Does The RCC Teach true Gospel/Jesus?

The Old Covenant was given to a patriarchal society through the law, of which circumcision was the seal of the covenant. Only the man had to be circumcised.

The Presbyterians somehow think that Baptism replaces circumcision, but they are wrong. If you follow the logic through, then all women would be excluded from the New Covenant. For the New Covenant is different than the Old. Under the New we are all equal--brothers and sisters in Christ, and we all enter in the same way--by faith. If baptism replaces circumcision, then logically a woman must be circumcised also--a practice I am sure that you don't advocate.

 

Nope. Jesus is God -hypostatic union.

WM

 

Correct. So baptism has a purely symbolic meaning in all cases. Its symbolic meaning is different with Jesus, but it is symbolic nevertheless.

 

The title of this thread: Does the RCC teach the true Gospel/Jesus?

The answer to that question can be found in this article:

http://www.worthynews.com/top/haare...christian-muslim-and-jewish-leaders-1-394858/

The answer is NO. The true gospel is not preached. The true Jesus is not preached. When "dialogue" is reached between the RCC, Islam, Jews, and Druze religions, then something is wrong.

 

Seconded. Glad to see the troll has been banned.

 

Hmmm....Paul in Col 2:11 talks of the Colossians (presumably both male and female) being (spiritually) 'circumcised'; indeed, this passage supports the classic Reformed view of baptism.

 

I hear "classic reformed" thrown around a lot in the Baptist theology forum. There are many Baptists that hold to reformed doctrine of various stripes. None of them believe in the heresy of baptismal regeneration.

 

The fact that He was baptised, that his last commandment to the apostles was to go out and baptise, and that scripture clearly shows that baptism washes away sin proves that baptism is anything but symbolic. Your logic, taken forward would necessarily make Jesus' death on the cross symbolic as well. He didn't need to die on the cross - He is God - He could have just hit the reset button. Hmmm...

WM

 

What - do have something against peace? A dialog means "discussion" and does not indicate agreement between religions. It sounds like you have something against Jews as well as Catholics.

WM

 

If baptism does nothing other than get you wet (the classic Baptist mantra), then why on earth bother with it?

 

Because Jesus commanded it...that's right - Jesus commanded us to do something that as no salvific significance and scripture states that baptism does something salvific, yet that's really not what the writers meant. The Baptist "tradition" is supreme... Hmmm... Traditions of men.

WM

 

When the one main goal of Islam is to drive Israel off the face of the map; and they won't stop fighting until they accomplish that goal; then how, pray tell, can Islam sit down with Jews and Catholics and discuss peace?

 

There is nothing salvic in:
The Lord's Supper,
Reading and studying the Word,
Daily prayer,
Loving the brethren,
Giving, whether to your church, missions, or to the poor.

In fact there is nothing salvic in any of the above, but they are all commanded in one place or another in the Word of God, most of them by Jesus Himself.

 

It’s worth a try and sometimes there is progress toward peace, even if it is only temporary. In 1978 President Jimmy Carter got Begin of Israel and Sadat of Egypt together and they hammered out an accord that has kept the two nations at peace with each other for 33 years.

Blessed are the peacemakers.

 

Those are political leaders--another story.
As Christians we are to have no part or parcel (fellowship) with the powers of darkness. The point of the thread is: Does the RCC preach the true Gospel? The evidence here is no. No true believer would sit down with religious leaders like these and try to cooperate with them for any reason. My only reason to be with these people would be to win them to Christ.

 

Why do them, then?

 

Because we are saved, not in order to become saved. As DHK said:

In fact there is nothing salvic in any of the above, but they are all commanded in one place or another in the Word of God, most of them by Jesus Himself.
​

 

All of Jesus'works, acts or words are salvific.

 

No, in fact they are not. You have demonstrated the heresy of the RCC, and why it does not preach the true gospel of the Bible. You believe it preaches a message of salvation by works. Rather the Bible teaches salvation by grace through faith alone in Jesus alone. It is not of works lest any man should boast. It is the gift of God to be received by faith.

Giving alms (a command that Jesus gave) is a work. It will not get you to heaven.
You may be sincere in your religion, but you are sincerely wrong.

 

Two points:

1) The list of things we were considering were works done by mere mortals:

The Lord's Supper,
Reading and studying the Word,
Daily prayer,
Loving the brethren,
Giving, whether to your church, missions, or to the poor.
​

Undeniably, each of those things has its basis in the Lord Jesus Christ, some are commanded by Him, and He gave us an example to follow in others. But that is quite different to saying that such things are salvific, either in the sense that He saved sinners by doing them, or that sinners do them themselves in order to be saved.

2) Matt Black's question, to which I was replying in my previous post on this thread, asked: "Why do them, then?" Not: "Why did Jesus do them, then?"