Roman Catholicism , cult or not?

[D28guy]

Alexander,

"There are many ways of spreading the Good News.

St. Francis (I think, but I may have the attribution wrong) said to preach the Gospel always - - and to even use words, if you have to.

The Good News is NOT about fire insurance. It is about the love of an infinitely gracious, kind, compassionate Father who desires to have His children with Him always. I question tactics that frighten people into the Kingdom with fear or make salvation dependent on intellectual/mental assent to correct doctrine. God desires us because he LOVES us, not because we believe all the right doctrine and can enter into a dialogue with him about the doctrince of the hypostatic union embodied in the Chalcedonian creed.

Which is not to say that doctrine and dogma are unimportant. They are. But that's another discussion.

Alexander

I'll be glad to go through your response and respond to different points, but 1st...

With all due respect, you still have not answered my question. You danced all around it, but you didnt answer it.

You and others have accused us of not being loving in warning of the danger of the false Catholic doctrines.

My question to you is not a difficult question. It can be answered with a simple yes or no.

Here it is again...

Would you consider it "loving" to not tell someone you love that they are about to drive off of a cliff?

Why cant you answer that? It can be answered with a "yes" or a "no".

Will you answer it?

Mike

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Alexander:
D28guy (Mike),

There are many ways of spreading the Good News.

Alexander

Acts 13:9-12 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,

10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.

12 Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.

I suppose there is more than one way of spreading the good news.

 

[D28guy]

Alexander,

I'm going to assume that when you come back to the discussion you will answer my question, so I'll go ahead and respond to your post.

You said...

"There are many ways of spreading the Good News.

True, but the primary way is to articulate verbally, or the equivilent(for someone deaf as an example) to the seeker the saving truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

There are other ways, but that is the primary way.

Jesus Christ employed that method, Paul employed that method, Peter employed that method, multitudes in the new testament scriptures used that method, and the scriptures identify that as the primary way.

"How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?

It goes without saying of course that "preacher" doesnt mean specifically some *ordained* believer with some designated "Title".

It simply means someone who will witness as to the truth of the gospel.

That can mean a great well known evangelist or a nobody like me.

Just a witness to communicate the truths of the gospel.

"St. Francis (I think, but I may have the attribution wrong) said to preach the Gospel always - - and to even use words, if you have to."

I *think* you are correct about it being the person the Catholics call "St Francis".

I've always heard it quoted closer to this...

"Always always always preach the gospel, and if necesarry....use words"

Thats actually a pretty good and notable statement, but if Francis meant it to be taken literally...as if to mean the primary way to "preach the gospel" is to be a good moral person...than, needless to say, he is dead wrong.

The primary way is to articulate verbally, or the equivilent(for someone deaf as an example) to the seeker the saving truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Good News is NOT about fire insurance.

The gospel most certainly IS about "fire insurance"

The gospel certainly includes more than just being given the guarentee of heaven, and the elimination of hell as an option for your eternal destination, but that is indeed the primary "good news" of the gospel.

"It is about the love of an infinitely gracious, kind, compassionate Father who desires to have His children with Him always."

I agree with that.

"I question tactics that frighten people into the Kingdom with fear.."

People are motivated by different ways. With me it was a combination of the realisation that I would go to hell if I died, and also a desire for new and more rewarding life in this world for the rest of my days on earth.

For me it was both. I knew I was going to hell when I die, and I also knew that I was a walking dead man here on earth. I could discern a very real *something* that these born again people I was encountering had in their life...that I didnt have.

But my friend, hell is real and its a terrible place to end up. It is a good thing to remind people of that, not a bad thing.

And there are tons of scriptures to support that.

"...or make salvation dependent on intellectual/mental assent to correct doctrine."

It depends on what you mean by "correct doctrine". If you mean telling someone they must be an arminian or a calvinist to be saved I agree with you.

But if you mean the great truths of the gospel, you are wrong.

People must be told...

That they are sinners and in rebellion against God.

That God cannot allow sin into heaven, and they will end up in hell.

That Christ died for their sins, paying their penalty...

"He who knew no sin, became sin, so that we might become the rightiousness of God in Him"

That God offers salvation to them by offering them...Himself!

"And this is the testimony, that God has given us eternal life. And this life is in His Son. He who has the Son, has the life. He who does not have the Son, does not have the life"

"In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in Me, and I in you."

"Do not marvel that I say unto you 'You must be born again'."

And that this offer is to be received by faith alone.

"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 anyone should boast"

"God desires us because he LOVES us, not because we believe all the right doctrine and can enter into a dialogue with him about the doctrince of the hypostatic union embodied in the Chalcedonian creed."

I agree completly with that statement.

"Which is not to say that doctrine and dogma are unimportant. They are. But that's another discussion."

Except that the gospel must be presented as God intends for it to be presented. By faith alone.

That aspect of doctrine is an exceedingly important part of the gospel.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

JackRUS,

Just curious.

Does your username have anything to do with Jack Russell Terriers?

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by I'm4Given:
Why is Jesus still on the crosses in RCC?
Johnny

The same reason evangelicals drink wine/ grape juice and eat bread in communion - to commemorate His death and remember why He died.

And, no, DHK, I find Eliyahu's posts hard to understand at the best of times and that particular one doesn't answer my question.

 

[Matt Black]

OK, assuming you do want to dialogue and hear the Catholic POV, let me try and put this forward as best I can as a former Catholic myself.

The whole faith+works thing. Let me try to deal with that as it seems to be the main point of contention.

First, I think in practical terms little difference can be found. Clearly, deeply religious people exist among both Protestants and Catholics. Just because some Protestants would rather swallow their tongue than say a Hail Mary doesn't mean their worship isn't genuine. I think whatever difference we may find in the doctrine about "being right with God", concerning practical spirituality it influences more what is weak or corrupted, not so much what is wholesome or holy, for both sides.

Second, concerning the doctrine itself I'm sincerely worried about saying too much or too little. I'm reminded of a question my wife sometimes likes to ask: "Why do you love me?" The right answer to that question is neither a purely emotional appeal ("Because you are my sweetheart..."), nor a highly detailed list of precise facts ("Because you are loving, intelligent, a good cook, ..."), nor a physical act (big kiss) but rather some inspired combination of all three. And the better the combination, the less it matters what is precisely being said, because it's more of a sign pointing towards a mystery, my love for my wife. For in the final analysis I have no final analysis of that. I think what we are discussing here is along the lines of "Why does God love me?" And I feel one should sing poetry about that, not plod throught precise theology. Only if we could specify much more precisely what our problem is, then we could expect a good answer from theology.

To not entirely beg the question: I like to think of our relation to God in terms of a marriage. Let us say that that the OT represents the falling in love and engagement of God and humanity, and that Christ's crucifixion and resurrection represents the culmination in the wedding vows. Now, we know that one side - God - of that marriage is utterly and perfectly faithful and loving. The other side - humanity - not so much... But these wedding vows are ultimately binding, since death will not part us from God.

So in the Protestant sense we can say that there's the perfect assurance of God eternally keeping his solemn loving vow to us. In that sense everything is done and nothing remains to be said. But a marriage has two partners, and that's where the Catholic picture comes in. For the truth is that most of us have forgotten entirely that we are so married. We wander the world and jump into bed with every pretty face, but don't waste a thought on our lawful "husband", God. And even those of us who at least try to be faithful, often stumble. And those who manage to be faithful, are far from being a nice "wife": cranky, demanding, bitching - that's us, mostly.

For a Catholic, that marriage is instated in our individual lives by the ring ceremony (baptism) and a steamy wedding night (confirmation). But then married life only begins. It is strongly suggested that we spend at least once a year actual face-to-face time with our husband (Eucharist), rather than just calling him up on the mobile when we feel like talking (prayer). When we make a major life decision, dedicating us fully to a specific quest (marriage & ordination), we should be asking our husband's blessing. And if we run in serious marriage trouble, we should engage a marriage counselor to help us back on track (confession), for it's always us, not our husband, who stumble. And finally, after some time of mostly making a terrible mess of our marriage, our husband will ask us (death) to either become a good wife (heaven) or accept not divorce, which is impossible, but final separation (hell). At this point the marriage counselor may give us his last advice (annointing of the sick). And then we either live happily ever after, or not...

Let us not get side-tracked into Semi-Pelagian accusations here, the above is to be understood as all coming from God. So it's the husband who gently suggests to us that we may need to see the marriage counselor, etc. I think the key difference is that Catholics like to stress the status viatoris, our pilgrimage on earth, the married life itself. Whereas Protestants like to stress how absolutely God is keeping up his end and that all is done, that the marriage vows have been said already. Now, a Catholic doesn't deny that, neither does he deny that we basically make terrible brides. It's just that he believes that God, the husband, has in his goodness set up face time, marriage counseling, etc. so that when we are finally asked whether we want a happy marriage or separation forever, we have a better chance to pick the former.

I think we should also be very careful to read declarations like those of Trent not as individual and present condemnation of all Protestants. These are statements of the past saying clearly where people were going wrong back then, people who should have known better. Warning signs for the faithful were put up. In that sense they still hold. But this does not mean that you, Gordon, stand necessarily condemned in the eyes of the RCC today. It doesn't mean that the RCC says you cannot be saved. For example, perfect contrition absolves mortal sin. For a Catholic, perfect contrition would naturally lead to the desire for the sacrament of confession. For a Protestant, this natural desire might be blocked for "historical" reasons. This does not mean that the Protestant cannot escape mortal sin, from a RCC point of view it's just that his perfect contrition cannot express itself fully. That the denial of the sacrament of confession is anathemized does thus not condemn all those who deny it today...

 

[Alexander]

D28guy(Mike),

Your thoughts about the best way to spread the Good News is interesting and not surprising, considering your earlier posts. But it is nothing more than opinion. Thank you for confirming it.

Enough said on that.

Your insistence that I answer your prior post is intriguing, and I think illustrative of where so many Protestants (especially extremely conservative and fundamentalist ones) try to engage the debate. The tactic is to put out minutely detailed, extemely sophistical traps, and then wait for someone to stumble into them. AHA! - is the response. NOW I"VE GOT YOU!

Again, not surprising, given your earlier posts.

Nonetheless, because it seems to be so immensely important to you, I'll have a go with your analogy.

If my best friend is driving his car toward a cliff and seems determined to drive it over the cliff to his death, I have 2 main options in talking to him.

1. I could say: "You know, Jim, the maker of your car didn't know what he was doing. And the company that manufactured it is full of wicked, evil people who are trying to seduce you into buying their product. He has deluded you with the design, and led you to believe that the car is safe and reliable. And by the way, it's a really ugly color.

OR I COULD SAY:

2. Jim, your parents really love you. And I love you, too. If you continue on this path you'll be taken from us. Your Mom and Dad want whats best for you and would give their lives to insure that you are happy and safe. I don't even want to think about living in a world without you as my friend. Stop this foolishness and come back to those who love you more than their own life.

Which is more worthy of a Christian? Which is truer to what our Lord was doing while on earth? Which is the most likely to obtain a hearing among those who most need to hear the Good News?

The answer is obvious, isn't it?

(Hint: option 2.)

Alexander

 

[Alexander]

Matt,

Again, many thanks for your reasoned - and reasonable - response.

My sentiments, almost exactly, expressed better than I could do.

Alexander.

 

[Eliyahu]

On this board we don't need Roman Catholic in order to debate, indeed, because there are plenty of Pro-Catholics who do not know the problems with Catholic. We can get some good rehearsal with them, which is enough.
If we invite Catholics here, usually they consider the criticism on their doctrines and traditions as the personal attacks, and they are not patient at all because they were never converted truly.

If we point out the problem with Idol making and Idol worshipping, they would deny it is Idol but claim it is just a respecting (the Mother of God).

Many of Catholic doctrines have been derived from the Bible, but by human syllogism.
Jesus was sinless, the sinless person cannot be born by sinful person, and therefore Mary was conceived to be Immaculate, which eventually contradicts "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10)
Her ancestor confessed "in sin did my mother conceive me" (Pslam 51:5)

Where can we find Mary praised in Revelation?
What will happen to the Agent of Christ at the time when Jesus Christ comes back? Will Jesus have a Summit Meeting with Pope?

Why do the Catholic Priests wear the black (or sometimes white, the color of which doesn't matter very much)? Whence they started such custom?

Interstingly I notice Baal Worshipping Priests were called Chemarim which means the Priests wearing Black Costumes ( Zephaniah 1:4, Hosea 10:5). Why does so-called Holy Father carry the Ankh Cross all the time?

My Holy Father Never Dies !

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by I'm4Given:

Why is Jesus still on the crosses in RCC?

Johnny [/QB]

It is a good point for us to think about!

In their concept, they do not remember that " It is finished" and He made a triumpant victory by Resurrection. "All sins were already forgiven" may be neglected or is not engraved in their hearts.

 

[Matt Black]

A couple of points.

First I apologise for my use of the 'B' word in my last post; as you will note by the reference to the name 'Gordon', I copied this from a more or less contemporaneous post of mine on another board which is frequented by more Brit-types for whom the B-word is nowhere near as offensive as I understand it to be in the US. If a mod wishes to delete that particular word to avoid unnecessary offence, feel free

Second, Eliyahu, I direct you to Luke 1:28-48 re praising Mary.

Third, Catholic - and Orthodox and many Anglican - priests wear black not because it is anything to do with the chemarim but because that was the standard dress (complete with dog-collar) of the average Roman middling-sort in the 4th century when Christianity became Established.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:

First, I think in practical terms little difference can be found. Clearly, deeply religious people exist among both Protestants and Catholics. Just because some Protestants would rather swallow their tongue than say a Hail Mary doesn't mean their worship isn't genuine. I think whatever difference we may find in the doctrine about "being right with God", concerning practical spirituality it influences more what is weak or corrupted, not so much what is wholesome or holy, for both sides.

Mary is dead. Praying "a hail Mary," a prayer to Mary, is praying to the dead, something expressly forbidden in the Scripture. It is also worship. Worship belongs only to God.

Revelation 22:8-9 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

In the Book of Hebrews the author tells us that man is made a lower than the angels. The angels are of a higher order than man. John, in a moment of weakness, bows down before an angel to worship him and is about to worship him. He is sharply rebuked by the angel: "See thou do it not!"
He gives the reason: "Worship God!" God alone is to be worshiped; not angels, not man or Mary, not idols or statues, not anything or anyperson--but God alone. We are to worship and pray to God alone. Prayer is a form of worship. In fact it is worship. Thus praying a Hail Mary is absolutely wrong. It amounts to blasphemy. It puts Mary on a pedestal with God, making her another god. In this respect Catholicism is no better than Hinduism having more than one god--polytheistic.

You say: "Deeply religious people exist among both Protestants and Catholics." So what! Deeply religious people exist among Islam, Buddhism, Jainim, Shintoism, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc. They are all deeply religious. That doesn't mean they are on their way to heaven as Mother Theresea once intimated. Being deeply religious means nothing. Being sincere in your religion means nothing. You can be sincere; but sincerely wrong.

You said:
"I think whatever difference we may find in the doctrine about "being right with God", concerning practical spirituality it influences more what is weak or corrupted, not so much what is wholesome or holy, for both sides"

You cannot be right with God with corrupted doctrine. There is some commonaltiy between all religions, such as the betterment of mankind. But that doesn't mean all religions are on the right path to God. Salvation is only found through the sacrificial blood of Christ, and trusting that Christ as Saviour because of that Sacrifice. He is the only way to heaven, not the church. The RCC does not teach that message. Neither do any of the other world religions. Like Islam and Hinduism the RCC preaches a false message a false gospel, one that directs people to Hell. It doesn't matter what things there may be in common with Protestantism. The differences between the two are so great that they cannot be bridged. The very essence of salvation has been corrupted.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:

Second, concerning the doctrine itself I'm sincerely worried about saying too much or too little. I'm reminded of a question my wife sometimes likes to ask: "Why do you love me?" The right answer to that question is neither a purely emotional appeal ("Because you are my sweetheart..."), nor a highly detailed list of precise facts ("Because you are loving, intelligent, a good cook, ..."), nor a physical act (big kiss) but rather some inspired combination of all three. And the better the combination, the less it matters what is precisely being said, because it's more of a sign pointing towards a mystery, my love for my wife. For in the final analysis I have no final analysis of that. I think what we are discussing here is along the lines of "Why does God love me?" And I feel one should sing poetry about that, not plod throught precise theology. Only if we could specify much more precisely what our problem is, then we could expect a good answer from theology.

What did Jesus say about love:

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me:

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words:

Three times in this one chapter Jesus teaches that the evidence of our love to Christ is our obedience to His commands. Yet, over and over again, the RCC flaunts the commands of Christ preferring to go by their tradition rather than by the commands of Christ. They have added to the Word of God by man-made doctrines which are heretical instead of adhering to the commands of Christ.
In Christ's eyes love is not an emotional wishy washy feeling. We don't run our lives by feelings. Christ demands our obedience. Christ so loved the world that he came to die for us. That wasn't emotional love. His death was painful, not erotic or lustful.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Does he expect anything less of us?
Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

To not entirely beg the question: I like to think of our relation to God in terms of a marriage. Let us say that that the OT represents the falling in love and engagement of God and humanity, and that Christ's crucifixion and resurrection represents the culmination in the wedding vows. Now, we know that one side - God - of that marriage is utterly and perfectly faithful and loving. The other side - humanity - not so much... But these wedding vows are ultimately binding, since death will not part us from God.

Marriage in some ways may be a good illustration. But you cannot mix the Old Testament with the New Testament and allegorize Scripture in such a way.

So in the Protestant sense we can say that there's the perfect assurance of God eternally keeping his solemn loving vow to us. In that sense everything is done and nothing remains to be said. But a marriage has two partners, and that's where the Catholic picture comes in. For the truth is that most of us have forgotten entirely that we are so married. We wander the world and jump into bed with every pretty face, but don't waste a thought on our lawful "husband", God. And even those of us who at least try to be faithful, often stumble. And those who manage to be faithful, are far from being a nice "wife": cranky, demanding, bitching - that's us, mostly.

God always works on a personal level. There is no "Catholic Church" in the Bible, so your analogy falls apart. When a person is saved he becomes part of the "bride of Christ," and in effect is married to Christ. Before that time he was a stranger, alienated from Christ, lost and on his way to a Christless eternity. Once he trusted Christ, it was Christ that plucked him out of sea of sinfulness, set him on solid ground, made him co-heirs with Himself, and he became part of his bride. What Christ has done for the believer can hardly be measured in words. The believer doesn't have a religion; he has a relationship, no matter what church he belongs to. It is not the church that saves him; it is Christ. He doesn't have to be a Protestant or a Catholic; he is a Christian; a follower of Christ; one who is saved by the blood of Christ. He is saved by faith and faith alone. It is the only way. Jesus Himself said: "I am the way." He didn't say that baptism was the way. He said that He was the way, and that there was no other way but through him, not through him and baptism, but only through him.
It is with him that the believer has a relationship, a very personal relationship with Christ. The consummation of this marriage (he being part of the bride) will take place in the future in heaven at the marriage supper of the lamb, after the church is raptured. But that rapture is only for every born again believer who has been saved by putting their faith and trust in Christ, that is who has been saved by faith alone.
There is no other marriage. There is no other way.
Baptism has nothing to do with it.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:

For a Catholic, that marriage is instated in our individual lives by the ring ceremony (baptism)

This is heresy, and cannot be backed up by Scripture. Baptism does not save, cannot get one into heaven. It cannot marry you to Christ. There is no relationship with Christ through baptism. Baptism is purely symbolic. There is no imparting grace through baptism. Baptism simply gets you wet, and that is all. It is purely symblolic.

and a steamy wedding night (confirmation).

There is no such thing as confirmation in the Bible. As noted before, the Catholics have thrown away the commands of Christ (the evidence of one's love for Christ), and have substituted their tradition instead. This is extra-Biblical. It again does nothing for a person. One swallows a piece of bread. You might gain a couple of calories, but that is all that happens. There is no impartation of grace. It won't make a difference in one's life. It can't make you any more holy or any less a sinner. It doesn't do anything for a person. It has nothing to do with any relationship with Christ. The only relationship with Christ is believing in his sacrificial blood and trusting in Him as one's personal Saviour entirely apart from the church or the mass.

But then married life only begins. It is strongly suggested that we spend at least once a year actual face-to-face time with our husband (Eucharist), rather than just calling him up on the mobile when we feel like talking (prayer). When we make a major life decision, dedicating us fully to a specific quest (marriage & ordination), we should be asking our husband's blessing. And if we run in serious marriage trouble, we should engage a marriage counselor to help us back on track (confession), for it's always us, not our husband, who stumble. And finally, after some time of mostly making a terrible mess of our marriage, our husband will ask us (death) to either become a good wife (heaven) or accept not divorce, which is impossible, but final separation (hell). At this point the marriage counselor may give us his last advice (annointing of the sick). And then we either live happily ever after, or not...

Acceptance into a church is not marriage to the Lamb. It is becoming a member of an apostate church. So what. That is no different than becoming a member of Hinduism. A church doesn't save. Baptism doesn't save. Confirmation doesn't save. No religious rite can save. Only Christ can save. Chist is not central to the picture you have drawn. He is secodary if even that.
You can marry yourself to a church (which you described), but that has nothing to do with Biblical salvation.
Salvation is in Christ alone. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." That is the only way of salvation. It doesn't say believe on the RCC, and you shall be saved. It says to believe on Christ and him alone.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:

First, I think in practical terms little difference can be found. Clearly, deeply religious people exist among both Protestants and Catholics. Just because some Protestants would rather swallow their tongue than say a Hail Mary doesn't mean their worship isn't genuine. I think whatever difference we may find in the doctrine about "being right with God", concerning practical spirituality it influences more what is weak or corrupted, not so much what is wholesome or holy, for both sides.

Mary is dead. Praying "a hail Mary," a prayer to Mary, is praying to the dead, something expressly forbidden in the Scripture. It is also worship. Worship belongs only to God.

Revelation 22:8-9 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

In the Book of Hebrews the author tells us that man is made a lower than the angels. The angels are of a higher order than man. John, in a moment of weakness, bows down before an angel to worship him and is about to worship him. He is sharply rebuked by the angel: "See thou do it not!"
He gives the reason: "Worship God!" God alone is to be worshiped; not angels, not man or Mary, not idols or statues, not anything or anyperson--but God alone. We are to worship and pray to God alone. Prayer is a form of worship. In fact it is worship. Thus praying a Hail Mary is absolutely wrong. It amounts to blasphemy. It puts Mary on a pedestal with God, making her another god. In this respect Catholicism is no better than Hinduism having more than one god--polytheistic. </font>[/QUOTE]Then I presume the angel Gabriel was a blasphemer also? Do you not know the difference between latria, hyperdulia and dulia?

You say: "Deeply religious people exist among both Protestants and Catholics." So what! Deeply religious people exist among Islam, Buddhism, Jainim, Shintoism, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc. They are all deeply religious. That doesn't mean they are on their way to heaven as Mother Theresea once intimated. Being deeply religious means nothing. Being sincere in your religion means nothing. You can be sincere; but sincerely wrong.

Alright, then, deeply Christian people exist within both denominations. I think you are sincere, but sincerely wrong; does that mean I think you're damned? Certainly not! I find it extremely sad that you won't extend this basic courtesy to you fellow believers in the Catholic Church.

You said:
"I think whatever difference we may find in the doctrine about "being right with God", concerning practical spirituality it influences more what is weak or corrupted, not so much what is wholesome or holy, for both sides"

You cannot be right with God with corrupted doctrine.

And I think Baptist doctrine is corrupt too. But I don't deny salvation to them. We all - Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists - affirm the Nicene Creed and that salvation is through Christ's sacrifice alone. That makes us all Christians.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:

Second, concerning the doctrine itself I'm sincerely worried about saying too much or too little. I'm reminded of a question my wife sometimes likes to ask: "Why do you love me?" The right answer to that question is neither a purely emotional appeal ("Because you are my sweetheart..."), nor a highly detailed list of precise facts ("Because you are loving, intelligent, a good cook, ..."), nor a physical act (big kiss) but rather some inspired combination of all three. And the better the combination, the less it matters what is precisely being said, because it's more of a sign pointing towards a mystery, my love for my wife. For in the final analysis I have no final analysis of that. I think what we are discussing here is along the lines of "Why does God love me?" And I feel one should sing poetry about that, not plod throught precise theology. Only if we could specify much more precisely what our problem is, then we could expect a good answer from theology.

What did Jesus say about love:

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me:

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words:

Three times in this one chapter Jesus teaches that the evidence of our love to Christ is our obedience to His commands. Yet, over and over again, the RCC flaunts the commands of Christ preferring to go by their tradition rather than by the commands of Christ. They have added to the Word of God by man-made doctrines which are heretical instead of adhering to the commands of Christ.
In Christ's eyes love is not an emotional wishy washy feeling. We don't run our lives by feelings. Christ demands our obedience. Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Does he expect anything less of us?
Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.</font>[/QUOTE]Ah, so you're adding works to faith then - the very thing you accuse the Catholics of doing! How very ironic!

God always works on a personal level. There is no "Catholic Church" in the Bible, so your analogy falls apart.

Agreed, the term Catholic Church is not mentioned in the Bible, but it is mentioned by St Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was appointed by and discipled by St John. I think you'll find that he is thus eminently more qualified to pronounce on this issue than you or I

When a person is saved he becomes part of the "bride of Christ," and in effect is married to Christ.

Ah, so my analogy doesn't break down after all, then.

Before that time he was a stranger, alienated from Christ, lost and on his way to a Christless eternity. Once he trusted Christ, it was Christ that plucked him out of sea of sinfulness, set him on solid ground, made him co-heirs with Himself, and he became part of his bride. What Christ has done for the believer can hardly be measured in words. The believer doesn't have a religion; he has a relationship, no matter what church he belongs to. It is not the church that saves him; it is Christ. He doesn't have to be a Protestant or a Catholic; he is a Christian; a follower of Christ; one who is saved by the blood of Christ.

Agreed.

He is saved by faith and faith alone. It is the only way. Jesus Himself said: "I am the way." He didn't say that baptism was the way. He said that He was the way, and that there was no other way but through him, not through him and baptism, but only through him.
It is with him that the believer has a relationship, a very personal relationship with Christ. The consummation of this marriage (he being part of the bride) will take place in the future in heaven at the marriage supper of the lamb, after the church is raptured. But that rapture is only for every born again believer who has been saved by putting their faith and trust in Christ, that is who has been saved by faith alone.
There is no other marriage. There is no other way.
Baptism has nothing to do with it.

You are selective in your quoting. Did not the Lord Himself say "Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved" (Mark 16:16, italics mine)?

[Fixed lousy code]

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:

For a Catholic, that marriage is instated in our individual lives by the ring ceremony (baptism)

This is heresy, and cannot be backed up by Scripture. Baptism does not save, cannot get one into heaven. It cannot marry you to Christ. There is no relationship with Christ through baptism. Baptism is purely symbolic. There is no imparting grace through baptism. Baptism simply gets you wet, and that is all. It is purely symblolic. </font>[/QUOTE]See the last para of my last post; you ignore both Scripture and the practice of the Christian Church from the earliest times

There is no such thing as confirmation in the Bible.

Er... I think you'll find there is - Acts 8:14-17 and numerous other examples in the NT. I would encourage you to read them.

As noted before, the Catholics have thrown away the commands of Christ (the evidence of one's love for Christ), and have substituted their tradition instead.

Nope; all the Catholics I know including my late grandmother were full of love for Jesus Christ. And what you call tradition is grounded in the teaching of the apostles whom Jesus explicitly commissioned to perform that function - Matt 18:18.

This is extra-Biblical. It again does nothing for a person. One swallows a piece of bread. You might gain a couple of calories, but that is all that happens. There is no impartation of grace. It won't make a difference in one's life. It can't make you any more holy or any less a sinner. It doesn't do anything for a person. It has nothing to do with any relationship with Christ.

Far from extra-Biblical this is in total accordance with the words of the Lord Himself and His apostle St Paul. I'm beginning to wonder whether you read the same Bible as the rest of us...

Acceptance into a church is not marriage to the Lamb.

Er...I think you'll find it is. The Bible again - remember, that collection of books written by God? - refers time and again to the Church being the Bride of Christ. When you become a Christian, you become part of that Church and thus part of His Bride.

It is becoming a member of an apostate church. So what. That is no different than becoming a member of Hinduism. A church doesn't save. Baptism doesn't save. Confirmation doesn't save. No religious rite can save. Only Christ can save. Chist is not central to the picture you have drawn. He is secodary if even that.
You can marry yourself to a church (which you described), but that has nothing to do with Biblical salvation.
Salvation is in Christ alone. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." That is the only way of salvation. It doesn't say believe on the RCC, and you shall be saved. It says to believe on Christ and him alone.
DHK

I don't see the point of repeating that verse on baptism; suffice it to say that it was reiterated by the apostles at Pentecost through their spokesman Peter - Acts 2:38-39 - and has been faithfully adhered to by the Apostles' successors ever since. I only wish that some here would be more faithful, in line with the Holy Scriptures...

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Then I presume the angel Gabriel was a blasphemer also? Do you not know the difference between latria, hyperdulia and dulia?

Your mention of Gabriel is a red herring. Gabriel is mentioned only four times in Scripture (Dan.8:16; 9:21; and Luke 1:19; 1:26). Not one time is he worshiped. He is only a messenger, as are all angels. So what is your point?
Yes, I know the difference between between latria, hyperdulia, and dulia. They are basically a false dichotomy of worship allowing the Catholic Church to worship without calling it worship. The Catholic Church likes to redefine words for their own convenience. Call it what you will, it is still worship. Praying to Mary and the other dead saints in heaven is still worship. Worship God alone. Because you redefine the word "worship" doesn't change the meaning of the word. We define it by the Bible, not by the Catholic Church's definition.

Alright, then, deeply Christian people exist within both denominations. I think you are sincere, but sincerely wrong; does that mean I think you're damned? Certainly not! I find it extremely sad that you won't extend this basic courtesy to you fellow believers in the Catholic Church.

Perhaps I don't believe I have any fellow believers in the Catholic Church. It is impossible to believe the Catholic dogma as it is, and be a believer at the same time. Catholic doctrine and Biblical doctrine at direct odds with each other when it comes to salvation. You must choose one or the either. You can't be both.

And I think Baptist doctrine is corrupt too. But I don't deny salvation to them. We all - Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists - affirm the Nicene Creed and that salvation is through Christ's sacrifice alone. That makes us all Christians.

But you don't and you know that very well.
If you affirm that that salvation is through "Christ's sacrifice alone," then you have no problem believing that one is saved by faith and faith alone. The two doctrines are one and the same thing. You don't believe what you just said. You have contradicted yourself.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

No contradiction. We both agree that Christ's sacrifice sets us free from the penalty of sin; the question is how exactly is that appropriated to the individual?

I'm sorry to hear that you don't believe that there are fellow believers in the CC but that's your loss not theirs.

The point about Gabriel is not that he is worshipped - he is not - but that he offered hyperdulia to Mary in the Annunciation narrative according to Luke. So was he a blasphemer or not...and if he is are you going to tell him or shall I...?!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ah, so you're adding works to faith then - the very thing you accuse the Catholics of doing! How very ironic!

You may think I went on a rabbit trail here and thus got confused. You started speaking of love, and so I answered what Biblical love was, but not in relation to salvation. Notice in the quotes that I gave Jesus was instructing his disciples. They were already saved, already disciples, followers of Him. This had nothing to do with salvation. I was pointing out to you the definition of love--obedience to Christ. This was not in relation to salvation. Sorry if you took it that way. It is impossible for an unsaved man to have love for Christ. The unsaved man looks for salvation in Christ like a thief looks for a policeman. Salvation is a work of God. The Holy Spirit draws a man to Christ. "There is none righteous no not one. They are all gone out of the way. They are together become unprfitable. There is none that doeth good, no, not one." (Rom.3:10-12)

Agreed, the term Catholic Church is not mentioned in the Bible, but it is mentioned by St Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was appointed by and discipled by St John. I think you'll find that he is thus eminently more qualified to pronounce on this issue than you or I

I don't find his name in the Bible. The Bible is my only authority.

Ah, so my analogy doesn't break down after all, then.

It does in the way that you apply it or use it.

You are selective in your quoting. Did not the Lord Himself say "Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved" (Mark 16:16, italics mine)?

I believe you are the one being selective here.
He also says in the same verse:

"but he that believeth not shall be damned."
--There is no mention of "and not be baptized" there.
You select one verse (for which there is an explanation) out of hundreds of verses which state that a man is saved by faith alone. You cannot build a doctrine around one verse. The totality of Scripture confirms that a man is saved by faith alone.
DHK