Christians Evangelizing Catholics

No I didn't Craig. You should go back and read closer. I said the test of heresy was agreement with the word of God, not agreement with me. I can grant a lot of latitude on many issues that the Bible does not speak to clearly. Soteriology is just not one of those issues. What I said was not arrogant in the least, or at least no more arrogant than saying that 2+2=4. Truth is truth. The statement of the truth is not arrogant. Perhaps you should question why you have such a reaction to the truth. I don't know much about you, but this exchange has certainly troubled me.

I have chosen what I believe based on what the word of God says. That is the only standard of truth and it is the standard for belief. In the end, that is what we will be judged by. I fear for those who reject it and have committed my life to preaching and teaching it clearly and without apology. Sometimes that rubs people the wrong way, but the gospel of Christ is offensive. We must be willing to endure that offense because people's souls are at stake. Let us not back down from truth for the sake of ecumenicity. Let us stand lovingly but firmly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

 

My point is that your posts very strongly suggest that you do not know the difference between the word of God and your personal interpretation of the word of God. I do not know if this is due to poor hermeneutics, an inadequate education, personal arrogance, spiritual blindness, an innate hatred for those who see things differently, intellectual impairment, tenacious stubbornness, a combination of all of these things, or something altogether different, but the bottom line is that whatever the cause of it—you are severely bashing millions of Christians for whom Christ died and setting yourself up as the discerner of truth.

 

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

The bottom line is that salvation is by grace through faith, and faith alone. It is not of works. When a person or organization says that salvation is by works of any kind it is heresy. Those works may be in the form of baptism, tongues, church membership, or just doing good. Nothing but faith in the atoning shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ will get you to Heaven.

Having said that, that puts baptismal regeneration on the top of the list as one of the oldest heresies known in the realm of Christendom. I use carefully the word "Christendom," and not "Christianity." For all that is under the wider umbrella of "Christendom" is not "Christian," and baptismal regeneration is not a Christian doctrine; it is a heresy that will just as quickly condemn a person to hell as unbeleif in the deity and resurrection of Christ.

Salvation is by grace through faith, not grace through baptism as the Catholic Church teaches.
It is by grace through faith, not grace through church membership as the Catholic Church teaches.
Both of these are heresies.
You cannot fully embrace the doctrines of the Catholic Church, having understood them and salvation, and be a Christian at the same time.
Baptism doesn't save. Christ does.
DHK

 

It all comes down to are we saved by works or faith in Christ alone?
It cant be both. Ephesians 2:8,9 says "For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast"
This is why Martin Luther stood against the catholic religion. Just read Galatians.
If you want more information on catholics beliefs being unbiblical see the James White website.

 

DHK,
While I was typing you must of posted.
I couldn't take it anymore and I had the same thing on my mind.
Couldn't of said it better.
Steve

 

Pastor Larry,

It is unfortunate, but I have spoken with enough Baptists to know, you and I will never see eye to eye, but I thank you for the opportunity for fellowship on this message board. When we get to heaven, we'll both be able to laugh at what we got wrong, and be thankful for the grace of the LORD that he still allowed a couple of schlumps like us into his gates!

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

Just wondering, and I know it is a bit off topic, but there was some discussion regarding some Catholic doctrines, and the implication that a doctrine must be expressly recorded in Scripture to be held. But I must ask, where is sola scriptura taught in Scripture? I just believe it is fair to be consistent.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Doctrines, Doctrines, Doctrines,

"The time will come when sound doctrine will not be endured."

The "Holy See" has at least four sources of doctrine: the infallible "papa"(ex officio, of course), traditions of the church, teachings of the Holy Fathers, and scripture--probably in that order of precedence.

Any resemblence to "Thus saith the Lord" is purely coincidental. Beware of doctrines of devils--Satan himself is become an angel of light.

Most problems with doctrine go back to the false doctrine of "salvation by works". Universal church and baptismal regeneration are early false doctrines as well.

There is no "thou shalt", "thou shall not" regarding the doctrine of "trinity", which "the watchtower" and others point out. However, the "three in one" is plainly taught in scripture.

Jesus said,"If you have seen me you have seen the Father." Jesus told the Jews: "If you do not believe that I AM THAT I AM, you will die in your sin". What did they do? Charged, convicted and crucified Him for blasphemy--"He makes himself to be God."

Many folk do not believe that Jesus is God--in the flesh--yet the scripture says He is called Immanuel--God with us--God, the Spirit in human form.

This is not something shrouded in theological inference--it is a plain teaching of the Word of God.


Selah,

Bro. James

 

Acts 17:11, Isaiah 8:20, and 1Cor.14:29, just to name a very few. There are many others.

1 Corinthians 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
1 Corinthians 14:29 And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern.

In 1Cor.14:29, as Paul lays down the conditions for the use of tongues, he also lays down principles of order in the church. That includes order for the prophets also. As you can see the word "other" can be (and should be) translated in the plural "others" as it is in the ASV.
The sense of the passage is that when the prophets gave their message the others (in the congregation) were to judge the message according to the Scriptures. They were to see whether or not it was according to the Word of God. They were to discern if this was a true prophet or a false prophet. They could only do this according to sola scriptura--if the Bible was their final authoriy in all matters of faith and practice. They went to the Scriptures to judge what the prophets said. This was true of the Bereans when Paul came to them.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

It was a principle that was taught by Isaiah.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
DHK

 

To what unBiblical doctrines, exactly, are you referring? If you could, just list a few of the "biggies," so that we can discern whether or not we are at the neverending point of simply reading Holy Scripture differently, or if we have reached at point to which we can fruitfully dialogue.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

James
"The "Holy See" has at least four sources of doctrine: the infallible "papa"(ex officio, of course), traditions of the church, teachings of the Holy Fathers, and scripture--probably in that order of precedence."
"
Considering the grand total of 1 'infallible' proclamation by all popes ever (well since 1870, there was nothing of the sort prior to that date), I'd say that you need to rethink that order of precedence a little.

 

Four+ sources of doctrine--

The point is: scripture is obviously not the only source of Divine Revelation for the RCC. In fact, there has been a concerted effort to keep the Word of God from the people(one of the deeds of the Nicolaitans). Only that which has been filtered through the paradigm of the "Holy See" is presented as "church doctrine".

Just because they may be the largest group called Christian does not make them right.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Brother James,

Any evidence of your claims?

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

That should have been, any evidence for your claims...we do not really need evidence of your claims as we can find that evidence by simply scrolling up on the scroll bar...funny thing that language is...

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

I find true, meaningful dialogue very diifcult to achieve LDB. The reason comes down to one doctrine sola scriptura. I, as many here, will only accept scripture as authoritative. Without that as common ground our debates will get nowhere.

Are you willing to dialogue on the basis of sola scriptura?

Welcome to our little corner of the cyber-world!

 

Purgatory, Penance, Indulgences, praying to Mary,
her assumption, her immaculate conception, her perpetual virginity, praying to the saints, differentiating of sins: (venial, actual, mortal, etc.), extreme unction, baptismal regeneration, papal infallibility, salvation through the Catholic Church alone, Mary's mediatorial and co-redemptrix function, praying and confession to a priest, limbo, the rosary, and so many more. Does this give you a start with unbiblical doctrines of the Catholic Church, not including the most serious heresy--salvation by works.
DHK

 

Stephen,

Gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre nostro et Domino Iesu Christo.

 

Age of accountability, sola scriptura, KJOism, millennial exclusion, millennial punishment, pre-trib rapture, mid-trib rapture, eternal security, total depravity . . . .

Moral of the story: People who live in glass houses should not cast stones.

 

Craig,

Many of you doctrines are abiblical - others are nor held by mainstream Christians.

The doctrines listed by DHK are mostly unbiblical or anti-biblical.

 

Satan may not be a genius, but he certainly is no fool . . . and it looks to me as if he has a whole lot of Baptists shooting at Catholics rather than sharing the Gospel with the lost, and in the process proving to the world that Christians are nothing but a bunch of scumbags who hate each.

If you really believe that Roman Catholics are not saved, and of course some people who call themselves Catholics are not saved, why are you attacking that which is dear to them rather than telling them about Jesus and what He has done in your life and what he can do in their life? The Gospel is the Good News that Jesus came into this world to save us from our sins. How does bashing Catholics or Lutherans have anything to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Stephen is a Roman Catholic who believes in Roman Catholic doctrine. According to the personal beliefs that you are posting, Stephen is a sinner who needs to know that Jesus loves him and died for his sins; but the message that he is getting from you is that the church that is dear to him is of the devil rather than of God, building a wall between you and him.

One thing is for certain. Jesus loves Stephen, and He wants us to love Stephen too . . . and act like it! Why not share with Stephen what Christ has done for you so that he can compare his own experience with Christ and decide for himself whether or not he is saved.