The $100,000 Roman Catholic Question.

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK:

"I can't help you with your misunderstanding of the Scriptures. The blind lead the blind and they both fall into a ditch. The Bible does not contradict itself. The historic teaching of salvation is that it is by faith and faith alone, as Luther found out. We are justified by faith. He preached that message. It was consistent with the apostles and with Bible-believers from the early churches onward. ..."

GE:

It is above my understanding how the Lutheran Church of today could find its truce with the Roman Church -- so peacefully!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Or is there so much going on behind the scene of which I have not the faintest clue of?

I think the ecumenical movement has taken all churches into the midstream of Roman Catholicism already. Ever heard the stillness of the river in flood?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

None of the practice of oral tradition was written down until the Bible began to be written. Salvation was in Jesus Christ several years before the writing of James (the first book of the NT) and the gospels.

GE:

Not quite so! Many sources existed when the NT 'began to be written'. In fact the Gospels received their fanal form only after the Letters.

Salvation in Jesus Christ existed from before the writing of the first book of the NT - there had never been another Way of salvation.

So yes, there has never been any period of time during which the saved were left without the one or the other. The OT was sufficient in its revelation of the Christ for that period when the NT did not exist yet. Actually this period had been richest for it's living witness of the Apostles.

The Word was alive and well when and wherever salvation was alive and well.

 

[Eliyahu]

GE:

Not quite so! Many sources existed when the NT 'began to be written'. In fact the Gospels received their fanal form only after the Letters.

Salvation in Jesus Christ existed from before the writing of the first book of the NT - there had never been another Way of salvation.

So yes, there has never been any period of time during which the saved were left without the one or the other. The OT was sufficient in its revelation of the Christ for that period when the NT did not exist yet. Actually this period had been richest for it's living witness of the Apostles.

The Word was alive and well when and wherever salvation was alive and well.

You are very much correct on this very important issue!:thumbs:

Paul was talking to Timothy about the salvation thru faith ( 2 tim 3:15). That scripture was the Old Testament.

Why did Jesus say this?
Luke 16:
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Because even Moses preached the Gospel! OT is the gospel! which many Roman Catholics and Catholic minded people do not know miserably!!!

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Im sorry I dont understand the question. Your question is clouded in obfuscation. Do you mean other than the New Testament? If so, there isnt any other source for which we have to find doctrines of the Church.

Pardon me. I was not trying to obfuscate. I attempted to restate your question to better understand what you said.

In your OP what do you mean by "demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age"?

CA

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Your arguments are frivilous, illogical, and historically wrong.

All adjectives which seem to more adequately describe your arguments.

I could do the research for you, but don't have the time right now.

So you'd rather just throw out an assertion that you can't even presently support.
(Way to go, Moderator! :applause: )

Our message is the just shall live by faith.

Which is also the catholic message. It's just not faith "only", but a faith "working through love" (Gal 5:6).

You can't even give a clear definition of what the new birth is.

I don't recall you asking me for a definition, but here's one: The new birth is new life in Christ which begins when we are saved by His mercy through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)--ie born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). In this washing (baptism) we are clothed with Christ (Gal 3:27) and raised to walk in newness of Life (Romans 6:4)

My next door neighbors (Catholics) don't have a clue as to what the new birth is, and most Catholics don't know what it means, and those Catholics that remain on this board...

Ah, the ones you haven't seen fit yet to banish?

Yet without it you cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Indeed.

It isn't preached by all. It isn't preached by the RCC. As I have already testified to that fact. I was in the RCC for 20 years and never heard the gospel preached once. The mass does not preach the gospel.

Yet other RCs on this board have testified that they have heard the gospel preach in the RCC. Why should I believe your testimony over theirs?

The sacrifice of the mass as it is called has nothing to do with the preaching of the gospel.

Perhaps you should read the service of the Eucharist from the BCP--it's the gospel proclaimed as clear as day. :thumbs:

I can't help you with your misunderstanding of the Scriptures.

It's beginning to look like I may not be able to help you with yours, but it's worth a shot for the sake of the Truth.

The blind lead the blind and they both fall into a ditch.

So should I pray then for your congregation?

The Bible does not contradict itself.

Amen.

The historic teaching of salvation is that it is by faith and faith alone, as Luther found out. We are justified by faith. He preached that message. It was consistent with the apostles and with Bible-believers from the early churches onward. We are not speaking of RCC revisionist historians.

It appears that the one revising history is you.

Take up your argument with God, the author of Eph.2:8,9 "without works"

Um...it says "not of works", not "not without works". James says faith without works is dead (God inspired that passage too) and a dead faith can't justify or save. Also you seem to have ignored the fact that in Ephesians 2:10 Paul says we are created unto good works. It's therefore hard to imagine then that Paul here means that we can be saved "without" them (works) especially since elsewhere he explicitly says that those who do good (or work what is good) will receive eternal life as God will render to each one according to his deeds (Romans 2:6-7,10). This of course is consistent with what Christ Himself taught saying that those who have "done good" will come forth to the resurrection of life (and conversely, those who have "done evil" to the resurrection of condemnation) (John 5:28-29). Personally, I'll take the words of Jesus, James, and Paul over yours.

Your problem is that you equate the "historic church with Catholicism." No wonder you are deceived.

I equate the historic Church with those visible communions that stand in succession to the Apostles and which hold to the faith of the Apostles once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). This is not limited to those in communion with the bishop of Rome. Of course mere visible affiliations with the historic visible Church doesn't guarantee salvation, as sadly many dead branches will be cut off because they aren't abiding in Christ (John 15:6) by standing in faith and continuing in the goodness of God (Romans 11:19-22). :tear:

You are straining at a gnat. Both camps are evangelical. William Carey was a Calvinist, and one of the greatest missionaries known to manking. You may want to read his biography some time.

Yet, the Calvinist is preaching the gospel regarding the god who died only for the elect and the "Arminian" is preaching about the god who died on the cross for everyone. Who is proclaiming the true "god" and thus the true "gospel"? I don't consider trying to determine who is correctly characterizing the God of the Gospel as "straining at a gnat".

Oneness Pentecostals were banned from the BB, because they are a cult spreading false doctrine.

Yet they would consider themselves Evangelical Sola Scripturists who are proclaiming the good news of Christ? Why should I take your word and your private interpretation over theirs when defining who is or isn't "evangelical"?

No, not just my mind. Need I keep emphasizing to you it is the mind of Evangelical Christianity. If you don't know what that is by now, you had better study it out, and find out. Stop misaligning all of Christianity just because you don't know how to define Christianity.

Oh, I know how to define Christianity (it seems our definitions don't entirely match). I also consider myself "evangelical", as I believe in proclaiming the truth of the gospel of Christ. I just don't agree with trying to sell antinomianism as the "gospel".

After the Reformation it is doubtful that Luther believed in baptismal regeneration.

Why don't we ask the Lutherans rather than just making speculations?

For you cannot believe in "the just shall live by faith." and "justification by faith alone," and baptismal regeneration at the same time.

Only if one limits "faith" to propositional knowlege or passive assent to the truth. (Of course justification by faith "alone" is not biblical). However, biblical faith, while including the concept of mental assent, also carries the idea of "trust", and "dependence" and "obedience", and such "obedient, trustful, and dependent" faith in Christ is not at all contradictory to being buried with Christ in baptism (Romans 6:4) nor to the ideas of abiding in Christ by "drinking His blood and eating His flesh" (John 6:56) in Holy Communion (1 Corinthians 10:16) and abiding in Christ through keeping His commandments (1 John 3:24)

I think you have your facts mixed up. As for the others, you again resort to your historic "Catholic" church which is only historic in your mind.

And historic in the minds of actual historians, but perhaps not in the minds of those who peddle their revisionist, pseudo-"historical" accounts of an alleged Baptist successionism a la TRAIL OF BLOOD.

If you don't know the message of "Evangelical Christianity" then I feel sorry for you. You need to learn it, that you may be saved. For it is by that message that one is saved.

Thankfully, I don't have to rely on your opinion about what "evangelical Christianity" is (since thou errest, not knowing the correct interpretation of the Scriptures), nor do I need to submit to your judgement about whether I'm saved or not. Perhaps it is you who needs to reread the NT and prayerfully consider whether or not you may be twisting the Scriptures to your own destruction (and possibly the destruction of others) rather than preaching the actual Gospel of our Lord and His Apostles.

Peace.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

All the Catholics have to prove that is ‘demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age', in addition to authenticity of scripture itself, is Apostolic Succession. With that Apostolic Succession defines the authority of the Church to make doctrinal, infallible, and binding decisions. Once a Catholic proves that, nothing else has to be traced back. But since I’m board and I can only shovel my drive of snow so many times, I’ll take the bait and put forth a few suggestions.

Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ?

Let’s see, the list of books found in the Bible are not found in the Bible itself and so the Bible is itself an ‘extra-biblical tradition’

Certain Protestant sects assume there’s a definitive list of fundamental articles of faith, but since the many numerous Protestant sects which can’t agree upon ‘which is necessary for the faith’; that proves that such a list of fundamentals are not found in the bible and so would itself be extra-biblical traditions.

Monogamy is not taught in the Bible. Although Christ said that a woman who leaves her husband and marries another commits adultery. There is no specific reference in the Bible that mentions men are not to have more than one wife. Monogamy is a product of Apostolic Tradition and is extra-biblical.

demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age

The Didache written around 80 AD explicitly mentions baptism by pouring. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD says that the Eucharist is the very body and blood of Christ, which suffered and rose again. Even though the Bible says that Holy Communion is a participation in the body and blood of Christ and that receiving it unworthily profanes the body and blood of Christ.

The Bible mentions whole families being baptized. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in 189 AD, which explicitly mentions the regeneration of infants by baptism.

The Bible mentions gathering on the first day of the week. Justin Martyr in 155 AD mentions Christians celebrated the Eucharist on Sundays. Moreover, St. Paul contrasts the Eucharist with pagan sacrifices in 1 Corinthians and Justin Martyr again in the same writing identifies the Eucharist with the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi.

 

[DHK]

Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ?

Be sure you take note of what is required here. It is obvious that you didn't pay attention to what was written.

All the Catholics have to prove that is ‘demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age', in addition to authenticity of scripture itself, is Apostolic Succession. With that Apostolic Succession defines the authority of the Church to make doctrinal, infallible, and binding decisions. Once a Catholic proves that, nothing else has to be traced back. But since I’m board and I can only shovel my drive of snow so many times, I’ll take the bait and put forth a few suggestions.

The Waldenses, (even according to some Catholic sources) have existed down to the Apostolic age. Others on this thread have given URL's that point to other groups of believers that obviously pre-date the Catholic Church. There is no true Apostolic Succession as all popes are appointed or elected. That is not succession. Some of the most wicked people that ever roamed the face of this world were some of the RCC Popes which would fit right in there with the likes of Adolf Hitler, carrying out Crusases, Inquistions, and the like. Would God intrust to them the keeping of "His Church?" I think not! Would they be His Vicar--His representation on this earth? I think not!
BTW, the RCC had its origins in the beginning of the fourth century during the time of Constantine, not with the Apostles.
If doctrine is infallible why are you and Galatian on here saying that doctrine has changed since the Reformation? Once it condemned all outside the RCC to Hell, whereas now it doesn't? You are contradicting yourself.

Let’s see, the list of books found in the Bible are not found in the Bible itself and so the Bible is itself an ‘extra-biblical tradition’

Note the statement above in the challenge:
extrabiblical tradition
necessary for the fiath and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ
--Does that fit either one of those catetgories? No. The order of the canon of Scripture is neither tradition, nor extrabiblical, nor is it anything that is necessary to our faith or salvation. You are straining at a gnat.

Certain Protestant sects assume there’s a definitive list of fundamental articles of faith, but since the many numerous Protestant sects which can’t agree upon ‘which is necessary for the faith’; that proves that such a list of fundamentals are not found in the bible and so would itself be extra-biblical traditions.

Are you a parrot or mimic of Doubting Thomas. Can't you come up with your own ideas? Study what "Evangelical Christianity" is. Evangelical Christianity agrees on what the message of salvation is, and is in more agreement than the various sects of Roman Catholicism. If you take the various poster in this forum: one is Word of Faith, another non-denominational, another Presbyterian, another Lutheran, another Pentecostal, and quite a few various stripes of Baptists, we will all tell you the same thing when it comes to the plan of salvation. We all agree on the same fundamentals of faith. But you do not. You have a different plan of salvation. It is not by grace. It is not by faith. In fact when it comes right down to the facts, you don't even believe that Christ died to pay the penalty for your sins. If you did, why do you believe you have to pay part of that penalty yourself in Purgatory? You suffer for your own sins (purged) because the blood of Christ was not sufficient to pay the penalty. And that is blasphemous. It seems that you don't know what the plan of salvation is.

Monogamy is not taught in the Bible. Although Christ said that a woman who leaves her husband and marries another commits adultery. There is no specific reference in the Bible that mentions men are not to have more than one wife. Monogamy is a product of Apostolic Tradition and is extra-biblical.

You err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.
Monogamy is taught from Genesis to the end of the Bible. How can you miss it?
From the beginning it (divorce) was not so.
What God has joined together let no man put asunder.
For this cause shall a man cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh.
Shall I quote to you more, or is that enough. Read and study your own Bible, or do you own one? There was a time when Catholics were not even permitted to own a Bible much less read one. Do you still follow that prohibition?

The Didache written around 80 AD explicitly mentions baptism by pouring. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD says that the Eucharist is the very body and blood of Christ, which suffered and rose again. Even though the Bible says that Holy Communion is a participation in the body and blood of Christ and that receiving it unworthily profanes the body and blood of Christ.

The church fathers mention many things. That doesn't make it right.
Iraenus believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80. Do you believe that also? Do you believe everything they tell you? Origen believed in Arianism, and a lot of other heresies, so much so that even the Catholic Church declared him to be a heretic. Go ahead and believe the church fathers, as for me I will sitick with the Bible, God's revelation to mankind.

As for the validity of these things (per the challenge above) let's examine them:
1. Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
2. The mode of baptism doesn't affect one's salvation. (Again baptism itself isn't even necessary)
3. Monogamy doesn't affect salvation. It isn't a tradition either.
4. Both monogamy and baptism are not traditions. They are commands from the Bible. You lose out on both counts.

The Bible mentions whole families being baptized. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in 189 AD, which explicitly mentions the regeneration of infants by baptism.

Evolution mentions T-Rex, the Big Bang, inter-mediate species (like half man and half ape), none of which have been seen or found. But they demand that they have happened. Where is the evidence. Can you find T-Rex today. Can you find the intermediate species today? Where is this so-called half man and half ape? If it were true the world should be full of them. The argument is from silence.
You can't argue from silence. There is no case of any infant being baptized in the Bible. The case is closed on that one. If you can't find a dinasaur being baptized, neither can you find an infant. Pope John XXIII baptized a bell! Was that according to Scripture too? What was his biblical precedent? The argument is from silence? I wonder if the bell got saved?? :laugh:

The Bible mentions gathering on the first day of the week. Justin Martyr in 155 AD mentions Christians celebrated the Eucharist on Sundays. Moreover, St. Paul contrasts the Eucharist with pagan sacrifices in 1 Corinthians and Justin Martyr again in the same writing identifies the Eucharist with the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi.

1. This is not a tradition. It has a Biblial precedent set in Acts 20:7 and in 1Cor.16:1,2.
2. This is not extra-Biblical.
3. This is not essential to our salvation. So what! You strike you here too.

 

[BobRyan]

All the Catholics have to prove that is ‘demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age', in addition to authenticity of scripture itself, is Apostolic Succession. With that Apostolic Succession defines the authority of the Church to make doctrinal, infallible, and binding decisions. Once a Catholic proves that, nothing else has to be traced back.

The OP said that you had to prove an extrabibilcal tradition that is REQUIRED for salvation.

You have said "I hope to prove one - that is apostolic succession - and then everything else is infallible" and did you mean to add "AND required for salvation"???

Because if you did - then you forgot to mention it. And if you did mean that - you can take no OTHER position than "no salvation outside of the Catholic church"..

But as to your logic above your premise is demonstratably wrong. WE DEBATE and DENY that the RCC has the right of apostolic succession - that much is clear to all.

But WE ADMIT that MOSES setup a VALID biblical system of high-priestly succession!! Your flaw is that you ASSUME that given the succession argument we must all jump on the badnwagon of "infallible doctrines to follow".

As Christ pointed out in Mark 7 this was NEVER true in the succession model!! Your argument "died in proposal" the premise for what would follow is without support.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I admit that the tradition of Eucharist as the RCC does it is extrabiblical just as infant baptism is -- Agnus is correct that they are not in the Bible.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Sidebar.

DHK,

RE "The Waldenses, (even according to some Catholic sources) have existed down to the Apostolic age."

According to Giorgio Tourn in The Waldensians: The First 800 Years (1980), Pius Melia in The Origin, Persecutions and Doctrines of the Waldenses (ca. 1870, reprinted in 1970), and Emilio Comba in History of the Waldenses of Italy (ca. 1880, reprinted in 1978) the Waldensians began with Peter Waldo in the 12th century.

What sources do you have that show an earlier date?

CA

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Sidebar.

DHK,

RE "BTW, the RCC had its origins in the beginning of the fourth century during the time of Constantine, not with the Apostles."

While one may be able to make a case that the Papacy as we have it today may have come to fruition in the early 300's AD, the Protestant theologian Emil Brunner (no friend of Catholics, BTW) notes that "the Roman Catholic Church was in principle present" with the First Epistle of Clement written ca. 90 AD "in which for the first time the legal authority of ecclesiastical office over the local community is emphasized."

Brunner comments that "it is not the rise of the Papacy that is to be wondered at, but the fact that it was delayed so long."

The Protestant Historian Kenneth Scott Latourette notes that "before the first century of it's existence was out, the Church began to display certain organizational features which, developed, have persisted, with modifications, into the 20th century..." and... "Well before the end of the second century the Church of Rome was occupying an outstanding place in the total Christian fellowship."

CA

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

"They (Solo Scripturists) all seem to agree that the Bible is all that is needed for faith and practice, yet they disagree on which doctrines purportedly found in the Bible are necessary for faith and practice.

For example, Lutherans and COCers believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation while others do not. Some think that in the Eucharist we participate in the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore Communion is "necessary for faith and practice"; others don't and treat the Lord's Supper as an optional ceremony. Some say just accepting Christ as Savior is all that is needed, while others state one must submit to Him as LORD as well (ie some say works aren't necessary, some say that they are). Examples can be multiplied, but the point is that contrary combinations of doctrines which are deemed "necessary for faith and practice" are as numerous as the groups who claim to be going "only by the Book". So even when one limits those dogmas necessary for salvation to what can be found in the Scriptures (which I agree with), the problem of interpretation--and thus coming up with a consistent authoritative list of necessary doctrines--remains."

If you ask a Baptist, Charismatic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Assemblies of God, or any number of scores of different groups found in the one body of Christ, about how to be saved, you will hear the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christ died for your sins, He rose from the dead, and He is now offering eternal life to the "whosoeverwills" through faith in Him.

Differing groups do indeed emphasize different aspects of teaching, just as God told us to expect....

"Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind, for who are you to judge anothers servant" and "to his own master he will stand or fall, and God is able to make him stand"

God told us that some are an eye, some are a hand, and some an ear. But God gives the increase, and He causes all things to work together for good.

God instructs us to allow the differences.

But let me ask you this. Since these differences trouble you so, and you seem to like the "Catholic" style of so called "unity", which of these Catholic groups have it right?...


Adrian Dominican Sisters
Amadeans
Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Apostolic Union of Secular Priests
Assumptionists
Augustinian Sisters, Servants of Jesus and Mary
Austrian Congregation

Baladites
Baptistines
Barnabites
Latin Basilians
Benedictine Confederation
Bethlehemites
Boni Homines
Bridgettines
Brothers Hospitallers of St. John of God
Brothers of Our Lady of Mercy
Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament
Consecrated life (Catholic Church)
Daughters of Divine Charity
Daughters of the Cross
Daughters of the Holy Spirit
Discalceation
Dominican Nuns of the Perpetual Rosary
Dominican Order
Fathers of Mercy
Fonte Avellana
Franciscan
Franciscan Apostolic Sisters
Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn
Franciscan Missionary Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
Jesuati

Knights of Saint Mary
Knights of the Cross


Marianist Family
Marist Sisters
Maryknoll Sisters of St. Dominic
Mercy International Centre
Militia Templi

Oblate Sisters of Providence
Oblates of St. Joseph
Olivetans
Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration
Presentation Sisters
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter

Religious Sisters of Mercy
Resurrectionist Order
Rogationists

(there was about 10 times this many, but I had to delete most of them to not exceed the charachter limit for each post)

I can assure you. All of these groups DO NOT ALL BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS. I was raised in the church of Rome. I know what I am talking about.



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...es&until=Sisters+of+the+Holy+Family-Louisiana

God bless,

Mike

 

[DHK]

Sidebar.

DHK,

RE "BTW, the RCC had its origins in the beginning of the fourth century during the time of Constantine, not with the Apostles."

While one may be able to make a case that the Papacy as we have it today may have come to fruition in the early 300's AD, the Protestant theologian Emil Brunner (no friend of Catholics, BTW) notes that "the Roman Catholic Church was in principle present" with the First Epistle of Clement written ca. 90 AD "in which for the first time the legal authority of ecclesiastical office over the local community is emphasized."

Brunner comments that "it is not the rise of the Papacy that is to be wondered at, but the fact that it was delayed so long."

The Protestant Historian Kenneth Scott Latourette notes that "before the first century of it's existence was out, the Church began to display certain organizational features which, developed, have persisted, with modifications, into the 20th century..." and... "Well before the end of the second century the Church of Rome was occupying an outstanding place in the total Christian fellowship."

CA

We readily admit that there were heresies that the RCC now holds, and even centers its primary teachings around, before the fourth century. Teachings of baptismal regeneration was one of the very first heresies in the Christian Church. Infant baptism crept in next; transubstantiation was soon to follow. By the fourth century all of these were present along with much paganism. When Constantine became emperor, he declared Christianity a state religion. Basically he paganized Christianity and Christianized paganism. Thus were the beginnings of the RCC, when it became a state religion, not when the heresied thereof began to develop. The RCC was not developed on just one or two of its heresies.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Doubting Thomas,
If you ask a Baptist, Charismatic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Assemblies of God, or any number of scores of different groups found in the one body of Christ, about how to be saved, you will hear the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Which "gospel"? The one in which we just need to "Accept Jesus as SAVIOR", or the one which states that we must submit to Him as LORD in order for Him to be our SAVIOR? Proponents of the former accuse the latter of preaching a "works salvation", while the latter accuses the former of antinomianism. Each accuse the other of teaching a "false gospel", and both can't be right and the same time. Yet both appeal to "scripture alone" as their authority.

Which "gospel"? The one regarding the "god" who died only for the "elect", or the one proclaiming that "god" died a for "all men"? Which is the true God of the true gospel? These positions represent contrary views regarding the character of God, yet you have Sola Scripturists at argue strenuously that theirs is the biblical position and the others is false.

Which "gospel"? The one which offers an irrevocable, unconditional fire insurance policy, or the one that proclaims that salvation is contigent upon our ongoing participation in the life of Christ? Both positions have their adherents among solo scripturists, yet they present two radically different concepts of "salvation".

Differing groups do indeed emphasize different aspects of teaching, just as God told us to expect....

You mean God told us we could expect that contradictory teachings regarding the nature of God, and Christ, and salvation would be euphemistically passed off as "different emphases or aspects"? :tonofbricks:

"Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind, for who are you to judge anothers servant" and "to his own master he will stand or fall, and God is able to make him stand"

God told us that some are an eye, some are a hand, and some an ear. But God gives the increase, and He causes all things to work together for good.

God instructs us to allow the differences.

God instructs us to allow differences regarding personal convictions about such things as eating meat or drinking wine, NOT about the objective truths about God, Christ, and salvation. Incorrect teachings regarding the latter is called "HERESY".

Peace.

 

[DHK]

Which "gospel"? The one in which we just need to "Accept Jesus as SAVIOR", or the one which states that we must submit to Him as LORD in order for Him to be our SAVIOR? Proponents of the former accuse the latter of preaching a "works salvation", while the latter accuses the former of antinomianism. Each accuse the other of teaching a "false gospel", and both can't be right and the same time. Yet both appeal to "scripture alone" as their authority.

There is no difference. It is semantics. It is not worth bringing into a conversation such as this and I believe you know it. The gospel still remains the same. Theological differences after that remain minot.

Which "gospel"? The one regarding the "god" who died only for the "elect", or the one proclaiming that "god" died a for "all men"?

Which is the true God of the true gospel? These positions represent contrary views regarding the character of God, yet you have Sola Scripturists at argue strenuously that theirs is the biblical position and the others is false.

Which "gospel"? The one which offers an irrevocable, unconditional fire insurance policy, or the one that proclaims that salvation is contigent upon our ongoing participation in the life of Christ? Both positions have their adherents among solo scripturists, yet they present two radically different concepts of "salvation".

So you are playing the Calvinist card. More semantics. The gospel is just the same in both camps. Both Calvinist and Arminian Baptists preach the same gospel. Theological differences between the two are minor. Theological differences between Catholics are greater than those between these two camps of Baptists. Becasue you notice fervent debate about these points on the BB doesn't mean there is that much of a difference in the outworking of practical doctrine.

You mean God told us we could expect that contradictory teachings regarding the nature of God, and Christ, and salvation would be euphemistically passed off as "different emphases or aspects"?

You have been badly misled and are purposely trying to mislead others.

God instructs us to allow differences regarding personal convictions about such things as eating meat or drinking wine, NOT about the objective truths about God, Christ, and salvation. Incorrect teachings regarding the latter is called "HERESY".

The RCC teaches the heresy. The gospel which we preach is not heresy. You haven't pointed to one doctrine that is heresy, only minor theological differences which we attribute to soul liberty. That's a doctrine that the RCC church hates because it has determined that all of its followers be mindless little mimes that do not think for themselves but only mimic whatever the magesterium dictates to them. BTW, that is a characteristic of almost every heretical cult.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

There is no difference. It is semantics. It is not worth bringing into a conversation such as this and I believe you know it. The gospel still remains the same. Theological differences after that remain minot.

It IS worth bringing into the conversation, because if the "Lordship" folks are correct, then those folks told that all they need to do is "accept Christ as Savior" (and that Lordship is optional to actual salvation) are hearing a false "gospel" and are being deceived perhaps to their own destruction. One's "gospel" says you must submit to Christ as LORD to be "Saved", and the other asserts otherwise. That's not the same "Gospel", despite common references to who Christ is and what He did, because these "gospel" differ fundamentally in how one appropriates for one's self the 'benefits' won by Christ.

So you are playing the Calvinist card. More semantics. The gospel is just the same in both camps. Both Calvinist and Arminian Baptists preach the same gospel. Theological differences between the two are minor.

It's NOT minor because the two positions differ on the character of "god". One posits a "god" who only loves some and died for some while having no intention or desire to save the rest; the other proclaims a "god" who provided atonement for all. Both positions cannot both be true of the same God, and thus, despite some similarities in teaching and terminology, represent different "gospels".

You have been badly misled and are purposely trying to mislead others.

I'm not the one who has been mislead. You (and others) are the ones doing the misleading by implying that contradictory differences regarding the character of God and/or how one becomes a Christian are mere "semantics" or "minor differences". Some of these "gospels" are potentially soul damning resulting as they do from people twisting Scriptures out of context. However, and fortunately for us, God is great and is still able to save souls despite the distorted, truncated versions of the gospel people initially may hear preached by certain Solo Scripturists. This is because God is gracious enough to lead souls to look at the full gospel in the entire New Testament (the gospel preached by the apostles and deposited in the young Church and defended by the early fathers and apologists), looking beyond the misinterpretations of which result from trying to stuff "round" Scriptural truth into "square" Protestant doctrinal "holes".:godisgood:

The RCC teaches the heresy. The gospel which we preach is not heresy. You haven't pointed to one doctrine that is heresy

Antinomianism is heresy...OSAS is heresy...Calvinism (monergism) is heresy...the Zwinglian view of Baptism and the Eucharist is heresy. (There's four doctrines for ya')...oh, and the idea that one can come up with an alternative gospel or concept of "god" under the guise of "soul liberty" is also heresy.

only minor theological differences which we attribute to soul liberty.

Sorry, God didn't give His Church the "soul liberty" to decide that mutually contradictory concepts of God or the gospel are equally valid (even if the parties involved all agree to condemn Rome :1_grouphug: ). Those concepts and teachings which deviate from the deposit of faith and the consensus of the Apostolic Churches are in fact HERESY.

That's a doctrine that the RCC church hates because it has determined that all of its followers be mindless little mimes that do not think for themselves

If you mean that the RCC doesn't think that individuals (or groups thereof) should decide for themselves to alter the deposit of faith, and thinks that relativism is a bad idea, then I would certainly agree with the RCC on those two particulary points. (I do think however if the RCC applied the first point to themselves they too would have to back off some their "dogmas" particularly regarding the papacy)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK:

"If you take the various poster in this forum: one is Word of Faith, another non-denominational, another Presbyterian, another Lutheran, another Pentecostal, and quite a few various stripes of Baptists, we will all tell you the same thing when it comes to the plan of salvation."

GE:

Maybe one day in the hereafter! But not now. In fact, most of these 'non-denominationals' as well as denominationals, believe a lot of RC humbug. The discussions on this very Board proves it.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

For me there's little or no difference between Arminianism and Roman Catholicism, e.g..

 

[DHK]

For me there's little or no difference between Arminianism and Roman Catholicism, e.g..

Dig deeper. Calvinism didn't originate with Calvin. Calvin took his ideas (almost plagiarized) them from Augustine (one of the devout heroes of the Catholic faith). Calvin almost worshiped Augustine. Augusine was a thorough "Calvinist" if there ever was one. Check you history.