Does The RCC Teach true Gospel/Jesus?

This shows how incomplete and inaccurate your position is. No where in scriptures does it say the Catholic Church teaches a False Doctrine of Justification. Do you know what the Catholic Doctrine of justification is? Let me inform you that it has nothing to do with works. I will explain it to you if you are trully interested. But first you must supply your understanding of it so I can show where you err.

This demonstrates and supports my point and catholic doctrine what you have described here is not a faith but your belief. In other words you are saying you have given intellectual assent that Jesus is Lord and he is whom he claims to be. You believe this is enough for salvation. This as James says even the demons do. Faith is active. Faith changes lives. Scriptures stand against you. In Matthew 25 Jesus even says:

It is clear then that in both groups people believed in Jesus had an intellectual assent Yet one group acted on their belief - that is faith as James would call it - and the other group did not - That is belief not faith, for faith is an action.

"

Scriptures are against you in this as well. We can see in Matthew 25 those who believed and had no deeds to demonstrate their faith were cast out with the goats into eternal fire. Jesus own words. Jesus also makes this clear when he says

and again

and again

So it is clear Jesus differenciates between those who do and do not do the fathers will. He doesn't say in this passage "he who does not believe in me alone does not love me" but "anyone who does not obey his teaching". Very clear. Activity is a result of faith. But without it; it is clear faith is not present just an intellectual assent. Therefore your premise is wrong as is described by the very words of our Lord.

Many of the things you mention here are not apart of "Rome's Gospel" but your imaginary idea of Rome.

 

Christianity never contained such man-made doctrines. Let me emphasize "man-made." Thus the proper thing to do is establish them from Scripture if you believe they were ever Scriptural in the first place.

They are heretical doctrines. I don't believe the Apostles taught heresy. So that is the place to start.

 

So does this mean that you're abandoning your theory - stated many times on this board - that the RCC only came into existence in the 4th century?

 

What an absolute joke! You are simply being deceptive and you know it! You know he believes the Bible teaches Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without the instrumentality or use of SACRAMENTS or any other works.

You fully well know that Rome believes that grace is administered through sacraments, and administered to personally unbelieving unrepentant infants as the vast majority of recipients.

This absolute unbiblical heresy stinks in the nostrils of the Almighty God and and perverts the gospel into pure spiritual manure which I utterly detest and hate with unbridled passion.

You know that is not what he is saying. He is saying that justification by faith cannot be confused with regeneration and all good works which have their source in regeneration not justification. He is denying that sacraments precede or are instrumental in regeneration or precede or instrumental in gospel conversion (repentance and faith in the gospel). He is simply asserting that we are FIRST "created in Christ Jesus" and SECOND "unto" good works and sacraments and/or ordinances have NOTHING causual or instrument to do with either regeneration or justification.

James is teaching exactly what Paul is teaching in Romans 6 which is justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone but not apart from regenerative life from which good works originates. Unwittingly you admit this when you say,

That is all that works do - they "demonstrate their faith" and that is all that James is saying. James is demanding evidential justification by faith rather than causal justification by works.

 

No, that is my belief. And many of those beliefs were incorporated at that time also. The RCC was in no way Christian. It was Christianity paganized. There was much paganism introduced into it. And there is much that is pagan that is still there.

 

How so? You make the proposition now you must prove your accusation.

This is not proof for 2 reasons 1) you honestly don't know what I know. 2) it doesn't get to the point I was making How do you define justification and how does the Catholic Church define justification. Other than that all you've done is rambled a few accusatory words and throw into the lot the word Sacraments as if you know what that means. You still have yet to define what sacraments mean. You couldn't on the other thread and I wonder if you can now. Most likely you will make up some definition you are pleased with but is far from the truth. Justifcation is just one aspect of salvation being therefore an aspect it doesn't stand alone as does faith. Only Grace can stand alone as it is administered by God himself. Note I would agree with faith alone if faith is defined as James defines it "faith without deeds are dead." Sacraments btw aren't works. You've only shown your ignorance to What Catholic Doctrine actually teaches. I will attempt to clarify exactly what Catholics are talking about if you prove not to be stuborn and continue to use ill informed statements that shed no light onto the topic and not change the subject.

What kills me with this statement is you attempt to point out a theological doctrinal point about grace administered through sacraments and then point out a non-related issue of infant baptism. First deal with one then deal with the other because they are two different topics and when one has established a sound understanding of one then the other can be looked at. However, at this point your just throwing out stuff you think you understand but know nothing of.

You're problem is that you make a baseless assertion then play the part of God thinking you know what he thinks or that He holds to your philosophy. God does not hold to your philosophy He has his own and can speak for himself. This statement is like saying all Chineese men are hate women and that is a terrible stench before God and thus God hates all chineese men. The premise is off and is not true and thus nothing that follows is valid.

I know exactly what he is saying. The problem is you don't know what I'm saying. First we must discuss Justification and what is meant by that. Regeneration, sanctification, all play a part. You're trying to piece meal doctrine here by breaking down salvation into its component parts and saying each part alone makes one saved. Which just isn't true. One cannot be sanctified unless they are justified one cannot be regenerated without grace and regeneration works towards sanctification if it does not then its not working.

No Paul is teaching people who already have James perspective and Paul therefore doesn't need to reitterate what is already held. Cerimonial law does not justify. Yet Faith without works is dead. Faith is only expressed in deeds not intellectual assent. Jesus is certainly clear about this for many who believe in him (intellectual assent) will be cast out for faith is not evident in their lives.

I don't necissarily disagree however the opposit of that is true a lack of deeds demonstrates a lack of faith. Thats the part you guys don't get.

 

So you're maintaining your line then that the RCC only came into existence in the 4th century despite what we would today consider distinctively Catholc beliefs and practices being in the church before that...?

 

Dr. Walter,

I will attempt...Note I'm saying attempt because you are hard headed with what you think you know about Catholicism that to shed light on a doctrinal consept must be filtered through your already held misbelief about what is being said.
So I will attempt to shed light on the Catholic view of Justification and the fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants. Note in Catholicism consepts are dependent on each other and are split apart as in protestants. Thus when a protestant speaks of Justification that is the only thing mentioned. However, a Catholic must recognize its working as a whole an therefore must mention items justification is reliant on such as Grace which then explains justification, sanctification, sacraments, and a whole slew of other things. None of these items works independent of each other.

First, the Protestant teaching on grace is that it is divine aid but not divine life. Holiness comes from imputation from Christ and because of this the Father makes a legal declaration of "holy". Reality is the person isn't really transformed into holiness just declared. This is the Protestant position as I've heard countless times in countless churches and schools I've attended.

This statement seems to show the aspects and the inter related pieces working together as a whole in the life of the Christian. We can break this understanding down into more decernable parts if you with but this is the fundamental difference between you and I. However, as I take these particulars apart often times we will be saying the same thing just using different terms. For instance Born again for you is as close to the consept of Divine life as Catholics understand it, infusing a new nature (nature of christ) into the believer which is what we mean when we say Christ gives us his graces and infuses his righteousness which works towards transformation through sanctification where we are actively working to end up at the end of our lives to be Christ like. The only difference is you believe God doesn't keep working his divine life into our lives through our obedience. The closest consept you come to sacrament is reading scriptures. They supernaturally feed and infuse the believer with life as he reads the text as long as the believer is predisposed to recieving that grace. This is how the sacraments are viewed. Therefore they are not a work any more than reading scriptures is a work.

 

Baptists do not compartmentalize justification from the rest of salvation in the sense you are accusing them. Baptists view "salvation" as a general unbrella under which there are various aspects that work harmoniously together but cannot be confused with each other as they are distinctly related to each other in a cause and consequence relationships. No aspect of salvation is exclusively independent from other aspects but they work harmoniously integrated with each other in a cause and consequence relationship.

I don't know what "Protestant teaching" you are referring to but it is not Biblical or my kind of Baptist teaching. None of what you are saying represents what I believe or what historical Baptists of my kind teach. Personal Holiness does come from imputation but from impartation through new birth. What comes from imputation is POSITIONAL righteousness before God's Law IN HEAVEN in Christ and NOT PERSONAL OR PRACTICAL holiness ON EARTH in you. Justification is consequential to regeneration and does not exist apart from regeneration. All personal/practical holiness originates from the inward man created in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 2:10) which is worked out by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit progressively and ultimately in the resurrected glorified man.

Although election, predestination, regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification and glorification all work harmoniously together as "salvation" they are not the same things but have distinctly different logical and causual relationships to each other. Grace is not the "divine aide" but is the DIVINE ACT that implements each aspect in its proper role and relationship with every other aspect in salvation.

For example God's purpose of grace is causal to all of salvation (Rom. 8:28 "according to His purpose"). His foreknowledge is consequential of that purpose and the mental acknowledgement and divine expression of His purpose of grace and is causual to all salvation. Election is causual to Predestination in working out all that He has purposed for his elect (2 Thes. 2:13 - regeneration and conversion to the gospel). Regeneration is completed in gospel conversion which is causal to justification and adoption. Regeneration is causual to progressive sanctification which is completed in glorification.

Hence, there is no such thing as a justified child of God who is not also a regenerated child of God and that is what James is getting at and the visible evidence is works (Eph. 2:10).

 

The Church of Christ and United Pentecostal (Oneness) have also adopted baptismal regeneration into their statements of faith. That doesn't mean that they existed back then when the doctrine was first originated. Baptismal regeneration was one of the first heresies to enter into Christianity. Others followed, at different times, and introduced by different individuals. They were not all of one church. But one Church eventually incorporated them all.

 

Let's remember that paedobaptism is ORTHODOX and not a heresy, even though Baptists obviously don't believe in it.

We have to be careful not to make our own beliefs the bounds orthodoxy while labeling everyone who believes differently as heretics.

 

It isn't a heresy.

 

Scripture forms the basis for baptismal regeneration - a fact that has been shown to you and others here. Further, you are wrong about it being one of the first heresies, but you are correct at placing that doctrine at the begining of the Church.

WM

 

Exactly. It is orthodox.

 

Scriptures are not merely silent about paedobaptism but the principles and precepts absolutely forbid it and condemn it as heresy.

Baptismal regeneration is based upon poor hermeneutics, inadequate Bible knowledge and completely ignoring Biblical evidence to the contrary.

Gentleman, you are trying to clean a pig and put him in a suite and make him acceptable at the dinner table as a proper guest.

 

Baptismal regeneration = heresy.

 

Being baptized in a baptismal pool, being sprinkled, or having water poured over one's head does not in any way contribute to a person's salvation. To suggest otherwise, no matter how far back the belief can be traced, is to add an extra biblical requirement to salvation. It boarders Water baptism follows salvation rather than being a part of one's actual salvation. That alone is by faith. "Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

 

Hmmm...

Acts 2:38 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16 16And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

1 Peter 3: 20-21 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:


Heresy indeed!

WM

 

And I guess Jesus Himself didn't get the Baptists' memo either: "a man is born again by water[/b] and the Spirit" (Jn 3:5). Oh well...

 

Hey, it's not my problem that you can't correctly interpret the Scriptures. Hmmmm.

None of these teach what you teach.