Mormon and Jehovah's witness

[lori4dogs]

'The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi).

DHK said: 'No the Catholic Church has never taught salvation by grace'

The Catholic Encyclopedia: Salvation

It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man's free will.'

 

[DHK]

'The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi).

DHK said: 'No the Catholic Church has never taught salvation by grace'

The Catholic Encyclopedia: Salvation

It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man's free will.'

The Catholic Church and even the RCC Encyclopedia itself is full of contradictions. You still can't explain away this problem:

If salvation were by grace there would be no need for Purgatory. For by grace your sins would be paid for. Since salvation is by works, one must pay for their sins in purgatory. Jesus didn't do a good enough job on the cross. HIS GRACE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT Thus works are needed.

as well as this Scripture:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

 

[DHK]

The Catholic Encyclopedia: Salvation

It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man's free will.'

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia: Salvation

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
--note that baptism is an act of man and not of God.

15 The second part of the Catechism explains how God's salvation, accomplished once for all through Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit, is made present in the sacred actions of the Church's liturgy (Section One), especially in the seven sacraments (Section Two).
--more works


1099 The Spirit and the Church cooperate to manifest Christ and his work of salvation in the liturgy. Primarily in the Eucharist, and by analogy in the other sacraments, the liturgy is the memorial of the mystery of salvation. The Holy Spirit is the Church's living memory.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s1c1a1.htm#1099


This last statement of the Catechism is the most heretical of all and demonstrates how works is a must for salvation. If the church does not “cooperate” (through works) “in the liturgy” (a work) there is no salvation. There must be cooperation. If there isn’t, there is no salvation. Again, let me emphasize, according to the RCC, THE WORK OF CHRIST IS NOT SUFFICIENT and therefore they have a gospel of works and not of grace.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Lori,

"Thanks for sharing that. He makes the usual dribble about saint worship,...

Except that its true. "Saints" ARE worshipped.

"...inventing purgatory"

Except that purgatory WAS invented. There is no real "purgatory".

"...for the purpose of making money (not to mention he says 'it is a second chance to get into heaven) re-sacrificing Christ at every mass, etc.

Except that Christ IS supposedly re-sacrificed during every mass.

The truth Lori is that Mary IS the object of goddess worship, dead catholics ARE treated as Gods, the mass IS blasphemous, the Catholic Church IS apostate and filled with wickedness, idolatry, false teaching, etc etc etc.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I know a lot more than a few Baptist that have become Catholic. However, most of the Catholics that I know that have become Baptist were very poorly catechized as Catholics.

Isn't it interesting that any time someone posing as a Christian leaves Christianity for the false cult of Catholicism, it's because they've been miraculously enlightened from above, but any time a Catholic gets saved and becomes a Christian, it's only because they were idiots and were easily lured away because they just didn't know any better?

I used to post on Catholic.com (where I was banned for sharing the Gospel. Go figure!). And the attitude was that it didn't matter how long you were Catholic or how much education in Catholic beliefs you had as a Catholic, the moment you walk out the door to become a Christian, you immediately forget everything you ever knew or were ever taught.

On the other hand the Baptist I have known who have become Catholic have done so after much study. I have been reading the testimonies of former protestants (when Catholics were allowed to defend their faith here) for years and noticed the conversions came after in depth study of the word and early church history.

You just don't get it do you? When a non-Christian "converts" to a non-Christian religion, that's not evidence that the non-Christian religion is true. It's just evidence that like attracts like.

I'm very happy to know anyone who has found Jesus by way of a protestant evangelism or a Catholic evangelism.

But how can that make you happy when one of them must be wrong?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia: Salvation...

I already tried showing her evidence from the Catholic Encyclopedia. She doesn't believe the Catholic Encyclopedia is an accurate reflection of Catholic beliefs.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

'The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi).

DHK said: 'No the Catholic Church has never taught salvation by grace'

The Catholic Encyclopedia: Salvation

It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man's free will.'

So let me get this straight: when it shows that you're wrong, you claim the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't an accurate reflection of Catholic teaching, but then you turn around and quote it when it suits your purposes?

Isn't that a little hypocritical?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Then you got this guy, John MacArthur, making false statements about purgatory. He is either lying or doesn't know what he is talking about. I want to believe the later.

Honestly, I trust John McArthur a thousand times over you.

Could you please give us examples of these "false statements", along with citations?

The Catholic Church teaches we are saved by grace.

So do the Mormons. The problem is, just like the Mormons, Catholics claim that we are saved by grace but redefine grace.

When a Catholic talks about salvation by grace, he may truly believe he is saved by grace, but the Catholic idea of grace is imparted and kept by works and rituals.

The Catholic Church has always taught that we are saved by grace.

Then could you please explain why the Council of Trent pronounced anyone who believes in salvation by grace alone as "anathema"?

He makes the usual dribble...

Actually, it's drivel, not "dribble". Perhaps you heard that from a "Morman".

about saint worship

Are you really suggesting that Catholics don't build statues to dead saints and bow down and pray to them? Next time you're in New Jersey, you might want to take a ride down Rt40 and watch all of the Catholics bowing down at a shrine to "Padre Pio". And then, when you're leaving New Jersey, you can stop off at that giant, hideous looking statue to Mary in New Castle, De, and watch the Catholics bowing there.

inventing purgatory for the purpose of making money

Yep. Purgatory was invented so that the Catholic Church could sell indulgences.

(not to mention he says 'it is a second chance to get into heaven) re-sacrificing Christ at every mass, etc.

Actually, I've already cited Catholic sources for you that admit that Christ is "re-sacrificed" at every mass.

I'm glad you don't agree with his 'by definition, Catholics aren't Christians' and that salvation is on an individual basis, person by person.

But how is a person saved if they're relying on a false Gospel for their salvation?

The statistics among protestants is much more telling.

Steep decline in membership, embracing same-sex marriages, promoting abortion, denying Christ divinity, denying the resurrection, denying the virgin birth, promoting universalism, referring to the Atonement as 'divine child abuse', and the lists goes on and on.

Actually, anyone who denies Christ's divinity, denies the resurrection, denies the virgin birth isn't a Christian. So we can eliminate those people.

Second, the problem with your claim is that Christianity doesn't embrace these things institutionally. Catholicism does, by definition, embrace Catholic heresies.

The third difference is that you fail to take into account (a) that these beliefs are only a very small minority and that (b) the vast majority of Christians actually speak out against these things.

You want to talk about decline and heretical teachings. Take a good look at protestantism in America.

Have you ever heard of a logical fallacy called tu quoque?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Amazing how a thread regarding 'Mormon and Jehovah's witness' turns into a Roman Catholic bashing thread...

I honestly haven't clicked on this thread until i saw it was at 23 pages and wondered, what could the discussion possibly be about...now i know...the same 'ol dribble...lol

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You do know the joke about how the Catholic grows it's church, don't you? By having more babies.

I think thats a great way for growth. Its in line with scriptures. I think the protestant poliferation of ideology of contraceptive acceptance is a bad thing. Europe which is primarily secular has a population problem since Muslims are out breeding Europeans. Soon Europeans will not have enough people to prevent the on slaught of Islam.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, the Catholic Church has never taught salvation by grace.
First it doesn't know what grace is.
Second, it has redefined grace for its own devious purposes.
Third, it says one must is saved by keeping the seven sacraments. Keeping anything is doing something or working. Salvation is not of works.
Baptism is essential for salvation. Baptism is a work.
One must continue to keep the Ten Commandments for salvation. It is a process of doing works.
One can never know for sure if they will go to heaven because they never know if they have done enough good works.
Salvation is not of grace; it is of works in the RCC. It is a works based salvation. There is nothing of grace involved in it.

Grace is redefined in that the RCC will say that holy water is a means of receiving grace, or baptism is a means of receiving grace. See how nonsensical that is? As if H2O can be a means of giving grace??? That belief has as much credence as Hindus being baptized in the Ganges River thinking that the polluted waters of that river will wash away their sins.

If salvation were by grace there would be no need for Purgatory. For by grace your sins would be paid for. Since salvation is by works, one must pay for their sins in purgatory. Jesus didn't do a good enough job on the cross. HIS GRACE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT Thus works are needed.

Though I feel slighted about the discussion with being born again. I find DHK in this matter of Salvation by grace you are misinformed. The Catholic Church teaches salvation by grace not works. Works are only in effect once the path of salvation is chosen. Therefore works are the resulting effect of that salvation.
You river analogy is only sufficient in that baptism is believed to was away sins. But you miss on an important aspect. After faith is acheived. Now with infant baptism Faith is held in trust for the child by the church and parents and God parents.
The Catholic contention is that Christ's work on the cross was suffiecient in everything it set out to do. Include sanctify his disciples. Jesus wants more than Just declaration of justification but to have us be indeed sanctified in our lives. We are actually saying the same thing when you get down to it.
Baptist: works are evident that you are saved
Catholics: works are evident that salvation is working in you.
Niether believe works alone save. Faith saves. Faith leads to works. No works no faith.

 

[lori4dogs]

Though I feel slighted about the discussion with being born again. I find DHK in this matter of Salvation by grace you are misinformed. The Catholic Church teaches salvation by grace not works. Works are only in effect once the path of salvation is chosen. Therefore works are the resulting effect of that salvation.
You river analogy is only sufficient in that baptism is believed to was away sins. But you miss on an important aspect. After faith is acheived. Now with infant baptism Faith is held in trust for the child by the church and parents and God parents.
The Catholic contention is that Christ's work on the cross was suffiecient in everything it set out to do. Include sanctify his disciples. Jesus wants more than Just declaration of justification but to have us be indeed sanctified in our lives. We are actually saying the same thing when you get down to it.
Baptist: works are evident that you are saved
Catholics: works are evident that salvation is working in you.
Niether believe works alone save. Faith saves. Faith leads to works. No works no faith.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:::thumbsup::love2:

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic contention is that Christ's work on the cross was suffiecient in everything it set out to do. Include sanctify his disciples. Jesus wants more than Just declaration of justification but to have us be indeed sanctified in our lives. We are actually saying the same thing when you get down to it.
Baptist: works are evident that you are saved
Catholics: works are evident that salvation is working in you.
Niether believe works alone save. Faith saves. Faith leads to works. No works no faith.

While I can agree with the Catholic Church on the Bible fact that sanctification is a key part of the Gospel that we find in scripture -- I cannot agree that the blood of Christ does not cover the "after-life" debt/punishment "owed" for so-called venial sins. I cannot agree that payment for such debt can be "purchased" via indulgences. I cannot agree that eating bread is the way we have grace enter our being or soul. I cannot agree that the arbitrary hoops and hurdles thought up by a local priest become the means God would use for sanctification. I cannot agree with the idea of "so many days indulgence" granted for specific RCC thought-up activities.

A lot of that is simply "making stuff up" on top of the already Biblically established doctrine on sanctification.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic Church teaches we are saved by grace. You are wrong. This has been discussed ad nauseum. You aren't going to change your position and the Church just doesn't teach what you say it does.

Do you agree with the 'purgatory is a second chance at heaven' `John MacArthur claims the Catholic Church teaches?

...
Then you got this guy, John MacArthur, making false statements about purgatory. He is either lying or doesn't know what he is talking about. I want to believe the later.

I listened to that 9 minute segment carefully and did not catch the point where John says that Catholics think of purgatory as "a second chance" at heaven.

I thought his point was that the invention of purgatory enables access to heaven for a vastly wider group (i.e all that go to purgatory - will eventually get to heaven). Did I miss something in his sermon at that point?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

While I can agree with the Catholic Church on the Bible fact that sanctification is a key part of the Gospel that we find in scripture -- I cannot agree that the blood of Christ does not cover the "after-life" debt/punishment "owed" for so-called venial sins. I cannot agree that payment for such debt can be "purchased" via indulgences. I cannot agree that eating bread is the way we have grace enter our being or soul. I cannot agree that the arbitrary hoops and hurdles thought up by a local priest become the means God would use for sanctification. I cannot agree with the idea of "so many days indulgence" granted for specific RCC thought-up activities.

A lot of that is simply "making stuff up" on top of the already Biblically established doctrine on sanctification.

in Christ,

Bob

I understand what you mean. However, I think you have a misunderstanding of what the Catholic church is talking about with venial sins. ( I never liked catagorizing sin but they do it). Venial sins are those things that aren't necissarily sin in and of themselves. Ie I like to watch TV. Not a problem in an of itself. However, I spend a lot of my time watching TV and programing with questionable content and am not willing to stop then I've sinned in that I've given my attachments to the world rather than God. Maybe that's a poor example. Basically its those things which we chose instead of God but in and of themselves aren't necissarily bad. Venial sins in this respect is very personal. And change in intensity and offence based on the person. Purgatory I agree is speculative. However, when we die what attachments do we still have to this world that we haven't subjected to God? I believe when we see God after death (in an instantaneous fashion) all worldly desires will be burned up in the Glory of God as his light chases away the darkness of my misconcieved notions that this corrupt world left. Now purgatory is saying much the same thing except rather than instantaneous its has a consept of time but itself being outside of time; time has no relevance. I think this is how the catholics view this aspect of after death with regard to venial sins.

 

[lori4dogs]

I listened to that 9 minute segment carefully and did not catch the point where John says that Catholics think of purgatory as "a second chance" at heaven.

I thought his point was that the invention of purgatory enables access to heaven for a vastly wider group (i.e all that go to purgatory - will eventually get to heaven). Did I miss something in his sermon at that point?

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, it is about 7:40 into the segment. He says that Purgatory is 'a second chance' to get into heaven. He says he 'can't buy into it'. Well neither do I and the Catholic Church does not teach it is 'a second chance' to get to heaven. The Catholic Church teaches when you die you are either bound for heaven or bound for hell. Purgatory is NOT a second chance. So, he is either lying about what the Catholic Church teaches or he is wrong. As I said before, I prefer to believe he is wrong but, as I have demonstrated by the link to Chick Publications article (which is corroborated by investigations by Christianity Today and CRI) it is not beyond protestants to blatantly lie about the Catholic Church.

 

[lori4dogs]

I understand what you mean. However, I think you have a misunderstanding of what the Catholic church is talking about with venial sins. ( I never liked catagorizing sin but they do it). Venial sins are those things that aren't necissarily sin in and of themselves. Ie I like to watch TV. Not a problem in an of itself. However, I spend a lot of my time watching TV and programing with questionable content and am not willing to stop then I've sinned in that I've given my attachments to the world rather than God. Maybe that's a poor example. Basically its those things which we chose instead of God but in and of themselves aren't necissarily bad. Venial sins in this respect is very personal. And change in intensity and offence based on the person. Purgatory I agree is speculative. However, when we die what attachments do we still have to this world that we haven't subjected to God? I believe when we see God after death (in an instantaneous fashion) all worldly desires will be burned up in the Glory of God as his light chases away the darkness of my misconcieved notions that this corrupt world left. Now purgatory is saying much the same thing except rather than instantaneous its has a consept of time but itself being outside of time; time has no relevance. I think this is how the catholics view this aspect of after death with regard to venial sins.

Again, right on! I think that is a rather good example of 'venial sin'.:thumbs:

 

[Eric B]

Though I feel slighted about the discussion with being born again. I find DHK in this matter of Salvation by grace you are misinformed. The Catholic Church teaches salvation by grace not works. Works are only in effect once the path of salvation is chosen. Therefore works are the resulting effect of that salvation.

The key there is that "grace" itself is defined as "instructions" on works; based on Tit. 2:12. the CoC'ers have boldly claimed this, and the Catholics seem to agree as well.

 

[DHK]

Though I feel slighted about the discussion with being born again. I find DHK in this matter of Salvation by grace you are misinformed.

Believe me, I am not misinformed about grace: undeserved favor. I have been teaching it for well over 20 years. For the same amount of time I was deceived by the RCC on what grace was.

The Catholic Church teaches salvation by grace not works.

That is an opinion, not a fact. Actually it is a false statement.

Works are only in effect once the path of salvation is chosen. Therefore works are the resulting effect of that salvation.

Works are absolutely necessary for their salvation. If there are no works there will be no salvation, according to the RCC. It is that simple.

You river analogy is only sufficient in that baptism is believed to was away sins. But you miss on an important aspect. After faith is acheived. Now with infant baptism Faith is held in trust for the child by the church and parents and God parents.

Where does the Bible teach that faith can be "held in trust"? Chapter and verse please? That is a man-made doctrine--an invention of man inspired by Satan in Hell--a Hellish doctrine designed to send people to Hell. It has no other purpose when the Bible explicitly teaches "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." An infant cannot believe." This is a direct contradiction of the Scriptures. Baptism is a work. This work is a condition of salvation. Salvation is conditioned on this work plus many others, according to the RCC

The Catholic contention is that Christ's work on the cross was suffiecient in everything it set out to do.

If it was there would be no need for Purgatory. The very existence of Purgatory proves that Christ's work was insufficient. If one must spend time in purgatory being "purged" for their sins, then the blood of Christ wasn't sufficient enough to do the job. Christ failed in his work on the cross. (The result of RCC theology).

Include sanctify his disciples. Jesus wants more than Just declaration of justification but to have us be indeed sanctified in our lives.

Sanctification is a lifelong process that happens after salvation, after justification. What happens at salvation is justification--the fact that Christ declares us "just as if we had never sinned." That is justification. It is a one-time event in a person's life. It is not a process. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." It happens once. After that one continues in fellowship through a process of sanctification.

We are actually saying the same thing when you get down to it.
Baptist: works are evident that you are saved
Catholics: works are evident that salvation is working in you.

It is not the same thing. The Catholics demand that works are a requirement for salvation. That eliminates grace. Read the Bible:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

The Bible itself declares that it is either grace or works. You cannot have both. The RCC has declared that salvation is of works. Works, as you have declared are necessary for salvation. That eliminates grace. There is no grace in salvation in the RCC. It is impossible according to the Bible.

Niether believe works alone save. Faith saves. Faith leads to works. No works no faith.

There is not one single work in salvation. Not one. If there is even one work--even baptism--then the person is on their way to hell. Christ did not intend anyone to have a part in what he did on the cross. Salvation is either all of Christ or it is no salvation at all. It can't be both. He does not share his work with another.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I think thats a great way for growth. Its in line with scriptures.

It is? What verse is that?

Does the Bible teach that church membership is for those who are saved, or merely for the children of church members, whether they're saved or not saved?