-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Changing Face Of Catholicism
- Thread starter DHK
- Start date
I do not seek to 'deflect' anything, but simply point out that there is blame to go around. Why ignore the blame of others and only seek to highlight one?HankD said:
I’m sure those Christians who lost their hands to the Romans would appreciate knowing that.HankD said:
Some of them indeed are. Some are ministers in plain clothes as well.HankD said:
Do you really look at all of the works of the Catholic church? Any beyond the Middle Ages? Do you look at the Mother Teresa’s, the hospitals, the orphanages? Did you know that in the U.S., the Catholic Church is the largest non-public provider of human services to poor families? Did you know that one-third of all AIDS patients in the world are served through the auspices of the Catholic Church? Have you listened to the constant defense of the unborn and the poor?HankD said:
I listen to American Family Radio's "AFR Report" when I get the chance. I appreciated not too long ago when I heard their comment that the institution that has most consistently stood for all life issues without fail in the 20th century has been the Catholic church.
Neither has mine. But it is filled with sinners, as I suspect is the same of yours. So is it just certain sins that count?HankD said:
I am an ex-Catholic, as are many on this board, and as were Luther, Calvin, and many of the Reformers. For me and all of the Reformers, we are forever condemned to Hell by the RCC. There is no hope of salvation for those outside of the Catholic Church. The statement was clear enough.mrtumnus said:
Because Rome claims to be the only true Church and the Pope the Vicar of Christ on earth and the apostolic line back to Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ.
When did Jesus Christ ever tell His Apostles to burn someone at the stake and/or to kill those who disagreed with Him?
While it is true that God indeed has this authority over His creation, He never made that command to the Apostles.
But in fact said this:
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
My indictment is not against Catholics, I love them.
But those who lord it over them, use and deceive them.
But those who lord it over them, use and deceive them.
Free yourself of the deceivers.
HankD
Last edited:
You're only condemned to hell if you are presenting yourself as someone who had full knowledge that the Catholic church is the church of Christ and chose to leave her anyway.DHK said:
So by your insistence that the Catholiic church sees you as doomed to hell are you professing that you believe the Catholic church is the true Church founded by Christ?
As I have stated to you, I am an ex-Catholic. I saw how the RCC is leading people down the pathway to Hell. I left, once and for all. I speak out against it on a regular basis. According to that statement, I as a former devout Catholic, am now condemned to Hell. There is no hope for me. Salvation is found only within the RCC, according to its own doctrine.mrtumnus said:
Thankfully that is not what Christ says.
That is the same as saying:mrtumnus said:
If I were a J.W.
"I left the J.W.'s knowing full well that the J.W.'s were the only way of salvation."
I left the RCC. Thank God I am delivered from their horrible and damnable heresies now.
2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets ... who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Now you’ve gone to meddling.:laugh: The real question is now that their doctrines have taken on a slight twist, will they be incensed when on refers to the other doctrines they hold to as being Baptist in nature, or accuse those that do as slanderers? :tonofbricks:
Last edited by a moderator:
Alive in Christ
New Member
Mrtumnus,
From your Catholicism quote...
Anyone who places their faith in baptism is completly lost...whether Catholic or not.
:godisgood:
From your Catholicism quote...
Anyone who places their faith in baptism is completly lost...whether Catholic or not.
:godisgood:
DHK said:
I think that what Mr Tumnus was saying is that since you - obviously - don't believe that the RCC is the only way of salvation, you're not caught by the ban of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that therefore you are not condemned to Hell by the RCC
The Vatican II never changed the 6th-15th century "There is no salvation outside the Church." It hold true today.
Dominus Iesus
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
"[FONT="]Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation:"[/FONT]
Dominus Iesus
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
"[FONT="]Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation:"[/FONT]
And that would be because? DHK is adamant that the Catholic church has said he has no salvation because he left it. The quote he is using to justify that position is that those who leave the church "knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ" have no salvation outside of it.peterotto said:
Seems like a logical question in my mind.
Once again a single quote taken completely out of context of the document, which clearly states that your interpretation is not correct. Yet it appears not to matter. Does the truth really matter?peterotto said:
Same document, same section ....
For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82
Why would anyone reject Christ knowing He is the way? Yet people do.peterotto said:
It is not unthinkable that someone chooses that which they know is false for any number of reasons. That is the situation the church is addressing -- those who KNOW they are leaving the church Christ established, yet choose to do so anyway. That's why it says what it says, and if one cares to actually read a document for context and meaning instead of just pulling out a snippet, the intent is perfectly clear.
DHK's insistence that the Catholic church says he can't be saved then begs the question -- does that mean he is saying that he KNOWS the Catholic church to be true and yet left it anyway?
And if he does not KNOW, then why does he keep perpetuating that which the Church does not teach at all?
The fact is, that I did believe that way, and thus I (according to their belief) am condemned. The pronouncement would not make sense any other way.Matt Black said:
Luther was condemned for the same reason. He nailed his 95 theses on the door of the church that soundly condemned the ungodly doctrines and practices of the RCC, and thus he was condemned. At one time he thought that the RCC could be "reformed." Eventually he gave up all hope. He was a "Protestant", protesting against all of its ungodliness.
I certainly have some appreciation for Martin Luther and the Reformers for their reasons for championing the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.DHK said:
When one considers the corruption in the Roman Church at that time, the degenerate teachings that it promoted, and the distorted understanding of tradition that it used to defend itself — along with the fact that the West was several centuries removed from any significant contact with their former Orthodox heritage — it is difficult to imagine within those limitations how one such as Luther might have responded with significantly better results.
How could Luther have appealed to tradition to fight these abuses, when tradition (as all in the Roman West were lead to believe) was personified by the very papacy that was responsible for those abuses?
To Luther, it was tradition that had erred, and if he were to reform the Church he would have to do so with the sure undergirding of the Scriptures. However, Luther never really sought to eliminate tradition altogether, and he never used the Scriptures truly "alone," what he really attempted to do was to use Scripture to get rid of those parts of the Roman tradition that were corrupt. Unfortunately his rhetoric far outstripped his own practice, and more radical reformers took the idea of Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusions.
Hence the notion of sola scriptura, at least for the Lutherans, has changed over time...to the more reformed notion of "only that which is in Scripture" not the intention of the Lutheran confessions "that which is not in conflict with Scripture".
In XC
-