Does The RCC Teach true Gospel/Jesus?

Rome is the master of redefining and confusing Biblical terms in order to repudiate the truth of God's Word.

DKH has responded appropriately to you.

The Bible says "by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourself for it is the gift of God, not OF works..."

However, Rome reinterprets and redefines this Biblical language to mean

"By the Holy Spirit you are receiving justifying grace through your own continuing faithful submission to the church and its ordinances in order that some day you might be saved by your works."

Hence, they have replaced the perfect tense with a continous present tense. They have redefined 'grace" to include our own works rather than exclude our own works. They have redefined faith to include our works rather than merely the means to embrace Christ and His works. They have replaced regeneration as a past tense completed creative action by God (Eph. 2:1,5,10a) that is not contingent upon the will or works of man (Eph. 2:10b; Jn. 1:13; James 1:18) and made it completely contingent upon the will and works of men via submission to church administered ordinances.


They have redefined faith that justifies the "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5) to be faithfulness by the godly (Heb. 11:7-32). They have utterly confused faith "in" the propitiation of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:24-26) by the ungodly (Rom. 4:5) to be evidential justification "by" faithfulness of the godly.

They have replaced faith "in" the propiation of the Person and personal life/death of Jesus Christ as the basis for receiving justification without our own works and righteousness with obedience to the church and its ordinances as the means to convey grace and ultimate justification by our works and righteousness.

They have confused primary causes with secondary causes. They have reversed cause and effects (Eph. 2:10 "unto") making works the cause rather than the effects of regeneration.

In short, they have demonized the Word of God by their redefinitions transforming it into Satan's Bible instead of God's Word.

 

Sorry, but that is not correct. At the beginning of the Reformation (1517), the English word "protest" meant "To declare publicly, to testify." It wasn't used with its present meaning (with the added word "against" assumed) until 1553.

 

Well, we do that too, on occasion, just like the Apostles did. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Your own analogy of the water hose properly defines Rome's view of sacraments to be the visible MEANS to obtain grace. Only in connection with the idea of MEANS are ordinances consequently regarded as a "visible sign." Hence, to say they without qualifications that sacraments are but a "visible sign" is false and misleading. For example, Baptist will confess that the ordinances are visible outward signs of a previous inward condition but utterly deny that ordinances are the means through which that inward condition was obtained.

Amazing! Here is a teaching by Christ that is Pre-cross, Pre-resurrection, Pre-Pentecost without any mention of "baptism" and yet all those who deny the baptism of John to be "Christian" and deny there was any "Christian" baptism prior to the cross, prior to the resurrection, prior to Pentecost evoke this passage to support "Christian" baptism!!!!

Paul says that "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. 10:10) and therefore justifying faith occurs in the heart prior to confession with the mouth and both occur prior to baptism. Hence, baptism cannot possibly obtain such a heart, such faith or such confession but rather is merely the external manifestation or sign in the same sense that circumcision was an external sign or manifestation that Abraham had been justified by faith (years before) long before (Gen. 15:3) he was circumcised (Gen. 17). Hence, baptism washes away sins and saves us FIGURATIVELY not literally just as circumcision was literally the cutting off of flesh that was an outward symbol or figure of the cutting off of the uncirumcised heart or giving of a new heart that occurred long before Abraham received the external sign/symbol/figure (1 Pet. 3:21).

.

You are confusing the Apostolic power to convey SPIRITUAL/SIGN gifts that was peculiar to the Apostles and one of the "signs" of an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12; Rom. 1:11; Acts 19:6; 1 Tim. 4:14; Acts 8:18-19).

Jesus plainly and repeatedly provides the true understanding of this language both before and after saying it in John 6:54. John 6:35, 47 interprets both the bread and eating and drinking as metaphors of partaking of Christ by faith. John 6:63-65 continues to show that Christ is defining the nature of saving faith which is something only the Father can give and thus his words had a "spiritual" significance rather than to be taken LITERALLY and Peter calls them "the WORDS of life." Christ is no more LITERALLY the bread in the Supper than he is the bread that came down in the wilderness. Both SYMBOLIZE Him and eating SYMBOLIZES partaking of him by faith, believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

He tells them how to do this by preaching "repentance" unto all nations (Lk. 24:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Their authority to proclaim repentance or damnation was in the gospel. Those who repented and believed the gospel had their sins remitted and those who rejected the gospel did not have their sins remitted (2 Cor. 1:14-17).

God joined men and women together for 4000 years without any church and without any preist. There is not one recorded instance in the New Testament where any marriage was conducted by any church, by any minister. Pure presumption on the part of Rome.

Apostolic laying on of hands conveyed spiritual gifts to both ministers and to lay persons (Rom. 1:11; Acts 19:6). This was one of the "signs" of an Apostle (2 Cor. 12:12) and needful during the period when there was no written revelation for the churches. There are no "apostles' today just as there are no "priests" today and there never has been "cardinals" in the Bible.

It is the sick person that calls for the elders. IF the Lord heals him, it is attributed to the prayer of "faith" not to the office. James is not instituting this as a church ordinancy any more than he is instituting singing psalms as a church ordinance for the merry (James 5:13).

Hence, the hose is the MEANS for conveying water. Hence the catechism denies there can be salvation apart from the ordinances EXCEPT under a few special conditions arbritrarily determined by Rome.

The Gospel Paul preached was not a CHURCH gospel but the gospel conveyed to Abraham without ordinances, without the law, without the church and without his own assistance (Gal. 3:6-8; Rom. 4:4-16) and it is this SAME gospel "preached unto them as well as unto us" (Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43; 26:22-23) is the true gospel and Rome's church gospel is "another gospel" proclaiming "another Jesus" by "another spirit" (2 Cor. 11:3-4) and is "accursed" by God (Gal. 1:8-9).

 

David,

The bottom line is that Baptists deny the label "Protestants" in regard to how the term was applied to Roman Catholic Reformers and their congregations which all were Roman Catholic in origin before protesting against the corruption of Rome and coming out of her.

Baptists do not deny they are protestors against all ungodliness and false religions and doctrine and thus are "protestants" in that sense but totally deny they are "Protestants" in the sense of Roman Catholic origin or departure from Rome as were the Reformers and sub-reformers (Puritans and Separatists).

"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all countries of Europe persons adhering tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists" - Mosheim

 

If I may, look at the writings of Spurgeon, a Calvinist.



"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did
not commence our existence at the Reformation, we were reformers
before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of
Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the
Apostles themselves.

We have always existed from the very days of
Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a
river which may travel underground for a little season, have always
had honest and holy adherents.

Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect,
yet there has never existed a
government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I
believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the
consciences of others under the control of man.


We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not
ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of
the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will
never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the
consciences of men."

 

"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the modern Dutch Baptists." - Johann Laurenze von Mosheim, An Ecclessiatical History, (New York, Harper & Rowe Brothers, 1860) [Reprinted by Old Paths Book Club, Box V, Rosemead, CA., Second Ed., J. Vol. II p. 119,120

 

RCC cannot teach the True Gospel and perform their Mass at the same time, because True Gospel and the Mass of RCC contradict each other.


In the Mass, the priests of RCC lift up the cookies and wine transubstantiated into blood, and they ask God to forgive their sins.

They ask God to forgive their sins because they never believe the Eternal Effect of the Sacrifice by Jesus Christ at the Cross.


The Mass is broadcast on TV everyday between 11:30-12:00 here and they never bring the True Christian Gospel that All the sins of the world were already forgiven at the Cross when Jesus was nailed and hung on the tree, shedding the Blood and died there.

In the Mass RCC priests repeatedly ask God to forgive their sins every day, and they never deliver any answer from God to the people.

Did they ever say that all the sins were forgiven already at the Cross, not because of what they offered, but because of what Jesus offered?

God has forgiven all the sins of the world, not only for us but also for the whole world ( 1 John 2:2) by the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ. His Blood was good enough to pay all the price for the sins of the world.

What should God do if RCC continuously ask Him to forgive their sins by lifting up their own sacrifice; cookies and wine?

RCC try to replace what Jesus has done at the Cross, with their own sacrifice of Transubstantiation, cookies and wine.

Their cookies are written with IHS which is the symbol of Egyptian gods according to the Babylonian religion.


Should God send Jesus again into this world when RCC ask Him to forgive the sins?

Mass is absolutely opposition to Believing what Jeus Christ has done for the world. How can they preach the True Gospel while they work in opposition to the Gospel?

By performing Mass, RCC is messing up what Jesus has done for them.

Are they really believing Christian Faith? NO KIDDING!!!!!

They deny the Eternal effect of what Jesus has done at the Cross!
They deny that all the sins of the world were already forgiven!
The sins of the world exist because the people don't believe this Truth!, the sins of Unbelief!
RCC join this Unbelief of the world!

Our Belief is the Bridge between the Historical fact of Calvary and ourselves. This Bridge is approved by God (Romans 4:5, 16)

Pope of Roman Catholic is nothing but the CEO of Sorcerers, Goddess worhippers, and Idol worshippers!


We give thanks to the Lord Jesus Christ who shed the Blood and died for us and for the whole world, to pay the full price for the sins of the world, Once For ALL. He completed the Great Sacrifice Once For ALL!

It is great that Jesus doesn't have to shed the Blood and die again (Heb 10:28)

By remembering and believing what Jesus has done for us, we have the boldness to access the Holiest of Holy to see the Holy God by the Blood of Jesus Christ ( Heb 10:19-20)


Jesus Christ is coming soon, to punish the tricky Unbelievers and Idol worshippers!

Let RCC stop the stupid Mass messed up with human theology!

 

Double POst!

 

At least someone has their head on right:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/vatican-stunned-irish-embassy-closure-131052801.html


They finally saw the light.

 

I think we can agree that being born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5) is the same thing as being “born again” (John 3:3). So what does it mean to be born again? We see what it means in Romans 6:4: “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” The newness of life is a reference to being born again.

The larger context of John 3:5 shows a theme of cleansing, of which baptism is an essential element, whether it is viewed from a symbolic perspective or from a salvific or regenerational perspective. John 1 tells of the works of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus. In John 2 we see Jesus cleansing the temple. After the Nicodemus meeting in John 3, we see Jesus baptizing with His disciples. So cleansing is one of several themes we see as we read through the Gospel of John and baptism is a cleansing ritual. See Acts 22:16.

It was universally held that John 3:5 refers to water baptism from the 1st Century until Huldrych Zwingli in the16th Century came up with the idea that sacraments are made up concepts. The church fathers who expressly held to this view include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysotom, Gregory of Nazianz, and Augustine. I have not discovered anyone who held another view during that period of time. There are those who pay little attention to historical development of Christian doctrines but they are missing out on the wisdom of the ages by their failure to do so. I pay attention to these things and show them great deference unless they are manifestly contrary to scripture. The idea that baptism is only symbolic is a new idea in Christian thinking, and a wrong idea.

Before Jesus and before John, baptism was a common practice in the Jewish world. Anyone who converted to the Jewish faith had to be baptized. The water of immersion (mikvah) in Rabbinic literature was referred to as the womb of the world, and as a convert came out of the water it was considered a new birth separating him from the pagan world. His status was changed and he was referred to as "a little child just born" or "a child of one day". We see the New Testament using similar Jewish terms as "born again," "new creation," and "born from above." Therefore, the phrase “born of water” would immediately tell a devout Jew like Nicodemus that Jesus was speaking of baptism. That is why everyone in the early church knew that being “born of water” was a reference to baptism. There was never any debate about it because it was always understood. Only in modern times did people get confused about the meaning of John 3:5 because its correct meaning interfered with their faulty soteriology.

As for those other verses I cited, you would have to be totally delirious to not recognize that they teach baptismal regeneration.

 

Acts 8 doesn’t say anything about doubting Jews. And even if we infer that Peter and John went to Samaria to assuage their own doubts or the doubts of the other Jerusalem Christians, the Bible flatly sates that the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen on these people. When Peter and John laid on hands, the Holy Spirit came upon them. We see the same thing in Acts 19:6.

You say they are symbolic. Where does the Bible say they are symbolic?

So Christ has the power to forgive sins but he is too weak to confer this authority on others? Is that what you mean? Immediately before this, Jesus had said, “As the father has sent me, I also send you.” He did not say, “As the father has sent me, I also send you—except you won’t have the authority to forgive sins like I have had during my sojourn here.”

Yes they do and the RCC recognizes all marriages between two Christians performed in the assembly of their faith as sacramental. The Church recognizes two sacraments that do not require a priest to perform—matrimony and baptism.

I didn’t say it is a spiritual gift. Those are the words of Paul, who told Timothy he got this spiritual gift by the laying on of hands. Are you saying he got it wrong?

And the sexual abuse problem has nothing to do with their orders. I expect you and I agree on this, that the problem is due to the canon law requirement of celibacy. We could do a thread on this and you and I would not be far apart here. For what it’s worth, I think the reason they keep the celibacy requirement is mostly economic. They can pay their priests next to nothing, whereas a man with a family would require a substantial salary. However, there are a few married Roman Catholic priests in this country, mostly former Episcopal priests who have converted and have been granted a dispensation to enter the RC priesthood. So celibacy is not required to have a valid ordination.

Over the last 3 or 4 years there have been several threads on this subject and I have observed that the discussion always focuses on the purpose of the oil, who should anoint and when to anoint. But I have never seen any discussion here on the last clause, “if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.” I think this is the real substance of the sacrament and I’m pretty sure this is its purpose in the Catholic Church.

I have just been over them twice and still you deny them. I just don’t understand. It’s as puzzling as your looking at the sky at noon on a clear day and saying you can’t see the sun. Can you only see those things in scripture that you think ought to be there?
__________________

 

In your guts you Baptists want to baptize your children which is why you invented child dedication - which doesn't cost you anything. I suggest you invent income check dedication.

 

Billwald...

I said...

You...

Yes, I have. The catholic religious organisation DOES NOT preach the true gosple of Jesus Christ. They curse it, and proclaim a false gosple in its place.

Multitudes of them.

 

All right, I’ll accept that.

I refer you to the answer I gave DHK concerning John 3:5. And I am not one to say there was no Christian baptism prior to the cross. Jesus, through His disciples, baptized more people than John did.

Baptism is indeed a sign, just like circumcision, but it is a lot more than a sign. We are buried with Jesus in baptism and rise up to newness of life. Note that the newness of life does not occur until after the baptism.

The Holy Spirit is a sign gift? Surely you don’t mean that.

I don’t recall reading the word “symbol” or “metaphor” or any similar language in this chapter. And four N.T. writers relate the Last Supper, and not one of them suggests it is merely symbolic. I assume Jesus said it just like He is quoted. “This is my body.” But if it was intended to be symbolic it seems that at least one of them would have included a parenthetical to that effect.

But let’s assume that John 6 has nothing to do with the Eucharist, as you seem to believe. The Bible still teaches that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Malachi 1:11 calls it a grain offering, or a pure offering, depending on the translation. This was a future event that Malachi prophesied would be done all over the earth. Sure seems like the Eucharist to me.

And in 1 Corinthians 3:16 Paul says, “Do you not know that you are a temple of God. . . .” Here he was speaking to the whole church (plural), not to an individual. And what is a temple? It’s a place where sacrifices are made. If Paul had simply meant a place of assembly, he could have more accurately referred to them as a synagogue. The sacrifice Paul was referring to was the body and blood of Christ.

If that’s what it means, it seems odd that John would have written it so that anyone reading it for its plain meaning would be deluded. Only someone so perspicacious as Dr. Walter (and others who try to deny the power of Christ to confer the gift of the power of absolution) can get that very odd meaning out of these verses. And if that is all Jesus meant, doesn’t it seem strange that He would breathe on them? This is what God did to Adam. Clearly Jesus was imparting some of His own nature onto the apostles here.

See my answer to DHK’s comments given above.

So why do we do it today? I don’t know about your church but mine has laying on of hands for all ordinations. I had hands laid on me some 24 years ago when I was ordained a deacon, and it’s the only time in my life I actually felt the presence of the Holy Spirit.

As for the “cardinals” thing, that is an administrative office. A cardinal has no special faculties due to his office, and neither does an archbishop. Since 1962 all cardinals have been bishops but it hasn’t always been so. Previously they also included priests and deacons.

You could have fooled me. It’s actually the clearest example of a sacrament in the New Testament. Singing psalms doesn’t produce any results. Here James says the sick person must call for the elders and they are to pray and anoint. There are mutual duties here, and the end result is healing and forgiveness of sins. It’s the perfect paradigm of a sacrament.

Doc, you know the Catechism doesn’t mention ordinances. It speaks of sacraments. It’s a nice word. It’s easy to pronounce and spell. Feel free to use it when it is appropriate to do so.

Oh, I just thought of another example of sacramental healing in the New Testament. The waters of Bethesda in John 5 received the Spirit from an angel and conveyed same to the first person to enter the pool.

Sure seems strange then that he established so many churches and spent so much time trying to make them do right. Except for Philemon, every word Paul wrote was to or about the church. Even the pastorals were written for the purpose of showing Timothy and Titus how to organize and manage the churches in their charge.

 

Eliyahu, I don't recall seeing you post anything for a couple of years, and I was sort of wondering if you had died. I'm glad to see that is not the case.

 

What unmitigated rubbish......

 

Instead of "cursing" him, why don't you tell us what he said that is wrong.

 

First, IF the Jews baptized any convert to their religion, it is based solely on tradition and nothing else. We have no evidence that this was their practice. There is no evidence that Ruth was baptized; that Rahab the harlot was baptized. There is no evidence that any convert into Judaism was ever baptized.
Secondly, even if it were, it would have a completely different significance for they rejected Christ as their Messiah. Baptism is associated with solely with Christianity.
Thirdly, the word baptism is not a translation, but rather a transliteratioin of a Greek word, "baptidzo". The translation of the word is immersion. Thus the word "baptism" does not even exist in the Hebrew language, the language of the Hebrews before Christ came, before any of them were Hellenized.
The evidence is all against you. No such practice existed. If it did, it would have had a different meaning entirely and would not have even come into the mind of Nicodemus.

Next, Nicodemus had heard Christ, seen his miracles, and wanted to know more about Christ. He probably realized that Christ was the Messiah, that is who Christ claimed to be. "We know that thou art come from God," he said. He was not oblivious to the teachings of Christ.

Any supposition that indicates "water" means baptism is pure eisigesis. It is not in the context of the conversation. It would not be in the thinking of this Rabbi. He knew the OT well, where there is no mention of baptism. He was a well known rabbi, a teacher and ruler of the Jews.

Baptismal regeneration is one of the first heresies to enter into the church. It came afterward, more than two centuries later. It is not taught here nor any where else in Scripture. One doesn't have to mangle the Scriptures to try and teach error.

Three times Jesus said: "You must be born again," John 3:5 is only one of those times. In this verse he says you must be born of water and of the Spirit. Most of us agree that the Spirit refers to the Holy Spirit. But what does the water refer to. It does refer to something. It is not baptism for the reasons given above. Some think it might be amniotic fluid surrounding the baby giving a direct comparison of the physical birth to the spiritual birth throughout the passage. That is a plausible explanation, but I don't think the historical context will allow it. I just don't believe that when Jesus said "water," that Nicodemus would automatically think of "amniotic fluid."

That leaves one other choice. I believe that Nicodemus, having such a wealth of knowledge of the OT, would have gone back to the OT immediately. What is the most common use of water? It is for cleansing. His mind would go back to such well known Scripture as:

Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. (Psalms 119:9)
--There are many other such Scriptures that teach that the Word is an object of cleansing. It cleanses our souls. How shall a young man cleanse his soul, is the question asked. The answer: "By taking heed to the Word."

Also Nicodemus would be very familiar with the Temple. He would have gone into it many times, and each time washed his hands at the laver of washing. The Pharisees had incorporated many other ceremonial washings as well. In fact they rebuked the disciples of Christ at one time saying "Why do your disciples wash not their hands."

Jesus taught:
Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. (John 15:3)
--There are only two agents by which one is born again: one is water and the other is the Spirit. Jesus teaches that it is the Word that cleanses. The same use that water has. Water is symbolic of the Word.

And James:
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)
--"Begat he us with the word of truth." The word "begat" or begotten refers to the new birth. We are born again through the Word.
There are only two agents by which a person is born again: the Word and the Holy Spirit.

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)
--Born again by the word of God.
Here it is very clear. Both the word of God and the Spirit of God are needed to be born again. One needs both. One cannot be born again without the Word of God. One cannot be born again without the Spirit of God. These are the only two agencies that God uses. The word of God is absolutely imperative, for that is where the message of the gospel is found.
The water is not referring to baptism; it never did. It refers to God's Word.
Jeremiah made a mockery of those who thought they could wash away their sin with water (baptism):

For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD. (Jeremiah 2:22)
--Wash yourself, baptize yourself as much as you want. It won't do any good. The only thing that will wash away your sin is the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

And there you have it folks... the Baptists lay secreted, hence none of their writings can be found.

Right...

WM