Roman Catholic...Christian or Cult?

"Fear not LITTLE flock" - false religion will always be in the majority in this age. The true kingdom is always "hidden" amongst the stuff of the professing kingdom (Mt. 13:43-44).

It is not going to get better either. Jesus ask rhetorically, "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

 

BTW the Jehovah Witness Folks own half of Brooklyn & have the unmitigated gall to have all their printing of books, bibles & leaflets done right there! Can you believe it. Heathens to the left of me & heathens to the right.

 

Unsubstantiated opinion. Do not presume again to tell me what I do or do not know. Show me where what it does is not 'true to the Scriptures'.

 

You have misapplied the Catholic Position on each one of these subjects.

This is entirely untrue. They are Christian in the biblical sense. Here is whats funny. Acts 11 doesn't define what a Christian is in a biblical sense it shows the conversion of Cornellius. However, I suspect you are thinking of this passage

Showing that Cornellius house had become believers and were baptized with the Holy Spirit. There is nothing against this type of conversion in the Catholic point of view. In fact, you mean this passage to be looked at alone when in context you miss out on this passage.

Where Peter doesn't miss the requirement of baptism. Which he explains is necissary in Acts 2

It just so happened that the order was changed at Cornellius house but no less effective. Also note Peter doesn't just claim its for adults but

. So biblically Catholics hold to baptism by water and the Holy Spirit. There is no difference there. The Catholic Catachism states

Shows baptism as Peter spoke about in Acts 2. So no difference there. So peter at cornellius house shows the necessity of baptism upon reprentance. The only difference between chapter 2 and 11 is the sequence of events. this statement

is also untrue. The Catachism

So you're wrong there.

ah you're wrong again

and as far as gal1:8-9 I find no where the catholic church mentioned. It does say that

But you would have to prove that the catholic church teaches another Gospel than what Paul preached. Which of course you can't. So wrong on all counts.

 

So you know Walter, most of the converts we speak to @ my Baptist Church are in fact RC. If you villify them then they retreat & call you all sorts of nasty names, however if you treat them with respect & dignity they generally turn into very devout Christians.

If you want a challenge, try converting folks from the Orthodox Catholic Churches! I spent 4 hours yesterday with a group of Slavic neighbors who we are trying to integrate into the faith. I hope & pray that these people see us as loving Christians vs their past alternative....a very viberent & stimulating group they are indeed.

 

Yea....let me know when JW's start believing in the Trinity & the power of the Holy Spirit. At least Catholics are on the same page on this issue.

 

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Gal. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Tit. 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Rome does not preach the gospel of Jesus Christ as Rome preaches justification by sacramental grace or grace through works rather than justification "without works." Rome preaches justification of the godly not "the ungodly."

 

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Corneilus is in Acts 10!

I am going to make you happy by my first statement - I don't believe you are a Catholic!! and mad by my next statement - I believe you are just ignorant of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and deceived as you teach "another gospel" thus "accursed."

All who preach another gospel are deceived or lost or both and in addition to "accursed" and therefore think everyone else is deceived.

 

I would agree that defining the papacy as a cult is too broad.

Here is what I believe the papacy is:

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.
WCF, 1646

 

ROFL!!!!!! You can believe what you want. " I know in whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I've committed unto him against that day."

No. Be honest Dr. Walter. Quote how you actually mean the passage

(bolded mine) You are your ultimate authority on all scriptural truths.
as far as Cornelius yes but Peter explains why he did what he did in 11. So your statement is irrelevant.

 

Then you've not properly identified what catholics believe. Catachism 424

And later

or

which is how the catholic church views Christ's role. As far as the Pope

 

I'm with you. I don't agree with them on a lot of things, but we are the same Church. I have known a number of Catholics that are believers.

 

There are not TWO or more ways! You are either right or wrong there is no middle ground. There are only two opposing options - the gospel of grace WITHOUT WORKS or "another gospel" justified by works - both cannot be true. You are either on one side or the other. And yes, you are wrong and your posts demonstrate it.

 

You're arguing with yourself. I never suggested there were two ways. Only you brought that up. What I've suggested is that you have made yourself the authority on scripture and what it means. It never occurs to you that you may be wrong even according to scripture.

 

I have heard from many that America is a "Christian" nation, especially from those who live abroad. America is not a Christian nation, and never was. Today it is a secular nation driven by the religion of humanism which is the underlying religion taught in every public educational institution in the country. It is a pluralistic nation, a nation of many different religions and cultures. Within this nation are many religions. The fastest growing religion in America is Islam.

When the world looks at the "Christian" percentage of the population of America they take into consideration all of Christendom. They lump under one umbrella Catholics, J.W.'s, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Moonies, Worldwide Church of God, Baptists, and everyone else under the sun that may be ever so lightly related to Christ and Christianity.

Catholics do not preach justification by faith alone, and do not preach the necessity of the new birth as the Bible defines it. In that they are no more Christian than the Mormons or the J.W.'s.

Consider the New Birth, that which Jesus said that without it, one cannot enter the kingdom of God. It is of utmost importance and necessary to be saved.
The Catholics say that the new birth = baptism.
Evangelicals say that the new birth = trusting Christ as Savior.

The two definitions are a polar opposites. They are as night and day. One has to be wrong. Both cannot be right. What does the Scripture say:

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
12 Which were born... of God.

The new birth is to be born of God. How? By receiving Christ and believing on the name of Christ. That is how one become a child of God and is born into the family of God. This Scripture is very clear on this subject. There is no baptism here. In fact there is no baptism anywhere in any verse that speaks of the new birth.

This is what makes the RCC a cult. They have a different salvation message. It is contrary to the message of Jesus, contrary to the message of the Bible, contrary to the message of how to gain entrance into heaven.
Thus, as Gal.1:8 teaches, it is accursed, and points people to Hell, not heaven. The RCC falls under the definition of a cult.

 

Pathetic! The pope and preists act as intercessors between the common pew sitter and God and you know it. Only a fool is blind to the confession booth to see that they usurp the believers full rights to come boldly before God directly without any human mediator. Praying to images, to dead saints all betray your foolish interpretations and defense of Rome.

There are only TWO opposing sides and you must stand on one or the other - there is no middle ground (Gal. 1:6-9). It is apparent you don't have a clue about the gospel of Jesus Christ or you would not spue out this religious pornography that fills the cup of Rome.

 

I can sense you're blood boiling. Your ears turning red ... etc

Woah there doggy! Kind of early in the debate for such sentaments.

What? No. You're immagining that. The Catachism.

So, you see that the Catholic can go straight to God in prayer and intercede for themselves.

 

What you brought up was my position on the gospel! Can't you read and understand your own paraphase you gave in regard to my position on the gospel????????? Here is what you said:

All who preach another gospel than what I preach and how I understand it to be are deceived or lost or both and in addition to "accursed" and therefore think everyone else is deceived

So, I am not arguing with myself! I am simply stating what Christ and Paul repeatedly state - there are but two opposing views and you are either believing and defending one or the other. Your own mouth condemns you as a defender of the "accursed" gospel. Don't say you don't believe or teach it as you just defended that very position on the other thread in defense of Andre.

No, I am not wrong on my view of the gospel and I have proven it and will continue to prove it and you nor Andre have been able to respond with any credible evidence to the contrary.

 

Rome is but hypocrisy and confusion! Get rid of the confessional booth then. Get rid of the candles in front of idols and pictures then! Get rid of Maryology then! Get rid of praying to the saints then! Get rid of the Pope as the "vicar" of Christ then!

Your response is absolute foolishness and you know it.