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

[DHK]

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:

It is not a numbers game. If that were true then Islam would be the true religion. The real Christian is one who is truly born again, believes and acts upon the Bible, and has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, because he has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and by faith alone trusted in his atoning work on the cross.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Dont you as a Baptist have an obligation to show them the correct way? & how do you personally do it?

 

[billwald]

Anyone who presumes to tell me what Scripture "says" or "means" is going outside of Scripture in the same way that anyone who presumes to tell me what the Constitution "means" is going outside the Constitution.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Dont you as a Baptist have an obligation to show them the correct way? & how do you personally do it?

You do it as the Lord presents the opportunity by His providence. You simply present the truth depending upon the Holy Spirit to apply it to the mind and heart of the hearer. We don't save anyone. We simply share the truth while God does the saving, illuminating, convicting and regenerating.

 

[DHK]

Anyone who presumes to tell me what Scripture "says" or "means" is going outside of Scripture in the same way that anyone who presumes to tell me what the Constitution "means" is going outside the Constitution.

5 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:
6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. 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.
7..., and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
8 So 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)
--You wouldn't have done well under the preaching of Ezra.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Anyone who presumes to tell me what Scripture "says" or "means" is going outside of Scripture in the same way that anyone who presumes to tell me what the Constitution "means" is going outside the Constitution.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Here is a good Biblical example to follow! He "read" it "and gave the sense" and "caused them to understand the reading." If you have a problem with that kind of example, take it up with Nehemiah.

 

[Matt Black]

Contradictory opinions on what? Not on salvation. There are Calvinists and non-Calvinists. That makes little difference in the essentials of our faiths.

Sir, thou dost protest too much! I've seen Calvinists damn Arminians and vice versa on these very boards! That's why the Calvinism-Arminianism board had to be closed down. hOw on earth do you have the gall to say that they don't have contraidctory opinions on salvation, when menbers of one group doubt the salvation of members of the other?!

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.

Hang on a minute! I thought the Catholic Church was supposed to be this cult where everyone was brainwashed into thinking the same thing on pain of the fires of Hell. But now you seem to be suggesting that there's some kind of Baptistic 'soul liberty' going on here. Again, which is it? Are they a cult or are they free to believe what they want?

It is. Besides that I gave you plenty of other Scripture, not just one.
But they don't. You know as well as I do, that they go outside of Scripture, and their doctrine is outside of Scripture.

Only according to your own particular interpretation.

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 mentions none of these since they did not exist at the time. No, you, just like Luther, have interpolated a naughty little alein into this passage.

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.

I'm well aware of the context: it comes a verse after Paul exhorts Timothy to hold fast to what has been transmitted to him (Apostolic Tradition), so the context further defeats your case.

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.

Again, no alein, so no cigar.

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.

Way to twist the plain meaning of words! 'Corporate' , by its very nature, cannot be 'private'; individualistic can and is. That's ultimately the problem with sola Scriptura: it is sine ecclesia - there's no need for the Body of Christ if it's just me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit.

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.

That I agree with.

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.

You must have been pre-Vatican II, then. I never said the Rosary either at home, at (Catholic) school or at Church. We did have Scripture read to us, though.

 

[Matt Black]

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

I had plenty of experience of the Calvinism-Arminianism board here to demonstrate my point as alluded to in my last post. The only embarrassment here should be that of the protagonists on that erstwhile board who cheerfully flung anathemata at their fello-Christians in the service of defending their own peculiar version of the 'truth'.

It is the ECF that promoted heresy. They are not in harmony with Scripture. That has been proven over and over again.

Poppycock, as far as the consensus patri is concerned.

Again I can prove to you, as Carson

Who he?[/quote] did some years ago, that Origen was a rank heretic, well known as "the father of Arianism."[/quote] Partly right; well, even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

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.

How odd, then, that I came away more fed and closer to the Lord after this so-called 'mini-sermonette 'lasting 15 minutes from this Catholic priest than I have from many an evangelical sermon lasting an hour or so recently. I guess it's quality, not quantity that counts.

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)

And that's exactly what the Catholic Church has the episcopal teaching authority for. You see, you are not so different after all...

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

Again, no argument from your average educated Catholic here.

Most I know read a lot more than that.

I find that hard to believe; most I know, particularly those with young children, find it hard to manage more than about 10 minutes every day. Are you seriously suggesting that people you know read 6 different Scripture passages 7 times a day? That's 42 different Scripture readings! I'm not saying that all Catholics do that - few do, I'm sure - but the point I'm making is that their Church exhorts them to read 42 Scripture readings each and every day, which does kind of demolish your assertion that the Catholic Church doesn't encourage the study of Scripture!

 

[DHK]

Sir, thou dost protest too much! I've seen Calvinists damn Arminians and vice versa on these very boards! That's why the Calvinism-Arminianism board had to be closed down. hOw on earth do you have the gall to say that they don't have contraidctory opinions on salvation, when menbers of one group doubt the salvation of members of the other?!

Matt you are being to extreme, even to the point of deception or of false information. I currently am in many of those debates right not. In fact the theology forum might as well be called the Calvinism-Arminianism forum, since 90% of the threads there are on that subject. We don't question each others salvation. Our views are different. I am sure you are somewhat familiar of Baptist history in your part of the world. There were the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists at one time, were there not. The Particular were Calvinists, and the General were not. They were not at each others throats and considered each other as brothers in Christ. Your allegations are extreme and false.

Hang on a minute! I thought the Catholic Church was supposed to be this cult where everyone was brainwashed into thinking the same thing on pain of the fires of Hell. But now you seem to be suggesting that there's some kind of Baptistic 'soul liberty' going on here. Again, which is it? Are they a cult or are they free to believe what they want?

They are a cult aren't they? Why? Because their doctrines, which are directly contrary to the Bible, are cultish. Even in cults there are divisions. And there are divisions in the Catholic Church.

Tell me what you know about Islam? (This is an example). Is it a unified religion, with a strict body of beliefs? That is what they will tell you--just like the RCC will tell you about themselves. And yet the Muslim faith has 87 different sects! How is that for unity?? The same sort of thing happens in the RCC.

Only according to your own particular interpretation.

I interpret the Bible according to the Bible, therefore my interpretation is right.
The RCC interprets the Bible according to ungodly men. Therefore their interpretation is wrong. It is that easy to see.

It mentions none of these since they did not exist at the time. No, you, just like Luther, have interpolated a naughty little alein into this passage.

In 2Tim.3:16? What "alien thing" did I interpolate into that passage? Prove it. I gave a fair rendering of the passage. If you can do better than do so.

I'm well aware of the context: it comes a verse after Paul exhorts Timothy to hold fast to what has been transmitted to him (Apostolic Tradition), so the context further defeats your case.

No, it defeats your case. You have added to the Scripture where that which is not there. There is no apostolic tradition. You have added that. It is not there. That is your Catholic bias. First, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia tradition, oral or written, is that which is passed on from generation to generation down throughout the centuries. The definition of apostolic tradition defeats your own argument and makes it illogical. Look at context. Look at when Christ died (29 A.D.); Pentecost--shortly thereafter; the date of the Second Epistle to Timothy (ca. 65 A.D.). From 30 to 65 is 35 years. What Apostolic tradition passed on from generation to generation throughout the centuries could Timothy have garnered within 35 years. You defy your definition of "tradition." You don't even make sense.

Again, no alein, so no cigar.

no make sense

Way to twist the plain meaning of words! 'Corporate' , by its very nature, cannot be 'private'; individualistic can and is. That's ultimately the problem with sola Scriptura: it is sine ecclesia - there's no need for the Body of Christ if it's just me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit.

1. The Bible commands for the church to come together and worship together. We see that in Acts 2 where 3,000 were saved.
2. The Bible commands for each one of us to privately pray and worship.
We see that in Mark 1:35 where even Jesus went to a solitary place, and there alone he prayed. Also in Mat.6 he commanded his disciple to enter into their "closets" and pray to their Father "in secret."
Thus there is public worship and private worship.
--The private interpretation is an interpretation that is unique to a private group (Mormons or RCC) and demanded to be held by all in that private group.

You must have been pre-Vatican II, then. I never said the Rosary either at home, at (Catholic) school or at Church. We did have Scripture read to us, though.

Yes I was, but from what I know of you, you either are or were an Anglican. What is the use of having a rosary if you don't use it?

 

[Zenas]

Dont you as a Baptist have an obligation to show them the correct way? & how do you personally do it?

To which our esteemed Dr. Walter replied:

You do it as the Lord presents the opportunity by His providence. You simply present the truth depending upon the Holy Spirit to apply it to the mind and heart of the hearer. We don't save anyone. We simply share the truth while God does the saving, illuminating, convicting and regenerating.

Yet, Dr. Walter, when the only professing Catholic on the BaptistBoard, a woman known to all of us as being of a kind and gentle disposition, made this simple and innocuous remark:

Yes, it is a cult . . . the cult leader being Jesus Christ.

You responded with the most uncharitable, poison and hateful remarks imaginable:

Satan is the leader not Christ! . . . . 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.

Is this an example of how you do it, Dr. Walter? Is this how you present the message of Jesus Christ? I doubt that Briony-Gloriana needs to hear the gospel but no one will be persuaded by messages of hatred. I am reminded of the remarks of Counsellor Joseph Welch at the McCarthy hearings in 1954. "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

 

[Dr. Walter]

To which our esteemed Dr. Walter replied: Yet, Dr. Walter, when the only professing Catholic on the BaptistBoard, a woman known to all of us as being of a kind and gentle disposition, made this simple and innocuous remark: You responded with the most uncharitable, poison and hateful remarks imaginable: Is this an example of how you do it, Dr. Walter? Is this how you present the message of Jesus Christ? I doubt that Briony-Gloriana needs to hear the gospel but no one will be persuaded by messages of hatred. I am reminded of the remarks of Counsellor Joseph Welch at the McCarthy hearings in 1954. "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Jesus dealt differently with different kinds of lost sinners. He was gentle to the sincerely ignorant but spoke painfully honest to those confirmed in spiritual hardness to their error.

Both of you have been on this forum long enough to be exposed to the truth many times over and only hardened religiousity perpetuates you in such error.

It is no hatred to honestly spell out the reality and facts characteristic of this cult. The head of the Roman Catholic Church is an antichrist and a usuper of Jesus Christ as there is no "vicar" of Christ - No Pope in the Bible. Christ alone is the head of His churches. She has been on this forum long enough to be exposed to the truth many times over and so no need to play patti cake. There is no excuse under heaven to justify Roman Catholicism with even the name "Christian."

Roman Catholicism is nothing but sugar coated paganism that damns millions to hell by its false teachings and I assure you that God hates her with a perfect hatred and will destroy her one day and all those who follow her and it won't be a time in purgatory but eternity in hell. That is the plain truth and you need to repent or perish.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Roman Catholicism is nothing but sugar coated paganism that damns millions to hell by its false teachings and I assure you that God hates her with a perfect hatred and will destroy her one day and all those who follow her and it won't be a time in purgatory but eternity in hell. That is the plain truth and you need to repent or perish.

Very nice....Is this your idea of ..... oh heck, never mind.

 

[Eric B]

Way to twist the plain meaning of words! 'Corporate' , by its very nature, cannot be 'private'; individualistic can and is. That's ultimately the problem with sola Scriptura: it is sine ecclesia - there's no need for the Body of Christ if it's just me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit.

I think the premise, is that the Holy Spirit will lead all the individuals to the same truth, so it will then be one corporate Body in the truth.

Of course, it's true that it doesn't seem to work out this way in practice. But then, the same thing with a highly structured hierarchical body as well. That's what pushed people to break away and go more private int he first place.

Matt you are being to extreme, even to the point of deception or of false information. I currently am in many of those debates right not. In fact the theology forum might as well be called the Calvinism-Arminianism forum, since 90% of the threads there are on that subject. We don't question each others salvation. Our views are different. I am sure you are somewhat familiar of Baptist history in your part of the world. There were the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists at one time, were there not. The Particular were Calvinists, and the General were not. They were not at each others throats and considered each other as brothers in Christ. Your allegations are extreme and false.

He's right, as I was in those debates as well. You weren't in the old forum that much. I remember, it was so bad, we were asking for you to be brought in as a moderator to counter the Calvinist moderator, and replace the Primitive Baptist moderator who was leaving. (PB's were generally on the Calvinist side with the monergism).

Most of this took the form of the "weak, helpless god [sic, alway in lowercase] who cannot save without permission", or "false gospel of human self-determination", "worship of man", etc type stuff. On Calvinist sites, it was even worse (and the point was the C vs A debate in general, not just here).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Wonder how many Calvinist went over to the Puritan board after that dramatic exercise in Christian Baptist Brotherly Love? :tonofbricks:

Ahhh you see though, Catholics dont have the "Baptist" thing to use as protection so anythings fair game. Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[DHK]

He's right, as I was in those debates as well. You weren't in the old forum that much. I remember, it was so bad, we were asking for you to be brought in as a moderator to counter the Calvinist moderator, and replace the Primitive Baptist moderator who was leaving. (PB's were generally on the Calvinist side with the monergism).

Then it is not because of doctrine, per se; it is because of the posters.
We have plenty of Calvinists and non-Cals posting now, and without too much dissension.
There was a Creation/evolution forum that got shut down. I believe the reason was a great influx of atheists that joined the board.
We had to ban a certain group of Baptists who believed in an obscure doctrine because they spread their doctrine and tried to convert others to it while they were here. Most of the threads were filled with it.
Sometimes an entire forum can be shut down more because of the emotions and attitudes of the posters rather than the subject matter of the forum

Most of this took the form of the "weak, helpless god [sic, alway in lowercase] who cannot save without permission", or "false gospel of human self-determination", "worship of man", etc type stuff. On Calvinist sites, it was even worse (and the point was the C vs A debate in general, not just here).

Some threads still get shut down when they start to degenerate like that.
If a person doesn't let up on personal attacks they sooner or later will be served with a suspension.

 

[Matt Black]

So, in the light of that, would you care to withdraw your allegation of falsehood against me made on the previous page?

 

[Matt Black]

Matt you are being to extreme, even to the point of deception or of false information. I currently am in many of those debates right not. In fact the theology forum might as well be called the Calvinism-Arminianism forum, since 90% of the threads there are on that subject. We don't question each others salvation. Our views are different. I am sure you are somewhat familiar of Baptist history in your part of the world. There were the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists at one time, were there not. The Particular were Calvinists, and the General were not. They were not at each others throats and considered each other as brothers in Christ. Your allegations are extreme and false.

This is the accusation which I wish you to withdraw.

They are a cult aren't they? Why? Because their doctrines, which are directly contrary to the Bible, are cultish.

Define 'cult'. That's just a circular argument: "they are a cult because their doctrines are cultish"! Code for "they're wrong because they disagree with me", reinforced by this monumental piece of hubris:

I interpret the Bible according to the Bible, therefore my interpretation is right.

Wow. Just wow.

The RCC interprets the Bible according to ungodly men. Therefore their interpretation is wrong. It is that easy to see.

So you're more infallible than the Pope?

In 2Tim.3:16? What "alien thing" did I interpolate into that passage? Prove it. I gave a fair rendering of the passage. If you can do better than do so.

Sorry, mis-type - should have been allein - German for 'alone'. It ain't there, anymore than it was there for Luther in Rom 1:17.

No, it defeats your case. You have added to the Scripture where that which is not there. There is no apostolic tradition. You have added that. It is not there. That is your Catholic bias. First, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia tradition, oral or written, is that which is passed on from generation to generation down throughout the centuries. The definition of apostolic tradition defeats your own argument and makes it illogical. Look at context. Look at when Christ died (29 A.D.); Pentecost--shortly thereafter; the date of the Second Epistle to Timothy (ca. 65 A.D.). From 30 to 65 is 35 years. What Apostolic tradition passed on from generation to generation throughout the centuries could Timothy have garnered within 35 years. You defy your definition of "tradition." You don't even make sense.

See 2 Tim 3:14.

no make sense

See definition of allein above. The word 'alone' isn't there either. You have either interpolated it or eisegeted in into the passage again.

1. The Bible commands for the church to come together and worship together. We see that in Acts 2 where 3,000 were saved.
2. The Bible commands for each one of us to privately pray and worship.
We see that in Mark 1:35 where even Jesus went to a solitary place, and there alone he prayed. Also in Mat.6 he commanded his disciple to enter into their "closets" and pray to their Father "in secret."
Thus there is public worship and private worship.

Yep. No problem with that.

--The private interpretation is an interpretation that is unique to a private group (Mormons or RCC) and demanded to be held by all in that private group.

Sorry, but you've just contraidcted your own definition of 'private' given above.

Yes I was, but from what I know of you, you either are or were an Anglican. What is the use of having a rosary if you don't use it?

I was raised Catholic, went to Mass every Sunday and to Catholic schools, all until I was 12, when I rebelled and left that Church. Subsequently I underwent an evangelical conversion experience at age 16. I am now Anglican and attend this place as my home church.

 

[DHK]

So, in the light of that, would you care to withdraw your allegation of falsehood against me made on the previous page?

On April 15, I posted:
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.
--Note that the post has to do with the present.

I also posted on that same day:
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.
--My opinions reflect that of today.

On April 17, 1:58 pm, you posted:
Sir, thou dost protest too much! I've seen Calvinists damn Arminians and vice versa on these very boards! That's why the Calvinism-Arminianism board had to be closed down. hOw on earth do you have the gall to say that they don't have contraidctory opinions on salvation, when menbers of one group doubt the salvation of members of the other?!
--Note that you dredge up some past history on the board. That is not what is going on today.

You also posted on April 17, 2:13 pm:
I had plenty of experience of the Calvinism-Arminianism board here to demonstrate my point as alluded to in my last post. The only embarrassment here should be that of the protagonists on that erstwhile board who cheerfully flung anathemata at their fello-Christians in the service of defending their own peculiar version of the 'truth'.
--Again, you dredge up past history that happened long ago.

Now I counter at 2:46 on April 17 with this post
Matt you are being to extreme, even to the point of deception or of false information. I currently am in many of those debates right not. In fact the theology forum might as well be called the Calvinism-Arminianism forum, since 90% of the threads there are on that subject. We don't question each others salvation. Our views are different. I am sure you are somewhat familiar of Baptist history in your part of the world. There were the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists at one time, were there not. The Particular were Calvinists, and the General were not. They were not at each others throats and considered each other as brothers in Christ. Your allegations are extreme and false.
--The reason: I have not seen any of the allegations that you are throwing at me in the debates I am currently in, and I am currently involved in a few of the threads on Calvinism, not to mention that I moderate that entire forum.

Finally, at 6:09 pm, Eric posts.
He's right, as I was in those debates as well. You weren't in the old forum that much. I remember, it was so bad, we were asking for you to be brought in as a moderator to counter the Calvinist moderator, and replace the Primitive Baptist moderator who was leaving. (PB's were generally on the Calvinist side with the monergism).
Most of this took the form of the "weak, helpless god [sic, alway in lowercase] who cannot save without permission", or "false gospel of human self-determination", "worship of man", etc type stuff. On Calvinist sites, it was even worse (and the point was the C vs A debate in general, not just here).
--He clears up the fact that we are talking past each other. I have been speaking of the present all along. For some reason you have been dredging up an incident in the past. It took Eric’s intervention for me to realize that. But, Matt, that is not what is going on at this time on this Board. Thus my position stands and I have nothing to apologize for. If anything you ought to apologize for bringing a red herring into this discussion.

 

[DHK]

Define 'cult'. That's just a circular argument: "they are a cult because their doctrines are cultish"! Code for "they're wrong because they disagree with me", reinforced by this monumental piece of hubris:

A cult (or false religion) is an organization that imposes certain beliefs upon its members that are contrary to the Bible, and that the members have no choice but to believe. (Drink the kool-aid and/or die). Example: Bloody Mary of Tudor, the Popes of the Crusades (Innocent III), the Inquisitions, etc.

False doctrines that cannot be proven by the Bible and are in fact against the Bible: perpetual virginity of Mary, assumption of Mary, purgatory, confession of sin to a priest, penance (given by a priest) extreme unction, transubstantiation, dichotomy of sin (mortal and venial), false division of worship leading to idolatry (latria, dulia, hyperlatria), praying to Mary and dead saints, using Mary as an intercessor in the place of Christ, the immaculate conception of Mary, salvation by works and not of faith alone, etc., etc., etc.
--These false and anti-Biblical doctrines throw the RCC into the realm of a cult, if not a false religion.

Wow. Just wow.

The Bible interprets itself. The RCC believes that Tradition and the ECF interpret the Bible. My authority is greater than theirs, and therefore my interpretation is more true than theirs.

So you're more infallible than the Pope?

I am not infallible; neither is the Pope. He is a wicked sinner worthy of the condemnation and wrath of God. I am a sinner; but a sinner saved by the grace of God. Has he demonstrated to anyone that he is saved by the grace of God. I don't believe so. The only person that is infallible is Christ, and Him alone.

Sorry, mis-type - should have been allein - German for 'alone'. It ain't there, anymore than it was there for Luther in Rom 1:17.

I don't speak German. A study of Eph.2:8,9 will reveal to you that salvation is by faith alone and not of works.

See 2 Tim 3:14.

I just gave you an entire definition of the word "tradition" according to the Catholics, and showed how they contradict themselves. The, as you do, the Catholics quote this verse to try and bolster a claim which makes no sense. The answer here is that tradition means the truth that was taught by Paul to Timothy. What did he teach him? He taught him the Word of God, which was later written down and became the Word of God written to us.

Sorry, but you've just contraidcted your own definition of 'private' given above.

No, I haven't. Surely you cannot disagree that there are private organizations that have their own private interpretation.

I was raised Catholic, went to Mass every Sunday and to Catholic schools, all until I was 12, when I rebelled and left that Church.

I didn't get much out of church before I was 12 either. It is after that when the mind becomes engaged.

Subsequently I underwent an evangelical conversion experience at age 16. I am now Anglican and attend this place as my home church.

You really didn't give yourself much of a chance did you?

 

[JesusFan]

A cult (or false religion) is an organization that imposes certain beliefs upon its members that are contrary to the Bible, and that the members have no choice but to believe. (Drink the kool-aid and/or die). Example: Bloody Mary of Tudor, the Popes of the Crusades (Innocent III), the Inquisitions, etc.

False doctrines that cannot be proven by the Bible and are in fact against the Bible: perpetual virginity of Mary, assumption of Mary, purgatory, confession of sin to a priest, penance (given by a priest) extreme unction, transubstantiation, dichotomy of sin (mortal and venial), false division of worship leading to idolatry (latria, dulia, hyperlatria), praying to Mary and dead saints, using Mary as an intercessor in the place of Christ, the immaculate conception of Mary, salvation by works and not of faith alone, etc., etc., etc.
--These false and anti-Biblical doctrines throw the RCC into the realm of a cult, if not a false religion.

The Bible interprets itself. The RCC believes that Tradition and the ECF interpret the Bible. My authority is greater than theirs, and therefore my interpretation is more true than theirs.

I am not infallible; neither is the Pope. He is a wicked sinner worthy of the condemnation and wrath of God. I am a sinner; but a sinner saved by the grace of God. Has he demonstrated to anyone that he is saved by the grace of God. I don't believe so. The only person that is infallible is Christ, and Him alone.

I don't speak German. A study of Eph.2:8,9 will reveal to you that salvation is by faith alone and not of works.

I just gave you an entire definition of the word "tradition" according to the Catholics, and showed how they contradict themselves. The, as you do, the Catholics quote this verse to try and bolster a claim which makes no sense. The answer here is that tradition means the truth that was taught by Paul to Timothy. What did he teach him? He taught him the Word of God, which was later written down and became the Word of God written to us.

No, I haven't. Surely you cannot disagree that there are private organizations that have their own private interpretation.

I didn't get much out of church before I was 12 either. It is after that when the mind becomes engaged.

You really didn't give yourself much of a chance did you?

After reading thru all of these postings and various points discussed here on BB in this thread...

What strikes me the most is that its JUST like debating with mormons/JW...
Start to discuss where they are wrong, depart from REAl Christianity, and get chasing those "rabbit trails"...

What was originally asked was IF the RC teaching on what Gospel really is, and how man comes to God makes them to be a True Christian Church, or a false church preaching a false gospel...

Think can agree, "yes" as charged!