Rome and Finished Revelation

There are several Catholics on this forum. If you noticed this particular forum is open to non-Baptists. I did not say that Thinkingstuff belongs to a Catholic Church. He is a member of some kind of "Baptist" church but still holds to much Roman Catholic dogma.

 

I can always improve in that area. However, I do take issue that all who are on this particular forum are "believers in Christ." I think all profess to be such and all are committed to their particular views but if the gospel view of some is to be taken as they present it, and if they really believe their salvation is based upon that view, then, there is no possible way they are true "believers in Christ." - utterly impossible unless there is more than one true gospel, more than one way of salvation as we are defending completely polar opposite views of the gospel and both cannot be right. Indeed, I believe they are enemies of the cross of Christ and "accursed" according to the Scriptures and if being "kindler and gentler" means don't express that point of view in writing then I guess I will not be "kindler and gentler."

Sorry but there is no room for difference in regard to the gospel (Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Cor. 11:3-4) as there is only two possible ways, two possible gospels and it boils down to polar opposities - by faith or by faithfulness - by grace or by works, by a justification that is a completed action or by a justification that is a progressive action - there is no middle ground in scripture - just as there is no middle ground between saved and lost, spiritually dead and spiritually alive - there is no state of limbo!

 

Several???

I can only think of one - and I think that she is allowed to stay only because she is so soft spoken.

The lack of access by Catholics to this board makes all the anti-catholic threads/rants/accusations so silly.

 

Have you followed the debates and who have been involved in these debates? There are more than one Catholic on this forum and several who are pro-Catholic and/or defenders of particular Catholic dogma.

It is not "silly" to defend the Scriptures as final authority for faith and practice as much of the debate has been over that very topic if you have been paying attention. It is "silly" if you don't believe it though!

It is not silly to defend justification by grace without works as much of the debate has been over that very topic. The significance of a doctrine should at least be judged by the emphasis that Scriptures places on it and the scriptures place a great deal on the true gospel versus "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6-9). It is "silly" if you believe any gospel will do!

When the majority "Christian" religion in America as well as in the world is Catholic, it is not "silly" to discuss and debate essential differences especially when there are SEVERAL on this forum who defend Catholic views.

Think about this for a second! It would be "silly" if there were no one presenting the Catholic viewpoint and defending it! Only a person who has not been reading these threads would argue that no one is defending the Catholic view point! Just go back and read these threads and you will readily discover there are several (not just one) who are defending Catholic view points on this forum. You are probably the only one that needs to be told this.

 

The most important doctrine in the Bible is the inspiration, preservation and final authority of the Scriptures! If not, then you have no basis to support anything you believe in God's Word to be truer than anything written in any other book in the world or any opinion given by any other men in the world.

 

Then perhaps you should be debating Catholics somewhere - on a Catholic board maybe?

But to pretend that you are doing so here - where Catholics are not permitted as a matter of policy - is like I said - just silly.

Maybe you could start a debate here on the Baptist Board with Druids or Hindus - since they aren't here either.

 

There are a couple of Catholics here: at least. There are also Orthodox and Anglican, both of which will defend RCC doctrine, at least in part. There is one from the United Church of Canada, a very apostate church who will defend some of the more apostate doctrines of the RCC such as salvation by works. In a discussion on RCC doctrine when a "protestant" jumps in and defends justification by works, what are some to assume? Some will automatically assume that he is another Catholic, but he isn't. There may only be a very few Catholics here, but there are many who believe in Catholic doctrine.

 

Speaking for myself, I have lost the thread of this debate.:1_grouphug: