You are forgetting something: the Catholic Church is not impervious to this problem either. Hence...the Reformation.
God bless.
-
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!
Vicar of Jesus Christ?
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
- Status
You are forgetting something: the Catholic Church is not impervious to this problem either. Hence...the Reformation.
God bless.
I would agree, but, I can recognize that the Body of Christ in the First Century had numerous churches. Jewish congregations were no more the Body of Christ than Gentile congregations. There was a separation then which I think was largely due to the heritage which many first century Jewish Christians maintained. There is nothing in Scripture that demands total abandonment of their heritage. In Acts 21 we see Paul submitting to a Jewish Ritual which would not have taken place in a Gentile Church. Would we see what is likely the Nazarite Vow conducted, at any point in the history of the Catholic Church, by the Catholic Church?
If not...why not? Why hasn't the Catholic Church submitted to a preceding Tradition which is written in Scripture? Who decided that Jewish ceremonies were not necessary among Gentile congregations?
How would you answer that question, Herbert?
And really leaving this time, just jumped back on to get to another portion of your response, lol.
God bless.
Sorry for the offence. Perhaps I should have said "on the part of the RCC or at least the Pope."
I was simply pointing out that if contraception is wrong in one situation is it not wrong in all situations.
Just like murder: If it is wrong here, it is wrong there, or in all situations. What is wrong is wrong and what is right is right. That is what the RCC used to teach on Contraception. Now it appears they have moved a bit from that position.
Blasphemous audacity, the cheek of pipsqueaks.
DHK,
No problem, DHK. I wish to avoid personal attacks. And that looked like a personal attack. If you didn't intend it to be taken that way, no problem. Thanks for clearing that up. Again, I'll get back to your other points. Oftentimes, I think we're talking past one another. But if you're up for it, we'll keep trying to unsnarl this knot.
Thanks.
Herbert
DHK,
So here's the situation from my perspective: I showed up and answered a specific question with a reference to the Catechism related to the Catholic Church's position concerning non-Christians monotheists (chief among whom are the Muslims). You responded and in just the first posts brought up the first 40 topics I've listed below, each of which represents a separate "can of worms." And beyond the first 40 you continued piling them on. Certainly I have broadened the scope of the discussion in response. As I see it, though, that is simply a result of the complexity of the content itself. Really, as a "minority" here, I am sort of in the "defensive" position. As I see it, it's my job to respond to the charges presented by others. Remember, though, I am new to this, so I am not familiar with the protocol here. So here's where things stand. I will continue getting back to you. Please continue to be patient with me! And for now, just review the topics you presented below:
So here's the situation from my perspective: I showed up and answered a specific question with a reference to the Catechism related to the Catholic Church's position concerning non-Christians monotheists (chief among whom are the Muslims). You responded and in just the first posts brought up the first 40 topics I've listed below, each of which represents a separate "can of worms." And beyond the first 40 you continued piling them on. Certainly I have broadened the scope of the discussion in response. As I see it, though, that is simply a result of the complexity of the content itself. Really, as a "minority" here, I am sort of in the "defensive" position. As I see it, it's my job to respond to the charges presented by others. Remember, though, I am new to this, so I am not familiar with the protocol here. So here's where things stand. I will continue getting back to you. Please continue to be patient with me! And for now, just review the topics you presented below:
- Muslims don't acknowledge the Creator.
- Muslims acknowledge a false deity called Allah.
- Muslims don't hold to the faith of Abraham.
- Muslims don't adore with us the same merciful God.
- The God of Islam is a completely different god.
- Salvation (to a Muslim) is a completely different salvation.
- Catholic salvation… runs contrary to the Bible.
- We come to know his son through the Word.
- The J.W.'s also read the Word, and yet Christ is only an angel to them.
- To the Mormon's he is simply "another god."
- The Son is defined for and speaks to us through His Word.
- The RCC has now changed it stance recently on contraception urging mothers to use it… This is an example of a change of doctrine in the RCC.
- The apocryphal books, put in the OT canon, were never accepted by the Jews.
- The Jewish canon was completed by 450 B.C.
- The oldest of those books is 250 B.C., and some of them were written either during or after the time of Christ.
- How is it possible that these are OT books, or should be put in a canon of Scripture that was closed in 450 B.C.?
- The OT Canon, given to the Israelites, quoted by Jesus was written in Hebrew. Those are the books inspired of God.
- All the Apocryphal books were written in Greek. That would disqualify them immediately.
- The Magesterium (sic) is made up of fallible sinful men who came up with a document, the Catechism, which contains doctrines of fallible sinful men, and a whole lot of error contrary to the Bible. In essence one throws away the Bible and replaces it with a man-made uninspired piece of work written by sinful men.
- There is the Word of God which Christ said is so much more important than the traditions of men which he condemned.
- I can show you from Scripture that Peter was never in Rome as the RCC claims.
- Tradition says he died there, but that is tradition, and given that, that would be the only time he went to Rome, dragged there as prisoner and then martyred.
- He was never there as a bishop or in any place of leadership in any church. Thus the very foundation of the RCC lies in question.
- The RCC's supposed understanding of the "sacraments" is flawed.
- One doesn't even find the word in the Scriptures, just as they don't find the word "Eucharist" in the Scripture.
- The entire doctrine of transubstantiation is a heresy.
- Paul and John never taught Catholic theology. You can't prove that they did.
- Rather Baptist churches today have their pulpits in the center of the front of the church because the Bible is the authority for all its doctrine, not tradition.
- Saved individuals base their salvation on what the Bible says, and have a relationship with Jesus Christ not through a religion, but through Jesus Christ.
- Fourth, Paul, and the others, established churches, not a "Church." The Greek word is ekklesia. It means assembly.
- There is no such thing as a universal invisible Church.
- There are only local churches.
- Paul went on three missionary journeys and established about 100 churches all independent of each other.
- The RCC is apostate in its teaching.
- It is misleading in its history.
- It did not come into existence until the fourth century when a pagan emperor married Christendom to the state.
- At that time paganism was introduced into Christendom and Catholicism was born.
- As you can see idols still abound in the RCC which the Catholics still bow down before, which is the essence of idolatry.
- It is a pagan church, not Christian.
- There are great similarities between Catholicism and Hinduism. Neither one belongs to Christianity.
- Perhaps. I made one or two posts and then you answered with a full page of posts which I didn't want to take the time or energy to go through. If you are going to devote so much time to one point then take one point at a time.
I hope we can agree here. Islam is a different religion, with a different "sacred scriptures," a different way to "heaven" or paradise, and they worship a different god called Allah. It is a different religion completely.
These are the two most important points listed here that need to be discussed. Obviously there is disagreement.
Hopefully there is no disagreement.
This is the Biblical position (Heb.1:1,2). It needs to be discussed more.
This is where we are now.
All of the above focuses around the Canon of Scripture and whether the Apocrypha was ever recognized as part of it.
If it weren't for the crusades you'd be praying to mecca right now.
The Catholic church is only church that will be called "Whore of Babylon" for a good reason.
Matthew 10
25“It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!
They called Jesus "Devil", and we are expected to be called worst. We Catholics are taught not to vilify other faiths, You won't hear us especially our teachings say Baptists, Calvinists or protestants are Satan's church.
Gee, I wonder who is this household of Christ that the world call's Satan's church or even worst.
You know who calls your church the church of Satan?.............nobody.
Last edited:
Due to the diversity of beliefs in the membership here, I wouldn't get too carried away by feeling like a minority. You would actually be in agreement with more people than I in eschatological matters.
I think most here are in a "defensive position."
God bless.
You know who calls your church the church of Satan?.............nobody.
Do you apply that reasoning to Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Branch Davidians as well?
God bless.
Do you disagree? Has God supplemented the New Testament with "holy writings" that reduce Christ to a mere man?
Would this validate Mormonism as well?
Do you disagree?
While I would say it runs contrary, I will say that a works-based mentality is generated by their doctrine.
But Catholicism is not the only group guilty of this.
And no group is impervious to a membership which corrupts what they do teach, which can lead to leadership which teaches doctrine which is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Do you disagree?
Are we not told...
1 Peter 1:22-23
King James Version (KJV)
22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
James 1:18
King James Version (KJV)
18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
This is not entirely correct: Jehovah's Witnesses have a translation which most scholars reject as a credible translation, and secondly, their primary Authority is Watchtower Publications. They will not engage in discussion, but simply seek to convey "their truth" as interpreted through their leadership. THis is one reason they have been considered a cult.
This is true: as we are, God once was; as God is, we will be.
Continued...
Do you disagree?
Can we add to our knowledge of Jesus Christ apart from Scripture?
Spoke to a man yesterday that says he has been "commanding the Arch Angel Michael for several years."
Shall I view that as credible?
Where would I go to find out if this is possible, and I have met Super-Christian who knows something the rest of us don't?
Rather than getting into past/present position of the Church, could you tell me if contraception is even a consideration for Christians? Should we not teach our children godly instruction in righteousness?
Do you think that this end is served by allowing for loop-holes?
They were not part of the Hebrew Scriptures, from what I understand, but were included in the Septuagint.
The only question I have is are you aware of the reasons why they have not been accepted by certain and if so, can you respond to those issues (i.e., historical, Theological error).
What the Jews accepted is irrelevant, really. That is like saying those who reject Peter or Paul (and there are those who do) have a relevant position based on their view alone. Do we not have to address the objections to determine relevance? For example, 2 Peter was almost left out of the canon, yet the reasons, in my view, are not (a) good argument/s.
How do you mean "they were put in the Old Testament Canon?" Because they were placed in the Septuagint?
Continued...
Probably best to say why you might think they should be considered Scripture.
Agree with the first (though there is some Aramaic as well), not necessarily the second.
This could be said of any fellowship that presents it's statement of belief, so not a good argument. However, the doctrine that is called into question has to be addressed, rather than simply hurling insults.
A couple doctrines of note would be first and foremost Eternal Security denied, Transubstantiation, and Indulgences. We could also discuss what, in it's most extreme view, is referred to as Co-Redemptrix.
That is just a Biblical fact that is incontrovertible. Christ often rebukes and corrects the doctrines of men, and warns against this practice. An example is the doctrine of the Sadducee, who denied the Resurrection of the Dead. Another would be the lip service of the Pharisee.
Just not something I see deserving attention until first essential doctrinal matters are focused on.
Being ignorant of "the entire doctrine," all I can say is that what is popularly known is without question questionable (lol, think about that).
No comment on first statement, as to the second, I always thought it was so we could see the preacher better, without getting a crick in the neck.
Continued...
Do you disagree?
Is it not the Word of God that we learn of Christ?
Shall we lead men to Christ by telling them something unrelated to the Gospel?
Shall the Holy Spirit cease to glorify Christ, and convict men of sin, righteousness, and judgment?
All of these could be picked apart.
For example, Paul both established churches and "The Church," which is that Body made up only of born again believers, whereas we have natural men in the churches.
The Body is a universal invisible Body made up of believers, though fellowships they worship in may have other names.
There are fellowships with a global fellowship. This is true of most Baptist churches/assemblies because every one I have ever attended has a Missionary program designed to build more churches of like faith and belief.
Okay, the last one I think we would have trouble denying, or perhaps even validating, but, this escapes the scope of the central issue, which is what does Scripture have to say about it.
Each point would have to be addressed. This reads like the typical blast against Catholics.
The question is...just how many Catholics are there that actually know and understand exactly what the Catholic Church teaches? The ratio is probably no different than the membership of other denominations. Most are generally ignorant of the doctrine of their home church.
Doesn't mean, if that were true, that there are not sincere believers in her. Doesn't mean is not aware that all of us are going to be wrong about something.
But I will say, for those who He has led to further inquiry and searching of doctrinal matters, those people will be held to a higher standard of judgment in regards to what they believe, as well as teach.
God demands integrity in regards to Doctrine, so we are all obligated to approach the Word of God and Faith in Christ apart from imposing what we want to believe into our seeking of understanding. James makes two great suggestions: don't be many teachers, and...ask God for wisdom.
I for one would like to see the similarities one has in mind. This is a new one for me.
Good suggestion.
God bless.
You think the Body of Christ is dependent on going to war in order to survive?
Could you show me in the New Testament any passage that justifies an armed military assault under a guise of Christianity?
Dream on, lol. Name calling has been from all sides since the beginning.
And one passage that shows the complete failure of believers in understanding their place in the Grand Scheme of Things, lol, is seen here:
1 Corinthians 1:10-13
King James Version (KJV)
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Here we are two thousand years later, and what do we see?
The same nonsense that brought division from the beginning.
Now who did Paul imply is the Head of the Church here?
And what is the singular issue that distinguishes Him from the teachers among men?
God bless.
DHK,
I really appreciate what you’ve done here to streamline this conversation. That will make things much more manageable. But quite honestly, I am here for the long haul. It took 500 years to tie this knot. We won't unravel it in a few paragraphs. But I hope that we can at least come to understand each other's zeal more thoughtfully through this conversation. So since I had already begun to respond to your last e-mail, forgive me for following through with the response I'd already begun before you distilled things so nicely for us. I will circle back around to begin to address those more specific points... For now, I’ll just send the first section of my response.
So here’s what I’d already started responding with:
Part I
The Catholic Church doesn’t “take credit” for the Trinity. But if you’re suggesting that the Catholic Church, the very Church of St. Augustine with its Pope in Rome and its Bishops and Sacraments, etc. didn’t play an utterly indispensable role in the establishment of the doctrine *for the sake of the universal Church,* then I don’t think you’ll be able to square your position with certain uncontested aspects of the historical record. Yes, “Trinity” is simply a word we use to describe the Tri-une nature of God. The Church cannot “take credit” for that any more than it can “take credit” for creatio ex nihilo. What the Catholic Church did, though, in history, was play an instrumental role in, as an institution, discerning, recognizing, adopting, formalizing and promulgating those Christian teachings which became binding upon the faithful, the doctrine of the Trinity included. This is the process, to which I previously referred, that occurred during the 4th Century within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church established by Christ. The Conciliar teachings, whether you see them as superfluous or not, were binding upon all of the local churches around the world, each of which was incorporated into the universal Church of St. Ignatius's letter, even though they *spoke to* rather than *created* the trinitarian nature of God.
To be very clear- I am NOT suggesting otherwise. I do indeed believe that the doctrine is revealed in Scripture.
Again, you have taken what I said and drawn an inference from it which I never intended to relay. Christ was worshiped by the first Christians (Matthew 28:9). Their understanding wasn’t one that was developed, though. It was thorough and steadfast, yes. But over time as the Church grew, confusion and disagreement certainly worked its way in as it does in any community but the Holy Spirit was there to guide and direct the Church's pastors. We both believe the God is superintending things here. You believe He's doing this through the Scriptures alone (solely). Whereas, I say that even the Scriptures don't suggest such a thing, but rather record Christ Himself doing the most surprising of things: Appointing mere fallible men as stewards to His divine authority. Yes, there are tares among the wheat, after all. And natural confusion brings about questioning. Questioning then leads to the consideration and adoption of new ideas. New ideas are formalized as heresies. Heresies are wielded by the disobedient. And there is only that one Institution on Earth which is impervious to complete corruption by virtue of its divine founding and superintendence: The Catholic Church. Still, though, it’s here 500 years after Wittenburg and 2,000 years after Calvary. This Catholic Church is still preaching the Empty Tomb. It’s still preaching the Blessed Trinity. It’s still preaching the Incarnation of the Son of God. It's still preaching that one way to Heaven, through Christ. The Scriptures themselves are very clear in their presentation of the qualities and characteristics of Christ’s Church under the New Covenant. The New Testament presents a Church which is bound to its Head (St. Paul said the two become one). The Church is authoritative, having been granted the stewards’ authority to bind and loose, forgive sin, and exclude an unrepentant sinner from the congregation. These things are all presented in the Bible. It was by these Biblical truths concerning the nature of the Church that I came to realize that since my Church didn’t claim to exercise this type of stewards’ authority, whatever it was, my Church couldn’t possibly be the Church described in the New Testament.
I really appreciate what you’ve done here to streamline this conversation. That will make things much more manageable. But quite honestly, I am here for the long haul. It took 500 years to tie this knot. We won't unravel it in a few paragraphs. But I hope that we can at least come to understand each other's zeal more thoughtfully through this conversation. So since I had already begun to respond to your last e-mail, forgive me for following through with the response I'd already begun before you distilled things so nicely for us. I will circle back around to begin to address those more specific points... For now, I’ll just send the first section of my response.
So here’s what I’d already started responding with:
Part I
The Catholic Church doesn’t “take credit” for the Trinity. But if you’re suggesting that the Catholic Church, the very Church of St. Augustine with its Pope in Rome and its Bishops and Sacraments, etc. didn’t play an utterly indispensable role in the establishment of the doctrine *for the sake of the universal Church,* then I don’t think you’ll be able to square your position with certain uncontested aspects of the historical record. Yes, “Trinity” is simply a word we use to describe the Tri-une nature of God. The Church cannot “take credit” for that any more than it can “take credit” for creatio ex nihilo. What the Catholic Church did, though, in history, was play an instrumental role in, as an institution, discerning, recognizing, adopting, formalizing and promulgating those Christian teachings which became binding upon the faithful, the doctrine of the Trinity included. This is the process, to which I previously referred, that occurred during the 4th Century within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church established by Christ. The Conciliar teachings, whether you see them as superfluous or not, were binding upon all of the local churches around the world, each of which was incorporated into the universal Church of St. Ignatius's letter, even though they *spoke to* rather than *created* the trinitarian nature of God.
To be very clear- I am NOT suggesting otherwise. I do indeed believe that the doctrine is revealed in Scripture.
Again, you have taken what I said and drawn an inference from it which I never intended to relay. Christ was worshiped by the first Christians (Matthew 28:9). Their understanding wasn’t one that was developed, though. It was thorough and steadfast, yes. But over time as the Church grew, confusion and disagreement certainly worked its way in as it does in any community but the Holy Spirit was there to guide and direct the Church's pastors. We both believe the God is superintending things here. You believe He's doing this through the Scriptures alone (solely). Whereas, I say that even the Scriptures don't suggest such a thing, but rather record Christ Himself doing the most surprising of things: Appointing mere fallible men as stewards to His divine authority. Yes, there are tares among the wheat, after all. And natural confusion brings about questioning. Questioning then leads to the consideration and adoption of new ideas. New ideas are formalized as heresies. Heresies are wielded by the disobedient. And there is only that one Institution on Earth which is impervious to complete corruption by virtue of its divine founding and superintendence: The Catholic Church. Still, though, it’s here 500 years after Wittenburg and 2,000 years after Calvary. This Catholic Church is still preaching the Empty Tomb. It’s still preaching the Blessed Trinity. It’s still preaching the Incarnation of the Son of God. It's still preaching that one way to Heaven, through Christ. The Scriptures themselves are very clear in their presentation of the qualities and characteristics of Christ’s Church under the New Covenant. The New Testament presents a Church which is bound to its Head (St. Paul said the two become one). The Church is authoritative, having been granted the stewards’ authority to bind and loose, forgive sin, and exclude an unrepentant sinner from the congregation. These things are all presented in the Bible. It was by these Biblical truths concerning the nature of the Church that I came to realize that since my Church didn’t claim to exercise this type of stewards’ authority, whatever it was, my Church couldn’t possibly be the Church described in the New Testament.
Hello, Darrell C.-
I am a bit confused. It seems as though, because of my poor formatting, you took some quotes that I was reviewing with DHK (which were things he'd originally written) and mistook them for my statements and then responded to them!
If this is what happened, I'd encourage you to go back and track down the origins of those statements so that you might recognize their original context.
Also, are you still visiting this site with hopes of discussing these topics? I was under the impression that you were "signing off" for a time.
In Him,
Herbert
I am a bit confused. It seems as though, because of my poor formatting, you took some quotes that I was reviewing with DHK (which were things he'd originally written) and mistook them for my statements and then responded to them!
If this is what happened, I'd encourage you to go back and track down the origins of those statements so that you might recognize their original context.
Also, are you still visiting this site with hopes of discussing these topics? I was under the impression that you were "signing off" for a time.
In Him,
Herbert
No problem
Yes, indeed the trinity is taught in the Scriptures, in many Scriptures. Those scriptures were referred to many times by the ECF which I quoted for you:
Ante-NiceneFathers affirmed Christ's deity and spoke of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", even though their language is not that of the traditional doctrine as formalised in the fourth century. Trinitarians view these as elements of the codified doctrine.[25]Ignatius of Antiochprovides early support for the Trinity around 110,[26] exhorting obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit".[27]Justin Martyr(AD 100–c. 165) also writes, "in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit".[28] The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
--Apparently Theophilus of Antioch used the word "trinity" before Augustine used it.
There are heresies and will always be heresies. If the "trinity" was formally "adopted" in the fourth century, it was done so only in the light of surrounding heresies, not because the belief didn't exist before that time. For example, the doctrine of justification by faith and not by works had existed long before Acts 15. Paul preached that message on all three of his missionary journeys. But many times believers ran into Judaizing cults who said you must not only believe by faith alone, you must also be circumcised and keep the law. Thus the need for this council in Acts chapter 15--a gathering to make public once and for all that salvation was: justification by faith alone, and not by any works.
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
--This is false. One doesn't need to be circumcised or keep the law. It is repeated again:
Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Peter's position was clear:
Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
--Salvation was by faith alone. And that was the decision. For Peter, as well as Paul had already been preaching that message for some years now. It was not new. It was simply being made authoritative by the apostles in order to silence those that would oppose it.
So it was in the early centuries of the trinity. They made an official declaration in the face of opposition. Not that the doctrine hadn't already been around for some years, it had. History attests to it, as I posted. But for the sake of heretics who opposed it they made an official stance.
I have to go to church now. I will answer the next part of your post when I get back.
At the time of the Ascension there were 120 disciples praying. The next day was Pentecost. 3,000 were saved. This was not “The Church,” but a church, a local church in Jerusalem. It would be one of many, but it was the first. “But over time as the churches grew, confusion and disagreement worked its way among some of the churches but the Holy Spirit was there to guide the pastors of those churches which adhered to the Word of God. There is no “Church.” That concept is not taught in the Bible. The word for church is ekklesia, meaning assembly or congregation. One cannot have an “unassembled assembly.” Try reading a translation like Darby’s translation where every time the KJV has church Darby has the correct word “assembly.” For example:
Matthew 16:18 And *I* also, I say unto thee that *thou* art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades' gates shall not prevail against it.
Acts 14:23 And having chosen them elders in each assembly, having prayed with fastings, they committed them to the Lord, on whom they had believed.
--Paul established churches, over one hundred churches, but not “The Church.”
With all due respect, this is just wishful thinking. Take into consideration the Crusades, the bloody Inquisitions, the changes of doctrine that Christ and his apostles would never approve of. There have been many changes; in fact dozens. Many of them are listed here:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm
Perhaps a better website with a better explanation of what happened in the RCC is given here:
http://www.seekingtruth.co.uk/babylon.htm
It doesn’t preach that there is one way to heaven and that is through Christ. It does not preach that message!!!!!!!!
I was there. I know. That is a false statement. To get to Jesus one must go through Mary.
“Holy Mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, Amen”
Why ask for Mary or pray to Mary to pray for us sinners? This is a sinful, idolatrous act which takes away from the worship that is due only to God. Prayer is worship. All prayer is to be directed to God alone. If one is praying to any other than they have made that “one” a god. Thus Mary is another god in the RCC and they are practicing idolatry and polytheism. This is not Christianity but paganism. I am sorry but I must call it for what it is. Read the Ten Commandments in Exodus chapter 20 in their original complete statements.
In addition I think you know that the RCC teaches that salvation is through baptism and the sacraments, and not through Christ and Christ alone.
Use scripture. The scriptures present churches not “The Church.” Paul wrote 13 epistles. They were all directed either to a church or the pastor of a church. Not one was directed to “The Church,” as in the RCC. It does not exist.
What was your “church.” Look at the verse I previously quoted to you.
Acts 14:23 And having chosen them elders in each assembly, having prayed with fastings, they committed them to the Lord, on whom they had believed.
Consider all the churches that Paul wrote to, visited, and even those that Jesus addressed in the Book of Revelation—how different they all were! They were not all under one head such as Peter (who probably never made it to Rome). They were individual churches.
Was your church like the carnal and Charismatic church of Corinth.
Was it like the sacrificial giving church of Philippi?
Was it like the church at Ephesus where Timothy was the pastor, whom Paul had a great affinity for? There, they had some problem with the Gentiles and the Jews being “one body,” as in one united body in the local church.
By the time we get to Revelation it was the church at Ephesus that “had lost their first love.”
If your local church was not practicing the things that Paul had outlined then your local church was at fault. One cannot take a default position and simply say: If my Baptist church is doing wrong that must mean that the RCC is right. How does that make sense?
Every local church has Christ as its head.
Every local church has authority given by Christ through the Scriptures.
Every local church has the authority to bind and loose, forgive sin, and exclude an unrepentant sinner from the congregation. The last step we have practiced a number of times. It is called church discipline. It is also connected with the first expression “bind and loose.” The expression “to forgive sins,” is connected with the gospel. Only Christ can forgive sins. Sins are forgiven when a person receives Christ. A priest is powerless. Even the Pope is powerless to forgive sins. Christ alone can forgive sins. Only God can forgive sins. Even the Pharisees knew that.
Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
- Status