I am anathama

[annsni]

Tim Challies is a blogger who I very much respect and agree with most of the time. He is doing a series on false teachers and a couple of weeks ago, he posted Pope Francis as a false teacher which we know would cause great controversy. He was told that he doesn't understand the doctrine of justification in the RC church and that the church teaches what the Bible teaches. Tim posted a response post to it today on his blog and man, if this is what the Catholic church truly teaches (which it must since it is it's official canon), then it is, without question, a false church.

http://www.challies.com/articles/an...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[The Biblicist]

Tim Challies is a blogger who I very much respect and agree with most of the time. He is doing a series on false teachers and a couple of weeks ago, he posted Pope Francis as a false teacher which we know would cause great controversy. He was told that he doesn't understand the doctrine of justification in the RC church and that the church teaches what the Bible teaches. Tim posted a response post to it today on his blog and man, if this is what the Catholic church truly teaches (which it must since it is it's official canon), then it is, without question, a false church.

http://www.challies.com/articles/an...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Very good! However, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Nazerines, Seventh Day Adventist, etc., believe the very exact same thing as Roman Catholics do in regard to justification with works and thus by works.

Some Baptists believe the very same thing as Rome does about justification. When anyone claims that "works" or "works of the law" in Romans 3:19-4:25 refers only to Mosaic law and merely becoming a Jew (As Rome does) they are denying the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith without works and asserting justification by works. Abraham lived 430 years prior to the law of Moses and thus Romans 4:1-6 and the term "works" could not possibly be restricted to Mosaic law but to his own efforts to be and do "good" in God's sight by his own efforts. The Law of Moses merely reveals the most comprehensive definition of "good works" but is inclusive of all other lesser defining revelations by conscience or nature. That is precisely why both Gentiles and Jews are included in the "works" of Romans 3:9-20 as it includes the "WHOLE world" and "EVERY mouth" so that "NO FLESH" can be justified in his sight.

Those who deny Romans 3:9-3:25 includes Gentiles, or the law revealed in nature as well as conscience are false teachers equally so with Roman Catholocism.

 

[RLBosley]

Good article. Thanks for sharing.

 

[HungryInherit]

I enjoyed that. Thanks

 

[JamesL]

Very good! However, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Nazerines, Seventh Day Adventist, etc., believe the very exact same thing as Roman Catholics do in regard to justification with works and thus by works.

Some Baptists believe the very same thing as Rome does about justification.

Those denominations you listed do hold similar, but not exact, views as Rome regarding justification.

Rome's view is that those works are meritorious because grace is infused into the believer

Those others (technically) hold to the view that the merit is found only in Christ - but that grace is accessed, or grace is kept, through works.


In a practical sense, they do boil down the same bottom line - potentially saved through faith, actually saved through works


Some of those you listed (e.g. holiness churches) will many times assail Rome for making salvation "too easy", portraying it as a confession in front of a priest then off to live as usual.

But they unwittingly condemn themselves in that off-the-mark accusation by trying to add human effort to what Christ has done for us.


However, I will give credit where I see it is due. To my knowledge, Rome is the only brand of Christianity that teaches one must be actually, literally, sinless to enter the gates of heaven.

While Rome's perceived method of being purged of sin in Purgatory is thoroughly unbiblical, at least they have a formulated doctrine for becoming literally sinless, which every Protestant sect is lacking (that I can tell).

 

[The Biblicist]

Those denominations you listed do hold similar, but not exact, views as Rome regarding justification.

Rome's view is that those works are meritorious because grace is infused into the believer

Those others (technically) hold to the view that the merit is found only in Christ - but that grace is accessed, or grace is kept, through works.

Technically, Rome also teaches that merit is only found in Christ alone and his redemptive work, but is infused in the believer through baptism and maintained through communion and confession. If you will ask a Catholic on this forum, or look at their Catholic Catechism you will see they believe merit is found only in Christ but infused or imparted through sacraments.

Her daughters and granddaughters also teach that merit is found solely in Christ initially received through baptism and maintained by progressive sanctification including confession.

The difference is purely semantics as all equally believe in justification by works. Methodists and Lutherans will deny they believe in justification by works but then turn right around and claim true born again believers can lose their salvation due to either failing to confess and forsake certain sins or willfully choosing to disbelieve in Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

Very good! However, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Nazerines, Seventh Day Adventist, etc., believe the very exact same thing as Roman Catholics do in regard to justification with works and thus by works.

Difference though between the Armianian branched chirsitian churches and that of Rome/SDA would be that while "free will" Christians do tend to mix together God will to save us and our will to save ourselves, they DO see the death of jesus sufficient to save them, to be grace for all their sins, while Rome sees it more like his blood atoned for all past sins, and that you on put on a probationary period after that, and that thru the sacramental grace system, you can allow God to get you right enough to merit real salvation in the end!

 

[The Biblicist]

Very good! However, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Nazerines, Seventh Day Adventist, etc., believe the very exact same thing as Roman Catholics do in regard to justification with works and thus by works.

Difference though between the Armianian branched chirsitian churches and that of Rome/SDA would be that while "free will" Christians do tend to mix together God will to save us and our will to save ourselves, they DO see the death of jesus sufficient to save them, to be grace for all their sins, while Rome sees it more like his blood atoned for all past sins, and that you on put on a probationary period after that, and that thru the sacramental grace system, you can allow God to get you right enough to merit real salvation in the end!

Not so! Lutheran's, Methodists, Pentecostals, Nazerines, Church of Christ, Christian church, etc., do not believe that you can be saved APART FROM ORDINANCES just as Rome does not believe you can be saved APART FROM ORDINANCES. They believe that remission of sins is found in baptism.

Arminian Baptists and some Armenian evangelical denominations (except Free Will denomination of Baptists) do believe faith in the mere gospel is essential to save and keep one saved (eternal security) without good works or ordinances

 

[Yeshua1]

Not so! Lutheran's, Methodists, Pentecostals, Nazerines, Church of Christ, Christian church, etc., do not believe that you can be saved APART FROM ORDINANCES just as Rome does not believe you can be saved APART FROM ORDINANCES. They believe that remission of sins is found in baptism.

Arminian Baptists and some Armenian evangelical denominations (except Free Will denomination of Baptists) do believe faith in the mere gospel is essential to save and keep one saved (eternal security) without good works or ordinances

o
I was aware that Oneness hold to that, as well as Lutheryns and others, but do Westlyns/Methodists/Nazarenes hold to that?

As don't they hold to believers baptism as
Baptists do?

 

[The Biblicist]

o
I was aware that Oneness hold to that, as well as Lutheryns and others, but do Westlyns/Methodists/Nazarenes hold to that?

As don't they hold to believers baptism as
Baptists do?

There is a branch of the Methodist denomination, that may not view remission of sins in baptism. Nazerines as far as I am aware baptize infants and hold that the atonement is received in baptism:

XII. Baptism

16. We believe that Christian baptism, commanded by our Lord, is a sacrament signifying acceptance of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ, to be administered to believers
and declarative of their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior, and full purpose of obedience in holiness and righteousness.

Baptism being a symbol of the new covenant, young children may be baptized , upon request of parents or guardians who shall give assurance for them of necessary Christian training. Baptism may be administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, according to the choice of the applicant.

Note the contradiction between it is to be administered to believers and to unbelieving infants.

 

[PamelaK]

I haven't been in the Catholic Church for 34 years, but the excerpts Tim cites from the Council of Trent line up exactly with the doctrine I was taught growing up in that church. I not only attended church but attended catechism classes, and later, a Catholic high school which included 4 years of religion class and retreats. This article is spot on with what we were taught.

 

[annsni]

I haven't been in the Catholic Church for 34 years, but the excerpts Tim cites from the Council of Trent line up exactly with the doctrine I was taught growing up in that church. I not only attended church but attended catechism classes, and later, a Catholic high school which included 4 years of religion class and retreats. This article is spot on with what we were taught.

Pretty much the same for me!! I did miss out on confirmation as I was out of the church then but DID have my first communion in the Catholic church and attended Catholic school from 7th through 12th grades. The article is really spot on!