Indulgences

[utilyan]

The Council of trent is still the officially theology of the RCC, and they condemn to hell those whose Gospel denies the RCC version of it!

We don't condemn anyone to hell. Its bragged all over the internet even an athiest can go to heaven, we are accused of being too soft, then your baseless accusation is too harsh.


What is the Gospel? That's easy its MATHEW MARK LUKE AND JOHN.

Of course someone who is ignorant would have no clue what gospel was after reading them even after they are labeled gospel. They wouldn't know teaching of Christ if it slapped them upside the head.

Same kind of ignorance thinks anathema means we send you to hell.

 

[MennoSota]

Superstitions? Are you talking about things like a virgin giving birth, burning bushes talking, people ascending into thin air, seas parting, people being raised from the dead, people being healed, the idea of eternal life, a heaven, and on and on and on? Superstitions all and you believe them - at least I hope you do, as do I.

Perhaps it's the shrines and the veneration of bones and other relics as a place where miracles happen? Perhaps it's the imagination that a statue cried drops of blood?
The interesting thing about the Roman church is that it has a wide spectrum of beliefs within its group. I had a college friend from Brazil. His mother was a devout Catholic who also mixed voodoo and witchcraft in as she prayed to ancestors. I had another colleague I worked with who believed in superstitions in the Roman church dealing with bizarre cult-like demonism. He would bring his pamphlets to work and read up on casting spells. Both people identified as Roman Catholic. On the other hand I have met very pragmatic Catholics who rely on rationalism. The spectrum means that it is hard to define what being a member of the Roman church looks like.

 

[JonC]

Superstitions? Are you talking about things like a virgin giving birth, burning bushes talking, people ascending into thin air, seas parting, people being raised from the dead, people being healed, the idea of eternal life, a heaven, and on and on and on? Superstitions all and you believe them - at least I hope you do, as do I.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. There is a difference between supernatural and superstition.

My friend wears a scapular (not the garment but a small piece of cloth worn in a necklace). I asked him about it he explained it was to confer last rites should he be die without receiving last rites by a priest and had to be in contact with his skin to work (we were both in the Army at the time). When he had a relative that was sick, his mother traveled to another country to pray at a statue of Mary (I don’t remember the details, or if his sister improved). Both of these are superstition (along the line of "old wives tales") and unbiblical. But both are also found in Catholic tradition.

 

[Adonia]

No, that's not what I'm talking about. There is a difference between supernatural and superstition.

My friend wears a scapular (not the garment but a small piece of cloth worn in a necklace). I asked him about it he explained it was to confer last rites should he be die without receiving last rites by a priest and had to be in contact with his skin to work (we were both in the Army at the time). When he had a relative that was sick, his mother traveled to another country to pray at a statue of Mary (I don’t remember the details, or if his sister improved). Both of these are superstition (along the line of "old wives tales") and unbiblical. But both are also found in Catholic tradition.

Superstition: excessively credulous belief in a reverence for supernatural beings.


Not much of a difference between supernatural and superstition if you ask me - you cannot really prove either of them. As for prayer, if I were to ask you to pray for me, you would in reality be "interceding" for me with Jesus - placing yourself between me and Him. Would that not be correct?

Praying to Mary or any of the saints for that matter is the same thing - they are as alive in Christ as you or me and prayers to them are made in an interceding way. (that is what the Church teaches). Personally, I go directly to God myself in the name of Jesus, as I have this "superstition" that He can help me.

As for scapulars and such (called sacramentals) they don't do much for me either, though I do like to light a candle now and then for my late mother.

 

[Adonia]

Perhaps it's the shrines and the veneration of bones and other relics as a place where miracles happen? Perhaps it's the imagination that a statue cried drops of blood?
The interesting thing about the Roman church is that it has a wide spectrum of beliefs within its group. I had a college friend from Brazil. His mother was a devout Catholic who also mixed voodoo and witchcraft in as she prayed to ancestors. I had another colleague I worked with who believed in superstitions in the Roman church dealing with bizarre cult-like demonism. He would bring his pamphlets to work and read up on casting spells. Both people identified as Roman Catholic. On the other hand I have met very pragmatic Catholics who rely on rationalism. The spectrum means that it is hard to define what being a member of the Roman church looks like.

Paul Ministers in Ephesus
…11God did extraordinary miracles through the hands of Paul, 12so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and the diseases and evil spirits left them. Acts 19:11-12.

That's where the teaching of relics came from and one could easily call the belief of a healing power from a handkerchief or an apron a superstition (like we talked about before). And that example is from the Bible no less!

Those other things you talked about like casting spells are from the netherworld and have no place in the Catholic Church. Your colleague and the other person's mother were clearly off the mark and should have been told by their respective priest's that they were in error. You have the most eccentric manner of friends or acquaintances who combine this crazy stuff with the practice of the Catholic faith. Never in my life have I ever met anyone at any of the parishes I have attended church at ever been involved in such things.

 

[JonC]

Superstition: excessively credulous belief in a reverence for supernatural beings.


Not much of a difference between supernatural and superstition if you ask me - you cannot really prove either of them. As for prayer, if I were to ask you to pray for me, you would in reality be "interceding" for me with Jesus - placing yourself between me and Him. Would that not be correct?

Praying to Mary or any of the saints for that matter is the same thing - they are as alive in Christ as you or me and prayers to them are made in an interceding way. (that is what the Church teaches). Personally, I go directly to God myself in the name of Jesus, as I have this "superstition" that He can help me.

As for scapulars and such (called sacramentals) they don't do much for me either, though I do like to light a candle now and then for my late mother.

"Excessively credulous" makes all the difference. Please understand that I am not picking on Catholics. I am Baptist and there are plenty of superstitions people among us as well. The difference is superstition within the official doctrine or encouraged as an expression of faith (and the topic happens to be a Catholic superstition).

The difference is that a belief in God (who is by nature and definition “supernatural”), a belief in the virgin birth, and conversion are supernatural events of God’s own revelation. The authority here is Scripture, which is God’s revelation of Himself to mankind. This basis makes what would otherwise be superstition a matter of faith in the supernatural (faith in God), based not on the credulous but on God Himself as revealed in Scripture and Christ.

So where other denominations may turn to Scripture and address superstitions, the Catholic Church cannot do this because they have formed the basis of their own tradition and superstition. They may reject Scripture as the ultimate authority, favoring instead the leadership of the Catholic Church, but they derive this authority by an interpretation of Scripture (so that’s a circular, and false, argument).

The Eucharist is an interpretation of the Lord’s Supper (I believe the doctrine of transubstantiation to be an error, but not a superstition as it is an interpretation of what has been commanded by Christ). Praying to the saints to intercede or as mediators is a superstition because it has its origin in tradition and is contrary to Scripture (it is based solely on the Catholic Church).

 

[Darrell C]

"we do not equate remission of sins by men with the remission of sins accomplished by Christ through His Offering of Himself. "

The question is does Jesus Christ equate it?

No. That is why we have a New Testament filled with passages trying to teach us that the Old Testament provision is not to be equated to the New Covenant provision.

A few examples would be...


Hebrews 10:1-4
King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


If you study this Chapter, Utilyan, you will see the context is that of remission of sins. Here, the Writer is referencing the remission of sins afforded by the Law, and that afforded by Christ's offering of Himself. The "perfection" here, in the Greek, refers to a completion of something, a "bringing to an end," and speaks of finality on the issue in view. So here he states the Law had a shadow, a mere reflection of the "good things to come, and is not to be viewed as the thing it foreshadowed. The focus is then given to the sacrifices of the Law, Which, if we look at the giving of the Law and the manner and reason sacrifices were to be offered up, we see a very clear picture that it was meant to bring atonement for sins. However, as he states here, it could not bring the effort of atonement for sins to completion to the point where no more sacrifice was necessary.

But, Christ's Sacrifice did:


Hebrews 10:14-18
King James Version (KJV)

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


In v.14 we are told that those sanctified by the Blood of Christ (v.10) are made complete forever, then we are told this was the promise of God in regards to the promise of the New Covenant, and then we are told that where remission (forgiveness) is, there is no more offering for sin.

The point being "The Law with its sacrifices was never complete, hence that is why it was continually offered up (vv.11-13 above). But when one is sanctified by Christ he is made complete in regard to remission of sins forever."

This is not an ongoing process and should not be confused with Progressive Sanctification, because the text does not allow for it, nor does the Book. This is a passage that is usually complicated by most commentators, and crucial texts taken out of the broader context in order to prove some doctrine or other. But if we recognize the contrasts drawn, which are usually between the Covenants and the benefits each afforded, it becomes understandable and then fits into the broader context of the REdemptive Plan itself, which is consistent from Genesis 3:15 through Revelation. So if you are at all interested in threshing out Hebrews, let me know, I will start a thread so we can discuss it.

One more passage to verify that we err greatly equating Old Testament provision with New Covenant Provision would be...


Hebrews 9:12-15
King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


The two points I would focus on here for now would be...

1. Again we see the contrast drawn by His Sacrifice of Himself with the sacrifices of the Law. He did not, the Writer tells us, enter into the "Holy Place" of the Tabernacle, but into the Holiest of All (Heaven), which the way into was not made manifest to men while the first (the Holy Place of the Tabernacle, which was made with hands, meaning physical, temporal) remained standing (in operation). And v.12 tells us that by His Blood (Death) He...obtained Eternal Redemption for us.

2. Verse 15 defines the distinction of Eternal Redemption and again contrasts what the Law (and it's sacrifices) could not do, which is redeem the transgressions of those under Law (and see Romans 5:12-15 for Paul's statement concerning those who had not received the Law, and the Ages in which they were in, where we again see a contrast drawn between the Law and the Work of Christ (which ultimately refers to the establishment of the New Covenant)). The "First Testament (same word translated "Covenant" elsewhere)" is a reference to the Covenant of Law, the Mosaic Covenant. The point made is that the transgressions of those under Law, though they received a temporal and temporary atonement for sins through the Law, still died in need of their transgressions being redeemed by the Blood (Death) of Christ.

And that is what He did. He redeemed those transgression through the Offering of Himself, and bestowed the Promise (and a promise is still a promise until one receives what is promised) of the Eternal Inheritance, which is the bestowal of Eternal Redemption.

So we have in Scripture justification to say that remission of sins was incomplete under the Law and preceding Economies, but, in Christ...it is made complete for ever.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

That's his prerogative. He can choose to dispense as he pleases.

And the concept that Eternal Life is something that is "dispensed" in segments is not taught by Christ or the Apostles.

We are saved in totality when we turn to Christ in faith, and at that point we are made one with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost:


John 14:15-18
King James Version (KJV)

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


Christ teaches that at a future date, after He has returned to Heaven, He will send the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, and that the distinctive difference then would be He (The Spirit of Truth) would be with them/us for ever, and rather than being "with them/us" He would be in them/us. He then states "I will come to you," which shows the Unity of the Trinity, which is then affirmed again here...


John 14:20-23
King James Version (KJV)

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


Not, "We will set up a vacation home," but, We will come and make our abode with him," and that is an indwelling of Eternal consequence, not the temporal and temporary ministry of the Old Testament Economies.

How Regeneration is effected is through the very indwelling of God. That is why we "have a new heart and a new spirit," and why we can "walk in His statutes and ordinances and Keep His judgments." See Ezekiel 36:24-27.

If he says cats and dogs can forgive sins, fish can remove punishment, and petting donkeys removes sins of the people you think about, it is what it is. church is the body of Christ and Jesus Christ is the head. No Jesus then no church

Precisely. So when He states that those who believe on Him have Eternal Life, why is this disputed? When the Word of God says we have been saved...why is this disputed?


Titus 3:4-5
King James Version (KJV)

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


We know that one must be born again to see the Kingdom of God, so we determine when that takes place and we can settle the issue, right? The appearing of the kindness and love of God is a past tense event here, and in most passages dealing with regeneration there is a past tense context. Here is another one:



John 1:11-13
King James Version (KJV)

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Those who receive/d Him have become the sons of God, and have been born of God (which is the same thing Christ states must happen to men in John 3. They must be born from above, born of the Spirit, born again, which is being born of God.

Regeneration is a spiritual resurrection of those who previously without life spiritually, and the Life in view is the Life of God which we obtain when God Eternally Indwells us.

That is why Christ taught:


John 6:49-53
King James Version (KJV)

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


The "bread" in view is His Flesh, which is euphemistic for His Offering of Himself on the Cross. What Christ is demanding here is that men believe on His Sacrifice of Himself.

Again we see the provision for "life" contrasted: in the Wilderness life was sustained by Manna, and under New Covenant provision it is the True Bread, the Living Bread, which came down from Heaven, which sets the most magnificent landmark of all time (literally) in the Timeline of human history...the Incarnation (just as John does in John 1:11-14).


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Jesus Christ can have you run the entire Church tomorrow.

Doubtful He will do that, but, its a nice thought. The first thing I would do is start a tradition that believers must not only focus on their studies in Scripture, but must, with great intent and focus...develop a sense of humor.

"So it is quite impossible to say the disciples are born again Christians at this point because one is not a new creature until they are reconciled to God and brought into Eternal Union with Him."

Well that is a interesting concept to put on the table. You are saying these are UNBELIEVERS with the holy spirit and the authority to forgive and not forgive sins?

They were unbelievers until Pentecost, Utilyan.

Don't take my word for it, take the Lord's Word for it:


Mark 16:9-14
King James Version (KJV)

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.


There is a reason why they did not believe, two primary ones in fact:

1. The Gospel of Christ was a Mystery not revealed in past Ages, the Hidden Wisdom of God;

2. The Gospel was not revealed to men until the Comforter came.

John testifies of this here:


John 20:9
King James Version (KJV)

9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.


John 7:38-39
King James Version (KJV)

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


It is an indisputable fact that the Spirit of God that ministers distinctly in this Age and no other before it unveiled the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ. And when He came, that is when Eternal Indwelling began, which is the reason why men who believe on Christ are made new, because they are unified with God in the REconciliation God was in Christ to accomplish.

We cannot impose that into the salvation of the Old Testament Economies. Not under Law, and not before it.

So the question is, why, after such clear declaration of these simple truths in Scripture...are they disputed?

The disciple were men of faith, and had revealed to them that Jesus was the Christ the Son of GOd, but, as far as their believing on the Risen Lord, that would not begin until Pentecost, when they are Baptized with the Holy Ghost (Christ is the Baptizer) Who reveals the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ to them, at which point they can then carry out the commission of being witnesses of Christ in the entire world.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Some would argue the only way to believe and receive any authority was to be born again.

It's not open for debate. That is the command of Christ.

Only the Regenerate can function as the Body of Christ.

Regeneration is not something that happens after salvation, it is what happens when we are saved.

Qualification of disciple are also very high, these UNbelievers who leave their families and jobs to follow Jesus?

So explain why Peter was hostile to the Gospel of Christ, and did not want the Lord to die for his sins?


Matthew 16:20-23
King James Version (KJV)

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


Because of popular pulpit mythology, many equate the salvation of these believing disciples with the salvation bestowed on an Eternal Basis when the Church began. Scripture does not teach us this, it teaches that these men, though justified by faith, still lay in need of Eternal Redemption. The Old Testament Saints that died prior to the Cross (at which time they received Eternal Remission in completion) and Pentecost died in faith, and received a good report, but, it was not until Christ actually died in their stead that they were forgiven their sins on an Eternal Basis.

We see that here:


Hebrews 11:13
King James Version (KJV)

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.


Hebrews 11:39-40
King James Version (KJV)

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.


They were made perfect/complete in regards to remission of sins when Christ died in their stead, as Hebrews 9:12-15 (shown earlier) shows.

We also see it mentioned here:


Hebrews 12:22-24
King James Version (KJV)

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


Again we see the contrast drawn between the Covenant of Law and the New Covenant (see Hebrews 12:18-21), and the provision for sacrifice for sin given in the beginning of man's existence as a fallen creature, noted in the reference to "the blood of sprinkling (Christ's death) that speaketh better things than that of (the sacrifice offered by) Abel. Look at Genesis Four again, and see that Abel offered of his flock, and "the fat thereof."


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Or now we will have to explain not all believers are born again.

The Old Testament believers were not born again. Regeneration takes place under New Covenant Provision, namely through the reconciling of men to God that is now possible through the Work of Christ.

You say the passage doesn't mention regeneration, Some would argue above all things receiving the holy spirit is the #1 regeneration.

There are not multiple "regenerations" taught in Scripture. All passages relevant to Regeneration that coincides with Christ's teaching that men must be born again refer to a one-time event that takes place when men are brought back into union with God, which was lost in the Fall.

In fact I challenge to give yourself all benefits of perfection of regeneration and have the holy spirit taken away.

Again, Christ taught that when the Spirit came in the Ministry of Comforter, unlike in the Old Testament, He indwells us for ever.

"Perfection" in the New Testament is either speaking about progressive sanctification, where we are made more in the image of Christ through the growth process we all go through, or it refers to positional sanctification as it does in Hebrews 10:14...


Hebrews 10:14
King James Version (KJV)

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


You can't impose a "He is going to perfect/complete them forever, it is something that has taken place. Again, the context of this passage deals with remission of sins, and speaks from the Eternal Perspective, which is contrasted with the Temporal Perspective. As believers we can forgive sins, and have our sins forgiven by others, but, that is not to be equated with God forgiving our sins on an Eternal Basis through Christ.

And so I just encourage you to give these posts some thought, rather than how people usually react, which is to dismiss them without serious consideration of the passages given which, as I said, really cannot be disputed. Most, like you, will dismiss the idea that the disciples of Christ were unbelieving in the Resurrection of Christ, and equate the belief they did have with the Eternal Redemption the disciple still awaited until Christ died in their stead. But you simply cannot argue with Christ's Own statement that shows this is the case (Mark 16:9-14). We also see that in Luke 24, where when He appears to them...they think they are seeing a spirit (ghost).

The Devil was made perfect too.

But we can't give "perfection" a singular meaning in Scripture. Satan has never been, nor will he ever...be made complete in regards to remission of sins. That "Perfection" is specific to context of the Chapters and the Book of Hebrews.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

we MUST "bash" the officiial doctrines of the RCC, as they are mainly either heresyl, or non biblical, and they do teach another Gospel, period!
My desire for catholics is as paul was for his fellow Jews, that they are woke up and saved by God and depart that church for a true one!

And Chick to me was really bad, as he was a KJVO, and his hatred for the Rome Church was not like mine, as he fixed on almost like God saved none of them, I know that he does, as about 50% of my Baptist church used to be them, including my senior pastor Himself!

And did you read that link to 9 facts to know about Council of trent I posted?

We don't need to "bash" anything, we must address what we see as error and address it on a personal and individual level. Then, once we know what someone actually believes...we know what to address.

And no, I didn't read it, because it was not in my view relevant, and, I am pretty busy with work and don't really have the time I am taking now to participate, which usually has me working late every night to catch up, lol. So just what is relevant is what I try to address.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

And did you read that link to 9 facts to know about Council of trent I posted?

And just to clarify what is important is not what a group or commentator that is antagonistic towards Catholicism has to say, because we cannot impose what they think Catholics believe on Catholics, because we must assume that every Catholic is astute in knowledge and understanding of what Catholicism teaches. We don't see that in any other group, so why would we expect it in Catholics?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

The link is to the Vatican website, which I take it is the "official" Catholic position. The first was the announcement from Pope Francis granting indulgences. It specifically offers indulgences given to those who are deceased. The second link is to the National Catholic Reporter's article questioning if the Pope has become to indulgent with indulgences.

What I believe is relevant is that the Vatican position has indulgences given for the deceased, which exceeds temporal punishments in this lifetime.

That said, I do have several Catholic friends who disagree with both the Pope and the Catholic Church (the RCC's official position) on several issues. So I believe you are right that there is a spectrum of belief within the Catholic church (ranging from liberal to conservative, perhaps depending on the issue).

And that is one of the thrusts of the thread, simply to acknowledge the range of knowledge and understanding among Catholics. That is what is relevant when speaking with Catholics, and may help us to stop speaking at Catholics.

There needs to be dialogue, so that the misconceptions don't interfere with sincere Bible Study and Discussion.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

It seems that you are trying to differentiate between a person who attends the Roman church parish and one who obeys the requirements of the Roman church. Wouldn't those who refuse to obey be considered apostates and be in jeopardy of damnation according to the traditions of the rulers of the church?

I don't really look at it like that. Consider that even someone saved out of a Baptist Church, who has heard a clear presentation of the Gospel and sits under good teaching, still has a lot of growth to go through. They don't immediately have understanding of the will of GOd, nor do they understand much of what their fellowship teaches, yet we do not declare them Apostate because of their ignorance. Nor do we levy that charge because they disagree with a teaching of that fellowship. An example might be tithing. Many Pastors teach tithing in a manner which comes across as saying one is a bad Christian if they do not tithe. Is that person who disagrees with teaching Doctrine associated with the Law an Apostate? Should he leave that fellowship because he disagrees?

I don't think so. Better for them to come to an understanding on the matter through study, and the simple truth is that anyone under the Word of God, even when it is being taught incorrectly, still benefits from that exposure to the Word of God, and it is just my opinion that more often than not most of the congregants disagree with something the Pastor teaches.

Why do the opinions matter, Darrell? Roman church dogma does not become less just because parishioners don't adhere to the dogma or believe it.

You seriously don't think the opinions of those who sit under any teaching matters?

So shall we assume that all Baptist Pastors teach flawlessly out of the Word of God, and do not themselves make mistakes doctrinally?

And again, the "dogma" and doctrine in view in this particular OP has been stated clearly as something not relevant to a Catholic here. That's not something we can ignore, MennoSota.


God bless.

 

[MennoSota]

I don't really look at it like that. Consider that even someone saved out of a Baptist Church, who has heard a clear presentation of the Gospel and sits under good teaching, still has a lot of growth to go through. They don't immediately have understanding of the will of GOd, nor do they understand much of what their fellowship teaches, yet we do not declare them Apostate because of their ignorance. Nor do we levy that charge because they disagree with a teaching of that fellowship. An example might be tithing. Many Pastors teach tithing in a manner which comes across as saying one is a bad Christian if they do not tithe. Is that person who disagrees with teaching Doctrine associated with the Law an Apostate? Should he leave that fellowship because he disagrees?

I don't think so. Better for them to come to an understanding on the matter through study, and the simple truth is that anyone under the Word of God, even when it is being taught incorrectly, still benefits from that exposure to the Word of God, and it is just my opinion that more often than not most of the congregants disagree with something the Pastor teaches.



You seriously don't think the opinions of those who sit under any teaching matters?

So shall we assume that all Baptist Pastors teach flawlessly out of the Word of God, and do not themselves make mistakes doctrinally?

And again, the "dogma" and doctrine in view in this particular OP has been stated clearly as something not relevant to a Catholic here. That's not something we can ignore, MennoSota.


God bless.

You are comparing apples with oranges. A Baptist church does not declare it's leader to be an infallible vicar of Christ. A Baptist church does not declare traditions to be dogma by which a member is damned to hell. A Baptist church will very likely encourage its members to question the teaching from the pulpit and test it against scripture.
There is a big difference between a church that honors tradition above scripture and a church that holds to "Sola Scriptura."

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh good grief!

The Council of Trent declared that any who hold to one is justified freely and solely through faith alone is anathema, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Superstitions? Are you talking about things like a virgin giving birth, burning bushes talking, people ascending into thin air, seas parting, people being raised from the dead, people being healed, the idea of eternal life, a heaven, and on and on and on? Superstitions all and you believe them - at least I hope you do, as do I.

Think he meant things such as mary being born with sin, being bodily raised up, to having purgetory, the papacy, sins washed away in infant baptism and eternal life granted there and so on!

 

[Yeshua1]

We don't need to "bash" anything, we must address what we see as error and address it on a personal and individual level. Then, once we know what someone actually believes...we know what to address.

And no, I didn't read it, because it was not in my view relevant, and, I am pretty busy with work and don't really have the time I am taking now to participate, which usually has me working late every night to catch up, lol. So just what is relevant is what I try to address.


God bless.

Paul and Calvin and Luther were very strongly against the hersy of the RCC, especially in regards to salvation proper!

 

[Adonia]

You are comparing apples with oranges. A Baptist church does not declare it's leader to be an infallible vicar of Christ. A Baptist church does not declare traditions to be dogma by which a member is damned to hell. A Baptist church will very likely encourage its members to question the teaching from the pulpit and test it against scripture.
There is a big difference between a church that honors tradition above scripture and a church that holds to "Sola Scriptura."

And nowhere did Jesus ever say that Sola Scriptura is the way to go. He talked about a church that would have the authority to decide things for all the faithful. Where are we to take our problems and concerns? Why to the church of course!