Your View On The Roman Catholics

Comparing church members instead of doctrine is silly.....of course not every member is saved. Look at what RCC teaches vs Baptist teaching then compare something. I went to RCC school and they NEVER taught me how to be born again. When I was around serious Baptist I was taught how to be saved.

 

Roman Catholicism is a wicked and Ungodly cult and a Roman Catholic can no more be saved by following Catholic doctrine than a Muslim can be saved by following Islam.

Yes. I spent several years in the Catholic church, went to Catholic schools attended CCD, etc.

Of course they do. You have to affirm these things in order to be Catholic.

Those things are not "extra-Biblical". They're anti-Biblical.

Does the phrase"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no man comes to the Father but by Me" ring a bell?

Because there are still some people here who believe the word of God.

So, do you believe that there are Muslims who are saved in spite of faithfully following the doctrines of Islam?

 

I believe Catholics are Christian. I believe they are Christians in the classical sense. My view of Christianity is that it was born in a time and cultural context that is not representative of today and that over the years the faith has evolved while still holding to the pre-eminant truths it always had. Catholics, I believe are part of this except that they've become so burdoned with their grasp on how things had been done in a different context that they at some point failed to evolve with societal context and some of the truths took second place to traditional ways of doing things. Ie. Canon Law. This can be observed by the fact that many catholics are only such because they were "born into the faith". Not that they have personally accepted the faith. They are Catholics like many Jews are Jews. However, there are born again catholics that have understood the faith and made it their own.

The Catholics hold to the Nicean Creed as their statement of Faith. I've noted that all true believers hold to the same points and divergence on any of the points is heretical. Now the Nicean Creed has been changed since its original writing but I think it applies to the Modern inovation of it as well.

 

Show me. Prove to me that they believe this. Let me edit this. Yes Catholics believe immaculate conseption, that she was perpetual virgin, that she has an honored place in heaven and called "Queen of heaven" I'm not sure this is a must but you can't preach against it. However, their connotations of what this means and what you mean are two different things. What I'm questioning is this

Show me that they believe this.

 

I find it really interesting that nobody here understands that the Reformation took placefor a real reason. It wasn't just a whim or a split over trivial issues.

We split with the Catholic church because they have a radically different and heretical view of justification. As far as I know, they haven't changed.

 

I make a difference between individual Roman Catholics and the papacy. So, in looking at the papacy I believe it is that Man of Sin foretold about in Scripture, very Antichrist.

While it is possible for a Roman Catholic to be saved in the RCC, they are saved despite the RCC.

 

I thought you were a landmarkist in historical approach to Christianity. The reformation should mean nothing to you as you have a seperate history.

 

Strangely, I almost agree with you.

 

I think you mean 'in spite of' the RCC, and I agree.:wavey:

 

First, you say that Muslims cannot be saved because they don't put their faith in Christ.

Then, you say that Mormons cannot be saved because, although they do put their faith in Christ, it isn't the "correct" Christ.

So why, then, does it not stand to reason that a person can put his belief in the "correct" Christ, but still not be saved because his belief is wrong?

Are all beliefs valid, simply because the object of the belief is valid?

In my wildest dreams, I can't possibly imagine where you got that idea. While not heretical, I find Landmarkism to be a very silly belief and have never said anything in support of it.

Actually, as a Bible believing Christian, the Reformation means a great deal to me. It is a vital part of our history.

 

Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else. In that case I retract my landmarkist remark as the reformation is very much a part of our history. Yes the reformation was for a significant reason.

 

If we are talking about the Roman Catholic Church, its doctrines and practices, I have nothing but contempt for it. As Mr. Spurgeon once said, "An ape was never such an ape as when he wore a papal cape."

If we are talking, however, about people, who happen to be Roman Catholic, I believe there are people who truly believe in Jesus and trust Him to be their Saviour, quite apart from that church.

As for the Reformation by Luther, it surely is a part of history, but it is not all of history, and it is essentially a reformation of the Romish church by dissidents of that church. It does not negate other history which lends itself properly to landmarkism. Their were groups of believers that were not participants of the Reformation, and were persecuted by Luther and even Calvin.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I believe that Catholics are indeed Christian. I also believe that mere membership of a church does not save you.

Catholics believe in the tenents of the Apostles, Nicene, and Athenasian Creeds, which succinctly describe the basic beliefs of the Christian faith. Triune God, Virgin birth, Christ as the once-for-all atoning sacrifice for sin, the Holy Spirit. They also believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. I have close friends who are Catholic, and they are some of the finest Christians you would care to meet.

I think a lot of the dispute between Baptists and Catholics are Baptists misunderstanding what Catholics believe and why they believe it. I am astounded at the bad feelings that some here have towards Catholics, and heartened by the saner replies.