Featured Catholic Question ???

Could you present this 'false Gospel' to us? (I'm asking KJVRICH, who started this thread. I want to know what his/her perception of this 'false Gospel' is)

 

I was saved at the age of twenty when a couple of young men on the campus of a nearby university took the time to share the gospel with me--something I had never heard before in the RCC. Let me clarify that. I don't mean facts: death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Neither do I mean "the gospel of John," etc. being read. That is not what the gospel is all about. I mean the gospel explained, just as Philip explained the gospel to the Ethiopian Eunuch. Twenty years in the RCC and I had never heard the gospel.
If there is no gospel, it is a religion that damns people to hell. It is a religion of works. The catechism outright teaches heresy. If you look up the meaning of the new birth it will tell you that new birth means baptism. One does not get to heaven through their baptism. The Catechism also teaches that one gets to heaven through the RCC. Even Vatican II teaches that. These are the marks of a cult. "We have the only way of salvation; only our baptism counts." That is damnable heresy and is a message that leads to hell. It is not the gospel that saves.

After I was saved I had to make a choice. I was not a member of a church. I had a job that was remote enough that did not allow me to go to church. I knew what the RCC taught, and I began to study the Bible. I saw that the teachings of the RCC were at polar opposites of the Bible. I either had to choose the Bible or choose the RCC. I could not serve two masters. I chose God's Word over the RCC. I have been grateful ever since.

 

Could it be that you misunderstand the nature of faith that by possessing faith one must necissarily act on it? After all didn't Jesus say to abide in him (whereby one is consistently abiding?) Doesn't Jesus distinguish between a faith which one acts upon and and a faith that fruits brings about nothing? And note the only place in the entire bible that indicates or mentions "Faith Alone" is where James clearly indicates that Faith which is not acted upon is the one that does not save? Clearly doesn't James explicitly say

 

First, this is a historical event where Jesus was glorified before his disciples.

Second, he allowed two OT saints to appear on the Mount of Transfiguration with him. They did not have their glorified bodies. They had some kind of temporary body which enabled the disciples to see them. God allowed this.

Third, your misunderstanding of 1Cor.15:29 shows your lack of study on the subject. The Corinthians believers never baptized anyone for the dead. Paul never said they did, and no such custom is ever alluded to, except perhaps by the Mormons who have their own agenda.
There was a common practice (as the Mormons have to this day) among the pagans for proxy baptism. They would baptize for their dead relatives. This was not a Christian practice. Paul uses this as an illustration and an argument in defense of the resurrection.
This is a useless practice: first if Christ has risen from the dead, and second if we will rise from the dead. If we will rise from the dead see then the ridiculousness of those in other religions who baptize others to make sure they will rise from the dead. We have this surety because Christ has already risen from the dead. He is our first fruits. They have a superstition. We have a reality.

Fourth, there is no "church" in heaven.
The definition of a church is: Those who have been saved by faith alone, and then baptized, who have voluntarily joined themselves together to carry out the two ordinances that Christ has given us (baptism by immersion and the memorial of the Lord's Supper), and to obey the Great Commission.
--The RCC fails in all counts.

Its organization does not have regenerated members--those who have been saved by faith alone.
They have not been baptized after salvation.
Most have not "voluntarily" joined the RCC, but were "born" into it.
They do not care about the Great Commission, much less even know what it is.

As far is heaven is concerned what need does the "church" have in evangelization in heaven. Will they try to win the angels to Christ?

There is no "church" in heaven. It is God's ordained institution on earth, always local in its government.

 

Yeah, like the Council of Trent meeting in the 16th Century, who only then formally ratified the Apocrypha as part of the RCC canon of Scripture. Before then it was simply "reading material."

 

Okay, I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I need to chime in here...

Baptism and Holy Communion are visible expressions of reliance upon/faith IN CHRIST. They are not meritorious works of the Law by which we try to earn our salvation; rather they are the tangible means of receiving CHRIST by grace through faith, and thus personally appropriating the saving power of His Atonement and Resurrected Life. NOWHERE in the Bible does Christ or His Apostles pit faith against baptism/communion. NEITHER does one find such an alleged conflict in the first several centuries of the Church.

In the Bible, Faith is not just an intellectual exercise or an intellectual assent (see Heb 11 and James 2, for example). Faith involves trust or reliance upon which is visibly expressed in action. To use an illustration, when I am actually having faith in a bridge, it is not enough to intellectually believe the bridge will support me; I must actually GET ON THE BRIDGE in order to put my faith in it. Likewise, Faith in CHRIST (who is our only Bridge to God) is not merely believing intellectually that Christ died to give us Life--after all, the demons believe, and tremble (James 2:19)--but it is actually being UNITED TO HIM so we can have that LIFE, because that LIFE is IN THE SON. (1 John 5:11-12).

And what do the Scriptures say about Baptism? IN BAPTISM, we are buried and risen with Christ through faith* (Col 2:12) and are united together with Him (Rom 6:3-5) and have put on Christ (Gal 3:27). [*So far from pitting faith against baptism, Paul brings them very closely together]

And what about Holy Communion? In Communion we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ when we partake of the bread and the cup of wine (1 Cor 1:16), Body and Blood that is food and drink indeed which is given for the life of the world (the giving of which took place once for all on the CROSS), and by the partaking of which we abide in Him and He in us and thus by which we live because of Him (John 6:51-57).

So, at least in the this instance, the bolded statement above from the RCC Catechism more acurately reflects the Scriptural and patristic teaching about Baptism and Communion, than does the (Zwinglian) idea among many in modern day evangelicalism that these are just bare signs or visual aids that are disconnected from the realities they signify.

Actually, it's Romans 3 you're quoting, but at any rate...

True this is the function of the LAW and the truth about the Law, but sacraments are not 'Law'--they're ordained means of union with CHRIST, ordained by CHRIST HIMSELF. Sacraments are visible acts of FAITH.

Notice it states redemption is "IN CHRIST". In order to benefit from His work of redemption, we must be united to Him by faith. The sacraments of Baptism and Holy communion, according to SCRIPTURE, are specific expressions or acts of such faith/reliance upon Christ, and, since we are united to CHRIST and His Atonement thereby, they are therefore means of grace. We are buried with Christ by baptism into His DEATH, and are risen with Him in baptism as well (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12). We partake of His body and blood which He gave for us on the Cross when we partake of the bread and wine in Holy Communion (1 Cor 10:16) and thus we abide in Him and He in us (John 6:56).

 

Not Dishonest...

DHK & Walter...I know this reply is a bit "far removed" from the page one posts that it relates to but I felt compelled to comment. DHK...I absolutely agree 100 % with the substance of your objections with Walter's reply to the OP...however... I do believe that it is NOT correct to characterize him as "dishonest" in his replies because I do believe that HE HONESTLY DOES SINCERELY BELIEVE WHAT HE HAS COME TO REGARD AS THE TRUTH. That said, I like yourself, sincerely disagree with what he is saying and believe that has fallen into deep theological error that can't be supported by the authority of scripture.
Walter, I do NOT believe you to be dishonest...but I do believe you are in error. May God help you to recover from the snare of the devil that you have been captured in. My prayers are for you and I wish you no malice or unkindness.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

No, sacraments are works. You do them.

True. That has nothing to do with baptism or any other sacrament. That has to do with regeneration which comes through the Holy Spirit, not sacraments. One is born again through the Spirit of God, when they put their trust and faith in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing to do with sacraments. Sacraments are works. Salvation is not of works.

We stop here. Yes, they are acts. Acts are works. This makes it a religion of works. Works cannot and never will save.

There is no faith in a sacrament. It has no relationship to the atonement, and it is not a means of grace, though it is defined that way. What does baptism do for a person for example. It gets them wet. Two atoms of hydrogen to one atom of Oxygen cannot superstitiously wash away sin. The Hindus do the same thing. They baptize themselves in the River Ganges thinking it will wash away their sins. Tell me, what the difference is? Baptism is a work. It cannot give grace or is a means of grace. That is why we believe (or one of the reasons) that it is a command given to those who have already, by faith, trusted Christ. It is a useless ceremony for an infant. They cannot exercise faith.

That is symbolic for exactly what it says.

You partake of his blood only if you were there in the first century and were cannibalistic enough to grab some of it while he was on the cross. You are very much deceived.

 

Yes we are in agreement here.

Yes we are in agreement here. Of which one had physically died.

This statement is speculative at best. Its based on your already developed theology applied to understanding the passage. Note what Luke 9 says

Again speculative. Certainly, they had recognizable bodies of some sort which permited the Disciples to not only see these men but identify them.

Certainly. However, we see that Moses having died Centuries earlier were seen and interacted with Jesus who himself had not yet died. They were able to converse about his up coming passion. These are the facts of the passage indicating that at the very minimum these Saints not only knew what was going on; on Earth. But were able to interact with Jesus and be seen by his Disciples. Thus there is precedent for this. Just as Enoch and Elijah shows precedent is set for men being assumed into heaven at least to the minimum of those mentioned in scripture.

You make a valid point. Paul doesn't necissarily identify the corinthians as baptizing the dead. However, that being said note his discussion. And what can be honestly said about it is that nothing further is said about it in the passage and whatever it was to which Paul mentions he does not nessiarily mention it with appproval. Though I do find it strange that he would personally identify the Corinthians at the begining of the discourse of the resurrection and then jump to a pagan source who had no attachement to the ressurrection of Christ. Thus I find it incongruent to have Paul say

Alluding to a practice that has no connection to Corinthians or Christianity especially when we see the very next question Paul become personal again

which would be incongruous. It would be like me in a discussion of the Trinity say "Otherwise why would the Hindu's play a sitar to multiple gods?" One would have absolutely nothing to do with the other therefore it would be incongruous.
We know, however, that Paul mentions the practice to firm up the Corinthians belief in the resurrection which is key to our belief. My use of the practice was to show the belief (probably by Corinthians acting in error) of the life of those in the Church in heaven having a connection with those here. Otherwords to point out the accepted thinking of the connection of the living Church in eternity with those here temporaly.

Yes there is. The Church is the body of believers that often is symbolized in heaven as a bride.

Show me where that definition is! I mean really! The bible doesn't even define the Church as that. The word Church is an english rendition of Ecclessia which means a gathering of those called out. I think you are confused as to the definition. That is your definition.

 

Excellent post

DHK...That post..in it's entirety, was nothing short of EXCELLENT...particularly your comments on the "ekklesia". I've always (since I was saved) believed in the local church but I've also accepted the idea that there is, at least in some sense, a body that could be considered a "universal" church...more of a "spiritual body" (than say, a tangible, "local" body of believers) that will make up "the Kingdom of God" in its entirety in eternity. What you say above simply translates that idea to me that any (so-called) "universal church" is simply the sum total of all the LOCAL assemblies (local churches) and individual believers as a group....who will dwell together in eternity. That is my view....what say YOU? Do the scriptures support that?
That said....I still believe that the "Holy Mother Church" (the RCC) is a false church by Biblical definition of what a "church" actually is.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Somehow I knew DHK would feel compelled to respond :smilewinkgrin:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doubting Thomas
Sacraments are visible acts of FAITH.

Yeah, you DO 'do them'. That doesn't make them meritorius works anymore than me extending my hand to RECEIVE a GIFT indicates that I am somehow EARNING that gift thereby.

Faith is not simply an intellectual phenomena....unless for the one who is a Gnostic.

Quote:
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
I had stated...
Quote:
Notice it states redemption is "IN CHRIST". In order to benefit from His work of redemption, we must be united to Him by faith.
To which you replied...

It's not either or--when we are baptized we are born of water AND the Spirit (John 3:5). When we are baptized for the remission of sins we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

We were "buried with Him in baptism in which we were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God" (Col 2:12).

Faith without works is dead and cannot save--James 2, my friend. At any rate, Sacraments are visible acts of faith in Christ and His finished Work on the Cross; they are not meritiorious means of earning salvation. Too bad you cannot discern the difference.

I had said...
Quote:
The sacraments of Baptism and Holy communion, according to SCRIPTURE, are specific expressions or acts
And you replied...

Your syllogism fails because you fail to grasp the distinction between works of merit and acts of faith. Read Hebrews 11--there's an entire chapter of folks who BY FAITH DO stuff.

Quote:
of such faith/reliance upon Christ, and, since we are united to CHRIST and His Atonement thereby, they are therefore means of grace.

Well, according to scripture, as I pointed out above, in Baptism we are buried/risen with Christ (Col 2:12); we are united to Christ (Rom 6:3-5)and we put on Christ (Gal 3:27). Peter stated baptism saves us by the resurrection of Christ (1 Peter 3:21), which only makes sense, as in Baptism, according to Paul, we are buried and risen with Him. I'll take Peter and Paul anyday over DHK. :thumbs:


to this statement of mine...
Quote:
We are buried with Christ by baptism into His DEATH, and are risen with Him in baptism as well (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12).
You replied:

Notice that nowhere does the Scripture state that Baptism is a picture of an burial with Christ which previously took place. Nope--we are buried and risen with Christ IN BAPTISM (Col 2:12).

Quote:
We partake of His body and blood which He gave for us on the Cross when we partake of the bread and wine in Holy Communion (1 Cor 10:16) and thus we abide in Him and He in us (John 6:56).

And you are very much mistaken in equating the Biblical belief in the partaking of the Body/blood in Holy Communion with 'cannibalism'. It is the APOSTLE PAUL who stated that the bread (which they broke) was the partaking of the Body of Christ and the cup (which they blessed) was the partaking of His Blood (1 Cor 10:16). He did NOT say that the bread and wine were merely the pictures of the body/blood, NOR the partaking of pictures of body/blood NOR the picture of the partaking of the body/blood
__________________

 

I think you have an issue of the Cart before the Horse. Note I said Faith must be acted on. Faith first and then action of that faith. I agree that I cannot do things to make God owe me salvation as Paul says in Romans 4:4

But that doesn't leave my faith to be apart from the actions of that faith as James says:

Further more Ephesians 2 clearly identifies what I just said that you cannot make God owe you salvation by what you do

But rather a Faith that is in action or a Faith that works as we can see Paul point out at the beging of Romans

and also to the Galatians

and how he guided the Philippians

Not to mention the admonition of our Lord in John when he said

 

"they appeared in glory" And?? Christ appeared in glory though he had not risen from the dead. The point here is that the resurrection has not yet taken place, and therefore it is safe to assume that the Lord allowed them to appear in a temporary body. Concerning Elijah we cannot be dogmatic on what happened. It is true he was taken up into heaven. But his earthly body would not enter into heaven. Only a glorified body without the stain of sin could enter into heaven. There is too much speculation here to say dogmatically what happened. We just know that he did not die a natural death and that is all.

How did the disciples recognize those that they had never seen? The only answer here is by divine revelation. The Lord told them who they were, otherwise they would not know.
Saints do not know what is going on. That goes against Scripture (no more sorrow, no more pain, no more tears). I don't believe the Lord would allow it. We find that there time is taken up praising the Lord, giving him due honor and worship, not gazing down on earth. There is no evidence of that.
Just because God allowed Moses and Elijah to appear with Christ does not give any precedent to others knowing what is happening on earth.
Just because Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven, does not give any precedent that any other individual was assumed into heaven. No evidence anywhere exists that such an event happened.

That he does not mention it with approval is in favor of a practice done by pagans not by Corinthians. Baptism is discussed in chapter one of the epistle, where Paul states that he thanks God he baptized none of them except a few. The others knew who baptized them. The church was carnal but they wore their baptism like a badge of honor: being baptized by Paul, or Peter, or Apollos, etc. They would have never taken upon themselves this practice.

In verse 28 he ends a paragraph which had been discussing eschatology. The time will come when he will put "all things under his feet."
Now he turns to his relation with paganism. This is a long chapter of 58 verses and covers many topics. He introduces it by giving an example of a pagan custom and relates that to the resurrection. He also goes on to speak of his relation to the pagans and their persecution of him. He then rebukes the false teachers who rejoice in those that persecuted him:

1 Corinthians 15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
--In so doing he gives a key truth: "I die daily." Every day he puts his carnal self to death. He says yes to the Lord, and no to his own desires. This is also pictured in baptism in Romans 6:3,4. No to the old life and yes to the risen life in Christ.

No, just a change in topic in a very long chapter.

That is totally unbiblical and has no support anywhere in Scripture. There is no church in heaven. The church "ekklesia" is always local. The word means assembly, and is never used in a universal sense.

That was not accepted thinking. It was very foreign thinking. They would never have thought that way. It is an RCC invention.

Nowhere is the church defined as a body in heaven; nowhere. All believers will make up the bride. But that is a process and will not come to fruition until Christ comes again.

You are right. The Bible does not give a definition of "church." We gain it from what the Bible says about the church, just as we understand the Godhead from what the Scriptures say about the Godhead.
First there is no word in the Bible that translates as "church building" so we know that a church is not a building. The same holds true for denomination, religious organization, etc. It isn't there. The word translated church is "ekklesia" and always means "assembly." There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. It must be able to assemble, to congregate. It is a congregation. That does away with the RCC, which does not fit the definition of ekklesia. It is an organization but not a Biblical church.
All churches in the Bible were independent of each other. Paul went on three different missionary and established over one hundred assemblies, local churches. Every epistle he wrote was either to a local church or a pastor of a local church. There is no such thing as a universal church. It doesn't fit the definition of the word "ekklesia."
What function does a universal church have?
Where does a universal church meet?
Who are the deacons?
Does it take up an offering?
Does it send out missionaries?
What is its average attendance?

There is no such thing as a universal church. It doesn't exist.
Each member of a local church must be saved. God calls out a people for himself. They must obey God, and that means baptized. There are no believers in the NT that are not baptized save for the thief on the cross.
They are all commanded to be baptized and all are commanded to remember the Lord's death in celebrating the Lord's Supper. We remember him that way and therefore the elements are purely symbolical.
We take special not of the last command given to us which is the Great Commission. In it he commands us "teaching them all things whatsoever I have commanded you," which basically covers everything. IOW we need the Bible not the Catechism.

The word means "assembly." You can see that from Acts 19 in its secular usage.

Acts 19:39 But if ye inquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
Acts 19:41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.
--This is not a church but an assembly; an ekklesia.

It comes from two Greek words ek and kalew. out of and to call. or "to call out of." However that is the derivation of the word, not the meaning.
We don't define words by their derivation. They only help us see where the word comes from. If we defined words in that way, then you should worship the sun on Sun-day. That is what Sunday means: the day to worship the sun. That is its derivation. But we don't define words according to their derivation.
The meaning of ekklesia is "assembly," or "congregation."
It never has a universal sense. It would be a contradiction of the word.

 

Then they are not acts of faith; but works.
We put faith in things we see not.

Faith is not a work. I receive a gift by faith. The faith is in taking the gift that the gift is not harmful to me; I am trusting the giver of the gift, not the gift itself. That is an illustration but not a perfect one. I receive salvation (which I cannot see), as a gift from God (whom I cannot see). This is faith.

I never said it was.

 

I'm going to try to return this to the OP as this thread is all over the place and it seems much of the commentary here would belong on the 'Sacraments' thread.

When the saints in heaven hear prayers from the saints on earth it's only because God allows them to to receive those prayers. Those heavenly saints then present those prayers to the Father.

"Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne. The smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel."
(Revelation 8:3-4)

In reference to the OP and it's reference to I Timothy, I think most of you are starting with a presupposition and imposing it onto 1 Timothy 2:5.

If you read the Scripture "plainly" - as Baptists on this board like to put it - it says merely that Christ is the one mediator - the one savior that redeems the relationship between man and the Father. That is an exegetical reading of the Scripture where one correlates it with the rest of Scripture.

However, what you are forcing on to the text through eisegesis is that mediation - through your cloudy lens - also implies prayer. That is no where included in the text, so it is your inherent bias that associates mediation with prayer. The historical Christian understanding of how Christ is the sole mediator is that Christ alone - by becoming human Himself - could redeem man. Nothing more, nothing less. This inclusion of "prayer" within mediation is a novelty invented entirely by post-Reformation Protestant theologians.

We are all called to mediate prayer on behalf of one another. When I pray for a friend, or ask a friend to pray for my needs, we are acting as mediators for one another through prayer in Christ. Thus, the Blessed Virgin in Heaven, when we ask for her prayers on our behalf, also acts as a mediator. But never in the way that Christ is the mediator between man and the Father, the distinction of which you fail to recognize.

 

Let's stay with the text, the Scripture, and not read into it things that are not there. Put away biases and RCC theology.
First, "saints" in heaven cannot hear our prayers. The text does not say that, and there is no Biblical evidence that they can. Therefore all prayers to anyone else but God Himself is idolatry.
Secondly, It is only you or the RCC that claims that God "allows" them to receive those prayers. Please find Scripture that supports that view. It is totally unbiblical.
You say, "those heavenly saints then present those prayers..." But that is not true. That is not even what the text says. It specifically says that an angel presented a censer holding the prayers of the saints, which means that the prayers are symbolic.

John is witnessing and recording this scene. Presumably he is accompanied by an angel. There are seven angels about to blow there trumpets. But now "another angel" has a censer with much incense and the prayers of the saints, appears. He offers it on the altar before the throne.
In the scene then are John, an angel, and the throne of God; that is all. There is no company of saints present which you assumed. There are seven other angels ready to pour out God's wrath on the earth, but no saints in this picture. It is purely symbolic of the prayers, and in context, prayers of the Tribulation saints, coming up to God.
God answers in a most dramatic fashion:

Revelation 8:5 And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake.
He takes the contents of the censer and casts it onto the earth. The result is thundering, lightning, and an earthquake, indicating that the Coming of the Lord is soon, and soon this will all be over. The prayers of the Tribulation saints (on earth) will soon be answered. They must have some more patience.

No, it is scriptural. Yes, it includes prayer.
Look at Scripture. Not only do we have 1Tim.2:5, which indicates that Christ is our mediator, the only mediator between God and man.
But:
1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
--He is our advocate, our lawyer. Again the only one that can come between us and God.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
--In the OT levitical system they had a high priest to intercede on their behalf. We have a great high priest who intercedes for us daily.

Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
--He ever lives to make intercession. He is the only one that can do that.

There are many other Scriptures as well. These are just the ones that come to my memory.

No, that is false. I cannot mediate for you, especially in the sense that you think a RCC priest can. It can't be done. I can pray for you and that is all.

You pray TO her, directing your prayers TO her, which is idolatry. You don't pray to any of us do you? Praying to Mary is idolatry. Prayer is worship. Mary is thus worshiped. Look at all the different prayers that are prayed to Mary both by Pope John Paul II, and by Legouri. They were very devoted to her. That adoration and adulation given her is nothing more than idolatry. It is the worship due only to God, and that God is robbed of.

"Hail Mary..."
"Our Father..."
Mary is worshiped more.
You fail to recognize what idolatry is.