue. You have stated this several times in several different ways and each time I have responded that it is not important what I say but only what the Bible says.

There is no need to define what God has already defined. There is only a need to accept it.

Biblically, saving faith includes repentance and trusting in the person and finished work of Jesus Christ plus nothing else for salvation. If you think this is not true or that God makes exceptions for those who sincerely believe in something that is false then please stop accusing me and make your biblical case.

The Bible teaches an absolute degree of exclusivism on the topic of salvation... over and over and over.

No! And that isn't what I said. It is grace only that I am arguing for. We both agree that "faith" is required. What we apparently disagree on is what one must have faith in.

I say it is in the unmerited gift of God plus nothing else. You apparently are arguing that those who think they are saved by the gift plus their own works will somehow be accepted by God even though they in reality have rejected the sufficiency of God's provision.

Show me where Jesus said this.

 

Scott,

Consider Romans 10:13. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Paul contextualizes this verse in 10:3 explaining that adherents of the law try to establish their own righteousness, REJECTING God's righteousness (namely Jesus).

I would argue that those holding a semi-Pelagian stance do not REJECT God's righteousness. Rather they are reverent of it. If any assert that Christ's death and resurrection are NOT SUFFICIENT for salvation then I'd agree that they are in trouble. But as such I see this as a bit of straw man.

What about those who say, "Lord Lord" (Mt 7:21). Verse 20 says, "wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." This means that God knows who cries "Lord" of a pure heart and who does not.

Consider Luke 18:9-14. Luke prefaces this by explaining, "he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves, that they were righteous and despised others..."

This passage supports salvation by faith and not rituals. But it also shows that God respected the devotion of the believer who didn't get things all right. At this time Paul had yet to preach his message - and the law was the normative means for "salvation". Yet this man was justified.

To me the best application here would be the Phariseen as a fundamentalist who carries a KJV, avoids movie theaters, hates pants on women, and hands out tracts twice a week - and looks down on everyone different than he. "Lord thank you I'm not a papist who worships a bloodless wafer Christ".

The publican is the one who may not have all the doctrine right but knows that Christ is the only salvation.

Now regarding that liberal protestant or catholic who thinks that any religion will get you to heaven as long as you're a "good person" - well I agree with you that this person has a completely different gospel and cannot claim to have a saving understanding of Christ. But that's not whom I'm defending.

I once again assert that one who believes Jesus died for his sins, even if he thinks works should properly accompany faith, still can claim salvation.

 

I will get to the rest when I have time later.

I believe that works will accompany genuine faith because the Spirit works within. But these works either do or do not have a bearing on our salvation. I contend that they are a result and make no contribution at all. Christ's sacrifice is sufficient.

Sufficiency is the key element. Even your own scripture citations above declare this. Your own examples support this.

 

I posted the list of unscriptural practices that became a part of Roman Catholic dogma over a period of seventeen centuries [April 12, page 10]. I noted that some of the dates given are approximate. In many cases, these heresies were even debated for years before being given the status of required beliefs.

Whether the dates are correct or not is irrelevent. The truth is that these are errors embraced by the Roman Catholic Churches and to some extent by the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

I also noted in that post the following: “May I also state that I believe there are many Christians within the RCC just as I believe there are Christians within the Word Faith movement whose doctrine rivals that of the RCC in its error.”

Now if you are sufficiently naive to think that that these errors are not believed by devout Roman Catholics I invite you to visit the Forum “http://forums.crosswalk.com/”. I spent several months on that forum debating these very issues with Roman Catholics and in some cases Eastern Orthodox adherents. I finally came to the conclusion that discussing these subjects with their adherents was as useless as discussing End Times with dispensationalists.

You are particularly naive if you think that most Roman Catholics "don't even bother much with Mary, anyway".

 

The Rebel Baptist stands on what he has said.

 

That's nothing but an ad hominum lie. Your Catholic friends loss, not mine.