Cooperation with Catholics

The thing is, with the way those words are quoted, I really can't tell what Luther is saying. With all the ellipses (...) the thoughts are really fragmented.

Maybe you can help me out. </font>[/QUOTE]This is a key statement of Luther:

Luther was saying nothing is required of us in the matter of salvation(and assurance) than faith.

He also believed toward the end of his life that the righteousness imputed to us in Christ must be seperated from the righteousness of the law(or from obeying the law). He thought it one of the devil's greatest tricks to steal our assurance when we fell into some sin and and we reach the end of our lives to look back and see our failures, instead of Christs redemption of us.

Originally he had said that practical righteousness flows out of Christ's imputed rightesouness to us, but here he was going back and putting a wall between these two rightesounesses - in essense saying we cannot base our assurance upon the second righteousness, but only the first, that of Christ. If we do, then we will never doubt our salvation.

IFBReformer

 

I believe that there are genuinely saved Catholics. However, I believe it is in spite of rather than because of their theology.

I would assert that the RCC and the Popes themselves have established that office as an antichrist- "Anti" meaning instead of.

What other implications could ex cathedra declarations and the supposed position of "vicar of Christ" carry?

I would not be surprised to meet many Catholics in heaven. I would be surprised to see the recently deceased pope there. If the RCC is a church of false doctrines on critical issues then I cannot see how the chief of that church could depart from those doctrines enough to be saved without demonstrating such a change.

I hope that no one is trying to justify John Paul on the basis of perceived holiness.

 

I hope that no one is trying to justify John Paul on the basis of perceived holiness.

Gee...

Here's a guy who was a Christian when it could get you killed. Here's a guy who forsook the comforts of wife, children, and possessions. Here's a guy who devoted everything to Jesus Christ.

Yeah you're right he probably didn't know that Christ died for him. That's why he devoted his life to His service.

I would wager (but I do not KNOW) that the pope was a Christian - otherwise why would he have devoted his entire life to Christ's service? What did James say about showing one's faith?

I'll not dispute the fact that the RCC holds some bad doctrinal positions. But they are no more heretical than some of the legalistic and KJVO doctrines of some hyperfundamentalist baptists.

Why is it that we must be so quick to judge everyone's souls? That's not our job. Our job is to spread Christ's love. And I personally think John Paul II did a lot toward that cause, even if his doctrine wasn't perfect.

 

I've tried to find a link but cannot, but read a few years ago that Pope John Paul told Pat Robertson on his t.v. show that he, the Pope, prayed in tongues. There was a question if he meant an unknown language or one of his many learned languages with the answer being the Pentacostal meaning of tongues.

 

Diane
I could once again be mistaken, but I'm certain the pope never appeared as a guest on any t.v. show ever.

 

"I would assert that the RCC and the Popes themselves have established that office as an antichrist- "Anti" meaning instead of. "
"
That's a rather unbiblical definition. The Bible actually has some very specific guidelines about what makes a person an anti-Christ. The denial of the fact that Jezus had a flesh and blood body is one of them.

 

[

The 5th Marian Dogma (Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate) is an example of the Church of Rome “double-speak”:

This dogma is fully believed and taught in the Church of Rome but awaits “papal definition”. The articles above in the URL have both the Nihil Obstat – “contains nothing damaging to faith or morals” and a Bishop’s “Imprimatur” – “Official approval or license to print or publish”.

While it is true that the Scripture through the mouth of Mary has proclaimed that every generation shall called her blessed, this does not mean that there was any merit to her “suffering” in relationship to the salvation of the human race.

As to the “worship” of Mary: as a child and former Catholic, it was never a focus of RCC teaching NOT to worship Mary. No distinction was made for me. For instance, what I was taught as to spontaneous prayer to Mary was to take the position of prayer (usually before a statue of her), make the sign of the cross, address Mary directly making my petition or whatever known to her, then make the Amen/Sign of the Cross. Prayer to Jesus was exactly the same in terms of practice.

“Worship” according to the Church of Rome has two forms: “Latria” and (“Dulia” and/or “Hyper-dulia”) One which is called “the veneration of the saints” (dulia), the other “worship” for God alone (latria). This IMO is another exercise in semantics to circumvent the 1st commandment.

RE: Dulia/Hyper Dulia

KJV 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

KJV Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

HankD

 

Hank

I too am a former catholic. And the main thing that drove me away was the "Mary thing". That being said the catholic doctrine is not to WORSHIP her or any saints. As you well know the saints are said to pray to God on our behalf. It's wacky doctrine - but it does not preclude one's being saved if he/she believes in Christ as savior (which catholics are taught, albeit not as much as they should be).

The RCC has some bad doctrine - but then so do protestants. I personally find "Mariolatry" no worse than strict KJVOism. They're both bad - but they do not preclude salvation.

One thing that I really don't like about being baptists (though I do like most things) is that there is so much judgment of others' salvation. We too have fallible human doctrine. I was in Tennessee this past weekend - and when JP II died I said to myself, "When I get back home the BB will probably be full of posts about how the pope was a good man but probably wasn't saved."

Enough already.

 

Yet St. Paul said, In Colossians 1:24, that Christ's suffering has something lacking in it. According to Catholic teaching, they believe that one's own sufferings must unite with Christ's in order to make it work as a whole picture.

Catholics make a distinction between eternal punishment, which they believe that Christ has definitely saved us from, and temporal punishment. Temporal punishment isn't eternal damnation.

A Catholic once told me that Purgatory is a "cleansing in the blood of Jesus" that is done after death for those who did not repent of their sins committed after accepting Christ as one's saviour. I don't know if that is accurate, but I can see how the Catholics can have this position. Besides, is there anywhere in the Bible that says that Jesus paid the price "in full"? Or this that presumption on the part of us Baptists?

One more thing: if the soul in purgatory is saved, then what is the problem?

 

If a person is trusting in Mary as part-time or shared office of savior/redeemer, what then of the following verses which I previously quoted:

KJV 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

KJV Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

OR

KJV John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Is faith in a shared office of Savior/Redeemer a defective faith or at very least a rebellion aginst the Word of God considering the verses above?

Nowhere, anywhere in the Scripture is there an inference contrary to the simple straightforward doctrine of the SOLE sufficiency ALONE of Christ’s atonement for the salvation of humankind.

Someone made claim to Colossians 1:24

23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

“that which was behind” refers to the full revelation of Scripture yet to be written concerning the present (contemporary with the Apostle Paul) and the “mystery” quality of the “hope of the Gospel”.

NKJV John 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

KJV Hebrews 9
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

May we shout it to the world:?

Acts 4:12 NEITHER IS THERE SALVATION IN ANY OTHER: FOR THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN, WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED.

HankD

 

From the rooftops!!

 

I am sorry but false doctrines on salvation are much worse than anything you will see from the people you cite.

I oppose KJVO's and various others who want to read their own "fundamentals" into the scripture as hard as I can. But by and large, these are not people who have come up with an un/extra-bibilical method for salvation. These are not people who have accepted baptismal regeneration, praying to saints, etc. much less than notion that God speaks to His church through tradition and the Pope in addition to scripture.

Sorry Charles. But someone has to hold a false doctrine much worse than KJVOnlyism or that women shouldn't wear pants to rise to the level of a false sotierology.

Not judging his soul. Judging his actions and the beliefs he promoted in comparison with what scripture says.

Our job is to submit to the Christ of the Bible not only in spreading Christ's love but in staying faithful to the truth of His Word. You are still seem to be justifying the man based on what you perceive as good works by him.

The man presided over a church that teaches a false means of salvation. You as a former Catholic probably know this better than any of us. How can a man lead millions astray and still be considered "good"?

BTW, we don't have to go any further than sotierology on this. False doctrine that is built on a false salvation cannot make anyone more lost.

What did the Pope believe and teach about salvation? What saved him? What would he point to as his point of conversion? Did it involve a personal encounter and faith?

I have no personal antagonism toward you or Gold Dragon or even the Pope and other Catholics. Some of the best fundamentalists I have known were former Catholics. Some of the best people I know are Catholics. My contention is with the system of salvation that they promote primarily then the numerous false doctrines that follow.

 

Scott,

Regarding the pope's faith...

He professed that Christ was born of a virgin, died for sins, and rose bodily. And he devoted his whole life to it - suggesting (but admittedly not proving) that he believed it.

As such I see no grounds for questioning his salvation. If he denied the divinity of Christ or His sacrifice for sins then I would say otherwise.

I generally try not to judge the salvation of others - and I wish most baptists would do the same. But one group of people whose salvation I would worry about is legalists who manifest no Christian love. They are mere Pharisees who have a Bible instead of just a Torah. But I would not go as far as to say they are not saved.

Regarding the catholics - if one confesses Christ is come in the flesh, died for sins, and rose bodily then he shall be saved. And if he is saved then his life will show fruit of it. JP IIs life fits both criteria. He may have believed in baptismal regeneration, veneration of saints, purgatory, and noneternal security - but if he still believed Christ died for him then neither you nor anyone else should be adding more qualifications to salvation.

 

Do you think it is enough to believe that Christ "died for sins"? I believe one must also believe in the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice to the exclusion of any further payment or punishment for sins.

Chastisement is a different matter btw. It has as its goal correction, not payment.

I generally don't either. However the Bible expresses a means of salvation. IMHO, it is contradictory to the system prescribed by the RCC and promoted by the late Pope.

Agreed. I hope that wasn't an indirect accusation against me. There is no joy for me in my doubts about John Paul's salvation.

Some we probably could and have a sound biblical basis for it.

If they believe by faith that Christ paid their sin debt fully as an act of completely unmerited favor then yes.

If they believe that baptism, rites, works, or punishment contributes to payment for that debt then no.

I disagree. Especially as it concerns baptismal regeneration and purgatory.

One has the effect of making saving grace something dispensed through a ritual of the church. The other says that Christ's death was not sufficient to pay for all our sins. Both of these concepts are contrary to the plan of salvation presented in the NT.

 

Scott,

I think you're adding a little bit.

Do you think it is enough to believe that Christ "died for sins"? I believe one must also believe in the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice to the exclusion of any further payment or punishment for sins.

If you're right that one must have completely correct theology to be saved then heavn will be pretty well empty.

How does the RCC differ from a traditional methodist, believing that good works must follow faith?

How does the RCC differ from the KJVOist who believes that one must be saved from the KJVO?

How does the RCC differ from the COC person who believes one must be baptized and join the COC?

How does the RCC differ from the strict Pentecostal who believes that one must have speak in tongues as evidence of salvation?

These are all human misconceptions. I agree with most baptist theology - but I have no illusions that it is 100% correct. Faith is all that is required - not 100% correct theology.

My comment about the legalist was not directed at you. There are some on this board who WOULD fit that bill. But my point is that legalistic Pharisee Christians (in my opinion) are in worse shape than catholics theologically - but neither you nor I have the right to judge whether or not they will go to heaven. That is dependent upon whether they have faith in Christ. If one has faith in Christ then no one should tell him/her that he is lost.

 

I didn't say that they did. However, they must have a correct view of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, the nature and person of Christ, their own personal guilt, their just condemnation, and the absolute inadequacy of any personal effort in contributing to salvation.

There are problems with both views but the difference I would see is with the idea that the church dispenses grace through the sacraments beginning with baptismal regeneration. I personally believe that evidence will follow salvation because a new nature leads inevitably to different behavior.

There seems to be a range among Methodists on what constitutes saving faith that would cover almost the full spectrum between Baptists and Catholics.

Hmmm. Well, most KJVO's don't go that far. Those who do have certainly added something to the biblical requirements for salvation. You'd have to wonder about their understanding of grace as well.

I am not that familiar with CoC doctrine. However, some seem to think that regeneration is somehow concurrent with faith unto salvation rather than the cause of it.

They are biblically borderline.

Harder question. The Pentecostal believes that tongues is a evidence of salvation but they still believe ostensibly in salvation by grace through faith to begin with.

I agree. I think it is the closest but there are some things that are less certain than others. For instance, I have seen good cases made for a different polity within the local church- Elder led congregations. They seem to have some biblical merit.

Again I agree except to say that the object and nature of the faith are all important. A basic, biblical "theology" on salvation is required. As part of that, one must accept Christ's sufficiency without any work or merit on the part of the sinner.

I would say they err in practice whereas the RCC more errs in doctrine.

Wouldn't that depend on what they meant by having "faith in Christ"? To some, that is synonomous with being a "good Catholic". To others, it is being "spiritual" enough to believe in KJVOnlyism.

The key thats seem to have come out are one's take on Christ's sufficiency and what constitutes saving faith.

 

Hypothetically, if a person who according to the Catholic church was saved but not pure enough to go to heaven were to insist on bypassing purgatory, would they still go to heaven or would their impurity make them unfit for heaven?