is Roman catholism Regarded as a Cult/False Gospel/ Gospel + Works/True Gospel?

[Dr. Walter]

Even the demons believe and shudder.
Hmmm..

WM

Demons have not repented of their sins and trusted in the person and work of Christ for salvation - no demon ever has and no demon ever will. They mentally accept God's Existence but have never had a gospel conversion experience. Look more carefully at what I included in my statement and you will see that your response is empty of reason.

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...
...Then you have your reward. I prefer not to pray aloud. And that is not what I was talking about. Thus when I pray, the demons do not know what I am praying. But, yes, I can see how they know what you are praying, now that you have explained yourself.

Well then, if a creature like Satan can hear what we say, that must mean that God has given that power to him. Yet, you have continually credited that power only to God. :thumbsup:

You don't understand the matter of intercession.
Deal with Scripture and the matter of intercession.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)
--There is only one intercessor (mediator) and that is Christ. Mary cannot do it. The saints cannot do it. No one, but Christ himself can intercede on my behalf.

Have you never been asked to pray for someone, DHK? If you did, then that my friend if intercession and according to you "No one, but Christ himself can intercede..." Yet that's completely unscriptural as we are commanded to pray for one another.

Certainly no priest can do it. Only Christ has that position. This is what the Bible teaches. Only Christ can do this job. The RCC is totally unscriptural in this area. In fact they are heretical.

Well then - the next time someone asks you to pray for their spouse who was diagnosed with terminal cancer, in order to be consistant, you must say "No - you must go directly to Jesus he is the only intercesor."

The dead cannot "intercede" for the living. It is impossible.

Not according to the story Lazarus and the rich man. Get over it.

WM

 

[DHK]

Well then, if a creature like Satan can hear what we say, that must mean that God has given that power to him. Yet, you have continually credited that power only to God.

You believe your mythology if you like. Satan is a spirit. He is not omniscient or omnipotent. He is not God. He has limitations. Satan does not know my thoughts, my prayers, etc. He cannot read my mind. Neither can you prove that from Scripture.
You can make up your own religion if you like; believe what you want; have your doctrine; but what you are posting here is not in the Bible. Only God knows the thoughts of our hearts, and thus the prayers of our hearts.

Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. (Psalms 139:2)
For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. (Psalms 139:4)

God knows all about us, every single thought--even before we think it.
He alone is omniscient.

Have you never been asked to pray for someone, DHK? If you did, then that my friend if intercession and according to you "No one, but Christ himself can intercede..." Yet that's completely unscriptural as we are commanded to pray for one another.

No, Biblically it is not intercession.
Only Christ can intercede. If you are sick, I can pray to God (through Christ, my intercessor) for you. The prayer (vertical) goes through Christ. Only Christ can interceded. If you, a Catholic, go to a priest, and ask him to forgive your sin, then that intercession is not Biblical. The priest is acting like a mediator or intercessor (acting in the place of Christ). This is a heretical position. Only Christ can forgive sins. The Pharisees knew this.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. (Mark 2:5)
Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? (Mark 2:7)
--They were right. Only God can forgive sins. Christ is God and therefore could forgive the man's sins.
--A Catholic priest is not God and therefore CANNOT forgive sins.
No one can go to God through another person, a saint, Mary, etc.
One must always go through Christ. I can take your request. I can pray for you. But that prayer must go through Christ. He is the one that intercedes. I only present the request. I don't intercede for you. I can't do that. I simply present that request for you to Christ who intercedes on my behalf for you. That is intercession. I cannot intercede for you. Only Christ can do that.

Well then - the next time someone asks you to pray for their spouse who was diagnosed with terminal cancer, in order to be consistant, you must say "No - you must go directly to Jesus he is the only intercesor."

I can pray. But Christ is the Great Intercessor. Make that clear. He is the only one that intercedes. I cannot intercede on his behalf. I don't have that power. I am only a man. I don't have that power. I can pray for him, lift a request to God for him, but it is request who is at the throne daily making intercession for us. He alone is our intercessor. He is the only intercessor that we have. That is what the Bible teaches.

Again, you are welcome to make up your own religion with your own imaginative ideas. They aren't Biblical ideas. You won't find them in the Bible. Perhaps you should find some like-minded people and start a new religion.

Not according to the story Lazarus and the rich man. Get over it.

WM

You fail in your illustration.
Oh God let me out of hell! Let me out of hell! Let me out of hell!
That is not a request; not a prayer, not intercession, not anything like that, and yet that is the picture of the rich man.

Every "request" that the rich man made was in reference to "eternal torment." And for those that will be in hell forever, their cries will ascend forever and ever. It is the same picture. I don't call that prayer. Prayer is two-way communication--not a picture of wailing because of eternal torment in hell. All he asked for was denied, as will every request for every person sentenced to hell. That is the lesson to be learned.

 

[Matt Black]

The way I use the term, Matt, is in reference to those who believe that the Bible is their final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. The RCC does not do that.

OK, there's quite a bit to unpack in your post here.

They put tradition over the Bible as a greater authority, (as a general rule).

Not a greater but a parallel authority which supplements and (for them) accurately interprets the Bible. Do you see the difference? There's also the issue of 'the Bible as final authority' - I have no quibble with that in theory subject to the rider of "as interpreted by whom, exactly?"

Most often their appeal is to either the Church Fathers, or their Catechism.

And to Scripture, which they see as in harmony with the ECFS and the Catechism. You don't see them as in harmony, they do. You say they're worng, they say you're wrong. Now what?

I do not consider them "Bible-believing Christians."

And they would disagree for the reasons I've just stated

For the most part they do not encourage reading the Bible at all.

That certainly hasn't been the case since Vatican II and I'm not sure was really the case before entirely either: they have always had four Scripture readings at every Mass (which is three more than at any evangelical service I've recently been to!) and I have my RC mother's old Douai-Rheims Bible, which states in the preface that "Catholic faithful are promised a plenary indulgence for every time they read the Holy Scriptures"!

As well, we know that most of their doctrines go directly contrary to the Bible.

Not quite: most of their doctrines go against your interpretation of the Bible. Agai9n, do you see the difference?

When we come to the Charismatics, many of them are evangelical Christians. However, many of them put their experience above the Word of God, and they tend to rely on experience more than the Word. Many believe that they are saved because they are saved. Many believe that they must have a subsequent blessing or they are not spiritual. The constant seeking for a tangible experience is not biblical. It is putting experience before the Bible.

No real disagreement there; I'm also disturbed by their purported 'adding to' Scripture which occurs all too often.

There are modernistic so-called Christians. I am sure that we can agree that in these "dead" denominations, that though they may hold to the name "Christian" those that deny the inspiration of the Bible, and even other fundamental doctrines such as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of the Lord are not saved, or are not Christians. Saying you are a Christian does not make you one.

Again, no real disagreement here.

 

[Matt Black]

The Anglicans are a doctrinal trainwreck.

Not in our original doctrinal template; in that regard I would direct you to Scripture, the ECFs, the Ecumenical Councils, The 39 Articles and Cranmer's Homilies. Now, putting to one side the ECFs and the emphasis in the 39 Arts on episcopacy, I would challenge you to find fault with any of these. It's true, as DT has said, that some Anglicans, particularly in North America, have apostasised, but then again there are apostate liberal Baptists - does that mean we write off all Baptists as being a lost cause? No!

Matt Black is extremely liberal and does not have a Biblical world view.

:laugh: How little you know me, my friend!

 

[JohnDeereFan]

No! :laugh: How little you know me, my friend!

I wouldn't want to know you.

 

[Zenas]

I wouldn't want to know you.

JDF, what kind of statement is that? Matt comes on here and contributes from a point of view held by no one else on this board. If you have read his posts very long you know he is well educated, well read and has a passionate love for our Lord. I have never known him to be disrespectful of another person here. Yet you dismiss him as someone from the lunatic fringe who you would not want to know? I hope you're just having a bad day but you really need to rethink that statement.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I wouldn't want to know you.

Wow, that reminds me of the classic Alan Parsons Project classic song "I WOULDNT WANT TO BE LIKE YOU"

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

JDF, what kind of statement is that? Matt comes on here and contributes from a point of view held by no one else on this board. If you have read his posts very long you know he is well educated, well read and has a passionate love for our Lord. I have never known him to be disrespectful of another person here. Yet you dismiss him as someone from the lunatic fringe who you would not want to know? I hope you're just having a bad day but you really need to rethink that statement.

Could you possibly fathom how Europeans would have ever gotten the term "Ugly American" from? Great work your doing there, er, ah, Pastor.:thumbs:

 

[David Lamb]

I wouldn't want to know you.

I hope I have misunderstood you, because the only alternative seemns to be that you have posted a very bad-mannered message about Matt.

Disagreements don't have to result in insults. I don't agree with Matt's theology, but in my 5 years on the BB, I have never resorted to insulting him (at least, if I have ever done so, it was unintentional).

 

[Eric B]

At the end of the day, attempting to pin down a Catholic on ANY point of dogma or doctrine is most difficult as they have "Sacred Tradition" to counter any propositional argument that comes their way, except what is spoken "ex cathedra" by the pontiff, and then subject to interpretation by ST once again. A most frustrating experience... Makes arguing with some of the off-kilt Baptists on this board like child's play in comparison, though there are similarities

Believe me, as DT alluded, we saw all this in full force here a few years ago. (Except that most of them in the wave I'm thinking of were EOC and didn't follow the pontiff).

It seems the way the discussion has gone, makes it look like Catholics and Baptists disagree on the state of the dead itself. Hence, WM calling DHK a "JW".
Both believe the dead are "fully conscious" somewhere else but on earth. It's just that the Baptists believe they are not granted the authority to communicate with the living.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

JDF, what kind of statement is that?

It's a way of saying that Matt is not the kind of person I would want to associate with.

 

[Matt Black]

Got that, loud and clear. Unfortunately for you, we're going to be spending eternity together.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I hope I have misunderstood you

I don't see how there could be any way to misunderstand that.

because the only alternative seemns to be that you have posted a very bad-mannered message about Matt.

Here's the thing, Dave. No matter what I say, you guys are going to paint me as the bad guy and no matter what anyone in Annsi's little clique says, they're going to be the heroes.

So with that in mind, I really don't care what you think about me.

Disagreements don't have to result in insults. I don't agree with Matt's theology, but in my 5 years on the BB, I have never resorted to insulting him (at least, if I have ever done so, it was unintentional).

Perhaps you haven't been on the receiving end of so many insults, either.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Got that, loud and clear. Unfortunately for you, we're going to be spending eternity together.

So you say.

 

[Matt Black]

I claim nothing save the blood of Jesus Christ. He on the other hand, claims me. Assuming the same is true of you, I therefore have the utmost confidence in my statement.

 

[glfredrick]

JDF, what kind of statement is that? Matt comes on here and contributes from a point of view held by no one else on this board. If you have read his posts very long you know he is well educated, well read and has a passionate love for our Lord. I have never known him to be disrespectful of another person here. Yet you dismiss him as someone from the lunatic fringe who you would not want to know? I hope you're just having a bad day but you really need to rethink that statement.

Further, and this is the real issue, we WILL, as brothers and sisters in the Lord, one day stand arm-in-arm as we worship our Lord at the right hand of the Father.

I am greatly saddened by those who take their separatist views to the point where they cannot even consider that the Lord has sheep in many pastures, and that He, Himself, prayed for our UNITY (and not our separate-ness) in His final high-priestly prayer before going to atone for our sin.

I often wonder if the radical separatists will be among those that do see the Lord, for I cannot find in the Word a place where we are called to be "accusers of the brethren" to every group that is not JUST the same as one's own.

 

[David Lamb]

I don't see how there could be any way to misunderstand that.

Unfortunately that is true. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't condemning you for rudeness if you hadn't meant to be rude

Here's the thing, Dave. No matter what I say, you guys are going to paint me as the bad guy and no matter what anyone in Annsi's little clique says, they're going to be the heroes.

I don't know who you me mean by "you guys" - everyone else apart from you on the BB? - and and I certainly don't understand the reference to "Annsi's little clique".

So with that in mind, I really don't care what you think about me.
Perhaps you haven't been on the receiving end of so many insults, either.

I haven't kept a tally of insults, but one thing I am certain of: Neither you nor I has suffered as much insulting behaviour as the Lord Jesus Christ. What was His reaction to mockery and insult?

 

[billwald]

Look for yourself

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

If you want to know Catholic Doctrine read it for yourself.

 

[DHK]

OK, there's quite a bit to unpack in your post here. Not a greater but a parallel authority which supplements and (for them) accurately interprets the Bible. Do you see the difference? There's also the issue of 'the Bible as final authority' - I have no quibble with that in theory subject to the rider of "as interpreted by whom, exactly?"

Not by the Magesterium; not by the Pope; not by the early church fathers; not by the local priest; not by Oral Tradition or any other tradition, etc. The Bible itself is its own authority.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

The "private interpretation" spoken of above refers to one church's or one organization's interpretation, such as the RCC or the J.W.'s or the Mormon's interpretation. I suppose that is why you find variety among the Baptist, which is not necessarily wrong. The key and most important distinctive is "The Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice." To that end we take the commands of Scripture seriously. For example, as stated above:
"Study to show yourselves approved..."
is given to every believer, not just the priests and the RCC hierarchy.

Jesus also said to the elite hierarchy of his day:
"Ye do err not knowing the Scripture, neither the power of God."

We are commanded to know the Scripture--all of us.
We are commanded to know the Scripture well enough to give an answer from it to all that ask us:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: (1 Peter 3:15)
--The Church, priests, magesterium, Catechism, etc. cannot do that for me. I must do it myself. I must study the Bible on my own, and allow the Holy Spirit to guide me. There are no contradictions in the Bible. And though you won't believe me there are less contradictions between believers in the entire realm of evangelical Christianity than there is between the various sects of Catholicism. The claim has always been why is there so much division between "protestants"? There isn't. There is more doctrinal unity, especially in the area of soteriology, than there is in Catholicism among evangelical Christianity. Note that even you did not count the modernists as Christians. So I do not count them in this group either.

And to Scripture, which they see as in harmony with the ECFS and the Catechism. You don't see them as in harmony, they do. You say they're worng, they say you're wrong. Now what?

But they are not in harmony. Speak the truth. You said: "They see in harmony with..." They can see green as blue, but it isn't. They are deceived. Origen was a heretic even by Catholic standards. Many of the early heresies were brought in by the ECF, heresies which the RCC still hold to: transubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, purgatory, etc. They will try to defend these, but cannot--not by Scripture alone. So the argument is circular. They have to rely on other authorities (authorities that go contrary to the Bible) in order to support unbiblical doctrines. They cannot support such doctrines by the Bible alone.

That certainly hasn't been the case since Vatican II and I'm not sure was really the case before entirely either: they have always had four Scripture readings at every Mass (which is three more than at any evangelical service I've recently been to!) and I have my RC mother's old Douai-Rheims Bible, which states in the preface that "Catholic faithful are promised a plenary indulgence for every time they read the Holy Scriptures"!

In times past we were never encouraged to read the Bible.
Be that as it may, there are four readings of Scripture at each mass. So what? They are never expounded upon. The people don't know what they mean. They are dull of hearing. There is no study. A simple reading of a few verses here and there does very little for the congregation.

Take this example from the OT:
And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people and when he opened it, all the people stood up: And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God.
6 And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground. ...
8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehemiah 8:5-8)
--Ezra did not just read. He gave the sense; the meaning of the Scripture. He caused them to understand what it meant. That is expository preaching. That is what preachers do today. We make it easy on our people. If you read the passage, all the people in Ezra's day so reverenced the Word of God, that they stood to hear it read, and expounded upon.

The result:
And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the LORD your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law. (Nehemiah 8:9)
--There was genuine repentance.

Reading a few words here and there in the Mass is fruitless.

Not quite: most of their doctrines go against your interpretation of the Bible. Agai9n, do you see the difference?

The basic message of the Bible is "salvation by grace through faith," and that justification is by faith alone. The Catholic Church stands in direct opposition to this saving message of the gospel, gives a false gospel of works, works that cannot save, and thereby directs people down a path that leads to hell. They can disagree if they want. I disagree with Jim Jone's interpretation also. But the eternal result is the same. The only difference is the end result came quicker with Jim Jones.