The Catholic Church

[OldRegular]

Yep, almost as many errors there as in Calvinism.

You are obviously ignorant of Scripture and my beliefs. I have repeatedly said I am not a Calvinist. That Calvin believed, as Scripture states, that Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith is simply a credit to his obedience to Scripture.

Feel free to call Calvin an "OldRegular" if it makes you feel good but he would have to repent of his teaching on infant baptism.

As to Roman Catholics beliefs and practices, they are clearly heretical to one who believes the Bible.

 

[OldRegular]

What type of church or churches do you think was preserving the NT church along side the RCC before the Reformation?

A Baptist Church!:thumbs::love2::thumbs::love2:

 

[OldRegular]

[/B]

Yes, indeed, and the EOC dunks them babies, too!

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

You said the bible teaches over and over that you are saved by failth alone. Can you tell me just one place in the bible it says that we are saved by faith ALONE?

Ephesians 2:8, 9
8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

We are saved by the Grace of God, not by works. Seems sufficiently clear for many! Others simply want to get the big I involved or in the case of Roman Catholics, the priest.

 

[DHK]

I do not believe that. I disagree with the Calvinists as strongly as I do the RCC -- more so in certain areas -- but I would not say that Calvinists cannot be Christians.

First, let me say this. It is a red herring, off topic, and has nothing to do with the op. If you want to start another thread on this topic, then please do so.

However, I will give an answer to it, but I would hope you would answer in another thread.

I also disagree with Calvinism, but I would never call my Calvinistic brethren unsaved, either. We both believe that "salvation is by grace through faith." The RCC does not. They believe salvation is by works through baptismal regeneration.
One cannot firmly believe in the dogmas of the RCC and believe in the doctrine of salvation at the same time. The RCC does not teach Biblical salvation. They teach a religion of works. Works does not and never have saved.

 

[DHK]

I think Catholics agree that salvation is by faith too, just not faith ALONE. You said the bible teaches over and over that you are saved by failth alone. Can you tell me just one place in the bible it says that we are saved by faith ALONE?

How would you explain these verses?

John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’”

They explain this as baptism. That makes it mean baptismal regeneration. No man is saved by water. It is one of the first heresies to enter into Christianity. We are not saved by water or baptism--a superstition. There is nothing in the context to even suggest that water means baptism. There are many other logical explanations then jumping to the conclusion that water means baptism. I am sure that Nicodemus, being a ruler of the Jews, would not have immediately thought of baptism when Jesus said "water and of the Spirit."

Acts 2:38: “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

"for the forgiveness of sins" The word "for" in the Greek is a preposition which has many meanings. Most often it is translated in or into. But take a look at how it is used in Matthew:

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
The same word "eis" is used, but here is translated "unto." Did John baptize that they may receive repentance, or because they had repented? He had also warned them to bring fruits of their repentance. Bring proof. He would only baptize if he could see the proof. He baptize (on account of; on the basis of; because of) their repentance.
The same is true in Acts 2:38. The same word is used. Repent and be baptized...on the basis of, or because of "the forgiveness of your sins.

Acts 22:16: “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”

First Paul wasn't even saved at this point. He is summarizing his testimony. He was saved much earlier on when on the road to Damascus, when he called on the Lord: "Who are thou Lord," and afterward showed his obedience and surrender to the Lord, by saying, "Lord, what would you have me to do." So the whole passage is superfluous. He wasn't saved at his baptism which happened some time after his encounter with Jesus.
--The construction of the verbs is important.

Rise and be baptized. Having called upon his name your sins are washed away.

1 Corinthians 6:11: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

This describes the state of the believer after he has come to Christ.

Titus 3:5: “he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,”

The washing here is not baptism. I can show you later how it refers to the washing by the Word of God.

1 Peter 3:19-21: “in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”

This is a complete figure of speech going back to Noah. Water is a picture of destruction, thus not a picture of NT baptism. The passage even says "not as a removal of dirt from the body." I can give more explanation of this verse later. I have to go now.

 

[JonC]

One thing that I was told which I thought was a good point was. The Catholic Church is the only Christian "group" that has been consistant in its doctorine from its beginning. How do we explain the thousands of different denominations among the Protestants? It seems that if we are left to interpret the scriptures ourselves, we can't agree on much. So we have baptistc, methodests, etc. among the protestants.

How do we explain this?

It is absurd to hold that the Catholic Church even remotely held to a consistent doctrine from its beginning. I don’t even think that most Catholics believe this. There was also never a time when the Catholic Church was the only church in existence.

 

[JonC]

The RCC was formed with the blending of Christianity and the Roman Empire. The Constantinian synthesis changed the church into a Christian/pagan system where faith was secondary (if at all important) to obedience (you could have Christians who are so because of faith, but you could also have “Christians” who are so by nationality).

I recently read a work by Hans-Josef Klauk (he’s a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School and a Catholic priest). In defending the Catholic belief system, particularly the Sacraments, he noted that the origin of the sacramental system was extra-biblical (originating with the Roman “mystery religion”) but he viewed the translation of Christianity into the pagan setting as beneficial. He sees the synthesis as purifying the paganism of Rome in such a way that made it Christian. Others - Leonard Verduin, for example - view it as a perpetuation of paganism (and the RCC as the “fallen church”).

 

[OldRegular]

The RCC was formed with the blending of Christianity and the Roman Empire. The Constantinian synthesis changed the church into a Christian/pagan system where faith was secondary (if at all important) to obedience (you could have Christians who are so because of faith, but you could also have “Christians” who are so by nationality).

I recently read a work by Hans-Josef Klauk (he’s a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School and a Catholic priest). In defending the Catholic belief system, particularly the Sacraments, he noted that the origin of the sacramental system was extra-biblical (originating with the Roman “mystery religion”) but he viewed the translation of Christianity into the pagan setting as beneficial. He sees the synthesis as purifying the paganism of Rome in such a way that made it Christian. Others - Leonard Verduin, for example - view it as a perpetuation of paganism (and the RCC as the “fallen church”).

Verduin's remarks are consistent with what the historian Philip Schaff writes in his History of the Christian Church posted earlier on this thread!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You are obviously ignorant of Scripture and my beliefs. I have repeatedly said I am not a Calvinist. That Calvin believed, as Scripture states, that Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith is simply a credit to his obedience to Scripture.

Feel free to call Calvin an "OldRegular" if it makes you feel good but he would have to repent of his teaching on infant baptism.

As to Roman Catholics beliefs and practices, they are clearly heretical to one who believes the Bible.

And you are obviously ignorant -- period. Plus devoid of a sense of humor.

Where in my post did I say that you were a Calvinist? I must have written that with invisible ink, or type.

As to Calvinist beliefs and practices, they are clearly heretical (a minority opinion) to one who believes the Bible and knows early church teaching.

Now take note: In that last statement, I did not call you a Calvinist, lest you falsely accuse me of something again. (sigh)

 

[Michael Wrenn]

They explain this as baptism. That makes it mean baptismal regeneration. No man is saved by water. It is one of the first heresies to enter into Christianity. We are not saved by water or baptism--a superstition. There is nothing in the context to even suggest that water means baptism. There are many other logical explanations then jumping to the conclusion that water means baptism. I am sure that Nicodemus, being a ruler of the Jews, would not have immediately thought of baptism when Jesus said "water and of the Spirit."

"for the forgiveness of sins" The word "for" in the Greek is a preposition which has many meanings. Most often it is translated in or into. But take a look at how it is used in Matthew:

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
The same word "eis" is used, but here is translated "unto." Did John baptize that they may receive repentance, or because they had repented? He had also warned them to bring fruits of their repentance. Bring proof. He would only baptize if he could see the proof. He baptize (on account of; on the basis of; because of) their repentance.
The same is true in Acts 2:38. The same word is used. Repent and be baptized...on the basis of, or because of "the forgiveness of your sins.

First Paul wasn't even saved at this point. He is summarizing his testimony. He was saved much earlier on when on the road to Damascus, when he called on the Lord: "Who are thou Lord," and afterward showed his obedience and surrender to the Lord, by saying, "Lord, what would you have me to do." So the whole passage is superfluous. He wasn't saved at his baptism which happened some time after his encounter with Jesus.
--The construction of the verbs is important.

Rise and be baptized. Having called upon his name your sins are washed away.

This describes the state of the believer after he has come to Christ.

The washing here is not baptism. I can show you later how it refers to the washing by the Word of God.

This is a complete figure of speech going back to Noah. Water is a picture of destruction, thus not a picture of NT baptism. The passage even says "not as a removal of dirt from the body." I can give more explanation of this verse later. I have to go now.

Excellent -- all of it!!

 

[TCGreek]

Like everyone else, including Baptists, Catholics maybe saved through Christ. Denominational affiliation does not guarantee salvation.

 

[milby]

Ephesians 2:8, 9
8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

We are saved by the Grace of God, not by works. Seems sufficiently clear for many! Others simply want to get the big I involved or in the case of Roman Catholics, the priest.

I asked for verses that say faith ALONE. I even capitalized the word ALONE. There are many more verses besides ephesians 2:9 that say faith + works. I will list them later if needed but right now by son has been waiting patiently for me to go outside and play catch with him.

 

[Walter]

I asked for verses that say faith ALONE. I even capitalized the word ALONE. There are many more verses besides ephesians 2:9 that say faith + works. I will list them later if needed but right now by son has been waiting patiently for me to go outside and play catch with him.

The silence is because there is no verse that says faith alone. Unless you count Luther's version where he penciled it in! Luther added the word "alone" (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: "thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith.

 

[OldRegular]

Ephesians 2:8, 9
8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

We are saved by the Grace of God, not by works. Seems sufficiently clear for many! Others simply want to get the big I involved or in the case of Roman Catholics, the priest.

I asked for verses that say faith ALONE. I even capitalized the word ALONE. There are many more verses besides ephesians 2:9 that say faith + works. I will list them later if needed but right now by son has been waiting patiently for me to go outside and play catch with him.

Sorry, I cannot commend you on your reading skills. Do you see anything in the passage from Ephesians that states we are saved by anything other than the Grace of God. Furthermore, you cannot find any Scripture that states we are saved by faith plus works. You will be able to find Scripture that states that works are evidence of our faith.

The Apostle Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:10, which follows Ephesians 2:9, that we are the workmanship of God created in Christ Jesus to do good works. In fact the first 10 verses of Ephesians 2 are about the work of God the Holy Spirit in the regeneration [that is the New Birth.] of the elect. Nothing at all about water baptismal regeneration.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Perhaps God knew that there would be people like you who thought they could work themselves to Salvation; you know like Mormons, Roman Catholics, and Jews, and had Paul write verse 10 just for you!:godisgood:

 

[OldRegular]

The silence is because there is no verse that says faith alone. Unless you count Luther's version where he penciled it in! Luther added the word "alone" (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: "thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith.

Silence is not forever Walter!:laugh:

I can't commend your reading skills either Walter. Do you see faith plus works in the passage you accused Luther of modifying? Do you? Don't be silent!

Romans 3:28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

God through the Apostle clearly tells us that we are justified by faith without the deeds of the law. :godisgood: That means we are justified by faith alone!

 

[OldRegular]

Like everyone else, including Baptists, Catholics maybe saved through Christ. Denominational affiliation does not guarantee salvation.

If they are saved they are saved through Jesus Christ in spite of the heretical teaching magisterium and tradition of Roman Catholicism.

 

[TCGreek]

If they are saved they are saved through Jesus Christ in spite of the heretical teaching magisterium and tradition of Roman Catholicism.

Like all who will be saved. Last time I checked faith in Christ is what saves, not a set of doctrines.

 

[OldRegular]

And you are obviously ignorant -- period. Plus devoid of a sense of humor.

Not very nice MW. I did not say you were ignorant, period. I said:

Originally posted by OldRegular
You are obviously ignorant of Scripture and my beliefs.

Big difference!

Where in my post did I say that you were a Calvinist? I must have written that with invisible ink, or type.

It is well known by most on this Board that I believe in the Doctrines of Grace and that I reject certain doctrinal views of Calvin!

As to Calvinist beliefs and practices, they are clearly heretical (a minority opinion) to one who believes the Bible and knows early church teaching.

I am not so ignorant that I don't know what constitutes heresy. Anyone who states that the Doctrines of Grace are heretical is certainly unlearned [That means ignorant.] but I hope not stupid. :thumbs:

(sigh)

Life does get tough sometimes MW!:laugh: BUT :godisgood:

 

[OldRegular]

Like all who will be saved. Last time I checked faith in Christ is what saves, not a set of doctrines.

I am trying to agree as fast and hard as I can!:BangHead::BangHead: