Sola Scriptura

[lakeside]

Walter,look up Romans 6:7. All standard English translations render this verse as some variation on the statement, "He who has died has been freed from sin." The topic here is one of sanctification, the making the believer holy, or freeing him from sin.

What is significant about Romans 6:7 is that when it says the one who has died has been freed from sin, the word for freed is actually the Greek word for justified. What it literally says is, "He who has died has been justified from sin," yet the context is so obviously sanctificational that all standard English translations of the Bible rendered "justified from sin" as "freed from sin." This shows that for Paul there was not a rigid wall between justification and sanctification. The meanings of the two terms overlap in his mind.

 

[DHK]

After more than a decade of consultation and collaboration, the most significant changes in language used at Mass in nearly four decades takes place this weekend.
Director of Liturgy for The Catholic Archdiocese of Edmonton Father Paul Kavanagh says the Third Edition of the Roman Missal, the book of prayers used at Mass, is intended to be more faithful to the original Latin translation.
Kavanagh says for the last 40 years, the Catholic response to the phrase "The Lord be with you" has been "And also with you." But, as of this weekend, the new response will be "And with your Spirit," which is closer to the original Latin.

I remember that response in Latin. They will do anything to make the mass more liturgical and less meaningful. There is no gospel in the mass. This is more proof of that. The gospel is totally meaningless. They don't know what it is; and what it is to be saved.


http://www.630ched.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1577618

 

[Walter]

[/b]
I remember that response in Latin. They will do anything to make the mass more liturgical and less meaningful. There is no gospel in the mass. This is more proof of that. The gospel is totally meaningless. They don't know what it is; and what it is to be saved.


http://www.630ched.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1577618

Sure have to disagree with this. My aunt has done more to communicate the gospel to me as a Catholic and to lead me to repent of my sins and turn to Jesus and follow Him as my Lord than anyone else ever has. You would never convince me that she is not saved because she is a Catholic.

 

[DHK]

Sure have to disagree with this. My aunt has done more to communicate the gospel to me as a Catholic and to lead me to repent of my sins and turn to Jesus and follow Him as my Lord than anyone else ever has. You would never convince me that she is not saved because she is a Catholic.

Here are some things to consider:
1. She might be saved inspite of the RCC but not because of it.
2. The message of the RCC is diametrically opposed to the gospel message of the Bible, so no one can be saved through the teaching of the RCC.
3. If she is truly saved, and an obedient Christian she would leave the RCC.

 

[Rippon]

2. The message of the RCC is diametrically opposed to the gospel message of the Bible, so no one can be saved through the teaching of the RCC.

I don't think you have the authority or the omniscience to make that determination. The Lord can even use the heretical teachings of a Charles Finney to do His work.

People have been saved in liberal churches such as the United Methodists and PCUSA. There may be a few parish priests that though kind of shallow --may actually teach some surprisingly sound messages at times. Spurgeon and Calvin thought so too. And you know how much they were against RC doctrine.

3. If she is truly saved, and an obedient Christian she would leave the RCC.

Agreed.

 

[DHK]

I don't think you have the authority or the omniscience to make that determination. The Lord can even use the heretical teachings of a Charles Finney to do His work.

People have been saved in liberal churches such as the United Methodists and PCUSA. There may be a few parish priests that though kind of shallow --may actually teach some surprisingly sound messages at times. Spurgeon and Calvin thought so too. And you know how much they were against RC doctrine.

My authority is based on:
1. 20 years of experience in the RCC.
2. A study of the heretical teaching of the RCC Catechism.
The teaching of the Catechism is that the new birth = baptism.
If that is the teaching of the RCC concerning salvation, then they are sending people to hell not heaven. I have it on their authority, not mine. As one understands and believes the RCC doctrine they cannot be saved. They first have to deny what the RCC teaches. It is a matter of repentance.

 

[lakeside]

I think/believe that the man-made theory of "once saved always saved ' is ridiculous.

From Scripture we know that the baptismal rite instituted by Christ is a sacramental rite; it is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace, a grace that sanctifies the soul and makes it pleasing to God (1 Pet. 3:21; 2 Pet. 1:4). We also read in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 where Christ says "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," and "he who believes and is baptized will be saved." Then we read in Acts 19:1-6 and 22:16; Romans 6:3-4, 11; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 12:13; and Galatians 3:26-27, where Paul says baptism frees us from sin, makes us children of God, gives us new life, and incorporates us into the Body of Christ. In Titus 3:5, Paul again refers to baptism as the "washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God" (CCC 1215). In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul declares that baptism is "the circumcision of Christ": "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."

Catholics do not believe in the Protestant doctrine of "once saved always saved." Not only was this teaching never taught in the early Church, there is no biblical basis for it, either.

Every Catholic is called upon by the Church to make a "conscious decision to trust Christ for salvation." But trusting Christ for salvation is not a one-time event (e.g., praying the sinner’s prayer). It is a lifelong commitment. In fact, the Church teaches that "reborn as sons of God, [the baptized] must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the people of God" (CCC 1270). from Holy Bible and the CCC

 

[PilgrimPastor]

Here are some things to consider:
1. She might be saved inspite of the RCC but not because of it.
2. The message of the RCC is diametrically opposed to the gospel message of the Bible, so no one can be saved through the teaching of the RCC.
3. If she is truly saved, and an obedient Christian she would leave the RCC.

Your 3 points are arbitrary and not supported by any logical argument or authority. I am a Christian Church Pastor (Conservative Congregational Ordination, Baptist Degrees through D.Min., believers baptizer by immersion, biblical innerantist,et.al.) and I disagree.

Consider some protestant (I'm including non-denoms and everybody else here) hypocrisy. We cite Sola Scriptura (rightly) yet we must recognize that the Church (Catholic Church) canonized it. We often cite Church Fathers, mystics, and others for spiritual authority ignoring that most were Catholic.

You can't come to Christ through the RCC? What about the reformers? They were Catholics who walked away over legitimate concerns, BUT came to a more biblical understanding IN the Catholic Church.

I disagree with the metaphysical basis of transubstantiation, but the Eucharistic nonetheless celebrates Christ. I could easily argue that no one can come to faith through the teaching of Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, especially when they treat the KJV in an idolatrous fashion.

I could say that most protestants deny the authority of Jesus and His prayer for unity when we make of our faith a smorgasbord buffet of theological ideas to reject or accept as though each man or woman is the arbiter of truth; even if it is the pastor with his doctorate, am I really always right???

Look at GreekTim's signature line:

Hermeneutic: messianic/christocentric & missional based on Luke 24:44-48
Bibliology: ISV or ESV preferred; full-inerrantist, ipsissima vox; Sturzian style textual critic position
Soteriology: 5 point Calvinist; supralapsarian
Ecclesiology: reformed SBC; plurality of elders; elder led
Eschatology: Amillennial; partial-preterist

No offense intended, but this is ridiculous and I have a list of theological and praxis preferences at least as long! We pick and choose how to interpret truth and the RCC offers the Magisterium to simplify the faith of adherents and clarity on what the Bible means. I get it, I don't agree with this autocratic approach, but there are FLAWS in our approach as well.

What about this passage?

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink . Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." (John 6:53-56 NIV84)

Jesus says that we have to eat His flesh and drink His blood and then says that it is REAL food and drink! This passage can easily, on its own merit mean that Jesus is telling us to literally take His life (blood) and His sacrifice (body) into our very being; with no ascetic divorce between immaterial and material (spirit & body); no dualism; just all of Jesus.

The text goes on to say that "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60 NIV84)

If all Jesus was saying is that once a month, once a quarter, or two times a year, we would eat some wonder bread cut into squares and drink a thimble of grape juice, then WHY was it a hard saying????

Listen, I'm not soon to jump ship to the Roman Catholic Church, but lets remember that slandering them is like slandering your Great-Grandmother, even though you disagree with her outdated and backward ideas, you show her grace on some level.

We should be busy proclaiming truth to a generation without Christ, rather than fighting in our own house. Oh ya, but its a lot easier to argue with family than to go out and change the world isn't it?

 

[DHK]

I think/believe that the man-made theory of "once saved always saved ' is ridiculous.

Then you would take Christ's words to be lies??

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. (John 10:27-29)
--Four times in this one passage does Christ say we are eternally secure and cannot lose our salvation.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
--Three times in one verse does Christ say we cannot lose our salvation. You question the very words of Christ, as well as his integrity!

From Scripture we know that the baptismal rite instituted by Christ is a sacramental rite;

No we don't. That is Catholic propaganda that you cannot show from Scripture. If you can then show it from Scripture. The word "sacrament" is not even found in Scripture.

it is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace,

Show from the Bible that baptism gives grace. It doesn't. Baptism does nothing more than get you wet.

a grace that sanctifies the soul and makes it pleasing to God (1 Pet. 3:21; 2 Pet. 1:4). We also read in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 where Christ says "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," and "he who believes and is baptized will be saved." Then we read in Acts 19:1-6 and 22:16; Romans 6:3-4, 11; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 12:13; and Galatians 3:26-27, where Paul says baptism frees us from sin, makes us children of God, gives us new life, and incorporates us into the Body of Christ.

Instead of simply giving a list of unexplained Scriptures, why not show how those Scriptures do any of the things that you listed. What you said above is all false and heretical. It is pure Catholic anti-Biblical propaganda.

In Titus 3:5, Paul again refers to baptism as the "washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,"

--Paul never refers to baptism at all does he? You can't find baptism in that verse. What cleanses a person soul is the Word of God. You will find that concept in John 15:3; 1Pet.1:23; Psa.119:9, as well as many other Scriptures. God cleanses our souls with the Word of God. Baptism simply gets you wet.
What did Jeremiah have to say about the matter?

For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD. (Jeremiah 2:22)
--Jeremiah mocks your very belief.

for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God" (CCC 1215).

So says your man-made Catechism. That is uninspired and written by wicked men. So what!

In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul declares that baptism is "the circumcision of Christ": "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."

A circumcision done by Christ; a putting off of the sinful nature; etc. This is speaking of a spiritual baptism, not a water baptism. Did Christ either baptize you or circumcise you? Please tell! I am anxious to hear about this one, especially the latter. It is not physical. Tell me the evidence of your circumcision?

Catholics do not believe in the Protestant doctrine of "once saved always saved." Not only was this teaching never taught in the early Church, there is no biblical basis for it, either.

I gave you evidence--the very words of Jesus himself. Now you have a choice to make. Either what Christ said is true, or he is the biggest liar and deceiver that walked this earth. Which do you choose? The only other option you have is rebellion in your heart not to believe Christ. But that is really no option at all. Did Christ say what he said, or did he lie?

Every Catholic is called upon by the Church to make a "conscious decision to trust Christ for salvation." But trusting Christ for salvation is not a one-time event (e.g., praying the sinner’s prayer).

Then you never "trusted" (past tense) Christ as your Savior, did you. It is not progressive, a lifelong commitment.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: (Romans 5:1)
--We are not continually being justified. It happened once. And therefore we have peace with God.

It is a lifelong commitment. In fact, the Church teaches that "reborn as sons of God, [the baptized] must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the people of God" (CCC 1270). from Holy Bible and the CCC

How many times were you born into this world?
How many times does a man have to be born again?

If you are born once you will die twice.
If you are born twice you will die once.

 

[lakeside]

PilgrimPastor, I appreciate your input. I can see that the intellect part of your brain works a heck of a lot better than any of these anti-Catholics on this board.

 

[DHK]

Your 3 points are arbitrary and not supported by any logical argument or authority. I am a Christian Church Pastor (Conservative Congregational Ordination, Baptist Degrees through D.Min., believers baptizer by immersion, biblical innerantist,et.al.) and I disagree.

My points may not seem logical to you but that doesn't matter.
They are factual, and that does matter.
They are factual according to the 20 years that I spent in the Catholic Church as a devout Catholic.
They are factual according to their own Catechism.
They are factual as their actual teaching is compared to what the Bible says. That is what counts. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. I know well what the RCC teaches and I compare it to what the Bible teaches and find it wanting.

Consider some protestant (I'm including non-denoms and everybody else here) hypocrisy. We cite Sola Scriptura (rightly) yet we must recognize that the Church (Catholic Church) canonized it. We often cite Church Fathers, mystics, and others for spiritual authority ignoring that most were Catholic.

You err. The Catholic Church canonized nothing. Do you think before Catholic Councils existed that believers did not have the Word of God? I find that hard to believe. Much of the error that has come into the church has come via the ECF.

You can't come to Christ through the RCC? What about the reformers? They were Catholics who walked away over legitimate concerns, BUT came to a more biblical understanding IN the Catholic Church.

The Reformers were also called Protesters, thus Protestants. They found out all to quickly that they could not reform the RCC, and had to leave the RCC, whether by excommunication or by another way. Luther did not find out "justification by faith" through the teaching of the RCC, though he found it out while studying the Bible while he was still a priest in the RCC. That is why he protested, or at least it was an impetus to reform what in the end he knew he could not reform.

I disagree with the metaphysical basis of transubstantiation, but the Eucharistic nonetheless celebrates Christ. I could easily argue that no one can come to faith through the teaching of Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, especially when they treat the KJV in an idolatrous fashion.

The eucharist does not celebrate Christ. It blasphemes Christ. Christ is offered again and again. In a KJVO church the gospel can still be heard; it is never heard (or preached) in the RCC. You are comparing apples to oranges.

I could say that most protestants deny the authority of Jesus and His prayer for unity

I believe you misunderstand his prayer for unity. Christ does not believe or countenance the ecumenical movement.

when we make of our faith a smorgasbord buffet of theological ideas to reject or accept as though each man or woman is the arbiter of truth; even if it is the pastor with his doctorate, am I really always right???

You can only be right as the Bible is right.

Look at GreekTim's signature line:

Hermeneutic: messianic/christocentric & missional based on Luke 24:44-48
Bibliology: ISV or ESV preferred; full-inerrantist, ipsissima vox; Sturzian style textual critic position
Soteriology: 5 point Calvinist; supralapsarian
Ecclesiology: reformed SBC; plurality of elders; elder led
Eschatology: Amillennial; partial-preterist

And none of those doctrines are going to point him to hell; but the RCC certainly will. Ask GreekTim if he believes in a works-based salvation, or in baptismal regeneration, or transubstantiation? All of which are heresies.

No offense intended, but this is ridiculous and I have a list of theological and praxis preferences at least as long! We pick and choose how to interpret truth and the RCC offers the Magisterium to simplify the faith of adherents and clarity on what the Bible means. I get it, I don't agree with this autocratic approach, but there are FLAWS in our approach as well.

We have our differences of opinion, much of which is debated on this board. In the Baptist Only section there is nothing debated there that is heretical enough to send a person to hell. But that is not so here. The RCC doctrine does send people straight to hell.

What about this passage?

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink . Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." (John 6:53-56 NIV84)

It is a metaphor, like many of the metaphors that preceded it in the same passage. If it isn't a metaphor then we all should be cannibals, and that is what Jesus was teaching.

Jesus says that we have to eat His flesh and drink His blood and then says that it is REAL food and drink! This passage can easily, on its own merit mean that Jesus is telling us to literally take His life (blood) and His sacrifice (body) into our very being; with no ascetic divorce between immaterial and material (spirit & body); no dualism; just all of Jesus.

And not a single person there took it as literally as the RCC does. They knew what he was talking about. He was speaking of eternal life; of discipleship. Christ had just finished telling them that He was the bread of life, the manna that came down from heaven. If they didn't receive him they would not have eternal life. They refused the manna in the wilderness, or they complained about it. He was better than that manna. He was the bread of life. Read the entire passage. If they didn't receive him they would not have eternal life.

The text goes on to say that "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60 NIV84)

What was hard for them was complete surrender and following Christ. They knew what his words meant, unlike the deceivers of today.

If all Jesus was saying is that once a month, once a quarter, or two times a year, we would eat some wonder bread cut into squares and drink a thimble of grape juice, then WHY was it a hard saying????

Obviously that is not what Jesus was saying!!

Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:43-44)

This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (John 6:50-51)

These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? (John 6:59-60)

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. (John 6:66-68)
--It is evident that Peter knew what he was talking about.

Listen, I'm not soon to jump ship to the Roman Catholic Church, but lets remember that slandering them is like slandering your Great-Grandmother, even though you disagree with her outdated and backward ideas, you show her grace on some level.

When a Catholic comes on a Baptist board and is given a privilege to advertise his or her heresy, then that heresy must be stopped at all costs. We don't just let it go.

We should be busy proclaiming truth to a generation without Christ, rather than fighting in our own house. Oh ya, but its a lot easier to argue with family than to go out and change the world isn't it?

This isn't a church. It is a debate forum. There are discussion forums if you don't have a heart for debate. You can go and discuss the weather there. When heresy is posted someone needs to stand up and say: "Thus saith the Lord," not thus saith the RCC Catechism.

 

[PilgrimPastor]

My points may not seem logical to you but that doesn't matter.
They are factual, and that does matter.
They are factual according to the 20 years that I spent in the Catholic Church as a devout Catholic.
They are factual according to their own Catechism.
They are factual as their actual teaching is compared to what the Bible says. That is what counts. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. I know well what the RCC teaches and I compare it to what the Bible teaches and find it wanting.

You err. The Catholic Church canonized nothing. Do you think before Catholic Councils existed that believers did not have the Word of God? I find that hard to believe. Much of the error that has come into the church has come via the ECF.

The Reformers were also called Protesters, thus Protestants. They found out all to quickly that they could not reform the RCC, and had to leave the RCC, whether by excommunication or by another way. Luther did not find out "justification by faith" through the teaching of the RCC, though he found it out while studying the Bible while he was still a priest in the RCC. That is why he protested, or at least it was an impetus to reform what in the end he knew he could not reform.

The eucharist does not celebrate Christ. It blasphemes Christ. Christ is offered again and again. In a KJVO church the gospel can still be heard; it is never heard (or preached) in the RCC. You are comparing apples to oranges.

I believe you misunderstand his prayer for unity. Christ does not believe or countenance the ecumenical movement.

You can only be right as the Bible is right.


And none of those doctrines are going to point him to hell; but the RCC certainly will. Ask GreekTim if he believes in a works-based salvation, or in baptismal regeneration, or transubstantiation? All of which are heresies.

We have our differences of opinion, much of which is debated on this board. In the Baptist Only section there is nothing debated there that is heretical enough to send a person to hell. But that is not so here. The RCC doctrine does send people straight to hell.

It is a metaphor, like many of the metaphors that preceded it in the same passage. If it isn't a metaphor then we all should be cannibals, and that is what Jesus was teaching.

And not a single person there took it as literally as the RCC does. They knew what he was talking about. He was speaking of eternal life; of discipleship. Christ had just finished telling them that He was the bread of life, the manna that came down from heaven. If they didn't receive him they would not have eternal life. They refused the manna in the wilderness, or they complained about it. He was better than that manna. He was the bread of life. Read the entire passage. If they didn't receive him they would not have eternal life.

What was hard for them was complete surrender and following Christ. They knew what his words meant, unlike the deceivers of today.

Obviously that is not what Jesus was saying!!

Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:43-44)

This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (John 6:50-51)

These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? (John 6:59-60)

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. (John 6:66-68)
--It is evident that Peter knew what he was talking about.

When a Catholic comes on a Baptist board and is given a privilege to advertise his or her heresy, then that heresy must be stopped at all costs. We don't just let it go.

This isn't a church. It is a debate forum. There are discussion forums if you don't have a heart for debate. You can go and discuss the weather there. When heresy is posted someone needs to stand up and say: "Thus saith the Lord," not thus saith the RCC Catechism.

I get that this is a debate forum

RCC teaching doesn't send people to hell. It would be more accurate to say that it robs them of the truth that could have sent them to heaven.

I'm not on board with the ecumenical movement... AT ALL. My only point is that we protestants sometimes take too hard a stand against Catholic people and the Church and we have our own inconsistencies. That's my only point.

I'm actually pretty close to your perspective, I have just studied a ton of Catholic teaching of late (stumbled on as a part of my doctoral project) and gained a much deeper appreciation to the nuance of some of these doctrines that I formerly detested.

The RCC, for example, deals more completely with the idea of God bringing redemption from suffering and they have a more well defined ecclesiology. I think our teaching on both is rather week more often than not. We tend toward the prosperity gospel view and a very low view of the importance of the local church; if we didn't why so many splits, fired pastors, pastors leaving ministry left and right, church members totally dissatisfied with their churches, etc etc. :BangHead:

You could say, well they shouldn't look to men, none of them, but Jesus is establishing His Church, we are the "living stones" (I Peter 2:5) of His Church and the Church (The Body of Christ together) matters more than I think we tend to display through our actions and words with regard to the Church; in terms of the complete local church.

 

[The Biblicist]

I get that this is a debate forum

RCC teaching doesn't send people to hell. It would be more accurate to say that it robs them of the truth that could have sent them to heaven.

Don't you think this is simply semantics? Preaching a false gospel makes the one preaching it "accursed" what do you think it does for the one receiving it?

My only point is that we protestants sometimes take too hard a stand against Catholic people and the Church and we have our own inconsistencies. That's my only point.

You are either for or against Catholic Soterilogy there is no middle ground. Rome's soteriology is the most consistent salvation by works position - yours is less consistent but will lead you back to Rome if you get consistent.

I'm actually pretty close to your perspective, I have just studied a ton of Catholic teaching of late (stumbled on as a part of my doctoral project) and gained a much deeper appreciation to the nuance of some of these doctrines that I formerly detested.

Sure there are some that are very destable, but even the destestable ones are more consistent with a works for salvation soteriology and that is precisely your soteriology when all the semantics and double talk is ignored.

You could say, well they shouldn't look to men, none of them, but Jesus is establishing His Church, we are the "living stones" (I Peter 2:5) of His Church and the Church (The Body of Christ together) matters more than I think we tend to display through our actions and words with regard to the Church; in terms of the complete local church.

The Bible teaches no such church in Scriptures that includes "we" of divisive denominations, divisive faith and practices. Purely your imagination. Indeed, not even the congregation at Corinth could survive with such division (1 Cor. 11:17-20). Except two be agreed at least on basics how can they walk together much less worship together.

 

[DHK]

The RCC, for example, deals more completely with the idea of God bringing redemption from suffering and they have a more well defined ecclesiology.

Their idea of redemption is wrong, and according to the Bible it is non-existence. They believe in baptismal regeneration. This is an insult to Christ; a slap on his face. Christ shed his blood for our sins. Dying on the cross he paid the penalty that we could never paid. Now the Roman Catholic will (supposedly) go to heaven and boast: "look what I did; look what I did! Jesus couldn't make it on his own. I helped pay the price for my own sins" (baptism). But he won't get that far. Trusting in baptism for salvation gets one to hell not heaven.

Paul said it so plainly:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast[. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
--We are saved by grace through faith, and faith alone. Why? Lest any man think they can make it on their own merit, and then be able to boast about it. It blasphemously takes away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. That is what the teaching of the RCC does.

Secondly, they don't know what ecclesiology is.
It is not a denomination. It is not a universal church.
The word for church is ekklesia, meaning "assembly." In every case that ekklesia is used there is no reason why it cannot be used as a local assembly. That is the meaning of the word. There is no place where the meaning "universal" has to be forced upon the word. It just doesn't have that meaning. It means assembly, and an assembly cannot be universal. They defy the very meaning of the word.

Where would a universal assembly meet? Who would be the pastor? Who would officiate over the Lord's Table? Where would the elements come from and how would you ever know how much you would need. Who would serve all the people of the universal church? Would they all be saved and baptized. Or is that even important?

I think our teaching on both is rather week more often than not. We tend toward the prosperity gospel view and a very low view of the importance of the local church;

That is a horrible statement to make. If there is anything I preach hard against it is the prosperity gospel. We associate that with the Charismatic movement and what is known as The Third Wave. People like Benny Hinn preach it, not us. I belong to an IFB church, and we hold in utmost importance the local church. You will hear that preached by me probably more than any other poster.

if we didn't why so many splits, fired pastors, pastors leaving ministry left and right, church members totally dissatisfied with their churches, etc etc.

Maybe splits are caused because people love their churches. Have you ever thought of that. They love the truth so much that they are willing to depart from it if they think that it is going astray, even the least little bit. Hence they put great importance on the local church.
On the other hand, the average Catholic couldn't care less. They mindlessly go about their business and let the leadership of the RCC go about theirs. They don't care if the law doesn't punish sex offenders, and allow the parishes to hide them by shifting them from one parish to another instead of prosecuting them. There is evidence that the present Pope was involved in a sex scandal, but that has been swept under the rug as well. "RCC Ecclesiology"! Non-existent.

You could say, well they shouldn't look to men, none of them, but Jesus is establishing His Church, we are the "living stones" (I Peter 2:5) of His Church and the Church (The Body of Christ together) matters more than I think we tend to display through our actions and words with regard to the Church; in terms of the complete local church.

By their doctrine the RCC excludes themselves from the family of God, the Kingdom, the Bride of Christ, or whatever corporate name you would like to use. His Church does not exist on earth but only in heaven. On earth there are only churches, and they are all local. Each church is a body; a body that belongs to Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Roman Catholic idea of the church and sacraments being instrumental in actually conveying saving grace (justfication, regeneration, faith, eternal life, etc.) replaces faith "in" Christ with faithfulness "to" Christ as the instrumental means through which justification is received.

In essence, not merely the Pope but the whole church and sacraments USURP God in all Three Persons in their work of redemption and are thus Anti-Christ. Remember the term "Anti" also means to be in the place of as well as in opposition to and Rome is both.

 

[Matt Black]

Your 3 points are arbitrary and not supported by any logical argument or authority. I am a Christian Church Pastor (Conservative Congregational Ordination, Baptist Degrees through D.Min., believers baptizer by immersion, biblical innerantist,et.al.) and I disagree.

Consider some protestant (I'm including non-denoms and everybody else here) hypocrisy. We cite Sola Scriptura (rightly) yet we must recognize that the Church (Catholic Church) canonized it. We often cite Church Fathers, mystics, and others for spiritual authority ignoring that most were Catholic.

You can't come to Christ through the RCC? What about the reformers? They were Catholics who walked away over legitimate concerns, BUT came to a more biblical understanding IN the Catholic Church.

I disagree with the metaphysical basis of transubstantiation, but the Eucharistic nonetheless celebrates Christ. I could easily argue that no one can come to faith through the teaching of Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, especially when they treat the KJV in an idolatrous fashion.

I could say that most protestants deny the authority of Jesus and His prayer for unity when we make of our faith a smorgasbord buffet of theological ideas to reject or accept as though each man or woman is the arbiter of truth; even if it is the pastor with his doctorate, am I really always right???

Look at GreekTim's signature line:

Hermeneutic: messianic/christocentric & missional based on Luke 24:44-48
Bibliology: ISV or ESV preferred; full-inerrantist, ipsissima vox; Sturzian style textual critic position
Soteriology: 5 point Calvinist; supralapsarian
Ecclesiology: reformed SBC; plurality of elders; elder led
Eschatology: Amillennial; partial-preterist

No offense intended, but this is ridiculous and I have a list of theological and praxis preferences at least as long! We pick and choose how to interpret truth and the RCC offers the Magisterium to simplify the faith of adherents and clarity on what the Bible means. I get it, I don't agree with this autocratic approach, but there are FLAWS in our approach as well.

What about this passage?

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink . Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." (John 6:53-56 NIV84)

Jesus says that we have to eat His flesh and drink His blood and then says that it is REAL food and drink! This passage can easily, on its own merit mean that Jesus is telling us to literally take His life (blood) and His sacrifice (body) into our very being; with no ascetic divorce between immaterial and material (spirit & body); no dualism; just all of Jesus.

The text goes on to say that "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60 NIV84)

If all Jesus was saying is that once a month, once a quarter, or two times a year, we would eat some wonder bread cut into squares and drink a thimble of grape juice, then WHY was it a hard saying????

Listen, I'm not soon to jump ship to the Roman Catholic Church, but lets remember that slandering them is like slandering your Great-Grandmother, even though you disagree with her outdated and backward ideas, you show her grace on some level.

We should be busy proclaiming truth to a generation without Christ, rather than fighting in our own house. Oh ya, but its a lot easier to argue with family than to go out and change the world isn't it?

:thumbs::applause:

 

[lakeside]

:thumbs::applause:

add another thumbs up

 

[The Biblicist]

My points may not seem logical to you but that doesn't matter.
They are factual, and that does matter.
They are factual according to the 20 years that I spent in the Catholic Church as a devout Catholic.
They are factual according to their own Catechism.
They are factual as their actual teaching is compared to what the Bible says. That is what counts. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. I know well what the RCC teaches and I compare it to what the Bible teaches and find it wanting.

You err. The Catholic Church canonized nothing. Do you think before Catholic Councils existed that believers did not have the Word of God? I find that hard to believe. Much of the error that has come into the church has come via the ECF.

The Reformers were also called Protesters, thus Protestants. They found out all to quickly that they could not reform the RCC, and had to leave the RCC, whether by excommunication or by another way. Luther did not find out "justification by faith" through the teaching of the RCC, though he found it out while studying the Bible while he was still a priest in the RCC. That is why he protested, or at least it was an impetus to reform what in the end he knew he could not reform.

The eucharist does not celebrate Christ. It blasphemes Christ. Christ is offered again and again. In a KJVO church the gospel can still be heard; it is never heard (or preached) in the RCC. You are comparing apples to oranges.

I believe you misunderstand his prayer for unity. Christ does not believe or countenance the ecumenical movement.

You can only be right as the Bible is right.


And none of those doctrines are going to point him to hell; but the RCC certainly will. Ask GreekTim if he believes in a works-based salvation, or in baptismal regeneration, or transubstantiation? All of which are heresies.

We have our differences of opinion, much of which is debated on this board. In the Baptist Only section there is nothing debated there that is heretical enough to send a person to hell. But that is not so here. The RCC doctrine does send people straight to hell.

It is a metaphor, like many of the metaphors that preceded it in the same passage. If it isn't a metaphor then we all should be cannibals, and that is what Jesus was teaching.

And not a single person there took it as literally as the RCC does. They knew what he was talking about. He was speaking of eternal life; of discipleship. Christ had just finished telling them that He was the bread of life, the manna that came down from heaven. If they didn't receive him they would not have eternal life. They refused the manna in the wilderness, or they complained about it. He was better than that manna. He was the bread of life. Read the entire passage. If they didn't receive him they would not have eternal life.

What was hard for them was complete surrender and following Christ. They knew what his words meant, unlike the deceivers of today.

Obviously that is not what Jesus was saying!!

Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:43-44)

This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (John 6:50-51)

These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? (John 6:59-60)

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. (John 6:66-68)
--It is evident that Peter knew what he was talking about.

When a Catholic comes on a Baptist board and is given a privilege to advertise his or her heresy, then that heresy must be stopped at all costs. We don't just let it go.

This isn't a church. It is a debate forum. There are discussion forums if you don't have a heart for debate. You can go and discuss the weather there. When heresy is posted someone needs to stand up and say: "Thus saith the Lord," not thus saith the RCC Catechism.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Walter]

Your 3 points are arbitrary and not supported by any logical argument or authority. I am a Christian Church Pastor (Conservative Congregational Ordination, Baptist Degrees through D.Min., believers baptizer by immersion, biblical innerantist,et.al.) and I disagree.

Consider some protestant (I'm including non-denoms and everybody else here) hypocrisy. We cite Sola Scriptura (rightly) yet we must recognize that the Church (Catholic Church) canonized it. We often cite Church Fathers, mystics, and others for spiritual authority ignoring that most were Catholic.

You can't come to Christ through the RCC? What about the reformers? They were Catholics who walked away over legitimate concerns, BUT came to a more biblical understanding IN the Catholic Church.

I disagree with the metaphysical basis of transubstantiation, but the Eucharistic nonetheless celebrates Christ. I could easily argue that no one can come to faith through the teaching of Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, especially when they treat the KJV in an idolatrous fashion.

I could say that most protestants deny the authority of Jesus and His prayer for unity when we make of our faith a smorgasbord buffet of theological ideas to reject or accept as though each man or woman is the arbiter of truth; even if it is the pastor with his doctorate, am I really always right???

Look at GreekTim's signature line:

Hermeneutic: messianic/christocentric & missional based on Luke 24:44-48
Bibliology: ISV or ESV preferred; full-inerrantist, ipsissima vox; Sturzian style textual critic position
Soteriology: 5 point Calvinist; supralapsarian
Ecclesiology: reformed SBC; plurality of elders; elder led
Eschatology: Amillennial; partial-preterist

No offense intended, but this is ridiculous and I have a list of theological and praxis preferences at least as long! We pick and choose how to interpret truth and the RCC offers the Magisterium to simplify the faith of adherents and clarity on what the Bible means. I get it, I don't agree with this autocratic approach, but there are FLAWS in our approach as well.

What about this passage?

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink . Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." (John 6:53-56 NIV84)

Jesus says that we have to eat His flesh and drink His blood and then says that it is REAL food and drink! This passage can easily, on its own merit mean that Jesus is telling us to literally take His life (blood) and His sacrifice (body) into our very being; with no ascetic divorce between immaterial and material (spirit & body); no dualism; just all of Jesus.

The text goes on to say that "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60 NIV84)

If all Jesus was saying is that once a month, once a quarter, or two times a year, we would eat some wonder bread cut into squares and drink a thimble of grape juice, then WHY was it a hard saying????

Listen, I'm not soon to jump ship to the Roman Catholic Church, but lets remember that slandering them is like slandering your Great-Grandmother, even though you disagree with her outdated and backward ideas, you show her grace on some level.

We should be busy proclaiming truth to a generation without Christ, rather than fighting in our own house. Oh ya, but its a lot easier to argue with family than to go out and change the world isn't it?

This post in particular along with my following the thread 'Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?' has given me much to consider. Thank you! I'm finding that much of what I was taught about the Catholic faith deserves a second look. I have been looking through 'Baptist's lens' only.

 

[DHK]

This post in particular along with my following the thread 'Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?' has given me much to consider. Thank you! I'm finding that much of what I was taught about the Catholic faith deserves a second look. I have been looking through 'Baptist's lens' only.

Shortly after I got saved I had a job the nature of which left me isolated from everyone. I had a Bible and that is all. I still had not left the RCC officially. I faithfully read my Bible. I knew Catholic doctrine. As I read my Bible and compared it to RCC doctrine I knew I would have to make a choice. It was either the Bible or the RCC? I am thankful that I chose the Bible. God has blessed me so much ever since. I would not be where I am today had I not made that choice. The RCC doctrine and the doctrines of the Bible are at odds with each other. If one is a Christian and stays in the RCC, then they are a disobedient Christian. "Come out from among them saith the Lord." "How can two walk together except they be agreed." The RCC doctrine does not agree with the Bible, but in many cases stands directly against it, and therefore directly against Christ. Jude says that we "must contend for the faith."

And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. (Luke 9:62)