Roman Catholicism , cult or not?

Eliyahu,

I am a guitar player(and dobro player) with a gospel bluegrass band and at the time I took out this username my primary acoustic guitar was a Martin D28. That Martin is no longer my primary acoustic but I dont feel like going to the trouble of taking out a new username.

God bless,

Mike

 

Goodness me Bob I am surprised and gratified to hear you actually say that....thank you.

 

D28guy and Eliyahu,

One cannot simultaneously say the things you are saying about Catholics AND say you love them!

Your confusion of Pharasaical practice with Catholic teaching is a non sequitur. The two are NOT the same and can NOT be equated.

Do you have no better argument that using the words of our Lord directed against Pharasaical practice and using them against Catholic teaching? How can you possibly make such a fallacious leap? Do you understand that our Lord was talking about the way the Pharisees practiced the Jewish religion? His words were NOT directed against Catholic teaching, or Catholic religious leaders.

Don't you get it?

Alexander

 

I think that they get it and you don't.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

This verse is not just directed against the Pharisees. It is directed against every unsaved person: Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, etc. All unsaved people are included, even if the person is an unsaved Baptist. All the unsaved are children of the devil, thus the need of being born again.

Once again you cannot believe the Catholic doctrine (salvation by works) and the Bible (salvation by grace through faith) at the same time. They are two different modes of salvation which are diametrically opposed to each other. Once a Catholic becomes saved he must leave the Catholic Church; as a Jew (like Saul) left Judaism; as a Muslim would have to leave Islam. You can't be a member of both faiths at the same time. You can't be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time. You can't be a Catholic and a Christian at the same time. The doctrine conflicts with the Bible. It is in opposition with it. They are not our brothers and sisters in the Lord. They need to be saved.
DHK

 

Alexander,

Yes we can, and we do. (...Say those things, and love them)

No they arent.

Yes they can.

The pharisees had become the self appointed hierarchial "Truth Gestapo" for the lowly masses. They substituted the traditions of men for the scriptures of God, and they heavy handedly "lorded it over" the people.

The Catholic Church hierarchy has become the self appointed hierarchial "Truth Gestapo" for the lowly masses. They substitute the traditions of men for the scriptures of God, and they heavy handedly "lord it over" the people.

We have lots of arguments, but this is one of the most effective, because the similarities are so striking.

Its not fallacious...

The pharisees had become the self appointed hierarchial "Truth Gestapo" for the lowly masses. They substituted the traditions of men for the scriptures of God, and they heavy handedly "lorded it over" the people.

The Catholic Church hierarchy has become the self appointed hierarchial "Truth Gestapo" for the lowly masses. They substitute the traditions of men for the scriptures of God, and they heavy handedly "lord it over" the people.

(but the Catholic Church goes even further by bringing idolatry and *christianised* paganism into their mix of blasphemies)

Alexander, with all due respect that is simply nonsense.

That would be like someone saying "How can you christians tell people they must be born again! Dont know Christ said that to Nicodemous? He was telling Nicodemous that he had to be born again"

Alexander, Christs teachings, as with all the scriptures, apply to the "whosoever wills". They apply to all you have "ears to hear". They apply to all you are in the same condition as those He spoke to 2000 years ago, and those who have the same need as the ones he spoke to 2000 years ago.

What your trying to peddle?

Goodness gracious no.

God bless,

Mike

 

B-G you know as well as anyone on this board that I am not in agreement with RC doctrine on a number of points and I see the RCC as having made some huge errors in history... but that does not mean I have any desire to offend Catholics in the least.

In fact I am very grateful that Catholics would come to a non-Cattholic forum and agree to an open objective discussion. I could not ask for a more perfect venue.

I have good friends that are Catholic and nothing would please me more than to see a vigorous exchange of views on this board between Catholics and non-Catholics in a way that avoids personnal offense.

I realize that there is a very fine line between claiming to expose doctrinal errors (and even exposing atrocities in the history) of an organization - vs offending an individual member of that organization. But I think that is the basis for this entire forum. We can only contribute if we separate the people from the institutions as we review doctrinal positions and historic actions.

There are those here who differ very strongly with my own doctrinal views - or more precisely with my denomination's views. But quite often that very same person is very happy to join with me on some other topic on this same board. (Take Ray B on the subject of OSAS contrasted against my views on that subject. Yet when it comes to Calvinist vs Arminian topics we are often promoting the same points in harmony!) It serves no purpose for me to attack "The person" as I explain what I see as the doctrinal errors of the institution they align themselves with.

I hope you accept this in good faith as I truly am not interested in offending Catholics.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Alex,

Sorry for the vehement exchange of criticism between you and me each other in the past.

Indeed we must find the best expressions possible when we criticize others,which would not hurt them. But when we come to the biblical issues, we find no other ways than we rely on the biblical verses and should realize that we should hate the teachings or doctrines hated by God.
Simply when we think about Idolatry, you may excuse that it is not the Idol worship, or condone such behavior in other ways. This is the matter of the faith and faithfulness with God.

Therefore we want you or B-G to think about the matter of praying to Mary or Statue making and adorning such statues or telling that the statues are bleeding from the eyes, more seriously from the view of the commandments in Ex 20:4, and from the fact that Mary is dead and is neither Omni-present, nor Omni-scient, nor Omni-potent and cannot accept any prayers from 1.3 billion people and cannot convey such messages to God and moreover God never said He would expect any prayers from the people thru Mary.

Seriously and honestly I want you to re-consider this matter and to wake up from the dream if it is found wrong.

 

DHK,

Ah. The truth at last. You really don't regard Catholic Christians as brothers and sisters.

I would warn you, for your own good, to be careful about making such blanket assertions. Such an attitude is lacking in humility, and smacks of spiritual arrogance. Our Lord calls us to be humble, kind, and loving.

Better to leave the separation of the sheep from the goats to someone who knows how to tell the difference: The Good Shepherd.

Alexander

 

Alexander,
The gospel is not preached in the Catholic Church. Not once in 20 years did I ever hear the gospel in faithfully attending the Catholic Church.
You cannot be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time.
You cannot be a Catholic and a Christian at the same time.
These truths ought to be self evident. Only the gospel saves; not religion.
DHK

 

Were you asleep DHK...the gospel is preached every Sunday in keeping with the Liturgucal Calender?

Not sure what the Novous Ordo do as I avoid the remade service of post Vatican 2, but there is also the epistle in one form or another. The sermon preaches on the readings....

 

Amen, DHK!

Many mistake religious tradition as christianity. Unfortunately, many do not realize their mistake until it is too late..

 

This is the typical comeback (lie) of every Catholic apologist. When a portion of Scripture is read from one of the Gospels (a reading), that doesn't mean that the gospel is preached. There was never any presentation of the gospel in the Catholic Church--not once. The first time I heard the gospel was through an interdenominational group known as the Navigators, working on the campus of a University. That is where I heard the gospel. And that is where I was saved. That is also the first time someone shared some Scripture with me out of a Bible instead of trying to indoctrinate me out of a catechism or lessons based on such.
DHK

 

That is a red herring. There are many parts of this world today which still do not have the complete New Testament. When Adoniram Judson went to Burma they had no Bible at all, neither did William Carey when he went to India. But that didn't stop them from establishing churches. Paul went to Berea. The Bereans had the Old Testament (more than the Burmese or Indians had). They also had the direct revelation of God that was given to Paul from God.

1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

These were three supernatural gifts that were in use before the Bible was complete in which God gave direct revelation to his messeenger giving New Testament knowledge.

All that Paul said was verifiable in the Old Testament. They veriried everything that he said in the Scriptures that they had. This is sola scriptura.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Ooh, that's a very cessationist interpretation of I Cor 13. I'm sure some of the resident charismatics will be along in due course to disabuse you of that were you to start a thread on that issue...which would, once again in all its glory, demonstrate the supreme folly of sola Scriptura

 

RC does Latria on the statue of a dead woman.
If you are OK with such veneration on Idols, you can commit any sins by excusing them all the way. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. The word you're looking for is hyperdulia. If RCs were offering latria to a statue of Mary, that would indeed be latria and idolatrous. Doubtless there are some who do that, but they are in ignorance and opposition to the teachings of the RCC and therefore not good Catholics.

 

I think you accused me of this before, and I gave you an acceptable answer. Faith is not a work. Trust is not a work. Confidence (which faith is) is not a work. Work is something that you do, as in baptism. </font>[/QUOTE]Believe, trust are things you do . They are verbs , therefore you do them.

Oh, goody, a proof-texting session! Let me first comment on one or two of those which you quoted, namely the Pauline quotes. I think one would need to show that Paul was talking about 'works' generally, rather than works of the Law. In addition, your quote from John 6:28-29 makes it crystal clear that belief is a work! Now, some more to add to your pile:

Matt 25:31-46 - no mention of faith whatsoever in the parable of the sheep and the goats - it's all about actions. Perhaps Jesus got it wrong, then? I would suggest your argument is with Him, not me.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved. But you say that baptism is a work...so again, Jesus gets it wrong, apparently.

John 6:32-59 Right after your Johannine quote where Jesus is asked about the works of God, He launches into the Bread of Life discourse where, inter alia, He says "Unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you can have no part of Me." Sounds pretty 'worky' to me but, then again, it is Jesus again and you seem to have something of a problem with His words so far.

You quote from Acts 16, but you conveniently ignore Acts 2:38-39: in response to "what must we do to be saved, it is " Repent (action), be baptised (action) and you will receive the Holy Spirit". So, you also part company with Peter there.

And finally, the top-hat on it all: James 2:14-26, where it says, quite plainly, in whatever language you choose to read it, that "a man is not saved by faith alone" but by faith plus works

I quoted you what was written. Neither does faith nor the Holy Spirit work through a sacrament. There are no sacraments in the Bible. Sacraments are man-made. And the sacraments of the RCC are an abomination in His sight. Transubstantiation is heresy. The Holy Spirit does not work through transubstantiation. The Holy Spirit does not work through the water of baptism either. The water does not suddenly turn holy by some magical power. That is sorcery, witchcraft. There is no grace imparted through the sacrament of baptism. The Holy Spirit does not work through the water in baptism. It is heresy. Water will get you wet and that is all. Your approach to baptism using a sacramental approach is more akin to the occult than to Biblical Christianity, which makes it all the more reason to put it into the realm of a cult. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, well, I'm in good company with that arch-occultist the Apostle Peter:"for it is baptism which now saves you" (I Peter 3:21) and of course the Lord Himself (Mark 16:16). I'm very happy to be on all fours with them.

You have given no evidence to support your position. John 3:5, for example talks about the new birth. That is not a sacrament. In fact baptism is not even mentioned in that passage.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes it is: " a man is born again by water and the Spirit". Again, the Lord's words, which are perfectly consistent with His words in Mark 16:16, but then again, I wouldn't expect by now, given all the above, for you to agree with Him.

I do believe the Bible, which is why I belive in such God-ordained things.

It is a works salvation. I was there for 20 years, and yes I have studied the catechism and have a copy of the documents of Vatican II sitting right beside me. You must be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved. You must be baptized of the Catholic Church to be saved. You must keep the sacraments to be saved. You must not fall into mortal sin in order to maintain your salvation. That in itself makes it a works salvation. It is do, do, do, do, etc. What happens in the Catholic church if one never confesses their sins to a priest? The Bible says that is not necessary, but the man-made rules of the Catholic Church says it is? Works--do, do, do! It is a works based salvation! </font>[/QUOTE]Then I say again: you either haven't read these documents or you fail to understand them. Did you read the link to Lumen Gentium ? If you did, you wouldn't be posting such nonsense.

Another contradiction. So baptism was an "ordinance" or command given or instituted by Christ. It is not a sacrament. It does not impart grace. Nothing magical happens to the one receiving the baptism. That is sorcery to believe such. </font>[/QUOTE]Yep. OK. I'm beginning to get it: Jesus and Peter were sorcerers. OK, fine, if you want to believe that.

Once again, you disagree with the Lord: He didn't say "This is a symbol of My Body, My Blood"; He said, "This is My Body, this is My Blood".

 

I think that they get it and you don't.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

This verse is not just directed against the Pharisees. It is directed against every unsaved person: Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, etc. All unsaved people are included, even if the person is an unsaved Baptist. All the unsaved are children of the devil, thus the need of being born again.

Once again you cannot believe the Catholic doctrine (salvation by works) and the Bible (salvation by grace through faith) at the same time. They are two different modes of salvation which are diametrically opposed to each other. Once a Catholic becomes saved he must leave the Catholic Church; as a Jew (like Saul) left Judaism; as a Muslim would have to leave Islam. You can't be a member of both faiths at the same time. You can't be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time. You can't be a Catholic and a Christian at the same time. The doctrine conflicts with the Bible. It is in opposition with it. They are not our brothers and sisters in the Lord. They need to be saved.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks a lot: you've just arrogantly condemned my two uncles, who are Catholic priests who knwo and love the Lord Jesus Christ to Hell on your own authority (and, no, it's absolutely NOT the authority of Scripture before you try and pull that one; I've already demonstrated above that your interpretation is rather badly flawed)

 

Matt Black,

None of these postings of yours were directed to me, but since I'm a big mouth I cant resist. Dont feel in the least compelled to respond unless you want to.

Regarding a charge of worshipping Mary, you said...

More little Catholic word games.

In one ear...out the other. They dont fool us and they dont fool God.

SOME??? How about millions!

They are doing precisely as the Catholic Church is teaching them to do.

Offering goddess worship up to Mary.

(from a following post)

DHK posted this...

And you said...

Only a Catholic apologist...a denomination who teaches as truth the traditions of men, while diminishing the word of God...can have such a flippant reponse to the truth of the scriptures.

He was talking about any works.

Not in the least.

Who is Christ speaking to here, Matt? Those alive on earth after His 2nd coming. This has nothing to do with the gospel as it is being presented here on earth prior to that time.

When Christ returns again we who have been saved by the gospel during this dispensation, come back with Him.

(I am not using the word "dispensation" as a hard core dispensationalist...although I lean that way. Only to mean a specific period of time)

There are more than one type of baptism, Matt.

"I indeed baptize with water. There is one coming who is mightier then I. He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire"

When one recieves Christ through faith alone they are Spirit bapised into the body Christ instantly at that moment.

I know it does, since you believe that the Catholic lies regarding the Lords supper memorial are true. My goodness how they butcher and mangle Gods scriptures.

We have no problem with the words of Christ at all.

"Do this in remembrance of me"

When Peter himself was speaking about Nicodemus and his family...who had just entered into a faith alone relationship with the resurrected Lord...he said:

"Who can forbid water, that these should not be baptised, seeing as they have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

How can anyone miss something so clear?

They were, clearly, born again through faith alone. (Spirit baptism).

Then they were water baptised. (Water baptism, symbolic.)

And it is so easilly expained.

James was speaking about what will be the result of saving faith in Christ.

A changed life.

And this fits perfectly with Ephesians...

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through works..."

Does it say that?

No.

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

THEN we find...

"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Ditto!

More little Catholic word games.

In one ear...out the other. They dont fool us and they dont fool God.

SOME??? How about millions!

They are doing precisely as the Catholic Church is teaching them to do.

Offering goddess worship up to Mary.</font>[/QUOTE]This is not what the Catholic Church compels them to do. 'Worship' would be 'latria' and that, acc to Catholic doctrine, is reserved only to God. For a Catholic to offer worship to Mary would indeed be idolatrous, as the Catechism makes clear:-

- from para 971.

And you said...

Only a Catholic apologist...a denomination who teaches as truth the traditions of men, while diminishing the word of God...can have such a flippant reponse to the truth of the scriptures.</font>[/QUOTE]Not flippant to the Scriptures, just to those who pick and choose texts out of context. Remember that the Devil himself can prooftext - not that I'm accusing DHK of being Beelzebub(!) but it's not a very good example to seek to emulate. (Of course, you can always accuse me of doing the same ) - but that is of course another overarching weakness of sola Scriptura

He was talking about any works. </font>[/QUOTE]Then you disagree with most commentators on Eph 2:4-9; it is widely accepted that, given the addressees of this particular Epistle, Paul was talking about trying to fulfil the Law.

Not in the least. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not quite sure how you reach that conclusion; to me, it's "work...believe". See James 2 again for further examples: 21-23.

Who is Christ speaking to here, Matt? Those alive on earth after His 2nd coming. This has nothing to do with the gospel as it is being presented here on earth prior to that time.

When Christ returns again we who have been saved by the gospel during this dispensation, come back with Him.

(I am not using the word "dispensation" as a hard core dispensationalist...although I lean that way. Only to mean a specific period of time)</font>[/QUOTE]Ok, we've had the cessationist view from DHK, now we have the dispensationalist view from you; suffice it to say that I don't buy into either of those theologies and I would find myself having to perform some intellectual and theological gymnastics were I to attempt to do so. IMO this is talking about the last judgement. Certainly hard to get sola fides from this passage. Seems pretty clear that what matters at the final judgment is how you treated other people, not whether you called Jesus "Lord". The sheep and the goats parable is a natural (or supernatural) consequence of the Golden Rule, a natural follow up to the story of the rich young ruler. It may be significant that it is only in Matthew's gospel.

In the wider context of how it stacks up with, say, Pauline salvation understanding, the James letter is one of the keys. It seems clear that there was thought to be an inevitable connection between salvation and good works. An awakened love of God, if genuine, was bound to lead to an awakened love of neighbour, expressed in the terms the rich young ruler found so hard to bear. This seems to me to be a right way of looking at these things.
The most arresting quote about the parable that I have come across in recent years is this one.

If salvation is understood as a sort of insurance policy based on making the right theological statement, then that quote should give pause for thought. On questions like this and others, I have always liked William Law's observation that "If you seek articles (meaning a contract) how you shall serve God, you will find you have signed both copies yourself".

Chapter 25 is an interesting chapter - three parables about who is 'in' and 'out'.

Ten bridesmaids: 10 heard about the wedding but their preparations are tested when the bridegroom suddenly arrives.

Three servants: 3 servants are given responsibility by a master who leaves to return at an undetermined time in the future. He comes back unexpectedly and judges the performance.

Then the Sheep and Goats.

ISTM that these are all interlinked and are all descriptions of the Christian life. In the first, the bridesmaids have presumably been invited and told to expect the groom. In the second, the servants are thought worthy of the responsibility given by the master.
A bridesmaid who did not know about the forthcoming wedding would not have been prepared. A servant who was not asked to invest money would not have expected to be asked for a return. These are clearly about Christians IMO.

I accept that the language in the third is different, but I'm arguing that it is an extension of the other two parables.

There are more than one type of baptism, Matt.

"I indeed baptize with water. There is one coming who is mightier then I. He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire"

When one recieves Christ through faith alone they are Spirit bapised into the body Christ instantly at that moment.</font>[/QUOTE]Except that:-

1. The text makes no mention of Spirit baptism; usually when Jesus talks about Spirit baptism, He makes that clear eg: John 3:5 -"water and the Spirit" - you have both types here

2. This is the Marcan record of the Great Commission; if you want to Spiritualise the Baptism, you have also to do the same with the Matthean version in Matt 28:19. The disciples would not have understood this as anything other than water baptism - and neither should we.

I know it does, since you believe that the Catholic lies regarding the Lords supper memorial are true. My goodness how they butcher and mangle Gods scriptures.</font>[/QUOTE]Not just Catholic 'lies', but also Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox, Methodist, Presbyterian, early Baptist, in fact practically just about all Christians until about 150 years ago. So they're all liars. Good, glad we cleared that one up...

We have no problem with the words of Christ at all.

"Do this in remembrance of me"</font>[/QUOTE]Neither do I. You do however have a problem with His words "This is My Body, this is My Blood"

When Peter himself was speaking about Nicodemus and his family...who had just entered into a faith alone relationship with the resurrected Lord...he said:

"Who can forbid water, that these should not be baptised, seeing as they have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

How can anyone miss something so clear?</font>[/QUOTE]Apart apparently from the fact that it was Cornelius, not Nicodemus...but do go on...

No, not symbolic, but part of the same conversion process (per John 3:5 and Acts 2:38-39; it is perfectly in agreement with those two Scriptures - there's a shock: Scripture agrees with itself!)

And it is so easilly expained.

James was speaking about what will be the result of saving faith in Christ.

A changed life.

And this fits perfectly with Ephesians...

</font>[/QUOTE]And it also fits perfectly with the soteriology of the Catholic Church...

 

DHK,

Do you understand that your experience is not normative?

I have no reason to doubt you when you say you never heard the Gospel preached in your Catholic church.

However, YOUR local Catholic church isn't the only one in the world. I heard a very evangelistic sermon by a Catholic priest in college (and I rarely go to Mass, since I'm not Catholic). And I've heard sermons in Protestant churches (of various types) that were really not preaching the Gospel.

You see, you and your experience are NOT the lens that is authoritative, thankfully. I'd much rather be judged by our loving heavenly Father, who is gracious and kind, than by you.

Alexander

 

Matt Black,

Regarding the Catholic worship of Mary...

Again, the Catholic Church's silly little word games go in one ear, and out the other for everyone except those seeking to justify their goddess worship.

The Catholics little word games fool nobody...including God.

Nonsense. Meaningless gobbledegoop. Utter ridiculousness.

Nobody is fooled. God is not fooled.

The Catholic Church's goddess worship directed towards the "Queen of Heaven" Mary goes on unchecked, century after century.

Multitudes of commentators understand that the scriptures speak to the "whosoever will's" and to all those in any century to whom they apply.

God, through Paul here and also multitudes of other passages, is clearly condemning the adding of any works to justification through faith alone.

The Catholics works, the Evangelicals works, the Pentecostals works, your works, my works, DHK's works, Alexanders works, Briony-Glorianas works...any works.

I said...

And you say...

And of course we are both free to our convictions, as is clearly the will of God regarding things of this nature.

But DHK and I both are in complete agreement regarding the fact that we are justifued in Gods eyes today through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Not in the least, Simply feed on the scriptures, and on teachers of different views who teach from the scriptures alone, and come to your conviction.

Its Gods way and its a beautiful thing...as well as being incredibly important.

Who has ever said that on these threads? Millions are doomed to a devils hell because they are trusting in the fact that they believe the facts of some creed, and mindlessly recite them every Sunday.

No. We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Not intellectual ascent or mindless recitations of creeds.

It doesnt necesarrily have to. The scriptures interpret themselves as we "compare spiritual things with spiritual things".

I said...

And you said...

And THATS what I get for posting at a time when I'm usually asleep.

It indeed was Cornelius. Thank you.

OK...

You...

Water baptism is symbolic. Nothing magic happens as we are immersed or sprinkled.

I was born again before I was water baptised. DHK was probably born again before he was water baptised. All who are born again are usually born of the Spirit before they were water baptised.

(I say usually because sometimes a lost person is water baptised for some reason prior to being born again. Babies. Unsaved protestants doing it because because its expected of them, etc etc etc. Of course they are usually water baptised again after they are born of the Spirit.)

You...

Me...

You now...

How I wish that were true.

If it were true than Catholic apologists would have no problem with anyone proclaiming that we are justified through faith alone.

But they proclaim that to be a lie because the Catholic Church proclaims a false gospel, with works being necesarry to attain justification.

Grace and peace,

Mike