Featured Criticizing Roman Catholicism

Jesus told me: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36. cf: John 3: 15-18.

It is really simple: Jesus either abides in one's heart or He does not. There is no guess work or maybe to it. A child can understand. Theologians have great difficulty.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Catholics are with you here, brother! Every Catholic is called upon by the Church to make a "conscious decision to trust Christ for salvation." We don't see it as a one time thing (such as praying the sinners prayer) We see it is a lifelong commitment. The Catholic Church teaches that "reborn as sons of God, the baptized must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the people of God" (CCC 1270).

 

No, because that is what scriptures teach if you would just read the verses showed you. However, and this is an important point, its not because of the water that makes it so but because its done in faith. You see this kind of thing all through out scripture. Who saved Jericho? God. But didn't God ask Joshua and Israel to walk around seven times then blow the trumpet? Didn't Samuel anoint David but it was only when David was anointed with Oil that the Holy Spirit came upon him? Didn't God save Israel from the Egyptians? But he told Moses that as long as Moses Kept his arms up the waters would be separated? Didn't Jesus tell the lepers to wash in the river but it was only after they did that they were cured? I could go on. Baptism is the mode by which Jesus asks us to enter into a life of faith with him. If there was nothing to baptism apart from proclamation, Jesus would never have COMMANDED us to baptize. After all we are commanded to proclaim then to make disciples which begins by baptizing people. So the proclamation is already done.

 

Thanks EWF. I don't consider myself a mole. And I uphold Catholic teaching as it actually is. I don't abide the non-doctrinal nonsense like burying St. Joseph statue upside down to sell your house. Nor do I buy the Catholic in Name Only people who against catholic teaching support contraceptives and abortion, or think sin should be winked at. But where you do have a point I do consider it my mission to help convert Catholics that are nominal to God (restoring or leading them to actual faith) and correct errors that have occurred due to a lack of proper catechesis. Now the Current leaders of the Catholic Church do want this to occur. My Priest has me teaching RCIA and bible studies. And my wife is very involved by teaching CCD (Sunday School) and not only inspiring children but other CCD teachers who clearly had very little knowledge of their own faith. In fact the first thing she did with her 3rd graders is teach them bible drills. It was great to see she called out a bible passage and then the first to reach it would step out wait for her acknowledgement then read it. These kids will not only know the bible but what their faith actually teaches and she leads them to have faith for themselves. And what is wonderful about this is that parents who miss church but send their kids to CCD are learning from their own kids and are coming more regularly! And it isn't just my wife and I. There are others taking up the challenge and teaching classes, out feeding the poor and homeless, calling others within our parish to convert to God in faith so that they can grow. In fact, there are some much more involved than I doing what they can to have people come to a faith in Jesus Christ. One guy I know has started a local radio show inviting Catholics to come to our parish studies! There will be fewer people (at least at my parish) that are just pew warmers. So its pretty exciting, but let me be clear that it isn't just me but there are as you say "born again" Catholics or as I put it rightly ordered Catholics contending for the faith. But we all know it has to happen in our house first before we can influence non Christians. However, Catholics are commended at the end of Mass to go out live their faith and proclaim the gospel. And what is funny is at work there are nominal Catholics that I keep telling them its time for them to repent and live the faith they claim by first getting that faith into their hearts, which they though they could hide from protestant witnesses by avoiding them or just discounting them. Now they have a Catholic telling them which they can't so easily dismiss! However, I don't think this is just happening at my Parish. I'm seeing this all over the country and maybe others will see it too!
Now I'm off to church and to teach a class called "breaking open the word". God bless.

 

When the question is put: Are you going to heaven?-- the answers are: if I am faithful, I hope so, I am not sure, or you cannot know until you die.

This is salvation by works which is no salvation at all.

Bro. James

 

Well, there are many, many Protestants (Baptists ones too!) that don't believe in Eternal Security. Are you nsinuating that it is Catholics only who reject Eternal Security as heresy? I've read thread after thread on this board that prove otherwise.

For two-thousand years the Church has taught that a person must remain in Christ to receive salvation and the following is scriptural support that our HOPE (not assurance) is in Christ.

This is taken from a website giving much scriptural support that salvation is only guaranteed if we REMAIN in Christ:

II. We are not Guaranteed Salvation; We Hope For Salvation
Heb. 7:27, 9:12,26;10:10; 1 Pet 3:18 - Jesus died once and redeemed us all, but we participate in the application of His redemption by the way in which we live.

Heb. 9:12 - Christ's sacrifice secured our redemption, but redemption is not the same thing as salvation. We participate in and hope for salvation. Our hope in salvation is a guarantee if we are faithful to Christ to the end. But if we lose hope and fail to persevere, we can lose our salvation. Thus, by our own choosing (not by God's doing), salvation is not a certainty. While many Protestant churches believe in the theology of "once saved, always saved," such a novel theory is not found in Scripture and has never been taught by the Church.

Rom. 5:2 - we rejoice in the "hope" (not the presumptuous certainty) of sharing the glory of God. If salvation is absolutely assured after accepting Jesus as Savior, why would Paul hope?

Rom. 5:5 - this "hope" does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit. Our hope is assured if we persevere to the end.

Rom. 8:24 - this "hope" of salvation that Paul writes about is unnecessary if salvation is guaranteed. If salvation is assured, then why hope?

Rom. 10:1 - Paul prays that the Jews "may be saved." Why pray if it's guaranteed? Further, why pray unless you can mediate?

Rom. 12:12 - rejoice in your "hope" (not your certainty), be patient in tribulation, and be constant in prayer.

2 Cor. 3:12 - since we have a "hope" (not a certainty), we are very bold. We can be bold when we are in God’s grace and our persevering in obedient faith.

Gal. 5:5 - for through the Spirit by faith we wait for the "hope" (not the certainty) of righteousness.

Eph. 1:18 - that you may know what is the "hope" to which He has called you, what are the riches of His glorious inheritance.

Eph. 4:4 - there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one "hope" (not the one certainty) that belongs to your call.

Eph. 6:10-17 – Paul instructs the Ephesians to take the whole armor of God, the breastplate of righteousness, and the helmet of salvation, in order “to stand,” lest they fall. Paul does not give any assurance that the spiritual battle is already won.

Phil. 3:11 - Paul shares Christ's sufferings so that "if possible" he may attain resurrection. Paul does not view his own resurrection as a certainty.

Phil. 1:20 - as it is my eager expectation and "hope" (not certainty) that I shall not be at all ashamed before Christ.

Col. 1:5 - Paul refers to the "hope" (not guarantee) that Christ laid up for us in heaven.

Col. 1:23 - provided that you continue in the faith, not shifting from the "hope" of the gospel which you heard.

Col. 1:27 - to them God chose to make known His mystery, which is Christ in you, the "hope" (not the certainty) of His glory.

1 Thess. 1:3 - remembering before our God your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of "hope" in Jesus Christ.

1 Thess. 2:19 - for what is our "hope" or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?

1 Thess. 5:8 - we must put on the helmet of "hope" (not of certainty) of salvation.

2 Thess. 2:16 - the Lord Jesus and God our Father who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good "hope" through grace.

1 Tim. 1:1 - Paul describes Christ Jesus as our "hope" (not our guarantee). We can reject Him and He will allow this.

1 Tim. 4:10 - Paul says we toil and strive because we have our "hope" (not our assurance) on the living God. This is not because God is unfaithful, but because we can be unfaithful. We toil and strive for our salvation.

1 Tim. 5:5 - she who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her "hope" (not her assurance) on God. Our hope is a guarantee only if we persevere to the end.

1 Tim. 5:15 – Paul writes that some have already strayed after satan, as God Himself tells us in 1 Tim. 4:1. They were on the right path, and then strayed off of it.

2 Tim. 2:10 - Paul endures for the elect so that they "may also obtain salvation." This verse teaches us that even the "elect,” from the standpoint of human knowledge, have no guarantee of salvation.

Titus 1:2 - Paul says that he is in the "hope" (not the certainty) of eternal life. Paul knows that his hope is a guarantee if he perseveres, but his ability to choose sin over God makes his attainment of eternal life less than an absolute certainty until it is actually achieved.

Titus 2:13 - awaiting our blessed "hope," the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Titus 3:7 - Paul says we have been given the Spirit so we might become heirs in the "hope" (not the certainty) of eternal life.

Heb. 3:6 - we are Christ's house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our "hope" (not our certainty).

Heb. 6:11 - we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of "hope" (not certainty) until the end.

Heb. 6:18 - we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the "hope" (not the certainty) that is set before us.

Heb. 6:19 - we have a "hope" that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone before us.

Heb. 7:19 - on the other hand, a better "hope" (not certainty) is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

Heb. 10:23 - let us hold fast the confession of our "hope" without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.

Heb. 11:1 - now faith is the assurance of things "hoped" for (not guaranteed), the conviction of things not seen (heaven).

Heb. 12:1 – let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us.

Heb. 12:15 – see to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no root of bitterness spring up and cause trouble, and by it many become defiled.

James 1:12 - we must endure trial and withstand the test in order to receive the crown of life. It is not guaranteed.

1 Peter 1:3 - by His mercy we have been born anew to a living "hope" through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

1 Peter 1:13 - set your "hope" (not assurance) fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 1:21 - through Him you have confidence in God, who raised him from the dead so that your faith and "hope" are in God.

1 Peter 2:2 - like newborn babes, long for spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation. How can you grow up to something you already possess?

1 Peter 3:15 - always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the "hope" that is in you.

1 John 3:3 - and everyone who thus "hopes" in Him purifies himself as He is pure. These verses teach us that we must cooperate with God’s grace and persevere to the end to be saved. We can and do have a moral certitude of salvation if we persevere in faith, hope and love.

Sir. 15:11-20 - salvation, a free gift, is ours to accept or reject. God's sovereignty includes our freewill. Our fate is predestined, but not predetermined.

 

This is a really good list of gaining rewards; however, salvation is not a reward, it is a gift from God--we can do nothing to earn it, and we certainly can do nothing to keep it. The saved are kept by God, sealed by the Holy Spirit for eternity. Works have nothing to do with getting salvation nor keeping salvation. We have these promises from God--He keeps His promises. Jesus is faithful even when we are not.

We seem to have a completely different set of definitions for the same words, and our paradigms are from different planets.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Baptist4Life, having read this thread completely, I agree with you in general.

1. Catholicism is a merit theology. There can be no debate on that point. Catholics have to do certain things to merit Salvation.

2. Catholicism has added custom and tradition to Scripture. There is no Scripture to suggest the immaculate conception of Mary (and no need for such a thing) or to suggest the ascension of Mary to Heaven (and no need for such a thing), as two examples of false doctrines originating with custom and tradition. Where are Purgatory and Limbo in Scripture?

3. In the USA, we do not see the true face of Catholicism, which is hostile to both Eastern Orthodox churches and Protestant churches. Pope Benedict XVI, as I have posted before, repeated when he first became Pope the ancient Catholic saying that there is no Salvation outside the walls of the Roman Catholic Church. He also expressed support for the correctness of Dominus Iesus, which says that third-wave Protestant churches are not really churches at all. Do you think that there is religious freedom in South American countries like Argentina?

4. The Reformation, one of the greatest events in human history, was not the first time that Christians said that the Pope was not the leader of all Christians and not the Vicar of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox churches walked out of Catholicism in 1054 AD! The Great Schism!

5. Finally, Catholics have taken no steps whatsoever to rescind Trent, which curses Protestants to hell on many points but including for believing that the just shall live by Faith, which so contradicts their merit theology. So why should I worry too much about a branch of Christianity that says that I am going to hell for believing a verse of Scripture repeated 4 times:

Habakkuk 2:4 (KJV) Behold, his soul [which] is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Romans 1:17 (KJV) For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Galatians 3:11 (KJV) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Hebrews 10:38 (KJV) Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

 

Walter.....one thing you will not miss when you go to the RCC is all the moralistic, heavy value judgments of good, better, best, right, wrong, "the scriptures say, Don't do this; you must do that! Personally that seriousness tends to wear me out. Maybe I tire of this quickly because I was raised a Catholic. Too much moralizing really becomes laborious, self serving and finally, part of the problem. The mature Christian finds more balance, peace & assurance in being a Christian.

 

Where is this information from or the URL

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=10749

It is not ethical to post someone else's material and then not provide the link or source as to where it is from. It is also against the boards rules and policies.

 

Sorry, DHK. I should have posted the link. I rarely post anything from a website. It was an oversight. Here is the link:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html#salvation-II

 

Would it be fair for the non-cal to say the Calvinist just doesn't clearly understand the grace of God? I think we both clearly understand the grace of God. In fact, I will absolutely agree with everything you say about the grace of God. God giving people a choice does not negate any aspect of grace.

 

I wonder if truth be known, if a survey could be taken of all methodist, presbyterians and baptist, if even 10% would even know anything at all about calvinism and arminianism. Most just don't care!

I have numerous family members who are methodist and presbyterian and baptist, and a few pentacostals and nondenominationals as well. Most, not all, but most are what they are ONLY because that is where the family grew up and went to church. They have no clue why we even have different denominations. They never heard of TULIP nor DoG. But they ALL do understand God's grace in Jesus Christ.

 

Steve, that tells me allot...that they are probably not born again. Seriously, how could you not care about your salvation? Cause they dont have it is why!

 

"A South African cardinal who helped elect Pope Francis this week has told the BBC pedophilia is an illness and not a crime.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/16/us-safrica-cardinal-idUSBRE92F09A20130316
Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, the Catholic Archbishop of Durban, told BBC Radio 5 on Saturday that pedophilia was a "disorder" that needed to be treated.

"Now don't tell me that those people are criminally responsible like somebody who chooses to do something like that. I don't think you can really take the position and say that person deserves to be punished. He was himself damaged."



Is this an example of the Roman Catholic church belief that they have the power to "bind and loose"? Can the Roman Catholic church declare that homosexuality is an "illness" despite the fact that God called it "an abomination" and "a sin"?

Is fornication also an illness? What about adultery? Is that also an illness?

On what basis does the Roman Catholic church have the authority to contradict God?

If it's an illness then it is not a sin. Cancer is an illness...it is not a sin. Strep throat is an illness, not a sin. But now a member of the magisterium is declaring that pedophilia is an illness and therefore not a sin.

Why isn't this cardinal being publicly rebuked for his false teaching?

I believe Roman Catholics are likely to circle the wagons and respond with their usual "That's just his personal opinion". It's the same as "infallible" popes saying fallible things - they just excuse it with "he wasn't speaking infallibly when he said that". It's a convenient bit of nonsense that allows them to excuse almost anything.

 

We recently discussed in RCIA 'What kind of faith is necessary to justify?' I'm wondering what people would take issue to here on the board. I've read many times on this board that people think that in 'Christology' the Catholic Church has 'got it pretty good.' So #1 below is covered, right? From being raised a Baptist and remaining a Baptist until recently, I would say that what we were just taught in RCIA (below) is about as close to what I was taught as a Baptist. If so, would you say that this would be enough for Catholics to have 'justifying faith?'

Justifying faith has three elements:
1. Right knowledge of Christ’s person and work
2. Assent to that knowledge
3. Surrender to and trust in the Christ who is known in #1 above.

 

As everyone knows, Martin Luther realized that Scripture repeats 4 times that the Just shall live by Faith. However, the Council of Trent cursed to eternal hell anyone who believe that the Just shall live by Faith, so that we can conclude that Catholic Justification differs from Protestant Justification.

Catholicism worldwide has always taught that there is no Salvation outside the walls of the Catholic Church. This was said by Pope Benedict XVI when he first became Pope, and was taught by Dominus Iesus issued by Pope John Paul II.

Here is what Dominus Iesus says:

"The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

"17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain 11 united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

"On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense...."

Therefore, it is properly said that Catholicism is a merit theology in that one must perform certain works in order to merit salvation and those works include membership in the Catholic Church and the attendant requirements of being baptized by them, attending mass, etc.

The Roman Catholic Church themselves say that Baptist churches are not churches in the proper sense and Baptists are not equal to them by extension of their logic and their refusal to rescind Trent's numerous anathemas against Protestantism and the Reformation (including the anathema against Justification by faith alone). The Great Schism of 1054 AD is when Eastern Orthodox dominations left Catholicism.

Here is a link to Dominus Iesus, but it is easy to find:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

 

Well, it has been explained over and over on this board what 'No salvation outside of the Church' means. Please notice that the same Church that declares the normative necessity of being Catholic also declares there is salvation for some who are not Catholics. However, 'for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity'.


Ignatius of Antioch (who sat at John's feet and was taught by the Apostle)



"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

 

Once you gave the site, it becomes one that is not a credible source of information. It is not as you say a "Biblical" site. The scripture cited does not give a defense against eternal security, but an example of taking Scripture out of context, or the inability to properly explain Scripture. In other words "proof-texting." Isolating verses without explanation is a common method used by many, including many cults.

Perhaps you have heard of the woman trying to find God's will by opening her Bible and letting her finger fall to whatever verse "the Holy Spirit would guide" her.
First she opened it to: "And Judas went out and hung himself."
Not liking that verse she tried again, and opened it to: "Go and do thou likewise."
A third time, she opened it to: "What thou doest, do quickly."

Thus the Bible, we conclude, teaches us to commit suicide, right? Or at the very least, it was teaching that lady to commit suicide. It is foolish to take scripture out of context and leave it there thinking it stands there proving your point when in reality it proves the opposite of what you say you believe.

The site you quoted from is an apologetic site put up by the RCC for the sole purpose of giving answers to people like yourself, that you might have something to answer people like us.
It is not Biblical; it is Catholic. There is a big difference. Again, a list of Scriptures cited all without context proves nothing.

To give another example, (and this has been done many times in the theology forum), a Calvinist will continually try to defend his position by directing the non-Cal to Calvinist sites. The non-Cal already knows what Calvinist sites are like. He doesn't need quotations from earlier Calvinistic creeds and confessions. He already disagrees with them. The Calvinist must do better than that. Doing better is explaining in your own words why your opponent's position is wrong. It doesn't matter what the topic is. Simply referencing another site does not usually convince anyone.

 

Nice try, but you undoubtedly stand behind the anathemas of Trent and behind Dominus Iesus, which I just quoted as saying that there is only one church and churches that do not retain the episcopate and the mystery of the Eucharist are not churches in the proper sense. Not only did Luther walk out of Catholicism but Pope Leo X wanted him executed like Hus and others and Trent issued a statement that Luther and Protestants were cursed to eternal hell--that still stands since Catholicsm has not withdrawn it. So Catholicism says that I do not belong to a proper church and that I am cursed to eternal hell for various reasons including taking literally that the just shall live by faith and don't have to join Catholicism to be justified but that I have Salvation? How can I have Salvation and not be justified? That is illogical.

For the record, I cannot agree with Catholicism that the Eucharist is a sacrament and that transubstantiation occurs, the latter being a doctrine unique to Catholicism like the immaculate conception of Mary, the ascension of Mary into Heaven, Purgatory and Limbo.