What do Baptists and Catholics have in common?

So, here we go again. Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches that only Roman Catholics can be saved? Christians who are not members of the Catholic Church are bound for Hell? Can't believe this is an issue again!

'Amber shades' of Fr. Leonard Feeney. Fr. Feeney taught that non-Catholics could not be saved and was excommunicated for teaching this.

 

Check out specifically why Fr. Leonard Feeney was ex-communicated.

He defended a postition called extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Interpretation: Outside of the Church, no salvation.

 

Good! :wavey: Hope you find the book helpful and interesting.

 

The reason the Mormons don't preach the same gospel is that they have the wrong god and the wrong Jesus. You do realize that they believe in more than one God, right? That God was once a man, and that men become gods of their own worlds?

And they believe Jesus was a spirit child born to Heavenly Father and his wife in heaven, and that you and I were also spirit children born this way before we "came" to earth?

They also deny the Trinity - very vehemently - and see Jesus as a lower god or another god who is not really any different from you and me.

On top of that, they believe that works must be added to what Jesus did on the cross: "Jesus saves after all we can do."

 

...and that's simply isn't true...this is why i harp so much on people learning to think for themselves and avoiding being told what to think...

per the CCC-838:

the church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christians, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although inperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."​

so you and i can rest easy...lol

In XC
-

 

So why is sola fide anathema as declared by the Council of Trent?

http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/council-trent-canons-justification

 

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." CCC, Paragraph 846

 

so CARM.org is your authority...give me a break...

In XC
-

 

>The reason the Mormons don't preach the same gospel is that they have the wrong god and the wrong Jesus.

Will God send them to hell for being wrong because they are misinformed? They think they "have" the same God and Jesus described in the KJV.

(Maybe I joined the ACLU because I remember the wrong George W. Bush <G>)

 

Are you aware that historicall the "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" formula "was the rule" until Vatican II.


Are you aware that the "Extermination of heretics and Jews" called for in Lateran IV was in the pre-Vatican II context?

If so - how then in an "infallible" context is Lateran IV still "without error"?

in Christ,

Bob

 

No, CARM is not my authority. It just so happens that they had that Canon on their site. I can find it elsewhere - it will say the same thing.

The authority for this Canon is the RCC.

 

They are not misinformed; they chose to believe a false belief. There is plenty of evidence around of the truth. I am not an inclusivist, as I guess you are.

 

So why is Sola Fide an anathema, as pronounced by the Council of Trent?

http://www.theopedia.com/Council_of_Trent

From a Catholic site:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.htm

Agnus Dei was not happy that I used the CARM site, so I posted it from 2 other sites, one being Roman Catholic.

 

You have a problem here. You are using doctrine to prove that doctrine is not important. Paul was not trying to pit the need for doctrine against the doctrine of love in this passage. You point is not made by use of these scriptures.

Which is plural and all of them are doctrines. You only disprove your point.

A single doctrine, but don't hold to it since doctrine (in your mind) is not important.

No scripture is less important than the other.

I am sorry to hear that. May God continue to give you the comfort you need.

Love is expressed in many ways. Ignoring correct theology is not one of them. Jude wrote "...that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Paul did not agree with you.

 

That is not the only command that Christ gave us.

Why is love greater? It is not greater in essence. You quote the verse out of context until you know why it is said to be greater.

An evangelical and Charismatic televangelist host of a well-known Christian talk show, who hosted leaders from Charismatics to Catholics and everything in between, once prayed: O, God deliver us from doctrine!
--With that one statement (prayer), he might as well throw out the entire Bible. The Bible is doctrine. The word doctrine means "teaching." Without the Bible there would be no teaching about God, Jesus, salvation or the Bible. What a foolish prayer to make.
And yet many Christians are sacrificing doctrine on the altar of unity. They are forsaking doctrine for the sake of unity.
"Everybody love each other, but let's not talk about doctrine."
This is the most dangerous position to take.

What if I believe in the trinity and you don't. Well let's not talk about doctrine. Is that the right attitude?
What if I am an IFB and you are a Muslim. Well let's not talk about doctrine. Is that the right attitude?

 

First off, this is a debate board, so expect verbal back and forth. It is not a fellowship board for friendly chats. If that's what you want, we have the Fellowship forums where you can have that.

No one is saying not to love others or that we should be mean. That is not the issue here. But doctrine, which simply means teaching, does divide. We are told over and over to hold to sound doctrine because that is how we determine which teachings match the Bible and which don't. RCC teachings are full of problematic teachings that do not match the Bible; I used to not think this, but the more I've studied the Bible and the more I've studied the RCC Catechism, the more problems I see.

I also see the reasons to discuss this calmly but with the goal of exposing error and bringing out the truth of God's word. In fact, we are commanded to do this in the Bible.

It does not help anyone to gloss over error.

I do think that Catholics have the correct God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit but they add to scripture with their own extra-biblical teachings and thus create problems regarding justification, Mary, purgatory, and other serious issues. It is better to bring these out in the open than to pretend they don't exist. I have no animosity towards anyone - I mean, I talk to witches and Satanists in my ministry - but bringing out the truth of God's word is paramount. However, this should not be done with anger or hostility.

 

Will a drowning man still drown because he has confused an anvil with a life jacket?

Being "misinformed" doesn't negate their sin.

Yeah, and...?

 

But doesn't loving God mean loving His word and following it, as well? Didn't Jesus say, "if you love Me, then you'll keep My commandments", one of which is to defend sound doctrine and preach the Gospel?

If we really love our neighbor, then doesn't that mean we'll tell them the truth when we see them doing something harmful, such as following a false gospel, even if it means it might hurt their feelings?

And they should do those things. But what would happen if you died and got to the White Throne Judgement and found that you weren't saved and that your church was more interested in helping you in temporal things than in making sure that you were saved?

So then, would you tell Jesus and Paul to their faces that they were "not attractive"?

But without sound doctrine, how do you even know what a Christian is?