Does The RCC Teach true Gospel/Jesus?

[lakeside]

Two points:

1) The list of things we were considering were works done by mere mortals:

The Lord's Supper,
Reading and studying the Word,
Daily prayer,
Loving the brethren,
Giving, whether to your church, missions, or to the poor.
​

Undeniably, each of those things has its basis in the Lord Jesus Christ, some are commanded by Him, and He gave us an example to follow in others. But that is quite different to saying that such things are salvific, either in the sense that He saved sinners by doing them, or that sinners do them themselves in order to be saved.

2) Matt Black's question, to which I was replying in my previous post on this thread, asked: "Why do them, then?" Not: "Why did Jesus do them, then?"

That which you have listed are as you say David, undeniably connected to Jesus, some lead to being salvific i.e. Last Supper.[ Holy Eucharist ]
Keeping the Commandments can not be accomplished successfully without "work."

 

[DHK]

That which you have listed are as you say David, undeniably connected to Jesus, some lead to being salvific i.e. Last Supper.[ Holy Eucharist ]
Keeping the Commandments can not be accomplished successfully without "work."

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:28)

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5)

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: (Romans 5:1)

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10)

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. (Galatians 3:11)

 

[David Lamb]

That which you have listed are as you say David, undeniably connected to Jesus, some lead to being salvific i.e. Last Supper.[ Holy Eucharist ]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. Sinners are saved by the one, perfect and complete sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ at Calvary. The Lord's Supper, we are told clearly, both in Luke 22.19-20 and 1 Corinthians 11.23-26, is a remembrance of what Jesus did to save sinners; it didn't "lead to being salvific".

What of the other "items" in the list?

Reading and studying the bible: Perhaps it could be said that doing so can lead to being salvific, in the sense that it is in God's Word that we are told such things as why we need to be saved, and Who is the only Saviour. But reading the bible does not (in itself) save sinners.

Daily prayer: Prayer is connected with salvation, of course. The repentant thief on the cross beside Jesus prayed, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." The tax collector who prayed, "God be merciful to me, a sinner" "went down to his house justified." But no one should say, "I am saved because of my prayers."

Loving the Brethren: That does not "lead to being salvific". It is something which can only be truly done once Jesus has saved us. It is something which should be don by sinners saved by Jesus Christ. 1 John 3.14:

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.
​

Giving to church, missions or poor: Such giving might enable evangelism/missionary work to be carried out more easily, and in that limited sense perhaps it might be seen as a means used by God in bringing the glorious gospel to people who have not heard it. But it cannot lead to the salvation of the giver.

Keeping the Commandments can not be accomplished successfully without "work."

Agreed. But keeping God's commandments will not save anyone. The simple reason for this is that no human being can keep those commandments perfectly. We have only to think of Christ's summary of the Ten Commandments to realise this. Who would dare say that they have fulfilled perfectly the words of Mark 12.30-31?

30 ‘And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. 31 "And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these."
​

 

[lakeside]

David,in Matthew 19:16, the rich young man asks Jesus what he must do to have eternal life. Jesus responds, "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." The Ten Commandments require that we love and respect God and our neighbor.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Origional OP " Does The RCC Teach true Gospel/Jesus?"


My question : Define teach?

 

[DHK]

Origional OP " Does The RCC Teach true Gospel/Jesus?"


My question : Define teach?

I spent 20 years in the RCC and I was never "taught" the gospel. I never heard the gospel, that is the gospel being taught or presented. I did know the facts--the death, burial and resurrection. But if all you know is those few bits of head knowledge, it won't get you to heaven.

 

[WestminsterMan]

I spent 20 years in the RCC and I was never "taught" the gospel. I never heard the gospel, that is the gospel being taught or presented. I did know the facts--the death, burial and resurrection. But if all you know is those few bits of head knowledge, it won't get you to heaven.

So YOU say DHK! You, however, are not God so
you don't really know who is going to heaven. Every time you say this, you commit the sin of
presumption.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

I spent 20 years in the RCC and I was never "taught" the gospel. I never heard the gospel, that is the gospel being taught or presented. I did know the facts--the death, burial and resurrection. But if all you know is those few bits of head knowledge, it won't get you to heaven.

Then you must not have attended Mass regularly. It is my understanding that the RCC reads through most of the Bible in a three year period.

WM

 

[Eliyahu]

Then you must not have attended Mass regularly. It is my understanding that the RCC reads through most of the Bible in a three year period.

WM

What are the priests of RCC saying at the Mass?

Are they preaching that All the sins were already forgiven at the Cross?

I watch the Mass on TV, but they ask God to forgive their sins by accepting their IHS coolies and chalice all the time, without bringing the Gospel that all the sins were forgiven already at the Cross by the Blood of Jesus Christ.

Can RCC preach the Gospel that all the sins were forgiven at the Cross by the Blood of Jesus Christ while they continue to ask God to forgive their sins by accepting their IHS cookies and the wine transubstantiated into blood?

They could do it if they can run toward East while they are running toward West at the same time.

RCC can be good Christians if Buddhists can be good Christians while maintaining the faith in Buddhism at the same time.

RCC and Buddhism are very much similar each other, because RCC is a typical western Idolatry while Buddhism is a typical oriental Idol worship religion.

 

[Eliyahu]

So YOU say DHK! You, however, are not God so
you don't really know who is going to heaven. Every time you say this, you commit the sin of
presumption.

WM

13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13)


Don't you have the Eternal Life yet?


Try to be a Real Believer in Jesus Christ!

 

[WestminsterMan]

What are the priests of RCC saying at the Mass?

Are they preaching that All the sins were already forgiven at the Cross?

I watch the Mass on TV, but they ask God to forgive their sins by accepting their IHS coolies
snip...
RCC and Buddhism are very much similar each other, because RCC is a typical western Idolatry while Buddhism is a typical oriental Idol worship religion.

It is clear from your statements above that know almost nothing about the Mass.

WM

 

[Zenas]

What are the priests of RCC saying at the Mass?

Are they preaching that All the sins were already forgiven at the Cross?

I watch the Mass on TV, but they ask God to forgive their sins by accepting their IHS coolies and chalice all the time, without bringing the Gospel that all the sins were forgiven already at the Cross by the Blood of Jesus Christ.

And that, Eliyahu, is where you lost your way. All sins were not forgiven at the cross. The cross made it possible for all sins to be forgiven but we have to accept this gift of grace. We are free to either accept it or reject it. If we accept it, then our sins are forgiven, but only those we have committed. We must go back and get forgiveness for future sins after they are committed.

Think about it, if all sins were forgiven at the cross the world would be completely free of sin and everyone would be going to heaven.

 

[Matt Black]

Because we are saved, not in order to become saved.

But what has getting wet got to do with being saved? If it is a public testimony of salvation, I can stand up with or without a microphone and speak of this. I don't need water for this. What's the point of baptism?

 

[billwald]

The Mass is a bunch of Bible verses all strung together.

 

[Zenas]

The Mass is a bunch of Bible verses all strung together.

Not exactly. There is a lot of Bible reading but not random verses strung together. For example all Catholic churches in the USA will have these readings tomorrow, Nov. 13:

First Reading: Proverbs 31:10-13, 19-20, 30-31
Responsorial Psalm: Psalm 128:1-5
Second Reading: 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6
Gospel: Matthew 25:14-30

Other scripture is quoted during the course of the liturgy, and this is generally the same thing each mass.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Originally Posted by Eliyahu
What are the priests of RCC saying at the Mass?

Are they preaching that All the sins were already forgiven at the Cross?

I watch the Mass on TV, but they ask God to forgive their sins by accepting their IHS coolies

RCC and Buddhism are very much similar each other, because RCC is a typical western Idolatry while Buddhism is a typical oriental Idol worship religion.]quote]

WestminsterMan said...

is clear from your statements above that know almost nothing about the Mass.

Actually, Eliyahu's statements show that he has a very good and clear understanding regarding the catholic church.

 

[Zenas]

This is a continuation of our discussion on Page 7, Post #61.

I said nothing of doubting Jews.
Here is what the Bible says in that passage:
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (Acts 8:14)
--This was the first time that the gospel was going out to the Gentiles. It had only gone to the Jews previous to this time. Philip was an evangelist. It was the apostles who needed to verify this incident for all involved. They heard what happened and sent out Peter and John (Apostles).
--Then the record says:
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (Acts 8:15)
--This is a one-time act in history. It was symbolic that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit just as the Jews had on the Day of Pentecost.

The Bible doesn’t say why Peter and John went to Samaria. Maybe they went to verify the incident; maybe they went to help out. The Bible doesn’t say this was a onetime act in history. Indeed it was not because we see that the same thing happened in Acts 19:6. Both of these incidents are examples of the sacrament of confirmation.

Where does the Bible say "I am the door" is symbolic? Do you have to enter a wooden door every time you go to Jesus. It is a metaphor, just as His flesh and blood are. Common sense tells us that these are common metaphors that Jesus was using as he had been using throughout the passage. Why would he change mid-stream just to fit Catholic theology??

Jesus used many metaphors but if the metaphor had the potential to be misunderstood John would usually insert an explanation. In fact he did just that in the “I am the door” and “I am the shepherd” discourse. See John 10:6. John did not insert such a parenthetical in the “Bread of life” discourse of John 6. As result of Jesus’ claim that they must eat His body and drink His blood, many of His disciples left Him. Jesus could have corrected them and explained that He was speaking in metaphors but He did not. Neither did John, who wrote about it many years later. Why not? Because Jesus literally meant what He said. He repeated it at the Last Supper without adding a qualifier that the bread and wine only represented His body and blood. Four N.T. writers related this event and none of them said anything about it being a representation or a symbol. In fact Paul mentions it three times in 1 Corinthians (10:16; 11:24-25 and 11:27).

Finally there is Ignatius of Antioch, a contemporary of the apostle who wrote the Bread of Life discourse. Since Antioch and Ephesus are not far apart, he was probably taught by John. Ignatius leaves no doubt in these early second century writings of his belief that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ.

Your question is: So Christ has the power to be God, but is he too weak to make others gods as well? Ridiculous and blasphemous!!
Only God has the power to forgive sins.
In the OT the Jews had a high priest, who once a year made an atonement for the sins of the people. Remember he was a high priest.
What does the Bible say about Christ in comparison:

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. (Hebrews 4:14)
--He is our Great High Priest, passed into heaven, and always (not just one day out of the year), but always is there making intercession for his children--believers in Christ. He alone can forgive sins. No man can forgive sins. No man has the authority to forgive sins. Christ did not share that authority with any other.

Does Christ tell lies? No? Well maybe John quoted Him wrong in John 20:22-23. Or maybe it means just what it says. You know, DHK, as a sidebar here, I was probably in my fifties before I paid any attention to this passage. I recall being somewhat amused as a college student when the Catholics in my dormitory would talk about going to confession. In fact I would taunt them with sarcastic questions like “Do you have to pay for this service?” Or, “Does it take more than one priest to forgive a really big sin?” None of them knew much about the Bible so I never got John 20 thrown back in my face. Of course I had read it many times, and would read it many times more without making the connection. Usually the focus would be on v. 21 because it is John’s version of the Great Commission, and so I would read these verses without really thinking about them. Then one day, probably about 15 years ago, I was reading in John 20 and verses 21-23 brought me up short. I thought to myself, “Oh my God, they do have the gift of absolution after all.” Since that time I have been very open to Catholic teachings because they really are borne out by the Bible.

In Mat.28:18-20 he gives the Great Commission which is both a command and commission for us to go and give the gospel to the world. He gives us the authority to do so.

Yes, and to baptize as well, “for the forgiveness of sins.”

The difference is: the Bible does not teach that marriage is sacramental. There is no special grace that comes through the sacrament. However, marriage is God's institution. It has been since Adam and Eve. It certainly isn't an invention of the RCC.

DHK, none of the sacraments are an invention of the RCC. They are gifts from God for our own edification and ultimate salvation.

Paul didn't say that celibacy of a "priest" was a spiritual gift. He said the exact opposite, as I have given you scripture. He said it is a doctrine of demons. Furthermore, he made it more of a requirement of the ministry:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (1 Timothy 3:2)
--It does not say celibate but rather the husband of one wife, a requirement to obey.

Another requirement"
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (1 Timothy 3:4)
--He must rule his own house, and that includes his own children. That pretty well does away with celibacy doesn't it.

DHK, when you give answers like this I have to wonder if English is your first language. I said absolutely nothing about celibacy being a spiritual gift, which it is not. I was talking about orders which have nothing to do with celibacy. You made the connection in your own mind, not from anything I said. However, I would note that Paul was himself celibate.

I disagree. I do believe that celibacy has led to immoral sins and plenty of them.

I repeat, the sexual abuse problem has nothing to do with their orders. But it has a whole lot to do with celibacy. They are two different things. Paul makes a case for celibacy, and it would appear that he was celibate himself. He also makes a case for marriage and each state may be appropriate for different individuals. However, I think the requirement for celibacy does attract a large number of homos*xuals to the priesthood. It also adds a temptation for “straight” priests to have affairs with women. On the whole, it’s a bad thing and I truly believe is would be abolished if it were not for the economic angle.

The oil is purely symbolic. Only God can forgive sins. So what the Catholic church does is blasphemous. It tries and takes the place of God.

The Catholic Church didn't say it. I didn't say it. The Bible said it. Like I said, no one wants to talk about the last clause, “if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.” Baptists don’t really know what to do with that.

 

[Robert Snow]

Then you must not have attended Mass regularly. It is my understanding that the RCC reads through most of the Bible in a three year period.

WM

It would be much easier to take the Roman Catholic church seriously if they would stop their sodomite priests from molesting the children that attend their services, and not just move them to a new location.

Aside from this perversion they seemingly have no problem with, they are the epitome of a works based religion that is diametrically opposed to the Gospel found in the bible. There probably are Christians who attend their services, but they are Christians in spite of what they are taught, not because of it!

 

[DHK]

So YOU say DHK! You, however, are not God so
you don't really know who is going to heaven. Every time you say this, you commit the sin of
presumption.

WM

First, it is my testimony. My first hand knowledge of the situation can hardly be called presumption. Perhaps your accusations could be categorized as sin if you want to play that game. But it is better to leave the name-calling out of it.

What I said is that I never heard the gospel in the 20 years that I was there. That is one thing I said. What is presumptuous about that?

The second thing I said is this: Without the gospel one cannot be saved. That is a fact. That is not presumption. Allah will not save you; neither Buddha. Only Christ can save, but if the gospel of Christ is not preached then how can one be saved? He cannot. The Bible says this very clearly:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:14)

You cannot believe a message that you have never heard.

 

[DHK]

This is a continuation of our discussion on Page 7, Post #61.The Bible doesn’t say why Peter and John went to Samaria. Maybe they went to verify the incident; maybe they went to help out. The Bible doesn’t say this was a onetime act in history. Indeed it was not because we see that the same thing happened in Acts 19:6. Both of these incidents are examples of the sacrament of confirmation.

There is no such thing as a sacrament of confirmation in the Bible. You can't read into the Bible things that are not there. It is an argument from silence. It is the same argument the RCC uses for infant baptism. There must have been infants baptized since his (the jailer's) entire household was baptized. It is an argument from silence, and an argument which goes against all the rest of the teaching of the Bible.

There are four times in the Book of Acts where we see a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit: Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19. In three of these tongues were associated with the event. All four had different groups of people.
First the Day of Pentecost, a day which can never be repeated, and certainly not a day of confirmation. It is the day that the church started; it is the day that the Holy Spirit came and began to indwell believers permanently. But who was there? It was Pentecost, a Jewish festival. Three thousand Jews were saved that day. The church started in Jerusalem with 3,000 Jewish believers. This great event was accompanied with signs such as tongues (foreign languages). According to 1Cor.14:21,22, tongues were a sign to the Jews that authenticated the message of the apostle that this message was of God. It also authenticated the apostle himself.

Secondly, Philip was preaching in Samaria. Who was there? The Samaritans were, by and large, a group that was hated by the Jews. Yet there was Philip. News came to the apostles that many were being saved. This is the first time the gospel had gone outside Jerusalem, outside of Judaism. It had now gone into Samaria. The Apostles had to remember Jesus' words to them:

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Acts 1:8)
--Now what does it say about the Apostles coming into Samaria?

Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:14-17)
--The indwelling of the Holy Spirit had now come to those in Samaria as well. The gospel was spreading.

Two chapters later is the event at Cornelius' house, a Roman centurion. The Samaritans were "half-breeds." They were Jews that had married Gentiles. But now we come to the actual Gentile world, the Romans. Peter had to be convinced with a vision from heaven to go there. In his mind these people were unclean. But in obedience to God he went and preached the gospel to these gentiles. Note that he took some "Jewish brethren with him." They were to witness this. What happens?

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (Acts 10:43-44)
--Peter was preaching. Notice the good gospel message in verse 43.
As he was preaching the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word. The word "heard" is used in the same sense as it is in Acts 2:41.

And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (Acts 10:45-47)
--They of the circumcision were the Jews that Peter had brought with him. They saw the evidence, the speaking in tongues. That was the evidence for the Jews that this message was of God and that these Gentiles were now speaking a message from God. This was incredible! How can a people, formerly unclean to the Jew, now be speaking a message of God. That was the sign. With this evidence, Peter says: Can any forbid water? He knew that they were truly saved. The evidence was right there.

The last example in Acts 19:
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (Acts 19:1-4)
Ephesus was part of Asia Minor. Farther and farther the gospel is being carried. But who are these people? They are not Christians. They are not Gentiles. They are Jews, still following the teachings of John the Baptist. One might say that they are OT saints. They had been baptized by John the Baptist who had preached a baptism of repentance. He had pointed people to Christ. But they had never heard of the Holy Spirit.

Again, tongues are a sign to the Jews. Paul baptized them because though they had believed on Christ as the Messiah, as Peter once had, they had not received the Holy Spirit or had been indwelt by Him.

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (Acts 19:5-6)
--They spoke in tongues; again a sign to the Jews that this message was of God.

In summary:
Pentecost: They were all filled with the Holy Spirit--Jewish Christians being indwelt for the first time.
2. Acts 8 --The Samaritans being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
3. Acts 10--The Gentiles in general being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
4. Acts 19--Some OT saints, Jews, that had not been there at Pentecost had now also received the Spirit and were indwelt by Him. From hereon in, there were no other such episodes. In no way can any of these be construed as "confirmation."