The $100,000 Roman Catholic Question.

DHK:

"I can't help you with your misunderstanding of the Scriptures. The blind lead the blind and they both fall into a ditch. The Bible does not contradict itself. The historic teaching of salvation is that it is by faith and faith alone, as Luther found out. We are justified by faith. He preached that message. It was consistent with the apostles and with Bible-believers from the early churches onward. ..."

GE:

It is above my understanding how the Lutheran Church of today could find its truce with the Roman Church -- so peacefully!

 

Or is there so much going on behind the scene of which I have not the faintest clue of?

I think the ecumenical movement has taken all churches into the midstream of Roman Catholicism already. Ever heard the stillness of the river in flood?

 

GE:

Not quite so! Many sources existed when the NT 'began to be written'. In fact the Gospels received their fanal form only after the Letters.

Salvation in Jesus Christ existed from before the writing of the first book of the NT - there had never been another Way of salvation.

So yes, there has never been any period of time during which the saved were left without the one or the other. The OT was sufficient in its revelation of the Christ for that period when the NT did not exist yet. Actually this period had been richest for it's living witness of the Apostles.

The Word was alive and well when and wherever salvation was alive and well.

 

You are very much correct on this very important issue!:thumbs:

Paul was talking to Timothy about the salvation thru faith ( 2 tim 3:15). That scripture was the Old Testament.

Why did Jesus say this?
Luke 16:
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Because even Moses preached the Gospel! OT is the gospel! which many Roman Catholics and Catholic minded people do not know miserably!!!

 

Pardon me. I was not trying to obfuscate. I attempted to restate your question to better understand what you said.

In your OP what do you mean by "demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age"?

CA

 

All adjectives which seem to more adequately describe your arguments.

So you'd rather just throw out an assertion that you can't even presently support.
(Way to go, Moderator! :applause: )

Which is also the catholic message. It's just not faith "only", but a faith "working through love" (Gal 5:6).

I don't recall you asking me for a definition, but here's one: The new birth is new life in Christ which begins when we are saved by His mercy through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)--ie born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). In this washing (baptism) we are clothed with Christ (Gal 3:27) and raised to walk in newness of Life (Romans 6:4)

Ah, the ones you haven't seen fit yet to banish?

Indeed.

Yet other RCs on this board have testified that they have heard the gospel preach in the RCC. Why should I believe your testimony over theirs?

Perhaps you should read the service of the Eucharist from the BCP--it's the gospel proclaimed as clear as day. :thumbs:

It's beginning to look like I may not be able to help you with yours, but it's worth a shot for the sake of the Truth.

So should I pray then for your congregation?

Amen.

It appears that the one revising history is you.

Um...it says "not of works", not "not without works". James says faith without works is dead (God inspired that passage too) and a dead faith can't justify or save. Also you seem to have ignored the fact that in Ephesians 2:10 Paul says we are created unto good works. It's therefore hard to imagine then that Paul here means that we can be saved "without" them (works) especially since elsewhere he explicitly says that those who do good (or work what is good) will receive eternal life as God will render to each one according to his deeds (Romans 2:6-7,10). This of course is consistent with what Christ Himself taught saying that those who have "done good" will come forth to the resurrection of life (and conversely, those who have "done evil" to the resurrection of condemnation) (John 5:28-29). Personally, I'll take the words of Jesus, James, and Paul over yours.

I equate the historic Church with those visible communions that stand in succession to the Apostles and which hold to the faith of the Apostles once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). This is not limited to those in communion with the bishop of Rome. Of course mere visible affiliations with the historic visible Church doesn't guarantee salvation, as sadly many dead branches will be cut off because they aren't abiding in Christ (John 15:6) by standing in faith and continuing in the goodness of God (Romans 11:19-22). :tear:

Yet, the Calvinist is preaching the gospel regarding the god who died only for the elect and the "Arminian" is preaching about the god who died on the cross for everyone. Who is proclaiming the true "god" and thus the true "gospel"? I don't consider trying to determine who is correctly characterizing the God of the Gospel as "straining at a gnat".

Yet they would consider themselves Evangelical Sola Scripturists who are proclaiming the good news of Christ? Why should I take your word and your private interpretation over theirs when defining who is or isn't "evangelical"?

Oh, I know how to define Christianity (it seems our definitions don't entirely match). I also consider myself "evangelical", as I believe in proclaiming the truth of the gospel of Christ. I just don't agree with trying to sell antinomianism as the "gospel".

Why don't we ask the Lutherans rather than just making speculations?

Only if one limits "faith" to propositional knowlege or passive assent to the truth. (Of course justification by faith "alone" is not biblical). However, biblical faith, while including the concept of mental assent, also carries the idea of "trust", and "dependence" and "obedience", and such "obedient, trustful, and dependent" faith in Christ is not at all contradictory to being buried with Christ in baptism (Romans 6:4) nor to the ideas of abiding in Christ by "drinking His blood and eating His flesh" (John 6:56) in Holy Communion (1 Corinthians 10:16) and abiding in Christ through keeping His commandments (1 John 3:24)

And historic in the minds of actual historians, but perhaps not in the minds of those who peddle their revisionist, pseudo-"historical" accounts of an alleged Baptist successionism a la TRAIL OF BLOOD.

Thankfully, I don't have to rely on your opinion about what "evangelical Christianity" is (since thou errest, not knowing the correct interpretation of the Scriptures), nor do I need to submit to your judgement about whether I'm saved or not. Perhaps it is you who needs to reread the NT and prayerfully consider whether or not you may be twisting the Scriptures to your own destruction (and possibly the destruction of others) rather than preaching the actual Gospel of our Lord and His Apostles.

Peace.

 

All the Catholics have to prove that is ‘demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age', in addition to authenticity of scripture itself, is Apostolic Succession. With that Apostolic Succession defines the authority of the Church to make doctrinal, infallible, and binding decisions. Once a Catholic proves that, nothing else has to be traced back. But since I’m board and I can only shovel my drive of snow so many times, I’ll take the bait and put forth a few suggestions.

Let’s see, the list of books found in the Bible are not found in the Bible itself and so the Bible is itself an ‘extra-biblical tradition’

Certain Protestant sects assume there’s a definitive list of fundamental articles of faith, but since the many numerous Protestant sects which can’t agree upon ‘which is necessary for the faith’; that proves that such a list of fundamentals are not found in the bible and so would itself be extra-biblical traditions.

Monogamy is not taught in the Bible. Although Christ said that a woman who leaves her husband and marries another commits adultery. There is no specific reference in the Bible that mentions men are not to have more than one wife. Monogamy is a product of Apostolic Tradition and is extra-biblical.

The Didache written around 80 AD explicitly mentions baptism by pouring. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD says that the Eucharist is the very body and blood of Christ, which suffered and rose again. Even though the Bible says that Holy Communion is a participation in the body and blood of Christ and that receiving it unworthily profanes the body and blood of Christ.

The Bible mentions whole families being baptized. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in 189 AD, which explicitly mentions the regeneration of infants by baptism.

The Bible mentions gathering on the first day of the week. Justin Martyr in 155 AD mentions Christians celebrated the Eucharist on Sundays. Moreover, St. Paul contrasts the Eucharist with pagan sacrifices in 1 Corinthians and Justin Martyr again in the same writing identifies the Eucharist with the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi.

 

The OP said that you had to prove an extrabibilcal tradition that is REQUIRED for salvation.

You have said "I hope to prove one - that is apostolic succession - and then everything else is infallible" and did you mean to add "AND required for salvation"???

Because if you did - then you forgot to mention it. And if you did mean that - you can take no OTHER position than "no salvation outside of the Catholic church"..

But as to your logic above your premise is demonstratably wrong. WE DEBATE and DENY that the RCC has the right of apostolic succession - that much is clear to all.

But WE ADMIT that MOSES setup a VALID biblical system of high-priestly succession!! Your flaw is that you ASSUME that given the succession argument we must all jump on the badnwagon of "infallible doctrines to follow".

As Christ pointed out in Mark 7 this was NEVER true in the succession model!! Your argument "died in proposal" the premise for what would follow is without support.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I admit that the tradition of Eucharist as the RCC does it is extrabiblical just as infant baptism is -- Agnus is correct that they are not in the Bible.

 

Sidebar.

DHK,

RE "The Waldenses, (even according to some Catholic sources) have existed down to the Apostolic age."

According to Giorgio Tourn in The Waldensians: The First 800 Years (1980), Pius Melia in The Origin, Persecutions and Doctrines of the Waldenses (ca. 1870, reprinted in 1970), and Emilio Comba in History of the Waldenses of Italy (ca. 1880, reprinted in 1978) the Waldensians began with Peter Waldo in the 12th century.

What sources do you have that show an earlier date?

CA

 

Sidebar.

DHK,

RE "BTW, the RCC had its origins in the beginning of the fourth century during the time of Constantine, not with the Apostles."

While one may be able to make a case that the Papacy as we have it today may have come to fruition in the early 300's AD, the Protestant theologian Emil Brunner (no friend of Catholics, BTW) notes that "the Roman Catholic Church was in principle present" with the First Epistle of Clement written ca. 90 AD "in which for the first time the legal authority of ecclesiastical office over the local community is emphasized."

Brunner comments that "it is not the rise of the Papacy that is to be wondered at, but the fact that it was delayed so long."

The Protestant Historian Kenneth Scott Latourette notes that "before the first century of it's existence was out, the Church began to display certain organizational features which, developed, have persisted, with modifications, into the 20th century..." and... "Well before the end of the second century the Church of Rome was occupying an outstanding place in the total Christian fellowship."

CA

 

Doubting Thomas,

If you ask a Baptist, Charismatic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Assemblies of God, or any number of scores of different groups found in the one body of Christ, about how to be saved, you will hear the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christ died for your sins, He rose from the dead, and He is now offering eternal life to the "whosoeverwills" through faith in Him.

Differing groups do indeed emphasize different aspects of teaching, just as God told us to expect....

"Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind, for who are you to judge anothers servant" and "to his own master he will stand or fall, and God is able to make him stand"

God told us that some are an eye, some are a hand, and some an ear. But God gives the increase, and He causes all things to work together for good.

God instructs us to allow the differences.

But let me ask you this. Since these differences trouble you so, and you seem to like the "Catholic" style of so called "unity", which of these Catholic groups have it right?...


Adrian Dominican Sisters
Amadeans
Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Apostolic Union of Secular Priests
Assumptionists
Augustinian Sisters, Servants of Jesus and Mary
Austrian Congregation

Baladites
Baptistines
Barnabites
Latin Basilians
Benedictine Confederation
Bethlehemites
Boni Homines
Bridgettines
Brothers Hospitallers of St. John of God
Brothers of Our Lady of Mercy
Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament
Consecrated life (Catholic Church)
Daughters of Divine Charity
Daughters of the Cross
Daughters of the Holy Spirit
Discalceation
Dominican Nuns of the Perpetual Rosary
Dominican Order
Fathers of Mercy
Fonte Avellana
Franciscan
Franciscan Apostolic Sisters
Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn
Franciscan Missionary Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
Jesuati

Knights of Saint Mary
Knights of the Cross


Marianist Family
Marist Sisters
Maryknoll Sisters of St. Dominic
Mercy International Centre
Militia Templi

Oblate Sisters of Providence
Oblates of St. Joseph
Olivetans
Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration
Presentation Sisters
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter

Religious Sisters of Mercy
Resurrectionist Order
Rogationists

(there was about 10 times this many, but I had to delete most of them to not exceed the charachter limit for each post)

I can assure you. All of these groups DO NOT ALL BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS. I was raised in the church of Rome. I know what I am talking about.



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...es&until=Sisters+of+the+Holy+Family-Louisiana

God bless,

Mike

 

We readily admit that there were heresies that the RCC now holds, and even centers its primary teachings around, before the fourth century. Teachings of baptismal regeneration was one of the very first heresies in the Christian Church. Infant baptism crept in next; transubstantiation was soon to follow. By the fourth century all of these were present along with much paganism. When Constantine became emperor, he declared Christianity a state religion. Basically he paganized Christianity and Christianized paganism. Thus were the beginnings of the RCC, when it became a state religion, not when the heresied thereof began to develop. The RCC was not developed on just one or two of its heresies.

 

Which "gospel"? The one in which we just need to "Accept Jesus as SAVIOR", or the one which states that we must submit to Him as LORD in order for Him to be our SAVIOR? Proponents of the former accuse the latter of preaching a "works salvation", while the latter accuses the former of antinomianism. Each accuse the other of teaching a "false gospel", and both can't be right and the same time. Yet both appeal to "scripture alone" as their authority.

Which "gospel"? The one regarding the "god" who died only for the "elect", or the one proclaiming that "god" died a for "all men"? Which is the true God of the true gospel? These positions represent contrary views regarding the character of God, yet you have Sola Scripturists at argue strenuously that theirs is the biblical position and the others is false.

Which "gospel"? The one which offers an irrevocable, unconditional fire insurance policy, or the one that proclaims that salvation is contigent upon our ongoing participation in the life of Christ? Both positions have their adherents among solo scripturists, yet they present two radically different concepts of "salvation".

You mean God told us we could expect that contradictory teachings regarding the nature of God, and Christ, and salvation would be euphemistically passed off as "different emphases or aspects"? :tonofbricks:

God instructs us to allow differences regarding personal convictions about such things as eating meat or drinking wine, NOT about the objective truths about God, Christ, and salvation. Incorrect teachings regarding the latter is called "HERESY".

Peace.

 

There is no difference. It is semantics. It is not worth bringing into a conversation such as this and I believe you know it. The gospel still remains the same. Theological differences after that remain minot.

So you are playing the Calvinist card. More semantics. The gospel is just the same in both camps. Both Calvinist and Arminian Baptists preach the same gospel. Theological differences between the two are minor. Theological differences between Catholics are greater than those between these two camps of Baptists. Becasue you notice fervent debate about these points on the BB doesn't mean there is that much of a difference in the outworking of practical doctrine.

You have been badly misled and are purposely trying to mislead others.

The RCC teaches the heresy. The gospel which we preach is not heresy. You haven't pointed to one doctrine that is heresy, only minor theological differences which we attribute to soul liberty. That's a doctrine that the RCC church hates because it has determined that all of its followers be mindless little mimes that do not think for themselves but only mimic whatever the magesterium dictates to them. BTW, that is a characteristic of almost every heretical cult.

 

It IS worth bringing into the conversation, because if the "Lordship" folks are correct, then those folks told that all they need to do is "accept Christ as Savior" (and that Lordship is optional to actual salvation) are hearing a false "gospel" and are being deceived perhaps to their own destruction. One's "gospel" says you must submit to Christ as LORD to be "Saved", and the other asserts otherwise. That's not the same "Gospel", despite common references to who Christ is and what He did, because these "gospel" differ fundamentally in how one appropriates for one's self the 'benefits' won by Christ.

It's NOT minor because the two positions differ on the character of "god". One posits a "god" who only loves some and died for some while having no intention or desire to save the rest; the other proclaims a "god" who provided atonement for all. Both positions cannot both be true of the same God, and thus, despite some similarities in teaching and terminology, represent different "gospels".

I'm not the one who has been mislead. You (and others) are the ones doing the misleading by implying that contradictory differences regarding the character of God and/or how one becomes a Christian are mere "semantics" or "minor differences". Some of these "gospels" are potentially soul damning resulting as they do from people twisting Scriptures out of context. However, and fortunately for us, God is great and is still able to save souls despite the distorted, truncated versions of the gospel people initially may hear preached by certain Solo Scripturists. This is because God is gracious enough to lead souls to look at the full gospel in the entire New Testament (the gospel preached by the apostles and deposited in the young Church and defended by the early fathers and apologists), looking beyond the misinterpretations of which result from trying to stuff "round" Scriptural truth into "square" Protestant doctrinal "holes".:godisgood:

Antinomianism is heresy...OSAS is heresy...Calvinism (monergism) is heresy...the Zwinglian view of Baptism and the Eucharist is heresy. (There's four doctrines for ya')...oh, and the idea that one can come up with an alternative gospel or concept of "god" under the guise of "soul liberty" is also heresy.

Sorry, God didn't give His Church the "soul liberty" to decide that mutually contradictory concepts of God or the gospel are equally valid (even if the parties involved all agree to condemn Rome :1_grouphug: ). Those concepts and teachings which deviate from the deposit of faith and the consensus of the Apostolic Churches are in fact HERESY.

If you mean that the RCC doesn't think that individuals (or groups thereof) should decide for themselves to alter the deposit of faith, and thinks that relativism is a bad idea, then I would certainly agree with the RCC on those two particulary points. (I do think however if the RCC applied the first point to themselves they too would have to back off some their "dogmas" particularly regarding the papacy)

 

DHK:

"If you take the various poster in this forum: one is Word of Faith, another non-denominational, another Presbyterian, another Lutheran, another Pentecostal, and quite a few various stripes of Baptists, we will all tell you the same thing when it comes to the plan of salvation."

GE:

Maybe one day in the hereafter! But not now. In fact, most of these 'non-denominationals' as well as denominationals, believe a lot of RC humbug. The discussions on this very Board proves it.

 

For me there's little or no difference between Arminianism and Roman Catholicism, e.g..

 

Dig deeper. Calvinism didn't originate with Calvin. Calvin took his ideas (almost plagiarized) them from Augustine (one of the devout heroes of the Catholic faith). Calvin almost worshiped Augustine. Augusine was a thorough "Calvinist" if there ever was one. Check you history.