Well when you start in the stupidity of Dispy/NC/NCT blah blah blah insanity, I definitely opt out. I know Jesus is coming back, I know I dont know when & I put my faith in my Lord & Savior....everything else is a conversation.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Criticizing Roman Catholicism
- Thread starter Thomas Helwys
- Start date
Well when you start in the stupidity of Dispy/NC/NCT blah blah blah insanity, I definitely opt out. I know Jesus is coming back, I know I dont know when & I put my faith in my Lord & Savior....everything else is a conversation.
pity that Catholics see their salvation being found in 'Mother church", not in jesus Christ!
Statements like this shows your ignorance of Catholic teaching. You really should think before you post trash like this. Educate yourself and stop this kind of nonsense. It adds nothing to the discussion.
Again, for the upteenth time, "No Salvation outside the Catholic Church" means that the salvation that Protestants and other Christians enjoy streams like a river from God, through His Church, and then out to everybody else. It doesn't mean that only Catholics can go to Heaven or anything like that. Catholics fully believe that salvation is IN Jesus Christ.
Last edited by a moderator:
again, the Church of rome redefine the meanings vested in words! salvation from grace of God, but ONLY if one co assistance god thru the sacramental system to have that grace get applied to their accounts...
Do not hold to being fully justified before God by faith alone place in the person and work of Christ!
And again, salvation mediated to us through the Cross of Christ, the father saves us, grantsus the Holy sprit APART FROM THE CHURCH! That act of savng us places us into the real Bride of Christ, which is NOT the RCC!
And rome still views those eof us who fully know and reject their truths as being heretics/outside the church and not saved!
With all due respect, Walter, your post shows your naivete in the RCC.
"No salvation outside of the RCC" simply means that the RCC is becoming more ecumenical and is now trying to bring all religions under her umbrella. It does not mean that she has changed her doctrine, which Yeshua has pointed out, even if a bit brashly.
Protestants, especially Baptists, repudiate the RCC doctrine, and the RCC in general. We are held as infidels in their sight according to the Council of Trent, which has never been rescinded. How can a "heretic" be "a river from God through the RCC" at the same time. There is a two-faced hypocrisy here. Thus it does mean that ONLY Catholics can go to heaven. If it doesn't, then the Catechism contradicts itself.
Catholics do not fully believe that salvation is in Jesus Christ;
rather they believe it is in their works, especially in baptism, which is a work. I have demonstrated this over and over again, by quoting directly from the Catechism itself.
John 3:5 is translated by the RCC to mean that the new birth is by baptism. That is heresy. The new birth is not by baptism. The Bible no where teaches baptismal regeneration.
From there the RCC jumps to a second and logical heresy--infant baptism, though no such practice or doctrine is either done or believed on in the Bible. It can't be found. Faith in Christ must precede baptism. Infants cannot believe, thus cannot be baptized. That is the clear-cut teaching of the Bible, but the denial of the RCC.
It is a denial of: salvation is by grace through faith in Christ.
The Catholics do not believe what is taught in the Bible (Eph.2:8,9),
but rather a religion of works.
If baptism saves, then baptism, being a work, is your salvation, and not Christ. Why would you even need the gospel; the death burial and resurrection of Christ, if you have your baptism to save you?
Hi TH and God's blessings to your Family! I've found it accurate to conceive that RC (Roman Catholicism) is not compliant with the essential doctrines of Scripture for receiving salvation. This is not to say that all who are RC are unsaved because those who truly desire to be right with God are or will be, for seeking the truth invokes the love of the Father to guide them to Christ (John 6:44) and Christ rejects no seekers (John 6:37).
A true knowledgeable practicing RC (which most are unfamiliar with the teachings of the Vatican's belief's concerning receiving salvation) does not believe in "Justification by faith alone, in Christ alone ("Sola Fide en Sola Christos"). The Vatican belief is that salvation is not just through Christ, because apart from the Vatican authority grace is non-attainable.
This isn't to bash the RC religion but to reveal truth and error, and in no way does this post indicate anyone personally.
One of numerous examples is in the doctrine of "Immaculate Conception," which the dictionary defines as:
"The conception of the Virgin Mary in which as decreed in Roman Catholic dogma her soul was preserved free from original sin by divine grace." Merrium-Webster Online http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/immaculate conception
This conflicts with, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom 5:12).
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8).
Anyone in any religion who truly believes in Christ is saved, thus, following false teachings, as is with all false Christian belief's, will only impede spiritual growth in their salvation.
Please excuse me if the manner of this posting is not site-rule-compliant, in which case I would appreciate being informed, as I'm new here and did not see it conflicting with the site rules.
God's blessings to your Families!
Thomas Helwys
New Member
I already did, as it relates to covenant. Read back a few posts.
Here is also part of an article relating to this:
"Heart Circumcision and Baptism
What then is the counterpart of circumcision in the New Covenant? The most quoted text to link circumcision and water baptism is Col. 2:9-12:
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
This text, however, has been misinterpreted by many covenant paedobaptists.
Paul teaches that all Christians have received circumcision by the circumcision of Christ. What is "the circumcision of Christ?" It may be interpreted to be either the death of Christ objectively or the circumcising of the believer's heart by Christ. Either way, Paul is speaking of the manner in which the believer has been "circumcised also" through Christ's death and resurrection. Because of Christ's death, we have received a better circumcision than the Judaizers "by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, . . . buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith [emphasis added] in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (Col. 2:11,12).
Here is a definite link between circumcision and baptism. Christians have been circumcised "also" by being buried with Christ in baptism. But is Paul referring only to the actual water baptism as the direct fulfillment of circumcision? To quote Paul, "May it never be!" This fulfilled circumcision is "made without hands." There is no human hand involved in its administration, whether by knife or by water. His full definition of the Christian's fulfillment of circumcision is "by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised up with Him through faith [emphasis added] in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."
To summarize, the Christian's circumcision is that union with Christ's death and resurrection, symbolized by baptism, which is evidenced by outward faith! Verses 13 and 14 also support this view by defining the ones who have received the "circumcision" as those who have actually experienced the new birth and the blotting out of sins. This new life of faith is the New Covenant heart-circumcision "by the circumcision of Christ" which fulfills the type of Old Covenant circumcision. Only these people were "buried with Christ in baptism," according to this passage, because their hearts had been circumcised; and this was exhibited by their faith. Their water baptism symbolized their prior spiritual baptism.
Some paedobaptists consider union with Christ in baptism in Rom. 6:3,4 as a secondary reference to water baptism, counting it primarily a reference to regeneration. Yet, inconsistently, they use the same concept of union with Christ in baptism in Col. 2:11,12 as a primary reference to the relationship of water baptism to circumcision instead of its clear intention of relating circumcision to regeneration. My conclusion is that Paul defined the circumcision of Christians in Col. 2:9-12 as primarily union with Christ by faith, secondarily symbolized in their water baptism, as in Rom. 6:3,4.
If circumcision is the sign and seal of the Abrahamic Covenant, what then is its New Covenant counterpart? I believe the Scriptures define it to be the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit exhibited in faith. This is why Paul prohibited physical circumcision. They had received its reality in the new heart (Gal. 3:3). Paul tells the Galatians that they do not need physical circumcision to enter into the covenant relationship with God because they have already entered that covenant relationship by the circumcision of Christ, a new heart by union with His death and resurrection. Therefore, as circumcision (the shadow or type) was the sign of entrance into the Abrahamic Covenant and the seal of Abraham's saving faith, so regeneration (the form or antitype) is the sign of entrance into the New Covenant and the seal of the believer's faith (Eph. 1:13,14; Jn. 3:5,6).
Baptism then, is the indirect fulfillment of physical circumcision only through its association with the direct fulfillment, spiritual circumcision. This is why we see only confessors' baptism in the New Testament record. It was easy to know who entered the Abrahamic Covenant; they were born into the household and were outwardly circumcised. But how can one tell if someone has entered the New Covenant and has experienced spiritual circumcision? Only by his repentance and faith, signified by the outward sign of fulfilled circumcision and cleansing, water baptism. Acts 2:37-42 is clear exegetical proof that the only children baptized were those who received Peter's word of repentance and faith in Christ (Acts 2:38,39,41). They outwardly showed inward circumcision and then were baptized. This is how Christ ordained to build His church (Mt. 16:16-18; 28:19).
Water baptism, then, is the outward sign of the inward circumcision of the heart rather than the outward counterpart of the outward circumcision of the flesh. Just as Abraham's Old Covenant "seed" initially entered the covenant by physical circumcision and confirmed it by spiritual circumcision, his New Covenant "seed" initially enter the covenant by spiritual circumcision and confirm it by baptism. Physical descendants of Abraham's New Covenant "seed" are not to be permitted the sign of baptism until they show by faith that they have also become the spiritual "seed" of Abraham. David Kingdon's book, Children of Abraham, is a more thorough study of this concept. Regeneration by the Spirit, not the infant baptism of believers' "seed," is the fulfillment of the promise to give a multitude of nations to Abraham as his descendants. Faith comes first as the evidence of regeneration, then comes baptism–not the other way around."
Thanks for the more fulsome response. I have to say that I disagree with the interpretation put forward by the article cited by you (surprise!) and I could cite any number of articles by covenant-baptisers, paedo-baptisers and baptismal regenerationists in support of the contrary interpretation of that Scripture. But where would that get us? As Bro James might say, "Now what?"
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Unfortunately you are wrong about this
Scriptures never say faith alone except to say it is not by faith alone. You are adding to scripture once again.
Oh Really!?!
Roman Catholics often mention that the Bible never says we are saved by faith alone and that the phrase "faith alone" occurs only once in James where it says that we are not saved by faith alone. If this is so, then why do the Protestants say we are justified by faith alone and not by works? Because the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith alone, and not by works.
The following is a list of verses about being saved by faith. Please take note that faith and works are contrasted. In other words, we are saved by faith "not by works" and "apart from works", etc. The point is that there are only two options. We are saved by faith alone or we are not. Since we have faith and works (both conceptually and in practice), then we are either saved by faith alone or by faith and works. There is no other option. (REST BELOW)
http://carm.org/are-we-saved-faith-alone-or-do-we-need-works-too
how did he add to scripture?
so it is faith plus......what that equals salvation?
By interpolating the word 'alone' (which isn't there), one is adding to Scripture.
Sorry, mate, but that won't wash: if the Bible teaches faith alone then I find it very odd that it doesn't say faith alone. Very very odd indeed....
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Scripture never says these words "you are saved by faith alone". Not one verse says these words as they are. Thus by inserting the word "alone" you've added to scripture.
As far as faith we see clearly that the faith which saves must be the faith that is completed by the works born of that faith as James says. To say that one is Justified primarily by faith or faith first (one that is naturally followed by works) is more in line with scripture than to say it is faith alone. As scriptures clearly indicates
. Because James was dealing with this same type of issue in the NT. People were content that all they needed to do was to believe or a heart felt conviction or intellectual assent that Jesus was Lord, died for their sins and raised from the dead to which he replied.
Clearly the answer is no. James continues to say
Faith cannot be considered apart from the works of that faith. Which is what Faith alone means. Now if you want to say faith inclusive of the works it produces saves I would agree. But if you absent the works which faith produces (which faith alone does) then you would be wrong. James even uses an example to show his point.
Therefore faith cannot be considered apart from the works it produces.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
We're saved on the meritorious GROUND of Christ's work alone which we apprehend by faith apart from the deeds of the Law (Rom 3:28). However, we are only in Christ (where our righteousness lies) by a LIVING faith which results in WORKS--the proof and fruit of a living faith. Paul even said that it's only a FAITH WORKING THROUH LOVE that avails for anything IN CHRIST (Gal 5:6). A workless 'faith' (or a bare intellectual assent to the gospel) is dead and cannot save or ultimately justify anyone (per James 2).
Only those truly ABIDING in CHRIST by a LIVING FAITH will have both: (1) HIS perfect rigtheousness/merit imputed to them (Rom 8:1, John 5:24, 2 Cor 5:21); and (2) works of love, or fruits of their faith, that is the PROOF that they are actually in CHRIST (John 15:1-6).
Only those truly ABIDING in CHRIST by a LIVING FAITH will have both: (1) HIS perfect rigtheousness/merit imputed to them (Rom 8:1, John 5:24, 2 Cor 5:21); and (2) works of love, or fruits of their faith, that is the PROOF that they are actually in CHRIST (John 15:1-6).
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep. That fits in with Scripture.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
:thumbs:.................
Of course, never washes to a Catholic...oh in your case a Anglo Catholic.
Given that I partly attend an evangelical Anglican church, you're not even close...
Seriously, whats the bloody difference?
Anglo-Catholics are tat queens. They also tend to be liberal in their theology these days, at least on this side of The Pond, probably because they are tat queens.