Cooperation with Catholics

King James only folks do not look to their hard backs as co-redeemers with Christ. And they don't worship their Bibles either. Bad analogy.

 

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Mariolatry is sin that we should lovingly help some of our Catholic brothers and sisters turn from and repent of, just as we should lovingly help some of our KJVO brothers and sisters turn from and repent of Biblolatry.

KJVO brothers and sisters do not need or want your help.Why would we? You can't even figure out that if people believe the FALSE doctrines of Catholicisim they will fall into the pit along with the ones leading them.

Help yourself brother!

 

AMEN Soulman! At the very least we KJV'ers DON'T question the truth of the Word of God.

Greg Sr.

 

KJVO brothers and sisters do not need or want your help.

I'd wager the catholics don't want help either.

Both KJVO and catholics have BAD doctrine - but this will not preclude salvation as long as there is faith.

 

It depends on bad the doctrine is. Does one's doctrine teach another Gospel as the Catholic docrine does? Then that person isn't saved. Period.

And as for faith, I would ask, faith in what? Jesus + Meritorius Works + plus the sacriments = salvation?

 

Both the catholics and the KJVOs preach that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for sins, rose bodily, and will come again.

Are you calling that a false gospel?

 

It's not the things they say that we can affirm but what they add that is so offensive.

Here is an example of a co-redemptrix prayer to Mary begging her for mercy.

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/prayer/hailholy.htm

Is this the Gospel or even part of it?

HankD

 

The position of the RCC is not compatable with Biblical Christianity. Look at what they actually believe as a whole, don't look at statements they have made in an attempt to shrink the gulf between themselves and Christians, look at what they actually believe. Some of the things that they believe is dealt with below. The Roman Church, along with their unBiblical Pope, teaches a different Gospel. Which is really not a gospel, it is just condemning heresy (Gal 1:6-9).


The Papacy is an unBiblical office (Matt 23). Jesus called for His followers to be servants and not to be served (Jn 13:14-17). Yet the Pope sits on a throne, in a fancy outfit, having people bow before him and kiss his ring. Jesus taught that the greatest among us is the servants (Matt 23:11), yet the Pope is certainly never a servant. Rather he has servants, plenty of them, to do his royal biddings. Jesus taught that those who exalt themselves will be humbled (Matt 23:12). The Papacy is an office that exalts itself, as do those who hold that office. They believe they are closer to God than the rest. That is an unBiblical belief and it is dangerous pride. There is a huge gulf there between the teachings of our Lord and the teachings/practices of the Catholic Church. They call the Pope, "Holy Father", which Scripture forbids (Matt 23:9), I only have ONE Father and that is God. My father is not some frail old human who dies. My Father is the eternal God Himself.

The Pope's "so-called" ties to Peter are historically weak at best. However even if one could trace the Papacy back to Peter that still does not put the Pope above others. Why? Because even Peter went astray and had to be corrected by Paul (Gal 2:11-21). I suppose in all of their praise of Peter they forgot that. The modern Pope needs to take the same correction given to Peter by Paul. And the modern Catholic Church needs to heed Paul's dire warning (Gal 1:6-9).


Not only that but the Catholic Church still holds their anathema over all who believe in sola fida. The Council of Trent stated:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANON IX: If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-coperate in order to the obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, th at he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANON XII: If anyone saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the Diving mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the Council of Trent the Roman Catholic Church put its anathema on the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ itself! Therefore they have condemned themselves to be under the anathema of God (Gal 1:6-9). The Roman Church has never repented of these statements.

Want more?
The 2cnd Vatican Council council states:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. THsi may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friend that is Gospel denying, soul damning heresy! And you know what? Pope John Paul II believed that heresy and preached it.

The Bible teaches that the blood of Christ purifies us from all sin (see Hebrews 10:11-14, 1Jn 1:6-10, Rev 1:5). Nothing we can do in this life, or in the life to come, can purify us from sin. The only after death punishment the Bible speaks of is hell which is eternal and does not purify people from sin. Purgatory is a heresy that waters down the blood of Christ. These people should be repenting of their error and not be comforted in their error.

The Papacy and the teachings of the Catholic Church are not inline with Peter, Paul, Jesus, or any other New Testament writer (or figure). They can claim for the next two thousand years that they have the authority of Peter, yet their actions and doctrines disprove their claim.

May many Catholics repent of their heresy and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord (He is our Master), Savior (who cleanses us from ALL sin that we do not need any type of after death punishment), Mediator (so we don't need Mary, the Saints, or anyone else), and God.

Their fate, mainly that of their teachers and Popes, is very sad indeed.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

I have not read all 8 pages of this, but this thread was started due to my comments in another thread. The truth is that Catholics and Protestants/Baptists disagree on teh fundamental nature of the faith. The reconciliation of recent years is a smokescreen. The Catholics have not changed. They believe some stuff that is true, for instance, the deity of Christ. But what they believe that is true cannot cause us to overlook that they preach a false gospel of infused righteousness and justification that is based on works.

They have never changed that position. Until they repent and turn from the false gospel, those who believe the Bible must expose them and separate from them.

 

It is a false gospel to teach that grace is a commodity dispensed by the Church, that grace is infused by rituals, and that individuals must pay for some of their own sins.

The sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice for all of our sins is a critical part of the biblical gospel. Any "gospel" that does not accept the sufficiency of His blood is false.

 

I agree that we should be wary of decieving and misleading gospel as Paul warned us in Gal 1:6-9. One thing I always keep in mind is to make sure we aren't the ones being misleading. I also believe that while the RCC has some bad doctrines, teachings and historical record, that they are preaching the same gospel, some based on the quotes above.


==I don't see how you can say that, I really don't. I am sure you are sincere in your statement and that you really believe that, but personally I don't see how you can say that. Of course the Roman Church says that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. However the "rub" is that they reject, and condemn, salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, and in Christ alone. They never have affirmed that, and they can't unless they reject their unBiblical view of sacraments.




You said (After q. Matt 23)
Notice that Jesus is talking about how Pharisees seek the praise of men and that they seek after these titles of teacher, father and leader in search of satisfying their pride.

==Right and it is my argument that the Roman Pope does the same thing. He seeks the praise of men (people bowing before him, kissing his ring, the protocol, etc) and exalts himself to a lofty position (which he cannot Biblically support). The Papacy at its very heart is a prideful office.


You Said:
It is true that only God is addressed as “Holy Father” in the Bible. But that is irrelevant because, as Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted,

The New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones.1

==I am really not sure how that applies to the Pope. The Papacy is a unBiblical office that teaches unBiblical doctrines. Jesus said we are not to refer to someone as "Holy Father", period. That ends the discussion. I believe if Jesus were on earth today he could give the exact same speech to the Catholic Church as He did to the Pharisee. Sadly they both suffer from many of the same problems (pride, tradition equal to Scripture, unBiblical doctrines, etc).


You said:
Another example of a man being given a title used by God is when Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Peter,” which means “rock.” In the Old Testament, God Himself was addressed as “rock”: “You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” (Isaiah 44:8). As one final example, Paul referred to the Ephesian elders as shepherds of the Church (Acts 20:28), yet Jesus refers to Himself as the “good shepherd.”

==Ok, let me approach this from a different angle. Did Jesus appoint someone to be called "Holy Father"? No. Did Jesus set up some office, known as the Papacy, which rules as the Pope has/does rule? I think not. You are taking Biblical examples, but that does not apply here since the Papacy is at its heart a unBiblical office. If the Bible had created the Papacy I would have no problem with it, but the Bible did not. So I think the above quotation is really comparing apples and oranges.


You said:
It is wrong to follow Peter (or anyone else) instead of Christ, but that doesn’t mean that there are no leaders in the Church.

==Of course there are leaders in the church, but those leaders are servants who are not above question (Acts 17:11-12, 1Jn 4:1). On top of that, once again I stress, the Papacy is a unBiblical office in its title and role. There is no New Testament equal to the Papacy other than the Pharisees. Why? Because they loved the praise of men, they put tradition on par with the Word of God, etc, etc, etc.


You said:
Paul was arguing against the all-too-human tendency of dividing into factions, a tendency that unfortunately defines the very essence of Protestantism.

==Wrong. Protestantism is not as divided as Catholics tend to think (imagine). We all agree on the Gospel, the Person of Christ, Father, Spirit, Scripture, etc, etc. The differences are in minor doctrines, not essential doctrines (ie..it is not a heaven/hell issue) and in church government. I would also add that the Roman Catholic Church is hardly one big happy family. There are many differing views within it as well.


You said:
One could easily adapt Paul’s language to the current situation: “For when one says, ‘I follow Luther,’ and another, ‘I follow Calvin,’ are you not mere men?” Paul was admonishing the Corinthians to maintain unity.

==First Paul would never urge unity at the expense of the Gospel. Roman Catholics teach a false Gospel (Gal 1:6-9) and therefore there can be no unity with them since they are not brothers/sisters in Christ. Second most protestants are not claiming to follow Luther or Calvin, we try to understand the Scriptures. The Catholic Church for years worked hard to keep the Scriptures out of the hands of the lay person. The Catholic Church puts its traditions on par with, if not above, the Scriptures. The Roman Church is following Popes and councils and not the Scriptures.



You said:
The apostles (including Peter and Paul) exercised the authority of Christ. Paul wrote, “For even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than pulling you down, I will not be ashamed of it.” (2 Corinthians 10:8). Paul was an authoritative leader in the Church, and he expected to be obeyed.

==Paul did not accept people bowing down before him kissing his ring. Paul did not live in a glorious mansion with servants and guards. Paul did not teach things that were unBiblical. Paul, unlike the Roman Pope, was an apostle appointed by Jesus. Jesus NEVER appointed a Pope. Also Paul taught the Biblical Gospel, the Pope does not. Another point is Paul did not claim to be the vicar of Christ, his mission was to point people to Christ.


You said:
However, he did not want his people to make him the center of their religion. He did not want them to lose sight of the fact that he was just a servant of God. This is the biblical pattern. Though Paul and Peter, and the other leaders in the Church were fellow servants, they exercised real authority and were to be obeyed.

==Again they were not above correction, they were not in positions where people bowed before them kissing their ring, and they did not preach the false Gospel of Rome.


You said:
Hebrews 13:17 tells us, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.”

This is the same relationship that the pope has with the rest of the Church today. The pope was not crucified for us, and no one is baptized into the name of the pope. Jesus Christ is the center of our faith. The pope, though he is an authoritative leader, is merely a fellow servant.

==Ok, where is the office of the Pope in the Bible? It is not there. Btw servants do not live and act like kings. We are to obey our leaders as long as they stick with Scripture. As Paul proved in Galatians 2, if they are not Scriptural they are not to be obeyed. The Pope is unScriptural in his office and teachings, he should not be obeyed.


You said:
The pope is the chief among the bishops because he is the successor of Peter, and in the apostolic Church, Peter was the chief among the apostles.

==That is a lie and it is unhistorical and unBiblical. If Peter was the cheif of the apostles why did Paul write most of the New Testament? Why did Paul have to correct him when he was compromising the Gospel? Why does the book of Acts focus on Paul and not Peter? Historically there is no "pope" as we know it today until way after the death of Peter (and the others).

I am not demeaning the Apostle Peter. He was a wonderful man of God, an apostle of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. However the modern Pope is not a successor of Peter. Why not? There is no direct connection in order or in doctrine. Peter taught the Biblical Gospel, the Pope does not. There is no Biblical idea that Peter was the chief apostle, or that he was somehow better than the others. Clearly the Apostle Paul was just as important as Peter. I wonder why the Catholic Church did not clam onto Paul? Probably because of their willful abuse of Matthew 16. The rock upon which Jesus would build his church is the confession of Peter. Jesus did not establish some sort of kingly office.

Back to the original point: The Catholic Church, and its leaders, teach a false Gospel. They are under the eternal judgment of God according to the Apostle Paul in Galatians 1:6-9. This is not my personal opinion, this is not the opinion of some teacher, this is the statement of the Word of God. They can try to cloud all of this with their claims about Peter but that changes nothing. Rome has perverted the Gospel of Christ. God will be their judge.


Martin.

 

"But I do think it accurately portays the Catholic position on a lot of the issues we are discussing."

==Ok. I agree it does show the Catholic position and it shows why they are in so much trouble. Eternal trouble that is.

Martin.

 

You said:
While Baptism is the tricky one because Catholics consider it a sacramental work that coincides with justification

==Which is unBiblical.

You said:
the other sacraments are part of the process of grace extended through sanctification which protestants should agree involves works.

==Again, unBiblical. We are sanctified, according to Scripture, "through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb 10:10). And how long does that last? The Bible says that "by one offering" (the offering of the body of Jesus Christ) "He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (again through the offering of the body of Christ) Hebrews 10:14. There is NO Scriptural support for the idea that an so-called sacraments extend any level of grace. The Catholic Church's view of the sacraments is unBiblical and part of the reason they teach a false and soul damning gospel.

As for Philipians 2:12-13, are we now claiming that Paul is contradicting himself? Is Paul know saying that salvation is in part of works? I certainly hope not for such would be soul damning heresy (see Gal 1:6-9 and Gal 3:1-5). Paul is telling believers to work out what God has worked in. The same thing he is saying in Eph 2:10 and what James is saying in James 2:14ff. What is that? That faith should be seen in works. However the Catholic Church teaches, I don't care what they claim, they teach that works are a part of salvation. Why do you think they started infant baptism?

Don't be fooled by what someone claims, look at what they do and teach.

In Christ
Martin.