Roman Catholic...Christian or Cult?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

LOL.... You Mean God Is Sovereign:thumbs:

Thank you Brother:laugh:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Actually we don't know that while on earth Jesus could not be in more than one location at a time. Scripture doesn't address this one way or the other. You're entitled to your opinion but it certainly appears that you believe in a Jesus with limited abilities. I believe in a Jesus with unlimited power, who transcends all barriers of time and space. Of course He could be on a million alters at the same time. :jesus:

No, God does not have "unlimited" power! There are things God cannot do. He cannot do anything that is contrary to His own nature. He cannot produce another god as your doctrine of the wafer and wine teaches. He cannot violate His own moral law (impossible for him to lie) as your doctrine of the wafer and wine teaches (idolatry).

His human body on earth was just that a "human" body and no "human" body is omnipresent as that is a characteristic or attribute that is INCOMMUNICABLE outside the nature of God and the human body even in heaven is merely a glorified "human" body and nothing more. On the other hand the Divine nature while in the human body of Christ on earth was at the same time present in heaven (Jn. 1:13). That is still true of the Divine nature of Jesus while his "human" but "glorified" body is in heaven.

 

[Zenas]

No, God does not have "unlimited" power! There are things God cannot do. He cannot do anything that is contrary to His own nature. He cannot produce another god as your doctrine of the wafer and wine teaches. He cannot violate His own moral law (impossible for him to lie) as your doctrine of the wafer and wine teaches (idolatry).

His human body on earth was just that a "human" body and no "human" body is omnipresent as that is a characteristic or attribute that is INCOMMUNICABLE outside the nature of God and the human body even in heaven is merely a glorified "human" body and nothing more. On the other hand the Divine nature while in the human body of Christ on earth was at the same time present in heaven (Jn. 1:13). That is still true of the Divine nature of Jesus while his "human" but "glorified" body is in heaven.

What can I say? You’re myopic and you can’t or won’t understand that God is not bound by the laws of nature as we understand them. The eucharist is a mystery that is no more explainable or comprehensible than the Holy Trinity. You give no scriptural support for these “factual statements” you have put up because there is none. So be happy in your little tiny world with your little tiny Jesus that you think you completely understand. I will exercise my faith in the real Jesus who is not constrained by human imagination or by temporal and spatial limitations, who I can know quite intimately but I cannot begin to understand.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The problem is that you cannot distinguish between what is God by nature and what is human by nature. The incarnation is not the deifying of humanity or the humanizing of Deity. Theologions when speaking of those attributes that define and separate absolute deity from creatures call them "incommunicable" attributes. That means that God cannot communicate those attributes that make God to be God to created things like human nature and wafers and whatever else you care to talk about.

Bottom line, the incarnation nor glorification of the human nature deified that nature any more than deity was humanized by the incarnation. God cannot communicate what is essential to absolute diety to the human nature of Christ any more than He can create another God equal to Himself. Your BIG god does not exist in the Scriptures. The only God that exists in the Scriptures is the One who can be confined within TRUTH.

My "tiny" world is the reality of TRUTH which is limited to a very "narrow" definition. In contrast, the wrong way is "broad." Your "factual" statements are nothing but bloviating without substance and in direct contradiction to the most basic truth in Scripture - "For I am the LORD, therefore I change not" - Mal. 3:6. Your false interpretations rest upon contradiction of this basic premise of scripture. You change human nature into deity and it cannot be done by God Himself without destroying the Biblical concept of God.

You have a different god after the incarnation than before the incarnation and thus a MUTABLE god instead of the immutable God.

What can I say? You’re myopic and you can’t or won’t understand that God is not bound by the laws of nature as we understand them. The eucharist is a mystery that is no more explainable or comprehensible than the Holy Trinity. You give no scriptural support for these “factual statements” you have put up because there is none. So be happy in your little tiny world with your little tiny Jesus that you think you completely understand. I will exercise my faith in the real Jesus who is not constrained by human imagination or by temporal and spatial limitations, who I can know quite intimately but I cannot begin to understand.

 

[Zenas]

The problem is that you cannot distinguish between what is God by nature and what is human by nature.

Where would you get an outrageous idea like that?

The incarnation is not the deifying of humanity or the humanizing of Deity.

I never said it was.

Theologions when speaking of those attributes that define and separate absolute deity from creatures call them "incommunicable" attributes. That means that God cannot communicate those attributes that make God to be God to created things like human nature and wafers and whatever else you care to talk about.

Sounds like you hand pick your theologians just like you hand pick your doctrines--without regard to either scripture or reason.

Bottom line, the incarnation nor glorification of the human nature deified that nature any more than deity was humanized by the incarnation.

All right. The sun also rises in the east and sets in the west.

God cannot communicate what is essential to absolute diety to the human nature of Christ any more than He can create another God equal to Himself.

I see your small mind is at work again trying to visualize your small God.

Your BIG god does not exist in the Scriptures.

I hate to disappoint you but He actually does. He also exists everywhere else but in the minds of fundamentalists.

The only God that exists in the Scriptures is the One who can be confined within TRUTH.

Exactly. Absolute TRUTH, not Dr. Walter's version of "truth."

My "tiny" world is the reality of TRUTH which is limited to a very "narrow" definition. In contrast, the wrong way is "broad." Your "factual" statements are nothing but bloviating without substance and in direct contradiction to the most basic truth in Scripture - "For I am the LORD, therefore I change not" - Mal. 3:6. Your false interpretations rest upon contradiction of this basic premise of scripture.

If you would read the rest to Mal. 3 you would see that God changes not in His expectations of man and His judgment of man. It doesn't mean God can't take any form He chooses. He can take the form of a burning bush, a man or a still small voice in the storm.

You change human nature into deity and it cannot be done by God Himself without destroying the Biblical concept of God.

No I don't, so kindly quote me exactly where you thought I did.

You have a different god after the incarnation than before the incarnation and thus a MUTABLE god instead of the immutable God.

No I don't have a mutable god, and by making such statements you are demonstrating your own inability to wrap your mind around even the most basic attributes of God.

 

[DHK]

Prayer is only natural to the one who believes in the object of his prayers. For everyone else, it is foolish or even demented.

True. Prayer is by faith. Like faith, prayer has an object. The object of my faith/prayers is Christ. According to your own statement if the object of your prayers is a piece of bread, then are you demented or at the least foolish?

But IF you believed the bread were God, wouldn't you want to worship it? Do you not think God is capable of turning any object into Himself as many times as He wants to?

No. God will not do that which is against his nature.
God is not capable of lying.
God will not go against His Word.

Alter all God is spirit but He once came to earth in human form.

He came to earth in human form more than once. He came many times. Read the OT. They are called theophanies.

As far as your organic compound is concerned, it is closer to wine than it is to bread.

No, C6H12O6 is sugar in its simplest form. When the human body takes in bread, a carbohydrate, it breaks it down into glucose or into basic sugars which the body can either store or use.

The symbolism is obvious in these other places but not so obvious here.

The metaphor is obvious.
The symbolism is obvious.
The disciples were not dumb enough to take Christ literally and be cannibalistic, which is what you infer by being literal. There was no flesh eaten, and yet you deny it was symbolic. That is a contradiction right there.

When He gave the bread of life discourse, the people found it so disgusting many of His disciples left Him.

They followed him because He fed him. They left him because he had been feeding them, and now he stopped. They were there for the miracles and the food, not for the spiritual food.

There was no such confusion about the door or the vine metaphors. It does seem rather disgusting. Many of the Romans regarded the early Christians as cannibals for this reason.

I hear that thrown around, but I have never seen any documentation for it.
Both the Romans and the Jews persecuted Christians but not for the above reason. The Jews persecuted Christians for the same reason that Saul did before he became Paul. He hated Christ. There were terrible persecutions by Rome against the Christians as well, but not because of that doctrine. Christ claimed to be God--King of the Jews, The Jews incited the Romans: "We have no leader but Caesar." They were afraid of the spread and power of Christianity.

So far as I know, the Christians did nothing to dispel this notion.

There was nothing to dispel. That is all a myth. Why dispel a religious rite that the Christians celebrated called the Lord's Supper. No person persecuted the Christians for that reason. I find that hard to believe.

Christianity says God is everywhere. Psalm 139.

Jeremiah 10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

Jeremiah 10:10-11 But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.
11 Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.
--God is everywhere, but he is not IN everything. Read Jeremiah 10. They fashion idols from trees. But God is not in those idols. He is not in those trees. We, as Christians, do not worship things. God is not in things. That is idolatry. And one of those things is the eucharist. To worship it is idolatry. Read and study the Ten Commandments.

You're right. Only the Lutherans and Anglicans would disagree with you here. Catholics would agree because they believe the eucharist is God.

And the Ten Commandments would disagree. So who are you going to believe? I believe the Bible, not the Catholics.
If I tell you that "Green cheese is God," will you believe me? Why not?
Then why be gullible enough to believe a piece of carbohydrate is God?
Christ never taught that.

Why do you think they have eucharistic adoration? It is either idolatry or it is not. If Jesus really transforms the substance of those wafers to His body, it is pure worship. If He does not it is idolatry. How do you know?

Because I know what the Bible teaches, and I know what the RCC teaches.
I agree with Dr. Bob, that the RCC is not a cult nor is it Christianity. It is a world religion, another religion just like Islam or Hinduism. You have just demonstrated that right here. God condemns idolatry and you ask "How do I know.. that this is not idolatry?" The worship of any object is idolatry. God does not live in things that are made with hands. Remember Acts 17. Paul said that very clearly.

Isaiah 43:10-11 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
--The RCC wafers (or Eucharist) is formed or baked in an oven. God is not formed.

Isaiah 43:12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 44:24-25 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;
--I like this passage. It puts the religion of the RCC in perspective when comparing it to the God of the Bible.

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Isaiah 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Never do you find that God is the Eucharist or that the Eucharist is God.
That is blasphemy, heretical, idolatry, and entirely against all that the Scriptures teach.

 

[Matt Black]

All this but he cant tell me how to get Cadbury......

Sorry for the lateness on this, but I thought your Kraft took over our Cadburys, so anything that now goes wrong is your problem. Kind of like with the new CEO of BP being American...

 

[Matt Black]

I believe that the Ante-Nicene Fathers is the history of the roots of apostasy that naturally forms the foundation for the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.

Ah, like the Trinity, you mean? Oh dear...

Second, the language of redemption characteristically accompanies divine rites as symbols or signs:

Le 4:26 And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

Le 5:10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.

Le 19:22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

However, Hebrews 10:1-4 claims they are to be regarded as a "shadow" and "not the very image." As a "shadow" they could NEVER take away sins literally (v. 4). The "very image" that does literaly remove sin is found in Hebrews 10:5-18 - the historical sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

However, the purpose of a divine symbol is to visibly convey the truth it was designed to portray. That visible portrayal depends entirely upon administering it EXACTLY as given by God or else that truth is completely distorted and lost. This is why God repeatedly warned Israel to construct Temple items and perform rites exactly as instructed. The language of redemption accompanies the ceremonial rite as the rite is designed to portray the truth of redemption. The rite does not convey the reality but only the "shadow" of that reality and so the question is not whether the rite obtains remission of sins and atonement but HOW does it do so? Hebrews 10:1-4 and Colossians 2:16 answers that question. Those rites NEVER obtained remission of sins literally only figuratively just as a "shadow" never conveys the LITERAL image that casts the shadow.

You are familiar with the concept of an antetype, aren't you?

How did Old Testament saints receive LITERAL remission of sins:

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Heb. 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

You're being selective with your proof-texting again and coveniently ignoring the passages that point to baptismal regeneration which I quoted - care to engage with them?

Likewise, New Testament rites carry with them the very same language of redemption not because the rite obtains literal salvation or remission of sins but because what it portrays obtains remission of sins. "the like FIGURE whereunto baptism doth also now save us..."

Hence, God consistently from Genesis to Revelation describes the ceremonial "shadow" rites with redemptive language because that is what the rite portrays as it is administered in keeping with the truth it is designed to portray.

That is why baptism must be by immersion only because of the truth it is designed to portray - the death BURIAL and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Again, you've mangled the typology here - baptism doesn't just portray truth, it conveys it: the believer is buried and resurrected with Christ in baptism - read Romans 6 again.

 

[Matt Black]

The main difference here Matt, is that no matter what you say about your own understanding of the RCC as you grew up, it really didn't make much of a difference. You just went from one form of it to another form it. You are now an Anglican are you not? How much essential difference is there between the Anglicans and the Catholics? Almost none! The one rejects the pope, but even now the two are coming back together once again.

This is far different than a former RCC trusting Christ, and then going to an IFB church. It is going from one extreme to another. And he can see the differences quite clearly.

Hmmm...you're pretty ignorant of history if you come up with tripe like that: men (and women) have fought and died for the differences between Catholicism and Anglicanism, whether they be the Anglican Marian martyrs burned by Bloody Mary in 1555-1558 whose hagiographies are recorded by Foxe, or Catholic martyrs such as Margaret Clitherow or Edmund Campion; heck, we even fought a civil war here partly over these differences in the 1640s and had a revolution about it in 1688! A few miles down the road from me in Lewes, people still burn effigies of the Pope on November 5th. So, please don't insult the memories of the dead by triviliasing the differences!

 

[Matt Black]

Matt Black...

You posted...



Thats according to.....YOU. (And probably Thinkingstuff as well.)

But in TRUTH, what Dr Walter has posted concerning the Catholic false church of Rome is in fact...the truth of the matter.

The Catholic false Church of Rome DOES NOT proclaim the true saving gospel of Jesus christ.

And that truth has been clearly articulated over and over and over and OVER again on this thread and others.

What is it that causes you guys to not be able to discern clear biblical truth when it is presented in the context of proving the Catholic Church as being overflowing with blasphemies and idolatries?

Simply because all that has been posted is human opinion, whether it be yours or Dr Walter's, all we have had thus far on this thread is your own personal interpretations of various Scripture passages: your version of the truth, your private interpretation of the Bible. The trouble with that is that you (and I) are fallible human beings and therefore our private interpretations of Scripture and our doctrinal opinions are mere human constructs, ridden with errors.

 

[quantumfaith]

Simply because all that has been posted is human opinion, whether it be yours or Dr Walter's, all we have had thus far on this thread is your own personal interpretations of various Scripture passages: your version of the truth, your private interpretation of the Bible. The trouble with that is that you (and I) are fallible human beings and therefore our private interpretations of Scripture and our doctrinal opinions are mere human constructs, ridden with errors.

:thumbs: Very well said!!!

 

[Grace&Truth]

Actually we don't know that while on earth Jesus could not be in more than one location at a time. Scripture doesn't address this one way or the other. You're entitled to your opinion but it certainly appears that you believe in a Jesus with limited abilities. I believe in a Jesus with unlimited power, who transcends all barriers of time and space. Of course He could be on a million alters at the same time. :jesus:

According to Scripture God took on humanity. Is not that what the incarnation is. God chose to limit Himself on earth by taking on human flesh, He was 100% human and at the same time 100% God. But in His humanity He limit Himself bodily from being in more then one place at a time. Even now, His glorified body is limited to heaven. That is what is referred to as Jesus being at the right hand of the Father. Jesus Rose from the dead. He is not ever being sacrificed, otherwise He would not have risen bodily. The resurrection proves the Sacrifice was finished. Jesus is not being continuely offed often on these RC alters. He made ONE sacrifice forever and is now at the right hand of the Father.

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Please read the context of these verses. There is no way that what the RCC teaches is true according to these scriptures. Please feel free to give Scripture that prove that Jesus was in more than one place at a time while on earth if you can.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Over the weekend I was thinking about whether Catholics could be considered Christian regarding their beliefs. And as I've mentioned before their beliefs are often taken out of context and accusations are levied against them. I picked up this book by an ancient Doctor of the Church that lived during the reformation. He is a Catholic Saint and here is some of his statements I thought I'd post with the hope of a better understanding of Catholic thought.

How can he ever abhor death who is in the grace of God? "he that abideth in charity abideth in God, and God in him." (1 John 4:16) He, therefore, that loves God is secure of His grace, and dying thus, he is sure of going to enjoy Him forever in the Kingdom of the Blessed...It is true that, without a divine revelation, no man can possess an infallible certainty of his own salation; but he that has given himself with a sincere heart to God...has a moral certainty that he will be saved. The certainty is founded on the divine promises. "No one," says the Scripture, "hath hped in the Lord and hath been confounded." (Ecclesiasticus 2:11) Almighty God declares in so many passages, that He does Not desire the death of the sinner, but that he be converted and saved. "Is it My Will that a sinner should die, saith the Lord God, and not that he should be converted from his ways and live?" (Ezechiel 18:23)...And to those who repent of the evil done, He promises to forgeet all their transgressions. "If the wicked do penance for all his sins which he hath committed...living, he shall live and shall not die. I will not remember all his iniquities that he hath done." (Ezechiel 18"21-22). More over, when a sinner hates the sin he has committed, it is a certain sign that he has been already pardoned. - St. Alphonsus Liguori.

I read this and I cannot but think the writer of it to be indeed a Christian.

 

[Matt Black]

Hmm...if you pay attention to Catholic doctrine properly then you will know that Catholics don't re-sacrifice Jesus, they re-present the sacrifice He made once and for all. In so doing, they no more re-sacrifice Him than a fundamentalist evangelist re-sacrifices Him when he speaks or prays about the crucifixion and what its effects are. But, please, don't let the facts get in your way...

[ETA - reply to Grace and Truth]

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But was He human at that point? Mortal? "Transfigured" means that He was changed. He was no longer human at that point but God.




Do they know from looking at the earth? I do not see evidence of that. It is more likely that it is communicated by God.

I disagree entirely. He was still human.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is not of God! POINT BLANK! You should ask God for wisdom and stop rationalizing this. This "wisdom" of yours being express is demonic!

If this is what you believe you should stop asking people to pray for you. You need to stop it. Because you are engaged in demonic activity.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let's take a look at Scripture regarding the dead and them knowing of things on earth:

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6

"For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward,
and even the memory of them is forgotten.

Their love, their hate
and their jealousy have long since vanished;
never again will they have a part
in anything that happens under the sun."

This is from a book that the author considers everything vain. The Jews did not have a developed understanding of the Afterlife and referred to the place of the dead for everyone saints and sinners alike. And so on the wisdom of this writer he hasn't meantioned the ressurection but trust God in the end by saying man's whole responsibility is to do Gods will. The book in otherwords is the epitome of man's widsom save the last verse.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Sorry for the lateness on this, but I thought your Kraft took over our Cadburys, so anything that now goes wrong is your problem. Kind of like with the new CEO of BP being American...

Sad isnt it. But since BP is British owned you get to share the burden.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sad isnt it. But since BP is British owned you get to share the burden.

Maybe they'll start charging petrol by the gallon rather than the liter and get more for their pound!

 

[Matt Black]

Hur hur! BP is 39% owned by Americans and now it's got a new American CEO, so no more blaming Britain for it's lash-ups.