Does The RCC Teach true Gospel/Jesus?

Do a search. We have only discussed this a hundred dozen times hyperbolically speaking.

 

The TR, Tischendorf, IGNT, Wescott & Hort, Byzantine, Greek texts all have the word "aimata" (blood). I could not find any basis to omit "aimata" from ANY Greek alternative reading of Romans 3:25.

The Douay Rheims, ASV, AV, Darby, Webster, Weymouth, Youngs, Calvin's bible, BBE, ERV, all read "blood".

Moreover, the text is concerned about the "redemption" and "propitiation" or satisfaction provided by God through Jesus Christ and that is unquestionably the "blood" of the sacrifice as both the Old Testament book of Levitiucs and the New Testament book of Hebrews clearly teaches. The term "blood" when used of sacrifices refers to the quality (spotless) of LIFE given.

You have followed translations that have all left the actual Greek text instead of faithfully translating the text.

Again, you are simply refusing to acknowledge what the text both says and means. You cannot simply jerk verse 28 out of the context but it must be interpreted by verse 27. Verse 27 provides the contextual framework for understanding verse 28. In verse 27 the issue is "boasting" and which "law" prohibits versus which "law" provides a basis for boasting.

The term "law" is used equally for "of works" and "of faith" but they are contrasted as polar opposites to each other in regard to the issue of boasting. Hence, the term "law" has the idea of PRINCIPLE. There are two OPPOSING PRINCIPLES by which justification can be considered, justification by the principle "of works" or justification by the principle "of faith".

Paul explicitly denies that justification by the principle "of works" prohibits boasting and therefore verse 28 confirms that denial by saying:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

This is so simple and so clear and so easy to see one must intentionally put on blinders to avoid it.

Surely you jest? This text exposes, condemns and repudiates the whole soteriological Roman Catholic system just as it does the whole Mosaic Old Covenant system of the Judaizers as both are equally charactizered by the prinicple "of works."

Jesus Christ believed in OSAS as well (Jn. 5:24;6:37-40, 44-45; 10:26-30)

The Bible clearly teaches that true believers can fall from THE DOCTRINE of grace by heeding false teachers like you and false denominations like Rome. That is the crux of the book of Galatians.

This is exactly what Paul is clearly and explicitly repudiating in Romans 3:24-5:22; 11:5-6; Ephesians 2:8-10; Galations 1-4.

Dale Moody was a doctrinal apostate.

 

Absolutely not! Rome repudiates 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and 2 Pet. 1:19-21 and must repudiate it in order to defend its vain traditions of men. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 clearly and explicitly states that "the man of God" is COMPLETELY or "THROUGHLY" or THOROUGHLY furnished unto "ALL" (not some) good works in regard to "all scriptures" alone (without inclusion of traditions, without mention of traditions) for DOCTRINE, CORRECTION, INSTRUCTION and REPROOF. Rome repudiates this and denies that "the man of God" is THOROUGHLY furnished by "all scriptures" for these stated aims but demands the inclusion of TRADITION.

2 Peter 1:15-19 explicitly and clearly states that prophetic scriptures are "MORE SURE" that is MORE STABLE than the oral traditions of apostles EVEN WHILE THE APOSTLE STILL LIVES and that scriptues are MORE STABLE because what is conveyed in writing is not the private or personal views/interpretations of the writer but the writer is so influenced by the Holy Spirit that what he writes by inspiration is the expressed will of God. In contrast, all oral traditions become corrupted with time as they all depend upon the stability of UNINSPIRED men to faithfully transmit them from one person to another and from one generation to another. The INSTABILITY of this kind of system is clearly seen in the oral "traditions of the elders" in the time of Christ and the apostles which had to be rebuked, corrected by INSPIRED men but Rome has NO INSPIRED men to correct their corrupted unstable traditions.

I provided a solid Biblical basis to prove my position concerning the heresy of sacraments which you nor any other pro-catholic have even attempted to refute. However, let me give you a source from your revered uninspired traditons:

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; " describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. - Clement

Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? "Who washes," it is said, "His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape." In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word. - Clement

 

Cheap shot...nothing provided but opinion unsubstantiated by facts.

WM

 

Please provide us with any Biblical foundation for a church/state union. Provide Biblical justification where any of the congregations in the New Testament entered into union with secular governments.

Regardless of how you may interpret the Great Whore in Revelation, one thing that characterizes her and for what she is condemned for is her illicit union with secular goverments of the earth.

Provide from traditions dating prior to the fourth century of any congregations entering into union with secular governments.

You simply cannot do any of the above. Thus what Rome did in the fourth century is a DEVIATION from all previous inspired and uninspired records in regard to the congregations of Christ. What sacred tradition of Rome prior to the fourth century give authorized support for this deviation???????????

2 Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord......

Rev. 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

 

Except that I don't agree with the contention' I'm asking the poster who made it to substantiate his allegation.

But let's run with Walter's suggestion: that it all went pear-shaped when Theodosius made Christianity the state religion in c. 380AD. If the (Catholic) Church hadn't 'left the faith' until then, then people advocating this theory of apostasy at that date need to cope with some uncomfortable facts. In particular, they need to know that the Church believed and practised the following doctrines and rites well before even the beginning of the 4th century:

1. Episcopal church government.

2. Infant baptism

3. Baptismal regeneration

4. Real presence in Communion

5. Ordained priesthood

6. Veneration of the Virgin Mary

etc etc.

 

Theodosius did not make "Christianity" the state religion. He made a perverted segment of Christianity the state religion. There were a great number of congregations throughout the empire that opposed it and did not support it.

They had apostatized long before then, but that is disputed by interpretations and traditions, but this act no INTERPRETATION of Scripture, no TRADITIONS can vindicate, justify or confirm as apostolic.

This act substantiates they had already were an APOSTATE form of Christianity and simply makes it clear.

 

if I remember correctly (and I do) at that time there were only two primary forms of Christianity the larger group of Arians and the lesser Group of Catholics. Are then suggesting that this larger group of Arians were authentic Christianity? However, it was Theodosius that made Christianity the official state religion. Note: not Constantine.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this unless you are referring to the Arians.

No this act indicates that the Emperor believed he could do such a thing. However, another emperor found out quickly that He couldn't mandate what happened internally in the Christian Church thanks to Ambrose.

 

Faulty memory, there were Montanists, Novationists, Donatists.

Who are you kidding? The emperor had a willing Bishop at Rome and Ambrose did not change anythng in regard to church state union which went right on into the middle ages.

 

Originally Posted by JesusFan

Zenas responded...

Yes, it has. Consistently. It always has taught that false gosple.

Which of course means justification by works.

God has cursed that false gosple. Catholicism teaches it
The true gosple is faith alone. Catholicism curses faith alone.

Eternal security is another divine truth that the Catholic "church" curses.

 

You have to prove that.

actually it doesn't it means that faith is not faith unless its evidence by what it does. Do you really have faith in Jesus if you don't give to the needy? Jesus says what you do for the least of these you've done unto him. So if you ignored these you ignored Jesus and your faith is to no avail. This is also what James Means. The devil and his angels believe in Jesus and who is but they are against him. So belief is not enough Faith must be evidenced.

What false gospel? That Jesus died for our sins. That he attoned for them. That he wants us to have true faithin him. He wants to restore us to a right relationship with himself? That He rose from the dead and will raise us on the last day? Which false gospel are you suggesting?

You have to prove that is the gospel.

This is a way is a false statement.

 

That is completely untrue.

 

Thinkingstuff....

I said, regarding Rome's false gosple of justification by works...

You...

The scriptures prove it. Do you not believe the scriptures?


Regarding justification by works, you said...

Yes. I still have saving faith in Jesus even if I do not give to the needy. We are NOT saved by "doing good". We are save through faith, and faith alone.

"Doing good" has to do with being a PROFITABLE servant. Not to be saved. We are saved through in Christ alone.

Wrong. I am failing to be a profitable, fruit bearing servant. But I am still saved. Salvation id through faith alone, not the catholics false gosple of works.


I said...

You said...

No. Thats the true Gosple.

I am refering to Romes false gosple of works, penance, "being good" sacramentalism, ritual, worship of images, goddess worship, magic trinkets, kissing of statures, etc etc etc.


I said...

And you said..

And part of "doing His will" is to heed his scriptures, and accept His teachings

If a particular religious organisation is teaching falsehoods regarding extremely important foundational truths...such as the Mormons, Jehovahs wittness's, Catholicism, and ultra liberal protestantism do...then they need to be "called out" because of the falshoods and heresies and blasphemies they are holdong to.

 

What I said was completely and fully accurate IF God's Word is the determining and defining authority as to what is and what is not the true gospel of Grace!

I have laid out the Biblical evidence, so deal with it as your denial means nothing! Read the response I gave to Zenas and try to overthrow it. Here is the conclusion to our discussion over Romans 3:27-28:

The term "law" is used equally for "of works" and "of faith" but they are contrasted as polar opposites to each other in regard to the issue of boasting. Hence, the term "law" has the idea of PRINCIPLE. There are two OPPOSING PRINCIPLES by which justification can be considered, justification by the principle "of works" or justification by the principle "of faith".

Paul explicitly denies that justification by the principle "of works" prohibits boasting and therefore verse 28 confirms that denial by saying:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

This is so simple and so clear and so easy to see one must intentionally put on blinders to avoid it.

 

Are you a foremost expert on Church History? Are you a leading Biblical exegete or theologian?

My guess is your answer is "no." Neither am I, but your opinion/interpretation is not convincing here. There are fantastic evangelical scholars who disagree. In fact, most great evangelical scholars would disagree.

 

Let's do the proper thing and run these against Scripture:

Isaiah 8:20 To the Law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word there is no light in them.
--We can take that as timeless principle attributable to the entire Bible.

So demonstrate that the above doctrines are indeed supported by Scripture, then you will have a case.

 

So why are you even talking on this forum????? According to your own standards you have no right to express your opinion. I know a lot of expert church historians and theologions who are wrong on many issues. I don't fear crossing swords with anyone regardless of their title. Facts are facts reqardless of the title that follows a name.

I placed the evidence down and if you can't deal with it then why even respond???

 

"Cursing" what are you talking about.....I merely stated an opinion that everything stated was erroneous.

I do not claim to be a theologian, and it is not productive to engage in apologetics here as it would be claimed to be proletysing (is that spelt right....anyhow defending the RCC).:godisgood:

 

But I wasn't talking about that, I was addressing the contention that the Catholic Church 'left the faith in the 4th century': if that contention is correct then 'the faith' included the doctrines and practices listed by me.

 

Again, we are talking about the theory which I believe you hold that the Catholic Church either 'left the faith' or 'came into existence' as an apostate entity in the 4th century. If that theory is true, then true Christianity contained - and therefore still adheres to - the doctrines and practices listed by me above.