Posted on 02/28/2008 6:25:40 AM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A DIFFERENT GOSPEL
In their lust for unity the Emergent Church and post-evangelical “Protestants” are right now embracing the Roman Catholic Church as another Christian denomination. But the issue is simple: If, as taught the Church of Rome, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without “the new birth in baptism” then we are now in hopeless contradiction with the Gospel contained in Holy Scripture.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)
Speaking The Truth In Love
Let me make this as clear as I possibly can for the Roman Catholics who may read this work in Christ from Apprising Ministries. I personally am former member of the Church of Rome and care very deeply about those, such as the majority of my own family line, who are trapped in this apostate man-made system of religion known as Roman Catholicism. I also fully realize that what I say may sound “unloving” and possibly even “harsh.” However, there is just nothing that I can do about that. By not telling the Truth we aren’t doing anyone a service.
(Excerpt) Read more at apprising.org ...
Luther and his lieutenants were devious in their approach to the council. As for fear, they made good use of their princely protectors. They were helped by the fact that the pope didn’t want a council inside of Germany, such was HIS mistrust of the emperor. The emperor was the man in the middle, since Melancthon masked Lutheran doctrine in language that made it seem it was closer to Catholic doctrine than it was. That changed as time wore on. After the Council began, Catholic reformers also took the proceedings in a direct that diverged from Erasmian notions. The end result was two parties very widely separated, with the Lutherans closer to the Reformed opinion.
I loved your #224. It reminded me of G.K. Chesterton, probably via the EWTN series about him.
Indeed, brilliant post.
Not necessarily the case. The Muslims evidentally absorbed ideas from their Christian subjects. It may well be that the Koran is a kind of mishmash of Arabic, Jewish and Christian views. Certainly the Koran was not published until a generation after Mohammed’s death and the oldest copies of the text were from a time much later. What has happened is that during the 13th Century, there was a kind of Muslim reformation, when scholars re-interpreted the Koran in a way that treated the Bible as hopelessly corrupt. The Koran was taken out of its history contest and treated as an iconic representation of God’s will.
Well said...as you know I’m not Catholic ( I think you know that from other discussions, I shouldn’t assume..anyway), but the continual denial of the significance of infant baptism and blessings bestowed by God thru His sacrament for this by many on here worries me greatly. For full disclosure I attend chruch at a WELS church so I am a very conservative Lutheran and despite what many think we are very close to Catholocism in many many ways...
Blessings.
“Jewish baby boys were all circumcised at 8 days, but they still had other requirements put on them and the concept of an “age of responsibility” comes from the idea that they, both boys and girls, achieve personhood at about 12 years old.
Since it’s obvious that a baby cannot choose to believe in Christ, the parents have a duty to make sure that he or she is brought up to learn about Him.”
Is it your contention then that infant baptism is not a continuance of this practice, a spiritual circumcision, completed by the Holy Spirit to seperate those from who are not spiritually circumcised?
Maybe someday we’ll have a Lutheran Rite in the Catholic Church, who would have thought 400 years ago there would have been an Anglican Rite?
I’ve got into a pretty interesting and scary debate with some non-denom types who are denying the Trinity. When you run into that, one does realize how little creedal Protestants and Catholics have between them (not to trivialize the importance of our divisions).
“Maybe someday we’ll have a Lutheran Rite in the Catholic Church, who would have thought 400 years ago there would have been an Anglican Rite?
I’ve got into a pretty interesting and scary debate with some non-denom types who are denying the Trinity. When you run into that, one does realize how little creedal Protestants and Catholics have between them (not to trivialize the importance of our divisions).”
Well, I’d say that the OC and RCC “reuniting” is more likely to happen well before a Lutheran Rite, but I understand what you mean. I’ve found the discussions on here a blessing because it always makes me examine my faith and where I stand in that faith. I’ve found that I am much more conservative than I had thought and I’m very happy about that ;-). I cringe at many of the distortions of the most important cornerstone doctrines (at least from my angle I suppose) that many times I find myself leaning more toward the RCC position, but somethings I just cannot get behind, but when I truly examine what they are most times they are more dogma than doctrine and if I’m understanding correctly dogma is not always mandated...anyway, I feel that my faith/belief etc are very compatible with RCC/OC when there is a good open, honest and non inflamatory discussion both ways...In the end I want the discussions on here to show that we need Christ so badly to save us from ourselves, the world and satan’s deception.
Blessings in Christ to you and yours.
God Bless you.
PM:Is it your contention then that infant baptism is not a continuance of this practice, a spiritual circumcision, completed by the Holy Spirit to separate those from who are not spiritually circumcised?
It may not be popular to say since so many Christian Churches do practice infant Baptism, but Jesus ended the Old Covenant. We are told we must believe in Jesus in order to be saved. We are told to believe first and then be baptized. Babies do not have the capacity to believe.
If you think the Holy Spirit indwells a non believer please show me the Scripture.
Meant to ping you to this discussion.
Respectfully -
The Holy Spirit knows who are His. With that being said I cannot show you scripture (and I am a Lutheran by the way) that states that the Holy Spirit indwells in a nonbeliever however what the totality of scripture tells us is that baptism marks us as seperated as God’s own dear child.
There is absolutely NOTHING that prohibits this for infants in scripture. There is not a requirement to believe before we are baptized. That is a false premise. If it were true then it’s basic starting point is that we are then telling God that He can now allow us into His family because we’re ready. That most definitely is not how it works. We are brought to God thru the Spirit not by our choice as if He needed us to do that for Him.
Question: By your reasoning a child who dies before say 2-4 years old has no chance of salvation as they are incapable of believing in Christ’s sacrifice, is that correct? Do you contend the Holy Spirit does not indwell in these children? What about severly handicapped individuals, they often cannot truly understand and hence believe, are they not able to be baptized? Please elaborate how salvation works for children/the severly disabled as it’s quite clear there would have to be a seperate set of requirements.
You say that you are "rebuking false teaching". Who are YOU to call what the Catholics are taught a "false teaching"? How very sanctimonious of you. And to take over the forum this way -- by proselytizing and evangelizing, and disparaging the Catholic religion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, but I don't think the purpose of the religion forum is to start a thread for the sole purpose of bashing the Catholic religion.
This kind of blatant crap really disgusts me.
I would say that it was SINNERS that murdered Christ. All of us are culpable. None of us is not guilty, for all have sinned.
Open threads are for religious debate in a town square format. Beliefs, religious leaders and figures may be challenged or even ridiculed.
Closed threads (devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses) are "safe harbor." They are treated as if the conversation is taking place behind the closed doors of a church.
Those who are offended by the open threads should stay on the closed threads.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
PS,I was asked for my vote and I said no.If it’s not a prayer thread why are you wasting your time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.