The Catholic Church Is Not Entirely False And Does Worship The Biblical And Historical Jesus As God

[Adonia]

Do I see error in their Doctrine, sure. But I see error in Calvinist's, Arminian's, and Charismatic's Doctrine, and pretty much any group that calls itself by the Name of Christ...and I don't think they are bereft of sincere believers. If there is someone involved in a group that they are not saved through, at the very least they are people who are more likely to be saved than Atheists or some religion that denies Christ. We should be like kids in a candy shop, and what is usually seen are bulls in china shops.

Very nice! I have much respect for your thoughts on this issue. If only the rest of us (myself included) could take this same high road more often.

 

[MennoSota]

Luther did not only want reform he wanted to change things drastically, and his refiguring of the Holy Scriptures is the prime evidence of this.

There was no refiguring of the scriptures. There was, however, an unbiased reading of the scriptures and a questioning of the interpretations provided by the church at Rome. Rome despised anyone that would question its authority and thus sought to shame Luther. What Rome did in the 4th through16th century is no different than what Muslim leaders do to Muslims who question their authority. They just kill them. Owning the wrongs of the Roman church is a first step, Adonia.

 

[Adonia]

Yeshua, I get it...you don't like the Catholic Church.


God bless.

Haaaaaaaaa! And you have a great sense of humor. (And good timing, just like Jack Benny!)

 

[MennoSota]

Because they make sense and align with the Scriptures. For example, our worship service was established long before the Scriptures were brought together as a whole. St. Justin Martyr describes this in his letters in the year 155. This is why St. Paul writes of the traditions that had been passed down and the way of worship was one of those traditions that had been established, much like your tradition accentuates the sermon during worship.

I like what a Mr. Michael David writes on his website "From Protestant to Catholic". He wrote: "It is worth noting that he (Justin Martyr) was describing the practice of the Church in Rome, which was regarded as the center of the civilized world, and was already holding a place of prominence in decision-making within the whole Church (as described in the writings of early Church fathers St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Clement of Rome). This Church was violently persecuted by the pagan Roman government of the time, and the reason wasn’t because they were stealing those pesky pagan rituals".

No one argues that the church of Rome didn't take power and demand allegiance from other churches. I agree with the historic usurpation by the church at Rome.

The liturgies of Rome were hardly established in 155 CE and even so, there is zero reason to believe such ceremonies were universal, biblical, or required by God for salvation.

Luther simply asked the question...why?

 

[Adonia]

There was no refiguring of the scriptures. There was, however, an unbiased reading of the scriptures and a questioning of the interpretations provided by the church at Rome. Rome despised anyone that would question its authority and thus sought to shame Luther. What Rome did in the 4th through16th century is no different than what Muslim leaders do to Muslims who question their authority. They just kill them. Owning the wrongs of the Roman church is a first step, Adonia.

I knew you would say that. And now we don't need to go down the road of who killed who as regards straying from one's religious belief's. I know you are well aware of the Catholic priests in England and the faithful orthodox believers elsewhere who were hung, drawn and quartered, or otherwise subject to separating souls from bodies in the most heinous of ways.

 

[MennoSota]

I have no idea who the Medici family is, because I do not make it a habit of studying groups or their histories, just study of the Word of God and I use that when I interact with someone from any faith.

History repeats itself when we fail to know what happened before.

As far as corrupt popes, there have been many corrupt leaders in Protestant and Evangelical circles as well. Its just going to happen. That doesn't mean there are no sincere born again believers among that group, and if we are to show that we have a concern for lost souls, and believe the doctrine they have embraced is damnable, then we need to witness to those people on a personal level (unless you think you can get access to the pope, and seek to yourself reform Catholicism, lol).

No one is arguing against this statement. You are deflecting.

As far as indulgences, I suggest you read the actual Official Catholic Statement about those, and you might find you do not have such a good argument after all. Personally I view Indulgences on a par with not just the typical Baptist teaching concerning tithing, but the way that this teaching translates and is applied by many Baptists, who often, though perhaps unintentionally, begin to equate their relationship with their "tithing," for which we could just as easily lay a charge of "works-based salvation."

Your view is incorrect. Indulgences teach that you can buy someone out of an imaginary place called purgatory. It's not like tithing at all. Poor comparison on your part.

The simple truth, MennoSota, is that we are not really going to make a lot pf progress in winning men to Christ by attacking their faith or religion.

Your perception is it's an attack. My perception is that I am questioning your reasoning and your unquestioning nature in regard to the church at Rome. I merely ask you and others to question what you are being taught. Secondly, we don't win anyone over to God. God either makes us alive in Christ or he doesn't. Our task is to speak the truth of reconciliation to rebels as an ambassador of Christ's Kingdom.

We are only going to lead men to Christ by presenting the Gospel, and the truth is, w don't need to bash Catholics to convey the Gospel. Secondly, it is the Holy Spirit that is going to convict, not those used to convey the Gospel itself, and it is only the Gospel that He is going to use to enlighten men.

We don't lead men to Christ. We do, however, share the good news as expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3.

Sorry, but I just get tired of seeing the same debates over and over on the same topics, between the same people, and nothing...is accomplished.

Indeed, nothing is accomplished. You can ignore the conversation if you wish.

Stick to Christian Doctrine. Discuss the reasons why, and don't let emotion break down communication of the Gospel to a name-calling event. And I am not saying you are doing this, because to be honest, I don't usually get involved in these discussions.

I agree. Let us leave emotions on the side. This is an issue of sound, biblical doctrine.

You want to witness to Catholics, great. Take them to the Word of God...only. When it gets personal then nothing is accomplished. And as I have said before, I do not view the Catholic Church as a cult, and I believe there is enough evidence to state dogmatically that there have been, and are, sincere born again Christians who also happen to be Catholics. Do I see error in their Doctrine, sure. But I see error in Calvinist's, Arminian's, and Charismatic's Doctrine, and pretty much any group that calls itself by the Name of Christ...and I don't think they are bereft of sincere believers. If there is someone involved in a group that they are not saved through, at the very least they are people who are more likely to be saved than Atheists or some religion that denies Christ. We should be like kids in a candy shop, and what is usually seen are bulls in china shops.

A cult is defined as having one leader that demands complete obedience to the dogma s/he espouses. The Roman church can legitimately be defined as a cult.

And it is just a sad fact that for some people, a means of justifying their own "salvation" is by questioning and ridiculing the "salvation" of another. Again, its the same thing we see with children, they pick on others to make themselves feel better about themselves. And the fact is, we don't need to be derisive about someone else's faith that our own faith be edified, our own faith is edified by our very relationship with God.


God bless.

It is not for any of us to condemn a person to hell. It is right to share scripture, which tells us that we are all hell bound unless God pardons our sins via Yeshua's atonement and grants spiritual life to our dead in sins spirit.
Has God made you alive in Christ apart from anything you have done?

 

[MennoSota]

Sorry. The Scriptures and the historical fact. Come on, you know the passages - "You are Peter and upon this rock......". The "binding and loosing" power. The fact that there was only one entity, led by the Bishop's, those same people who called the various synods and councils. So from this power as things went on traditions were established and handed down. This pretty much was the score until the great schism between East and West in 1054. What, none of that stuff happened?

Peter is referred to as a little rock. Jesus refers to himself as the Big Rock upon which the church is built. You and I are also little rocks if we are adopted by Christ Jesus. We are the same bricks as Peter.

The Roman church has butchered the interpretation of that passage of scripture.

 

[MennoSota]

I knew you would say that. And now we don't need to go down the road of who killed who as regards straying from one's religious belief's. I know you are well aware of the Catholic priests in England and the faithful orthodox believers elsewhere who were hung, drawn and quartered, or otherwise subject to separating souls from bodies in the most heinous of ways.

The tying of the church to the state has had horrible repurcussions. We see the same horrors today within Islam.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Come on, you know the passages - "You are Peter and upon this rock......".

Interesting that you put the ellipses at the end of this phrase, when it's actually the passage that precedes the phrase that sets the context for the phrase.

 

[Yeshua1]

True, but God may use them to draw His chosen/elect/adopted children to Himself. We are not privy to the workings of our Great King.

Good point, as he just might well be using them to affect change!

 

[Yeshua1]

The books of the Scriptures that we had been using for all the time before Luther were those decided upon by the Church as a whole way back in the 4th century, not one person.

You call what the Church came up with as "traditions of men", but the Catholic Church doctrines were inspired by the Holy Spirit as they looked at the Scriptures, the same as you claim as you interpret them.

The Spirit would NEVER give the theology of the RCC, as that would mean that he was going against Himself!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua, I get it...you don't like the Catholic Church.


God bless.

NOT the officially teaching/doctrine of the RCC, as it is Apostate! All of those people in there are enslaved pretty much, until the Lord opens their eyes and gives them the real Gospel and freedom!

 

[Yeshua1]

I have no idea who the Medici family is, because I do not make it a habit of studying groups or their histories, just study of the Word of God and I use that when I interact with someone from any faith.

As far as corrupt popes, there have been many corrupt leaders in Protestant and Evangelical circles as well. Its just going to happen. That doesn't mean there are no sincere born again believers among that group, and if we are to show that we have a concern for lost souls, and believe the doctrine they have embraced is damnable, then we need to witness to those people on a personal level (unless you think you can get access to the pope, and seek to yourself reform Catholicism, lol).

As far as indulgences, I suggest you read the actual Official Catholic Statement about those, and you might find you do not have such a good argument after all. Personally I view Indulgences on a par with not just the typical Baptist teaching concerning tithing, but the way that this teaching translates and is applied by many Baptists, who often, though perhaps unintentionally, begin to equate their relationship with their "tithing," for which we could just as easily lay a charge of "works-based salvation."

The simple truth, MennoSota, is that we are not really going to make a lot pf progress in winning men to Christ by attacking their faith or religion. We are only going to lead men to Christ by presenting the Gospel, and the truth is, w don't need to bash Catholics to convey the Gospel. Secondly, it is the Holy Spirit that is going to convict, not those used to convey the Gospel itself, and it is only the Gospel that He is going to use to enlighten men.

Sorry, but I just get tired of seeing the same debates over and over on the same topics, between the same people, and nothing...is accomplished.

Stick to Christian Doctrine. Discuss the reasons why, and don't let emotion break down communication of the Gospel to a name-calling event. And I am not saying you are doing this, because to be honest, I don't usually get involved in these discussions.

You want to witness to Catholics, great. Take them to the Word of God...only. When it gets personal then nothing is accomplished. And as I have said before, I do not view the Catholic Church as a cult, and I believe there is enough evidence to state dogmatically that there have been, and are, sincere born again Christians who also happen to be Catholics. Do I see error in their Doctrine, sure. But I see error in Calvinist's, Arminian's, and Charismatic's Doctrine, and pretty much any group that calls itself by the Name of Christ...and I don't think they are bereft of sincere believers. If there is someone involved in a group that they are not saved through, at the very least they are people who are more likely to be saved than Atheists or some religion that denies Christ. We should be like kids in a candy shop, and what is usually seen are bulls in china shops.

And it is just a sad fact that for some people, a means of justifying their own "salvation" is by questioning and ridiculing the "salvation" of another. Again, its the same thing we see with children, they pick on others to make themselves feel better about themselves. And the fact is, we don't need to be derisive about someone else's faith that our own faith be edified, our own faith is edified by our very relationship with God.


God bless.

If A Church claimed to be Christian, and yet teaches another and false Gospel, Paul stated that they were to be?

 

[Yeshua1]

The books of the Scriptures that we had been using for all the time before Luther were those decided upon by the Church as a whole way back in the 4th century, not one person.

You call what the Church came up with as "traditions of men", but the Catholic Church doctrines were inspired by the Holy Spirit as they looked at the Scriptures, the same as you claim as you interpret them.

The 66 canon Books were all recognized and being used pretty much by the end of the first century, so the RCC did NOT create them!

 

[Darrell C]

Your view is incorrect. Indulgences teach that you can buy someone out of an imaginary place called purgatory. It's not like tithing at all. Poor comparison on your part.

So quote it from Official Catholic Doctrine, then look at the Apologetics.

I did that. Didn't find what I expected. Of course, if you are looking hard enough to find something, chances are you are going to find it. Then, perhaps, spend countless hours on a forum trying to convince other people this is what they believe...

We don't lead men to Christ. We do, however, share the good news as expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3.

We don't? Who exactly are you pointing men to?

Indeed, nothing is accomplished. You can ignore the conversation if you wish.

What, and miss out on aggravating a few people?

A cult is defined as having one leader that demands complete obedience to the dogma s/he espouses.

Gee, that sounds like...every group out there.

I'm particularly fond of "If you don't quit your faith group and join mine you are destined to an eternity of Hell...!"

The Roman church can legitimately be defined as a cult.

Then so can every other group. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Seriously, though, perhaps that is how you define a cult, whereas I define a cult as any group that (specifically) errs as to Who Jesus Christ, the central figure of Scripture...is. There is a bit of a difference in this Age because prior to the New Covenant God gave respect to those among the Gentile (Pre and Post Law) that performed the works of the Law written on their hearts. But in this Age "faith in God," formerly acceptable, has given way to specific faith in Christ, and specifically faith in the Resurrection.

So I identify a cult by those who pervert the Knowledge of Christ. This would properly include religions that flatly deny veracity of the Lord.

Has God made you alive in Christ apart from anything you have done?

Absolutely. It was not a decision for me to acknowledge God was True when He showed me my sin, His Righteousness, and my destiny. That generated my response which was to plead with Him to forgive me, and save me from that judgment.

He did that.

It is a little like writing a post. I could say, MennoSota, you are in fact a very offensive fellow, and in doing so, I can create a response from you that perhaps you think you are above (getting angry by a personal remark on a forum). The response was not something you decided beforehand to do, and it may be that it was well without your power to refrain from that response. Or, I could say, "I see you are, my friend, a very sincere believer, who like me, has a burden for souls and the truth of God's Word, and want to do everything you can while you are here to make the numbers of the lost smaller than it was before you were saved." Again, a response will likely issue forth, and again...you are not the one that generated that response...I was.

So too with God enlightening the natural man to the truth of the Gospel, He reveals the truth, and we respond. It is typical for men to respond within the capacity of a nature that has not the eternal indwelling of God, which is why Christ's teaching overwhelmingly reflect a many/few ratio.

So yes, God has made me alive in Christ wholly apart from my cooperation or contribution, I could not, even if I wanted to, contribute to Christ dying on the Cross. That is the means of salvation, and that Work was accomplished by God Alone.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

So quote it from Official Catholic Doctrine, then look at the Apologetics.

I did that. Didn't find what I expected. Of course, if you are looking hard enough to find something, chances are you are going to find it. Then, perhaps, spend countless hours on a forum trying to convince other people this is what they believe...



We don't? Who exactly are you pointing men to?




What, and miss out on aggravating a few people?






Gee, that sounds like...every group out there.

I'm particularly fond of "If you don't quit your faith group and join mine you are destined to an eternity of Hell...!"




Then so can every other group. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Seriously, though, perhaps that is how you define a cult, whereas I define a cult as any group that (specifically) errs as to Who Jesus Christ, the central figure of Scripture...is. There is a bit of a difference in this Age because prior to the New Covenant God gave respect to those among the Gentile (Pre and Post Law) that performed the works of the Law written on their hearts. But in this Age "faith in God," formerly acceptable, has given way to specific faith in Christ, and specifically faith in the Resurrection.

So I identify a cult by those who pervert the Knowledge of Christ. This would properly include religions that flatly deny veracity of the Lord.




Absolutely. It was not a decision for me to acknowledge God was True when He showed me my sin, His Righteousness, and my destiny. That generated my response which was to plead with Him to forgive me, and save me from that judgment.

He did that.

It is a little like writing a post. I could say, MennoSota, you are in fact a very offensive fellow, and in doing so, I can create a response from you that perhaps you think you are above (getting angry by a personal remark on a forum). The response was not something you decided beforehand to do, and it may be that it was well without your power to refrain from that response. Or, I could say, "I see you are, my friend, a very sincere believer, who like me, has a burden for souls and the truth of God's Word, and want to do everything you can while you are here to make the numbers of the lost smaller than it was before you were saved." Again, a response will likely issue forth, and again...you are not the one that generated that response...I was.

So too with God enlightening the natural man to the truth of the Gospel, He reveals the truth, and we respond. It is typical for men to respond within the capacity of a nature that has not the eternal indwelling of God, which is why Christ's teaching overwhelmingly reflect a many/few ratio.

So yes, God has made me alive in Christ wholly apart from my cooperation or contribution, I could not, even if I wanted to, contribute to Christ dying on the Cross. That is the means of salvation, and that Work was accomplished by God Alone.


God bless.

Does the Church of Rome teach the same Gospel God revealed to the Apsotle paul?

 

[Darrell C]

If A Church claimed to be Christian, and yet teaches another and false Gospel, Paul stated that they were to be?

You would have to show me where Paul states that a church that claims to be Christian and teaches another and false Gospel...is/were to be.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Does the Church of Rome teach the same Gospel God revealed to the Apsotle paul?

I have asked you several times to present a Catholic presentation of the Gospel, then critique the error you find in it. You haven't done that, yet a Catholic on here has presented a statement of faith that I could see nothing that differed from Protestant declarations. Nothing in there that I would view as cultish, or containing error that would stand above errors in Protestant/Reformed/Evangelical doctrinal positions.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have asked you several times to present a Catholic presentation of the Gospel, then critique the error you find in it. You haven't done that, yet a Catholic on here has presented a statement of faith that I could see nothing that differed from Protestant declarations. Nothing in there that I would view as cultish, or containing error that would stand above errors in Protestant/Reformed/Evangelical doctrinal positions.


God bless.

The council of trent, and that is OFFICIALLY the stance of the RCC regarding salvation, states that if ANY preach the message that we are saved by faith alone grace alone, that is a damnable heresy!
really, either they are right and we must come back to the real Mother church, or they are Apsoste, no middle ground!

 

[Yeshua1]

You would have to show me where Paul states that a church that claims to be Christian and teaches another and false Gospel...is/were to be.


God bless.

paul did state that if ANYONE preaches other than the true Gospel, let them be damned, so think he would be very against the RCC!