Cooperation with Catholics

That is not true if they add an additional requirement to the Gospel. You should know this since you have read the Book of Galatians. 5:4,9)

I am wondering what you would have thought of this statement if you were around some 1,950 years ago?:

"For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church
of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears." Acts 20:26-31

My guess is that you have loved ones that are Catholic and are hoping that they can somehow be saved dispite their false interpretation of the Gospel.

My father and recently deceased mother were both devout Catholics, as well as my one brother and sister, so I feel your pain. But telling them 'I'm O.K, you're O.K.' will not help them one bit.

I would suggest that you ask them a diagnostic question like, "If you were to die today and face God and He were to ask you, Why should I let you into my Heaven, what would you tell Him?"

If they answer with something like, "Well, I have been a good Catholic.." or "I have...(fill in the blank); you would do well to give them the true Gospel because they are lost.

And I am wondering who has the greater love for his brother, the one that gives them a false sense of assurance straight into Hell. Or the one that lovingly tells them of their error and warns them of it?

"When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked
way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." Ez. 3:18

 

The second half of this question (after the or) is phrased in a way that is misleading of Catholic understanding, either way you answer it.

They believe in the complete and total sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice to cover A-L-L of their sins and they believe that sanctifying works performed by the grace of God plays a role in a living faith that justifies. </font>[/QUOTE]GD.
You say that you are an ex-Catholic. Why did you leave their church system?

And I would again suggest that you ask any Catholic the diagnostic question that I gave you and I'll bet that you never get the answer that you gave above. And even if they did, what you have explained above if a false Gospel.

When one is justified by faith (Rom. 4:4-5) he/she is fully justified and declared to be fully righteous in the eyes of God based on the imputed righteousness of Christ (1 Cor. 5:21). That is not what Catholics believe, nor do they have a similar sense of santification like we do.

They believe that it's some kind of infused additional righteousness that is required to reach the full righteousness needed to get to Heaven instead of what the term implies, a calling out to God's work as we grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Why do you think that they believe that saints need to be canonized if they believe like us?

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/helpdesk/s_321866.html

 

Jack,

Yes most of my family is catholic - but none is a "devout" Mary-worshipping catholic. Most of them are essentially agnostic. My brother and mother attend mass daily and do believe very much in Christ. And if asked how they can get to heaven they respond, "because of Jesus Christ".

I think you and I have different understanding of the essence of Christian faith. I agree with salvation by faith and not works/rituals. But I also understand that Jesus sees through everything to the heart. I believe He recognizes who truly is His disciple. My understanding of salvation is based on a THOROUGH reading of the Bible as a whole as well as salient second temple Jewish literature and NOT on one-liners taken from context.

I am not impressed the by Bible-quoting, brother-reproving fundamentalists. I think many of these people (whether or not they realize it) subscribe to a form of legalism just as misplaced as that of the ancient Jews or the catholics.

A person MUST accept that he/she is a sinner and that they can have eternal life because Jesus loved him/her enough to die. I agree with that. But I also realize that no human or denomiation has doctrine 100% correct. Jesus knows that.

James said that faith without works is dead. What he meant by this is that we will be able to tell who is really a disciple of Christ. Consider the Pharisee who said, "Thank God I am not like this man" and the sinner who said, "Oh Lord be merciful to me a sinner." This tells me that God doesn't judge one by his/her theology but by his/her heart.

I will stand before Jesus as a baptist someday. But I would rather stand before Him as a catholic with a sincere heart than as a fundamentalist who spent most of his time explaining why this or that individual is not really saved.

I realize we all have our opinions. Mine is that you (no offense - I'm just laying it out here) and many others here (albeit well-meaningly) fail to discern what the IMPORTANT things are. I think you rely too much on strict literal interpretation of scripture rather than its overall sense.

I'm sure you will disagree but at least now you know what my position is.

 

You sure you not talking about Seeker Friendly worship at First Baptist church? Sorry I couldn't resist....Given the Babylonian captivity of Evangelical Churches to Contemporary worship that resembles a Circus more than a encounter with God.


I am not ready to consign the entire Roman Catholic Church into the infernal regions and some sermons preached from Baptist pulpits on Salvation make me cringe such as this infamous Jack Hyles sermon http://www.geocities.com/markharshman@sbcglobal.net/repent.htm

I have major Problems with Roman Catholic theology BUT....then again I have major problems with much of the sugar coated theology coming out of Evangelical Christianity. I wonder which door Luther would nail his 95 Theses today?

Here is a interesting article from Michael Spencer that I think is very balanced
http://www.internetmonk.com/archives/2005/04/019890.html#more

 

People could be saved in the catholic church if they had the same Christ as Christianity. People find Jesus when they truly seek Him. If they find Him they are instructed in God's word to come out from among them. If a catholic does find Christ the Holy Spirit will bring them out as the truth sets them free.

Catholicisim is the false bride of Christ and has the spirit of anti-christ. Those that believe it's lies will fall into the pit. Satan comes as an angel of light with his ministers of righteousness impersonating the church of Jesus. The catholic church is one of Satan's greatest works.

In the article above it was stated that a new catachisim calls us seperated bretheren. The old ones stated that there was no salvation outside the catholic church. Why the change? God doesn't change and neither should His church.

Catholicisim is nothing more than the cesspool of hell! If you have friends involved in it, pray to lead them out. Don't take on the false attitude that says " I believe many catholics are saved". That is the easy way and the wrong attitude.

Why am I so tough on catholics? I am not. I love the people trapped in this organization. I hate the religion as I hate all things born of Satan.

 

Can a leopard change it's spots?
The Church of Rome mandate is that the ends justify the means.

The blood of myriads of martyrs is on the unrepentant hands of the Roman hierarchy.

Don't you understand Jesus words?

Matthew 7
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

If any are saved, and I believe that at least some are, in the Church of Rome it is (as has been said by others) in spite of the double-speak theology of the hierarchy of Rome.

Brethren we are dealing with the eternal souls of humankind. Is it no wonder to that the "College of Cardinals" are clothed in blood red?

The history of this church is one of slaughter, molestation and the enslavement of mankind.

"Why the change?"

The same answer as to this question: What purpose does the wolf have for putting on the disguise of the sheep?

Beloved have we forgotten?

These are the Scriptures that caused our forefathers to give up their life's blood to the Pope.


John 1: 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

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

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.


"...and they loved not their lives unto the death."

HankD

 

Is that your opinion or was it derived from an official statement of RCC doctrine?

 

You don't think that the sufficiency of Christ is an "IMPORTANT" thing? It is the MOST IMPORTANT thing.

It isn't a only a strict literal interpretation (which I fail to see as a problem) but it is also the "overall sense" of scriptural redemption.

God does look through to the heart... but He will see there whether the person's faith is in nothing more or less than the fully sufficient provision He made on the cross.

 

And I have tried to show that Catholic theologians (particularly Jesuistry) have purposefully word-smithed this double-speak theology to deceive (if possible) those seeking the truth.

When one kneels down in front of a staute of Mary in the position of worship or any other "saint" and addresses her as if she were God hearing all the millions of petitions and/or their praises simultaneously in a manner no different than when they do the same in front of a crucifix with the image of a dead Christ, then that is worship.

There is no such thing therefore as the double-speak of "latria" or "hyperdulia" but "worship".

Symbolically and perhaps even by divine design, the serpent has a split tongue signifying the cold blooded deceit of the double messaged tounge.

I was and I am and I don't fear the Torquemadas of this world.

John 10
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

If the Church of Rome were to be reformed from within beginning with their hierarchy then that would be a different story than the mask of hypocritical double talk about "the separated brethren".

But after their history of wickedness and bloodshed we would IMO be justified in the demand of the Scripture "that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance".

HankD

 

It should be pointed out that the history of wickedness and bloodshed is not limited to Rome.

The Puritans under Oliver Cromwell butchered the Catholics in Ireland like animals.

The Lutherans even sacked Rome and raped Catholic women and grafitti Luther's name on Catholic paintings.

The Church of England also heavily persecuted Roman Catholics.


One of the major errors of many Protestants is assuming that Roman Catholics worship statues and crucifixes. That is the classic error of interpreting what someone else believes by your own belief system. One really needs to understand the Catholic view of Contemplative prayer to understand this practice (Protestants would do good to rediscover Contemplative prayer!)

One really needs to read the "Catholic Catechism" to understand Catholicism rather than using this "Jack Chick" terminology that seems to have the Jesuits and Rome behind every evil on earth. In reading the "Catholic Catechism" you will probably find you agree with about 75%-80% of what Roman Catholicism teaches BUT the 20-25% you disagree is BIG!

I pray the next Pope will do what Luther intended...Bring Reform! I believe true Reformation is possible.I am very much against the very serious errors of Rome but I am also aware of major theological errors floating under the banner of Protestant, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and even Baptists. Lets pray for Rome to Reform as well as our own churches to always be in a state of Reformation.

 

You don't think that the sufficiency of Christ is an "IMPORTANT" thing? It is the MOST IMPORTANT thing.

Scott. God knows whose faith is sufficient - you don't. But yet you have taken it upon yourself to say that if a person believes in this or that he cannot be saved.

My brother will likely end up a priest. He respects the traditions and rituals of the church but believes that Jesus' sacrifice is the only thing that saves a person. That is certainly sufficient faith.

And what's wrong with literal interpretation? Nothing in many cases. But I think many fundamentalists would not even consider rethinking some of the traditional positions - even if they are wrong. This is fidelity to a book and not to God's word.

Luther had it right!

Many of today's fundamentalists would make Luther quite discouraged indeed.

 

It isn't a matter of faith being sufficient either. And you are right. Neither I nor you nor anyone else can look into someone's soul.

You are changing the subject- inadvertently I think.

The subject is what does that "sufficient" faith have to be placed in. If it is the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross then we can proceed from there. But if someone is placing their faith in Christ plus_________ then they do not possess saving faith biblically.

No. That is untrue. I have simply pointed out that scripture requires faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ plus nothing from ourselves, religion, or any other human thing.

You can't just have "faith" in any religious system you devise (or is devised by men) and genuinely be saved.

I am not sure what about this you are arguing against or why you persist in changing the subject and trying to make it an argument about my granting myself some special judgmental authority.

A person must have faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible... which means they must accept without omission or addition that His blood is sufficient to cover all of our sins.

That depends on whether he attaches the rituals and works of the RCC to "Jesus' sacrifice".

Jesus didn't just make a way, He is the Way.

I am not concerned with tradition. (Witness the extended threads about whether a divorced man can serve as a deacon). What I am concerned about is what the Bible says.

I am concerned about the biblical position... and the Catholic position on the most critical of biblical positions does not appear to be correct.

I am truly sorry if that somehow offends or troubles you. I have affection and admiration for many Catholics I know to include their moral stands and good works... but those things don't save.

The "Book" is the only way we have any knowledge of God's Word. So yes, I try to have as much fidelity to what the Book says as I can.

Frankly, I am not concerned with Luther either when or if he departs from what the Bible says.

I have said before and will repeat here: I believer there are Catholics who are truly born again believers. But they are so in spite of rather than because of Catholic doctrine and practice.

 

Scott,

I have said before and will repeat here: I believer there are Catholics who are truly born again believers. But they are so in spite of rather than because of Catholic doctrine and practice.

I'll agree with that.

Still I think you have a bit too narrow a view of "sufficient" faith. Many Methodists, Pentecostals, AND catholics see certain works as a part of salvation. I agree those views are wrong. But if you must have a completely correct conception of Christ's sacrifice then many Arminian Christians are in trouble just like the catholics.

As such I think that one can have a slightly wrong view of things and still be saved. In fact don't many fundamentalists even take pride in the fact that they don't have acedemic knowledge? Heh heh - couldn't resist that.

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".

 

Agreed , but none of those religions you mentioned claims to be the "Vicar of Christ" on earth or the "Pontifex Maximus" over the Kingdom of God upon and ruling over the inhabited earth and their regents who also has authority to kill at will all those he so desires.

HankD