Your view on Catholics

Recent activity.

First, you have made clear your belief that if a person identifies as Roman Catholic, then s/he cannot be a Christian. You have suddenly become more vocal about that.

Soon after, Catholics are no longer being allowed to post here. If they join under the affiliation "Christian" that is no longer allowed because `They are not Christians.' Seems like strange timing.

I find it difficult to believe that among all the site authorities that exist on this board, not one entertains the possibility that a person might be attending a Catholic congregation and still be Christian. It looks like you are determining who is a Christian and that settles it for all site authorities.

So I want to know: is that actually what is going on? It is a private board, not free, and paid for by its owner, so I respect the owner's right to run it or allow it to be ran as the owner sees fit. Still, I would like to know if that is what is going on.

Also, suddenly the words "heresy" and "heretical" and "heretic" are used more and more by you for what you disagree with. It looks like all of the sudden, more and more of what you disagree with is now under that category. So, that is why I asked "is disagreement with you heresy?"

Having clarified my `why' for the questions, would you mind answering them?

 

Over the many years that I have been a member here I have never wavered from that position. There have been many threads on Catholicism and I always have maintained the same stand. Let me say it this way: It is possible for a person to be saved and remain in the Catholic Church out of disobedience to the Lord or out of ignorance. I know that to be true, because it happened to me. I remained in the Catholic Church for two years after I was saved. That is not what we were discussing.
We were comparing RCC doctrine with Bible doctrine.
It is impossible to believe the doctrine of salvation and the doctrine of the RCC (that which confirmation classes teach you) and be a Christian at the same time. If you can't be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time; you can't be a Catholic and a Christian at the same time. They have two opposing sets of beliefs or doctrines. I have always said that and maintained that while on this board.

Also note: While I didn't start the thread, the title is: Your View on Catholics

Soon after what? The Catholics have not been allowed to join this board ever since they were expunged as a group when Carson Webber and his ilk were here proselytizing. If you want further history on that you can ask Lori herself. She remembers the event quite well. That was a long time ago.

First it is not me. It is the administration who has set the rules. I am but one individual, and I don't make the rules. Please don't blame me as to who is allowed and who isn't.
Second, there are many who are not allowed on this board. Here are some examples:
Almost all world religions, and that now includes the RCC.
Almost all cults such as J.W.'s and Mormons.
Those cults now include Oneness Pentecostals, who used to post here.
There is a Baptist group, Millennial Exclusionists, who have been banned from posting here because of their extremist views, and because of their intense proselytizing.
Atheists were banned. We had many of them when we had a Creation forum.
--There may be some others which I have missed. Usually any non-trinitarian gets banned quickly.
Again, I am only a moderator, not an administrator, not the owner of the board, and not "the administration". I am one person-- a moderator on some of the forums. Moderators are also permitted to offer their opinions and debate them, as I have for these many years.

Nothing out of the ordinary

I may use the word heresy quite a bit. But show me where I have called a person a heretic. I attack the doctrine not the person. Much of the RCC doctrine is heresy. It is heretical in that it sends people to hell. There is no gospel message in it. And if any would like to debate that with Scripture I will be glad to. I sat in the Catholic Church for 20 years. I know what they teach.

I hope I have.

 

You have answered my first question. Thank you.

You did not answer my second: "is disagreement with you heresy?" If you do not answer, I will just let it drop.

 

Yes and no.
Probably yes, IMO. For example, if I said that infant baptism is heresy I spoke too quickly. If I say that infant baptism connected to salvation, that is baptismal regeneration, is heresy, then I believe I am right unless proven otherwise.
Perhaps I use the term too often. Again this is a Catholic thread. There are many heretical beliefs among Catholics--beliefs that go directly contrary to the Bible. Why should then not be counted heretical. Is transubstantiation heretical? the worship of Mary? the doctrine of Purgatory? etc. Yes these are. They are not only not in the Bible, but against the teaching of the Bible. And since this a debate forum feel free to debate me and show me why they should not be considered heretical heretical doctrines. Isn't that fair enough?

 

HP: Are you being for real??

God uses many things to save people that in and of themselves cannot save. God uses the foolishness of preaching, the preacher himself, and many a legion of circumstances to save individuals. God can use tragedy or even death to save some, as he did in my case, yet we do not go around killing people to get some others saved now do we?

No ceremony or ritual saves in and of itself, but God can indeed use many such occurrences as instruments to influence the will into yielding completely to His offer of salvation.

Let me make this comment as well. I believe the more ritualistic we become often the further from the truth we get, yet I still see merit in many ceremonies. It is true that often as we become more ritualistic, we can start to lay undue emphasis on the ritual itself, which we certainly need to avoid for obvious reasons.

Some churches are indeed so engrossed in ritualism that the Spirit is indeed hampered from doing a sincere work in the hearts of many. Certainly the spiritual side of any ordinance or ritual we might engage in must be carefully explained as to containing no merit or grace in and of itself apart from a heart set upon obedience to God and His Word.

Ritual, or in this case the total lack therof, is one of the reasons why I appreciate "George Fox The Red Hot Quaker." (a book title by the way and an excellent read). The Church had become so enamored with the rituals that the Spirit and the real heart of the man was all but completely being ignored. He felt compelled to stop all ordinances, baptism included, in order to focus on the heart of the spiritual message itself. God used him mightily in the day and time he lived. Although I do not agree with everything he did, given the spiritual decay in the time he lived, and the utter false implications placed upon the ordinances as a direct result of the over-emphasis on ritual, I can still see why God led him to act and teach as he did.

Face it, it is the heart that matters in the end, NOT the ritual itself.

 

Amen! :thumbs:

 

HP: Directly no, indirectly it clearly can. If by that baptism or dedication it truly inflames the hearts of the parents and those around the infant as it develops, due as a result of the covenants made to direct the child’s upbringing, it will most likely indirectly have a profound affect upon the soul of that infant.

My whole point is that neither the manufactured doctrine that Christ atones for the sins of an infant or infant baptsm do anything but provide cover for ones own theological usubstanciated assumptions, i.e., in this case original sin. There is simply no need for Christ to atone for infants because they have no sin, as shown clearly in the statement of Christ, "for such us the kingdom of heaven.'

At the end of the day, neither those that believe baptism saves infants nor those simply concocting a man made scheme of God by grace atoning for their sins have any meaning in and of themselves. One is just as unscriptural as the other. If one is heretical the other is by the same judgment.

 

A baby can do that quite well on its own. :laugh: Does that make the baby baptised? Silly question, of course not, no one is doomed for hell until they are mentally capable of realizing that "I am a sinner and need Jesus as my Saviour." Babies cannot do that kind of reasoning.

 

So you believe in another dispensation of salvation? Following that logic, anyone can be saved in any manner. I disagree completely. There is no secret salvation, God has told man since time began how to be saved, by faith. He cannot save an infant apart from faith in any manner He so chooses, as that would go against His decreed will.

 

No, because that would go against His very own creation. He created us to develop. Faith requires the needed mental faculties. A fetus is completely unable to exhibit faith.

 

Exactly. If anything this other dispensation of salvation should be considered heresy.

 

No I did not say that. Why do you read farther into what I say?

God is a God of grace. He is not confined to the decrees of webdog, thankfully. There are some things that we will never know until we get to heaven. I am happy for you webdog that you know as much as God, that you have his mind all figured out. I don't. And where the Bible is silent; I remain silent. But if you want to claim omniscience on this matter go right ahead.

 

You have no right to be God's boss; to presume that you can tell him what to do. How arrogant! You think you know better than God!
Yes, the secret things belong unto the Lord, not unto you.
In God's providence He may do as He providentially sees fit, and without your permission!!
Since when did you become God's commander in chief??

 

It's exactly what you said in so many words. Here it is again to refresh your memory... God is entitled to save an infant by His grace in whatever way He deems fit. If He cannot, then He is not sovereign
What other ways besides faith in Christ will He save them?

Completely hypocritical (and an ad hominem to boot). You emphatically state how God can and cannot be sovereign, talk about some "secret salvation" that Scripture never even alludes to, and then say you remain silent. Um, nooo...you didn't. Apparently you abuse your moderator authorities to do the very things you condemn. :rolleyes:

I never claimed to be omniscient on the matter, I don't need to be. The Bible tells us clearly how spiritually dead people are saved. An infant cannot be saved in such a manner, so they must all perish according to you and Augustine. Apparently I wasn't CC'd on this secret salvation that was revealed to you.

 

Pot or the kettle?

 

HP: As for me, heresy is too strong of a word for me for either position as wrong as they both are. I have dear brothers and sisters in Christ who hold to both positions and I don’t desire to label them in any way outside of the kingdom.

DHK tries to separate heretics from heresy, but that is merely a sophistic distinction. Heretics are nothing more than those that teach heresy, so to teach heresy one is by logical deduction a heretic. If heretics are our brothers and sisters in the Lord, burning them at the stake, or the such like,( that is what the so-called church has done with heretics is it not?) is far from exhibiting love towards them. I can draw but one conclusion. When one is labeled as promoting heresy, they are in fact denoting the other as a heretic. When one denotes one as a heretic, they are inferring nothing less than the other is outside of the faith, thus judging another’s salvation.

I find DHK by far the worst offender of the rules of this forum and that on a regular basis. I say that openly because it has been brought to DHK's attention many times to cease from language that does nothing but incense the justice of any one that loves God and wants to promote love among the brethren. I have flagged many of his posts but to little or no avail. He is in fact, regardless of any denial on his part, judging the salvation of another by such remarks and needs to soften his personal attacks to come in line with the rules of this forum if for no other reason. Opinions are one matter, judging the salvation of another quite another, and is a clear violation of the rules of this forum as I read them.

 

Actually, the definition of heresy fits as it is defined as an opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs. The Bible tells us how sinners are saved...by grace through faith. To claim God can save someone in any manner He chooses or in some secret manner contradicts the very Word of God. It is indeed heresy, and I don't think calling it that is unwarranted, nor does it mean a heretic is automatically lost as well.

 

So I am consistent. God is sovereign. That was my point in that post, and in the post below. He can "save" them in whatever way he chooses. The point here is in Deu.29:29. "The secret things belong unto the Lord." Why are you presuming to know more than God's revelation tells us?
Just because "our theology" doesn't permit us to believe otherwise, doesn't mean God can't do something outside "our box." Yes, I consider that is going over the authority of God. It is ridiculous to try and confine God.

Paul, quoting the Lord, said: "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." Is that not enough?

No, God is always sovereign. I never said otherwise.

My opinion on the Scriptures, on what they say, or do not say has nothing to do with being a moderator.

You have acted like it. You confine God to your "box" your little system of theology, as if God has to confine to your decrees instead of God's.

I have never read Augustine and don't care much for what he believes.
I have told you plainly: where the Bible is silent I am silent. Why can't you accept that.