Cooperation with Catholics

I have asked before but have not gotten a coherent, direct answer: If Catholics believe that Christ's sacrifice was truly sufficient to pay for all of their sin debt then what is the purpose of things like the Mass, purgatory, indulgences, penance, et al?

 

I'm not sure.

I don't know if that option is available in Catholic theology to "bypass Purgatory" besides indulgences on earth.</font>[/QUOTE] I was just trying to create a hypothetical situation to answer my question. I'll just ask it directly. Is purgatory necessary to save someone who isn't good enough in life to merit heaven? Or, is the blood of Christ sufficient to cover all of a person's sins?

That begs the same question. If Christ's blood washes away all of our sins, what kind of shower is needed?

If they do not believe that Christ's blood does not wash away all sins then on what biblical basis can anyone claim that they possess genuine saving faith?

 

sanctification. </font>[/QUOTE]So none of these things are necessary for one to be accepted by God into heaven?

 

Gold Dragon, If Catholics systematically add things for salvation to the "finished work of Christ" then can they really be saved by faith in the "finished work of Christ"?

I am not saying that no Catholics are saved. I am saying that they are wrong about the doctrine that fundamentally, biblically determines who is a genuine Christian and who is not.

 

Scott,

Gold Dragon, If Catholics systematically add things for salvation to the "finished work of Christ" then can they really be saved by faith in the "finished work of Christ"?

Listen to what you just asked!

"Can they be saved by faith in the finished work of Christ?"

That's the essence of the Gospel! Every Christian denomination has its take on the particulars of salvation and faith - but you cannot expect people to have everything theologically correct. Honestly some people are not even bright enough to understand systematic theology! They just have faith. And that's all they need.

Now if a catholic tells you that he is saved only because the virgin Mary has interceded on his behalf then I agree he is probably on some shaky ground.

But you seem to be making overly general presuppositions. Personally I would be very surprised if JPII is not in heaven but I don't know obviously. And I certainly won't judge his soul based on my dislike for a section of the catechism.

Look at the fruit of people's lives as well. Before becoming a Christian I was well steeped in the world. Since my conversion I cannot do the things I did. I would be burned up with conviction if I ever bought alcohol, or stepped into a porno mag stand, or went to a bar with friends.

I use the pope only as an example. Many here are saying the would't even go so far as to call him a Christian because of his catholicism, specifically saying that we should not look for any evidence of his personal "holiness". I would argue the a person who professes Christ and whose life displays love is exemplifyign what a Christian should be. I think,in truth, this is probably more important than getting the theology 100% right.

 

There are multitudes of Church of Rome dogma which must be believed upon the pain of excommunication.

If one cannot see that the Church of Rome teaches a sacramental works system then that one has been blinded.

Saved perhaps a few seconds after a "good" Confession and Act of Contrition followed by Absolution. lost again upon walking out of the church and having an "impure" thought.

"Fear", is the operative word of Rome. Whether in the spiritual or physical realm (when they have the power), the Church of Rome has shown her true nature.

That nature is demonstrated by the witness of history which the Christian needs to consider when contemplating what Rome represents.

That is the purges, pogroms, crusades, inquisitions, etc. of the Church of Rome and her reign of terror between AD800-1800 which slaughtered perhaps millions of believers and non-believers alike in the name of God.

"by their fruits ye shall know them".

When we cooperate with Rome we not only put our stamp of approval upon her dogma but her unrepentant deeds as well.

HankD

 

Originally posted by Scott J:

I've held off posting here until I spoke with several of my Catholic friends, in order to get a sense of what the "common man" believes. I was brought up in the Episcopal church, which also has a catechism...However what is written and what is taught is (at least in my experience) not necessarily the same.

From what my friends told me: They believe that Christ died for our "mortal" sins, but we must pay for our "venal" sins, which is the reason for the existence of purgatory. As to what is a "mortal sin" and a "venal sin"....well that is kind of fuzzy to them. We as Baptists understand that sin is sin...period, and believe that the Blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin. This is a clear point of differentiation IMHO between our two faiths.
Additionally, they on one hand believe that they can talk to God directly, but on the other hand think that they will get more results by asking the saints or Mary to intercede for them in their petitions.
Once again, IMHO a fuzzy interpretation of scripture (at best) which they have been taught...The problem probably arising from the magesterium of the church which holds church tradition (in their understanding) to be of equal authority with the scripture.

As I said, the above is what the average Catholic seems to believe based on my conversations with various people within the Catholic church (about 50 or so).

 

Charles, Look at what I have posted. My assertion is that Catholics believe that it takes the sacrifice of Christ plus some kind of individual punishment for their sins.

That is precisely "not" putting one's faith in the finished work of Christ. If Christ finished it then there is nothing to do penance for, pay indulgences for, or go to purgatory for. If faith in Christ and His work saves then obviously grace cannot be infused by baptism and subsequent rituals. A baby obvioulsy cannot be saved by faith through baptism.

I am not concerned with 100% correct theology. But you have to be correct on the substance of basic saving faith. It is an act of unmerited favor of God. His grace plus nothing on our part but faith in Christ.

The moment you introduce some other necessity, you have departed from the biblical means of salvation. The idea that one must pay for their own sins contradicts faith in Christ's atonement.

 

I have tried to show you the system taught by the Church of Rome. Yes sacramental works for the process of sanctification is part of that system, like the works expected of those who don't believe in "easy-believism".
</font>[/QUOTE]It goes beyond that.

I don't believe in easy-believism. Neither do I think any work or operation of sanctification adds on iota to my salvation. It is the direct result of a changed nature and the indwelling Spirit.

Catholics appear to believe that they pay for part of their sins. That means they do not put their faith in the finished work of Christ.

 

Hi Gold Dragon,

I would respectfully disagree, as I feel that one's final "point of authority" is of great consequence.

I think that we can agree that within every religion there is a final "point of Authority" (I use that term as it for me best seems to fit) upon which the adherents of that particular religion rely upon to answer various doctrinal issues.

For example: The final point of authority (after the veneer is scraped away) for the Jehovah's witness is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. For the Mormon it would be the "living prophet" who is head of the LDS church...You see what I mean.

Therefore, when the Catholic church teaches that Church tradition is of equal authority with the Word of God, in my opinion the door is open to all manner of false doctrine; and should be questioned.

Athough I am speaking specifically to the Magesterium, I believe that we can see how the "fuzziness" occurs from adherance to a belief of two seperate "holy writs".

 

No sweat......

But I still hold that it is a serious problem and in direct contravention to what is taught in the Bible.

We are taught that there is one mediator between God and man, who is Jesus Christ 1 Tim. 2:5.

Therefore, IMHO to petition any saint or Mary is to elevate them to a position which is not supported scripturally, and to reject the priesthood of believers (1 Peter 2:9), as well as the access we as individuals have before God (Heb 4:16, 1 John 5:14, et al) to intercede in our own (and others) behalf.

I believe this to be a fundamental doctrinal issue; otherwise we would be just as well off invoking the spirits of "earth, air, fire, and water" (no, I'm not saying that catholics are pagan), but that rejection of such basic doctrines open the door once again to all sorts of abuse; and therefore should be a point of contention.
Additionally, in doing so (elevating saints/Mary to the position of intercessor), the doorway is open to worship of those not worthy of worship, deceiving those who adhere to such doctrine into idolatry.

 

Hello again Gold Dragon,

And this is my point...the teachings of Rome. For example, there is the teaching of the "immaculate conception" of Mary (she was born without sin), as well as the teaching that she "ascended" into heaven (in the manner of our Lord), as well as the teaching that she was crowned "queen of heaven". As you know there is a move afoot to name Mary as Co-Redemptrix (which is elevating the vessel to the stature of its passenger, in a manner of speaking), and as there is considerable evidence of the worship of Mary already (whether the Vatican approves or not)...I'm sure we can see what will happen if she is indeed named "co-redemptrix".

Therefore, as we are admonished to contend earnestly for the faith; How do we let the true light shine (in your opinion)?

Additionally, can we be in fellowship with an organization that teaches such error (I am not speaking of individual Catholics, but the church as an entity)?

What are your thoughts?