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

[Alive in Christ]

I believe that "gobbledegoop" is called dulia, hyperdulia, and latria. That's them big Ol' Greek words that them Catholics use.

Just FYI...

WM

Actually, I know all about that. I was raised in the Catholic Cult. I fled it for Christianity after I embraced Christ and could *see* for the 1st time in my life.

I thank God that He got me away from the Great Whore.

 

[Matt Black]

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.

If that is the case, how come there are so many variant and contradictory interpretations

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)

This is oft-cited as some kind of 'proof text' for sola Scriptura. It isn't; the 'Scriptures' the Bereans had were just the OT.

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)

Catholics would say that they do.

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)

All fine and dandy but there's no 'alone' in that verse so again it falls down as a proof text.

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)

Ditto.

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.

That's your...ahem...private interpretation; it can just as easily be - and is - interpreted to mean that Scripture is not to be privately interpreted by individuals.

I suppose that is why you find variety among the Baptist, which is not necessarily wrong.

You call it 'variety', I cll it 'epistemological anarchy'.

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.

And so do all the Catholics I know

For example, as stated above:
"Study to show yourselves approved..."
is given to every believer, not just the priests and the RCC hierarchy.

Yes. And?

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

He also said to them "You diligently study the Scriptures believing that by them you have eternal life, but these Scriptures testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." Here is proof from the Lord Himself to demolish your case.

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.

Here I would distinguish between personal edification and discipleship, for which private Bible study is excellent, and the formation of doctrine, for which it is disastrous, as witness the plethora of individualistic interpretations. No, Scripture study for dogmatic formation is in essence corporate in nature: the whole Body of Christ rightly producing the correct interpretation.

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.

I'm sorry, but unless you can substantiate that absurd claim, I shall metally file it in thetrash! Take just soteriology (since you raise it) and just one poitn of division, Calvinists -v- Arminians: Calvinists say that salvation is entirely down to God, and man is powerless in it, that God chooses to save some and damn others; Arminians claim that man has free will to choose to be saved and that God is incapable of saving all. You thus have not just two entirely contradictory soteriologies but two entirely different gods, the first a moral monster who can save everyone but arbitrarily decides not to and the second who is a well-meaning but weak 'Jimmy Carter'-style god!

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.

All are however grounded in Scripture, it is just that their interpretation differs from yours, since you reject the Fathers' interpretations and they do not. Take the Trinity for example: the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, which form part of the patristic witness and consensus patri, are fully in harmony with Scripture and yet expound a dogma which is not explicitly laid down in Scripture (unless you take the TR version of I Jn 5:7 as being original, I suppose, but even that doesn't describe how the Trinity inter-relate). Thta's a perfect example of harmony between the ECFs and Scripture - an essential and authoritative intrepretation to refute the heresy of Arius who, incidentally but importantly, had the same Scriptures as the ECFs.

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.

Er...obviously you haven't been to Mass recently. Last time I went, as a friend's guest, there was a 15-minute expository sermon on the Scripture readings including exhortation, encouragement, exegesis and hermeneutics, with none of which could I find fault. I'm told this is pretty standard fayre at Mass these days in the UK at least.

And, hang on a minute! Doesn't what you've put just above flatly contradict what you've said earlier in this quote? "I must study the Bible on my own and allow the Holy Spirit to guide me." Now you're saying you need someone else to expound the passage, that "reading a few words here and there is meanigless." You can't have it both ways! Which is it?

Whilst I'm on the subject of Catholic Scripture reading, in particular private Bible study, the Catholic Daily Offices, which all Catholics are encouraged to say privately, incorporate several Scripture readings per Office (and there are, IIRC, 7 Offices per day); for instance, the Office for Lauds (morning prayer) today requires you to read Ps 67, Ps 51, Is 45, Ps 100, Is 52:13-15 and Luke 1: 67-79. How many evangelicals do you know who read that amount of Scripture?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If that is the case, how come there are so many variant and contradictory interpretations

This is oft-cited as some kind of 'proof text' for sola Scriptura. It isn't; the 'Scriptures' the Bereans had were just the OT.

Catholics would say that they do.

All fine and dandy but there's no 'alone' in that verse so again it falls down as a proof text.

Ditto.

That's your...ahem...private interpretation; it can just as easily be - and is - interpreted to mean that Scripture is not to be privately interpreted by individuals. You call it 'variety', I cll it 'epistemological anarchy'. And so do all the Catholics I know Yes. And?

He also said to them "You diligently study the Scriptures believing that by them you have eternal life, but these Scriptures testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." Here is proof from the Lord Himself to demolish your case.

Here I would distinguish between personal edification and discipleship, for which private Bible study is excellent, and the formation of doctrine, for which it is disastrous, as witness the plethora of individualistic interpretations. No, Scripture study for dogmatic formation is in essence corporate in nature: the whole Body of Christ rightly producing the correct interpretation. I'm sorry, but unless you can substantiate that absurd claim, I shall metally file it in thetrash! Take just soteriology (since you raise it) and just one poitn of division, Calvinists -v- Arminians: Calvinists say that salvation is entirely down to God, and man is powerless in it, that God chooses to save some and damn others; Arminians claim that man has free will to choose to be saved and that God is incapable of saving all. You thus have not just two entirely contradictory soteriologies but two entirely different gods, the first a moral monster who can save everyone but arbitrarily decides not to and the second who is a well-meaning but weak 'Jimmy Carter'-style god!
All are however grounded in Scripture, it is just that their interpretation differs from yours, since you reject the Fathers' interpretations and they do not. Take the Trinity for example: the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, which form part of the patristic witness and consensus patri, are fully in harmony with Scripture and yet expound a dogma which is not explicitly laid down in Scripture (unless you take the TR version of I Jn 5:7 as being original, I suppose, but even that doesn't describe how the Trinity inter-relate). Thta's a perfect example of harmony between the ECFs and Scripture - an essential and authoritative intrepretation to refute the heresy of Arius who, incidentally but importantly, had the same Scriptures as the ECFs.

Er...obviously you haven't been to Mass recently. Last time I went, as a friend's guest, there was a 15-minute expository sermon on the Scripture readings including exhortation, encouragement, exegesis and hermeneutics, with none of which could I find fault. I'm told this is pretty standard fayre at Mass these days in the UK at least.

And, hang on a minute! Doesn't what you've put just above flatly contradict what you've said earlier in this quote? "I must study the Bible on my own and allow the Holy Spirit to guide me." Now you're saying you need someone else to expound the passage, that "reading a few words here and there is meanigless." You can't have it both ways! Which is it?

Whilst I'm on the subject of Catholic Scripture reading, in particular private Bible study, the Catholic Daily Offices, which all Catholics are encouraged to say privately, incorporate several Scripture readings per Office (and there are, IIRC, 7 Offices per day); for instance, the Office for Lauds (morning prayer) today requires you to read Ps 67, Ps 51, Is 45, Ps 100, Is 52:13-15 and Luke 1: 67-79. How many evangelicals do you know who read that amount of Scripture?

Hey Matt....how bout sending me some chocolate easter eggs....does Cadberry still make them there? LOL

 

[Matt Black]

to you too!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

to you too!

:thumbs: & be innovative like us yanks.....fill them with beer. You'll be very popular! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Doubting Thomas]

If that is the case, how come there are so many variant and contradictory interpretations

This is oft-cited as some kind of 'proof text' for sola Scriptura. It isn't; the 'Scriptures' the Bereans had were just the OT.

Catholics would say that they do.

All fine and dandy but there's no 'alone' in that verse so again it falls down as a proof text.

Ditto.

That's your...ahem...private interpretation; it can just as easily be - and is - interpreted to mean that Scripture is not to be privately interpreted by individuals. You call it 'variety', I cll it 'epistemological anarchy'. And so do all the Catholics I know Yes. And?

He also said to them "You diligently study the Scriptures believing that by them you have eternal life, but these Scriptures testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." Here is proof from the Lord Himself to demolish your case.

Here I would distinguish between personal edification and discipleship, for which private Bible study is excellent, and the formation of doctrine, for which it is disastrous, as witness the plethora of individualistic interpretations. No, Scripture study for dogmatic formation is in essence corporate in nature: the whole Body of Christ rightly producing the correct interpretation. I'm sorry, but unless you can substantiate that absurd claim, I shall metally file it in thetrash! Take just soteriology (since you raise it) and just one poitn of division, Calvinists -v- Arminians: Calvinists say that salvation is entirely down to God, and man is powerless in it, that God chooses to save some and damn others; Arminians claim that man has free will to choose to be saved and that God is incapable of saving all. You thus have not just two entirely contradictory soteriologies but two entirely different gods, the first a moral monster who can save everyone but arbitrarily decides not to and the second who is a well-meaning but weak 'Jimmy Carter'-style god!
All are however grounded in Scripture, it is just that their interpretation differs from yours, since you reject the Fathers' interpretations and they do not. Take the Trinity for example: the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, which form part of the patristic witness and consensus patri, are fully in harmony with Scripture and yet expound a dogma which is not explicitly laid down in Scripture (unless you take the TR version of I Jn 5:7 as being original, I suppose, but even that doesn't describe how the Trinity inter-relate). Thta's a perfect example of harmony between the ECFs and Scripture - an essential and authoritative intrepretation to refute the heresy of Arius who, incidentally but importantly, had the same Scriptures as the ECFs.

Er...obviously you haven't been to Mass recently. Last time I went, as a friend's guest, there was a 15-minute expository sermon on the Scripture readings including exhortation, encouragement, exegesis and hermeneutics, with none of which could I find fault. I'm told this is pretty standard fayre at Mass these days in the UK at least.

And, hang on a minute! Doesn't what you've put just above flatly contradict what you've said earlier in this quote? "I must study the Bible on my own and allow the Holy Spirit to guide me." Now you're saying you need someone else to expound the passage, that "reading a few words here and there is meanigless." You can't have it both ways! Which is it?

Whilst I'm on the subject of Catholic Scripture reading, in particular private Bible study, the Catholic Daily Offices, which all Catholics are encouraged to say privately, incorporate several Scripture readings per Office (and there are, IIRC, 7 Offices per day); for instance, the Office for Lauds (morning prayer) today requires you to read Ps 67, Ps 51, Is 45, Ps 100, Is 52:13-15 and Luke 1: 67-79. How many evangelicals do you know who read that amount of Scripture?

Great post, Matt :thumbs:

I would just quibble with one part...

Take just soteriology (since you raise it) and just one poitn of division, Calvinists -v- Arminians: Calvinists say that salvation is entirely down to God, and man is powerless in it, that God chooses to save some and damn others; Arminians claim that man has free will to choose to be saved and that God is incapable of saving all. You thus have not just two entirely contradictory soteriologies but two entirely different gods, the first a moral monster who can save everyone but arbitrarily decides not to and the second who is a well-meaning but weak 'Jimmy Carter'-style god!

This desription of Arminianism may indeed describe the views of some who call themselves 'Arminian', but it sounds more semi-Pelagian if not Open Theistic. Classic Arminianism (ie that of Arminius himself and Wesley, IMO) has a stong view of God's sovereignty and the necessity of prevenient grace before anyone can come to faith.

That aside, I think to this important counter example to DHK's claim that 'evangelicals have more unity than Roman Catholics can be added the following:
(1) Baptismal Regeneration--Restorationist folks, Lutherans, and most classic Anglicans would basically support this; Baptist and most non-denom types (aka 'quasi-Baptist') would not
(Wait for it...this is where DHK will therefore deny that Lutherans, Anglicans and Church of Christ folks are 'evangelical', though these folks would beg to differ. )

(2) Infant Baptism--Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists and Presbies baptize infants of believing parents; Baptists, CoC'ers, etc don't

(3) Real Presence of Christ's Body/Blood in Eucharist--again, Lutherans affirm this, as do most Anglicans (unless they are of the extreme low church variety); Baptists and Church of Christ folks and most non-denominationalists deny it. Presbyterians/Methodists tend to be somewhere in between (ie receptionism)

(4) Unconditional Eternal Security--Methodists, Nazarenes, most Anglicans (I'm guessing), Lutherans, CoC, CoG, and FREE WILL BAPTISTS deny this; most Baptists, quasi-Baptists, Anglo-Calvinists, Presby/Reformed affirm this.

So as one can see there are several important areas in which Evangelicals disagree that impinge on the important issue of salvation and which are based on different interpretations of the same Biblical canon (not of doctrines that may have alleged support found only in extra-biblical material). However, on these issues, the patristic consensus is very helpful (based on the rule of Vincent of Lerins) in indicating which is most probably the correct interpretation in each case (assuming sound hermaneutics already done)

 

[Matt Black]

Indeed; I take your point re the Arminians but I have noticed this tendency (towards Pelagius) increasingly in Arminian circles particularly among charismatics and Pentecostals (the most extreme example being of course stuff like Word of Faith).

 

[DHK]

(Wait for it...this is where DHK will therefore deny that Lutherans, Anglicans and Church of Christ folks are 'evangelical', though these folks would beg to differ.

You are absolutely right on this one statement.
Most Anglicans have more in common with the Catholic Church than the Protestant. I think we have an Anglican here posting in favor of the Catholic Church right now. That should be proof enough.

Most Lutherans (and I emphasize "most") fall into the category of "liberal." Matt and I already ruled that group out.

The Church of Christ is a cult. The only way they are evangelical is the same way Muslims are evangelical. They are avid in spreading their cultish beliefs. Go to any evangelical apologetic website, and you will see that they are classified among the cults. They put baptism as a requirement for salvation, forbid the use of musical instruments, and believe that only the members of their church will go to heaven. That is a cult.

You are right. I do not consider any of those in the evangelical camp.

 

[billwald]

The meanings of many common words were revised in the last century, "decimate" and "gay," for example. In this century "evangelical" has become to mean "religious nut."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Up in the NW quadrant of the US of A, most of the converts are Catholics. What some of my brethren are telling me is to go to them & call them all sort of vicious names like Heretic, Cult & of course the ever laughable Whores of whatever so we can forever cement in their minds the term you use Bill...."Religious Nuts" :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

If that is the case, how come there are so many variant and contradictory interpretations

Contradictory opinions on what? Not on salvation. There are Calvinists and non-Calvinists. That makes little difference in the essentials of our faiths. In taking a survey of those who claim to be Catholics, I find a wide variety of beliefs? Why would that be? In fact within the leadership of the RCC there is a movement to put Mary as another person of the trinity. Would they then call the trinity "the trinity"? It is foolishness. There is a wide movement of Charismatic Catholics which has a direct bearing on whether or not our inspired canon is open or closed, or even if the Catechism is completely authoritative. Charismatics believe that their revelations from God are just as authoritative as Scripture. The RCC is changing. And their doctrine is changing and has changed. It is divergent.

This is oft-cited as some kind of 'proof text' for sola Scriptura. It isn't; the 'Scriptures' the Bereans had were just the OT.

It is. Besides that I gave you plenty of other Scripture, not just one.

Catholics would say that they do.

But they don't. You know as well as I do, that they go outside of Scripture, and their doctrine is outside of Scripture.

All fine and dandy but there's no 'alone' in that verse so again it falls down as a proof text.

The text teaches that it is the Scripture that is inspired and is profitable, not the ECF, or the Catechism, or the Pope, or the magesterium, etc. It is only the Scripture that is inspired. That is why it alone stands as our only authority. And it is not taken out of context. If you want me to expound on the context for you I will.

Ditto.

Ditto what? The command is to study the Scriptures. It is a command applicable to all believers. If you want me to expound on the entire context I will.

That's your...ahem...private interpretation; it can just as easily be - and is - interpreted to mean that Scripture is not to be privately interpreted by individuals. You call it 'variety', I cll it 'epistemological anarchy'.

The command of 2Tim.2:15 for individuals to study the Scriptures on an individual level, and the example of the Bereans doing the same, proves that it is not a private interpretation. The "private interpretation" refers to an organization forcing their interpretation on their followers, as all cults and false religions do. Baptists don't do that. We have soul liberty. You very well know the history of England when there was no soul liberty, when zealous Catholic ruled the throne, such as Bloody Mary of Tudor, and slaughtered all those who were not Catholics. Hers was a reign of terror. There was no religious freedom for a non-Catholic. It was the Baptists, more than any other religion, that fought for tolerance, the principle that we now call soul liberty. Anglicans and Catholics alike never believed in it. They preferred bloodshed instead.

And so do all the Catholics I know

No they don't. They take the teachings of the RCC more importantly than the Bible. I grew up as a Catholic. The Bible was never read in our house. The teachings of the Church was heeded to, not the Bible.
For example: Don't miss Mass on Sunday--mortal sin.
Don't forget to confess your sins to the priest on a weekly basis.
Say the rosary regularly.
--These have no basis in Scripture; but are teachings of the RCC.

Yes. And?

See above.

He also said to them "You diligently study the Scriptures believing that by them you have eternal life, but these Scriptures testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." Here is proof from the Lord Himself to demolish your case.

No, it only strengthens my case.
Study to show yourselves approved...
You do err not knowing the Scriptures...
The Scriptures testify of me... (you don't know them)
--Every RCC that I have ever talked to has been ignorant of the Scriptures except for the odd one that has been bold enough to come on to this board. And they have been the exceptional apologist for the RCC. The verse you have taken out of context was spoken to the Pharisees which were students of the OT Scriptures, and Jesus was rebuking them because they had already studied the Scriptures and yet they had failed to apply those Scriptures that applied to the Messiah to Him, the One standing before them. As it says in John 1:11

"He came to His own, but his own received him not."
And they were condemned for it.

Here I would distinguish between personal edification and discipleship, for which private Bible study is excellent, and the formation of doctrine, for which it is disastrous, as witness the plethora of individualistic interpretations. No, Scripture study for dogmatic formation is in essence corporate in nature: the whole Body of Christ rightly producing the correct interpretation.

There have been many people, who, when given a Bible to read, and just by reading the NT, have come to the same conclusions as most Baptists. Not one of them have ever come to the conclusions of a Catholic. That should tell you something. That is why many Baptists go door to door, and put in mailboxes copies of the books of John and Romans. Without help from others these books are able to lead a person to Christ not to the RCC. We have seen the fruit of it many times.
Our churches preach from the Bible. We don't use other sources. Our messages come straight out of the Bible.

 

[DHK]

I'm sorry, but unless you can substantiate that absurd claim, I shall metally file it in thetrash! Take just soteriology (since you raise it) and just one poitn of division, Calvinists -v- Arminians: Calvinists say that salvation is entirely down to God, and man is powerless in it, that God chooses to save some and damn others; Arminians claim that man has free will to choose to be saved and that God is incapable of saving all.

I can name you people on this board that are in both camps. I can tell you that people in both camps are evangelical, and go and preach the gospel to others. You have a great misunderstanding of both camps. If you spend time reading the Baptist theology forum perhaps you will come to more of an understanding. Right now almost every thread is dedicated to some aspect of Calvinism. Most Calvinists are engaged in active evangelism. Most non-Cals believe that Christ came to save all. Both believe that God is capable of saving all. The word "capable" is a key word in your statement. Both believe the same gospel, that the only way to be saved is through the shed blood of Christ and by faith alone in his atoning work on the cross. You won't find a Baptist on this board (Calvinist or non-Calvinist) that doesn't believe in that message.
The "trash", sir, belongs to you.

You thus have not just two entirely contradictory soteriologies but two entirely different gods, the first a moral monster who can save everyone but arbitrarily decides not to and the second who is a well-meaning but weak 'Jimmy Carter'-style god!

Stop posting before you embarrass yourself. You are only showing your ignorance.

All are however grounded in Scripture, it is just that their interpretation differs from yours, since you reject the Fathers' interpretations and they do not. Take the Trinity for example: the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, which form part of the patristic witness and consensus patri, are fully in harmony with Scripture and yet expound a dogma which is not explicitly laid down in Scripture (unless you take the TR version of I Jn 5:7 as being original, I suppose, but even that doesn't describe how the Trinity inter-relate). Thta's a perfect example of harmony between the ECFs and Scripture - an essential and authoritative intrepretation to refute the heresy of Arius who, incidentally but importantly, had the same Scriptures as the ECFs.

It is the ECF that promoted heresy. They are not in harmony with Scripture. That has been proven over and over again. Again I can prove to you, as Carson did some years ago, that Origen was a rank heretic, well known as "the father of Arianism."
The others have well-known and documented heresies as well.

Er...obviously you haven't been to Mass recently. Last time I went, as a friend's guest, there was a 15-minute expository sermon on the Scripture readings including exhortation, encouragement, exegesis and hermeneutics, with none of which could I find fault. I'm told this is pretty standard fayre at Mass these days in the UK at least.

I am quite familiar with the mini-sermonettes called homilies. When Christ told Peter to "feed my sheep," that is not what he had in mind."
When Paul told the Ephesian elders:

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
--That is not what Paul had in mind.

The cute little homilies do nothing for feeding the flock of God.

And, hang on a minute! Doesn't what you've put just above flatly contradict what you've said earlier in this quote? "I must study the Bible on my own and allow the Holy Spirit to guide me." Now you're saying you need someone else to expound the passage, that "reading a few words here and there is meanigless." You can't have it both ways! Which is it?

It is both.
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; (Ephesians 4:11)
--The office of the apostles and prophets has passed. They are which the church was built upon. But we still have evangelists, pastors, and teachers. What are they for?

For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Ephesians 4:12-14)

--However that does not take away the responsibility that every Christian has in personal Bible study.

Whilst I'm on the subject of Catholic Scripture reading, in particular private Bible study, the Catholic Daily Offices, which all Catholics are encouraged to say privately, incorporate several Scripture readings per Office (and there are, IIRC, 7 Offices per day); for instance, the Office for Lauds (morning prayer) today requires you to read Ps 67, Ps 51, Is 45, Ps 100, Is 52:13-15 and Luke 1: 67-79. How many evangelicals do you know who read that amount of Scripture?

Most I know read a lot more than that.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Indeed; I take your point re the Arminians but I have noticed this tendency (towards Pelagius) increasingly in Arminian circles particularly among charismatics and Pentecostals (the most extreme example being of course stuff like Word of Faith).

Granted. I agree that much of what many modern "Arminians" espouse would make Arminius and Wesley roll over in their graves.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

You are absolutely right on this one statement.

Thanks...I knew I'd get at least this right. :thumbs:

Most Anglicans have more in common with the Catholic Church than the Protestant. I think we have an Anglican here posting in favor of the Catholic Church right now. That should be proof enough.

Possibly, but this is largely dependent on one's point of view. I think Rome (and Eastern Orthodoxy) would mostly consider Anglicans "Protestant".

Most Lutherans (and I emphasize "most") fall into the category of "liberal." Matt and I already ruled that group out.

Most? Perhaps. I haven't personally polled Lutherans, but you are probably right regarding groups like the ELCA (and like minded Lutherans overseas). The LCMS and WELS, however, are definitely NOT "liberal". In fact belief in a literal six day Creation is standard in the LCMS. At any rate, I was referring to 'conservative' examples of each denomination--not their modern liberal counterparts (and sadly there are liberal BAPTISTs as well)

The Church of Christ is a cult. The only way they are evangelical is the same way Muslims are evangelical.

"Same way"? REALLY? Don't you think that's just little bit hyperbolic? I'm pretty sure the Church of Christ affirms the Trinity, Deity of Christ and the Atonement, and salvation by grace through faith--Muslims do not.

They are avid in spreading their cultish beliefs. Go to any evangelical apologetic website, and you will see that they are classified among the cults.

I guess that settles it then. :1_grouphug:

They put baptism as a requirement for salvation, forbid the use of musical instruments, and believe that only the members of their church will go to heaven. That is a cult.

If the first that you mentioned is a mark of the cult then the church fathers were all in a cult (even PRE-Constantine). Likewise the second and third to an extent. For example, Cyprian (several decades before Constantine allegedly established the RCC) declared there was no salvation outside the Church, meaning it wasn't to be found in schismatic and heretical groups. Perhaps he was wrong, but this was a common belief among the Church catholic.

You are right. I do not consider any of those in the evangelical camp.

Surprised I am not.

 

[Melanie]

Oh deary me....and despite all the above Catholicism has survived the centuries with an enormous following. Yes, it is a cult...the cult leader being the Lord Jesus Christ...Amen, alleluia.

I think Rome (and Eastern Orthodoxy) would mostly consider Anglicans "Protestant".


Quote: Well yes,because its founder Henry 8..protested.

That Catholics do not read the Bible.....that is certainly true for some, for the commited Catholic daily Mass has the Liturgy throughout, and so one can follow the Liturgical calender throughout the year. I know that next week which is Passion Week will have most of the parish attending the Tenebrae .....which is the reading of the entire Passion and the attendant rites. This leads up to Easter where the church casts off its mourning to give glory to the Resurrected Christ.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Oh deary me....and despite all the above Catholicism has survived the centuries with an enormous following. Yes, it is a cult...the cult leader being the Lord Jesus Christ...Amen, alleluia.

Satan is the leader not Christ! And yes, the scripture predicted a great apostasy and that decievers would multiply and increase while true Christianity and the Lord's churches would deminish and would be hidden among the tares as time progressed (Mt. 13).

It is a sad state of affairs that there is even a debate whether Roman Catholicism is a cult as it is so obviously pagan and cultic in every aspect of its fiber.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If the first that you mentioned is a mark of the cult then the church fathers were all in a cult (even PRE-Constantine). Likewise the second and third to an extent. For example, Cyprian (several decades before Constantine allegedly established the RCC) declared there was no salvation outside the Church, meaning it wasn't to be found in schismatic and heretical groups. Perhaps he was wrong, but this was a common belief among the Church catholic.

Roman Catholicism and its dependency upon tradition is parallel to the Pharisees in the day of Christ and their dependency upon tradition. Their traditions had perverted the true understanding of the Scriptures and had peverted the true gospel.

The gospel is very simple, it is all about what God has provided and does for the sinner through Jesus Christ as opposed to what the sinner provides and does for God. Jesus divides all religions into two basic philosphical categories or ways in Matthew 7:13-14 and this is said in direct relationship to the day of judgement (Mt. 7:21-23). There is the broad and majority way and there is the narrow and minority way. The profession of the broad and majority way is "Lord, Lord" PLUS "have we not done...." In other words, their hope for entrance into heaven is faith plus works. These two aspects joined together characterize every religion in the world except the small minority that claim that salvation rests solely upon the work and person of the the "rock" - Jesus Christ. It is not the house (life) that distinguishes between the two but the foundation upon which the house is built. The sand foundation is a mixture whereas the rock is a solid. Jesus had formerly addressed this issue concerning entrance into heaven and what the Father's will expressly demanded (Mt. 5:20, 48) and it demanded a very narrow criteria - righteousness that exceeded the best of men and equalled the best of God. Christ alone provides such righteousness by His own provision of works and any mixture "Lord, Lord....have we not done" is but "iniquity" (Mt. 7:23) as you cannot mix your works with his provision of righteousness.

Think about this contrast between "many" and "few" and where does Roman Catholicism fit? Is not Roman Catholicism the "MANY" or majority within professing Christendom? Does not the majority of world religions adopt the same basic salvation philosophy "faith PLUS works" for entrance into heaven? Does not Rome embrace those of other world religions as possible candidates for entrance into heaven based upon their sincerity of devotion to God as they perceive him and their ignorance of the truth as Rome perceives it????

Does not the vast MAJORITY or "many" of Protestantism adopt the same salvation philosopy - "Lord, Lord.....have we not done..." as the ultimate basis for their hope to enter heaven??????

Is it not true that the MINORITY or "few" have the salvation philosophy, that Jesus is the straigt gate, that Jesus is the narrow way (Jn. 14:6) and that salvation is wholly based upon His provision IN THE SINNERS PLACE without our works??? Think about it!

Also, the accusation that the MINORITY position is like the faith of demons without works is absurd. No demon ever truly repented and believed in Jesus Christ as their whole basis for salvation. The grace position does not deny works as the evidence of regeneration/conversion but the evidence is not the cause or basis of that salvation but merely its fruit.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Roman Catholicism and its dependency upon tradition is parallel to the Pharisees in the day of Christ and their dependency upon tradition. Their traditions had perverted the true understanding of the Scriptures and had peverted the true gospel.

The gospel is very simple, it is all about what God has provided and does for the sinner through Jesus Christ as opposed to what the sinner provides and does for God. Jesus divides all religions into two basic philosphical categories or ways in Matthew 7:13-14 and this is said in direct relationship to the day of judgement (Mt. 7:21-23). There is the broad and majority way and there is the narrow and minority way. The profession of the broad and majority way is "Lord, Lord" PLUS "have we not done...." In other words, their hope for entrance into heaven is faith plus works. These two aspects joined together characterize every religion in the world except the small minority that claim that salvation rests solely upon the work and person of the the "rock" - Jesus Christ. It is not the house (life) that distinguishes between the two but the foundation upon which the house is built. The sand foundation is a mixture whereas the rock is a solid. Jesus had formerly addressed this issue concerning entrance into heaven and what the Father's will expressly demanded (Mt. 5:20, 48) and it demanded a very narrow criteria - righteousness that exceeded the best of men and equalled the best of God. Christ alone provides such righteousness by His own provision of works and any mixture "Lord, Lord....have we not done" is but "iniquity" (Mt. 7:23) as you cannot mix your works with his provision of righteousness.

Think about this contrast between "many" and "few" and where does Roman Catholicism fit? Is not Roman Catholicism the "MANY" or majority within professing Christendom? Does not the majority of world religions adopt the same basic salvation philosophy "faith PLUS works" for entrance into heaven? Does not Rome embrace those of other world religions as possible candidates for entrance into heaven based upon their sincerity of devotion to God as they perceive him and their ignorance of the truth as Rome perceives it????

Does not the vast MAJORITY or "many" of Protestantism adopt the same salvation philosopy - "Lord, Lord.....have we not done..." as the ultimate basis for their hope to enter heaven??????

Is it not true that the MINORITY or "few" have the salvation philosophy, that Jesus is the straigt gate, that Jesus is the narrow way (Jn. 14:6) and that salvation is wholly based upon His provision IN THE SINNERS PLACE without our works??? Think about it!

Also, the accusation that the MINORITY position is like the faith of demons without works is absurd. No demon ever truly repented and believed in Jesus Christ as their whole basis for salvation. The grace position does not deny works as the evidence of regeneration/conversion but the evidence is not the cause or basis of that salvation but merely its fruit.

Question: Faith and Repentance--are these conditions for salvation or not? Are these things we "do", or does God have faith and repent for us?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Christianity in the USA & Canada

By the 2010 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, from which members in the United States are combined with Canadian members, and of the National Council of Churches, the five largest denominations are:

* The Catholic Church, 68,115,001 members
* The Southern Baptist Convention, 16,228,438 members
* The United Methodist Church, 7,853,987 members
* The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5,974,041 members
* The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members

Guess you all have some work to do.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Dr. Walter]

By the 2010 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, from which members in the United States are combined with Canadian members, and of the National Council of Churches, the five largest denominations are:

* The Catholic Church, 68,115,001 members
* The Southern Baptist Convention, 16,228,438 members
* The United Methodist Church, 7,853,987 members
* The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5,974,041 members
* The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members

Guess you all have some work to do.:smilewinkgrin:

Now, separate them under those two principles in Matthew 7:13-14 under the "many" versus the "few" in regards to "Lord, Lord....Have we not done" and those that claim Jesus is the door, the way, and the provisional substitute for sinners.