ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A DIFFERENT GOSPEL

Apprising Ministries ^ | January 16, 2008 | Ken Silva

[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.

[Claud]

I know.. but they are wrong and right at the same time.. some roman catholics are in the church but the roman catholic church is not the church.. its a club.. or maybe even a cult.. Some practices are fully as weird as Scientology.. or Mormonism.. Thats not even speaking of the local ultra-weirdnesses around the world in various places, like all over South America.. Its a very wierd club..

LOL...well my stars, apologies for offending your white American Protestant sensibilities!

And rock and roll praise bands on Sunday...you don't think THAT'S weird?!

[wmfights]

but "Baptism now saves us" means everything but "Baptism now saves us".

I'm trying to think of Scripture where the person was baptized prior to belief. I think that in all instances those baptized were adult believers and it was done after a profession of faith.

[Uri’el-2012]

Peter leads the new Christian Church, moves the church headquarters from Jerusalem to Rome

citation please.

[Claud]

Of course. Why would an adult be baptized if he/she didn’t believe? That might even be classed a sacrilege.

Acts 16 mentions someone’s “entire household” being baptized. That may well have included young folks—we’re not sure but it’s possible.

[wmfights]

So I say again, where might we find this little historical “fact” in the primary sources?

Why not rely on the one source we should all be able to agree on for accuracy, Scripture.

Rome as the center of power in the early church only emerged later.

[hosepipe]

[ well my stars, apologies for offending your white American Protestant sensibilities! ]

I am not a protestant.. But are we talking Micheal Jackson white, Tony Brown white, Julian Bond white, or Betty White white?.

[hosepipe]

[ Rome as the center of power in the early church only emerged later. ]

Just a church among many churchs and church centers also.. Its always been so..

[wmfights]

Acts 16 mentions someone’s “entire household” being baptized. That may well have included young folks—we’re not sure but it’s possible.

Anything is possible, but where Scripture is clear it is an adult that is baptized after a profession of faith.

Why would an adult be baptized if he/she didn’t believe? That might even be classed a sacrilege.

Then the real question is when does the Holy Spirit indwell a believer. Is it after belief, or baptism. If the Holy Spirit indwells believers prior to baptism, how can the act of baptism doing anything that the Holy Spirit hasn't already done?

If you become indwelt by the Holy Spirit prior to baptism and a church teaches otherwise wouldn't that teaching be a false teaching?

[wmfights]

Just a church among many churchs and church centers also.. Its always been so..

I agree.

I don't believe a historic lineage, if it can be trusted as accurate, in any way indicates special powers. I haven't seen this in Scripture. It is the indwelling Holy Spirit that glues us together as one.

[magisterium]

Different? Different from what? From the author's "Gospel"? Undoubtedly.

But, as I have had to say several times in the last few weeks, all of the doctrines that the author (and, presumably, you, as well, Manfred) holds which are at variance with the Catholic Church's take on things are no more than 500 years old, with many of them having a considerably more recent vintage than that. This, alone and in itself, doesn't prove that the Catholic Church's doctrinal stances are correct, either, but the 1500 year "disconnect" of your novel doctrines from the time of Christ should give you cause for concern about the "legitimacy" of your own positions.

For the Catholic Church's doctrinal stances, there is an unquestionably older pedigree. The writings of the Early Fathers, from the late 1st Century to the 8th Century, corroborate - even at the surface level of exegesis - the overwhelming preponderance of current Catholic teaching, and even what's "left' after an initial cross-referencing has traceablility. Certain conclusions from this objective fact may be drawn!

It is therefore the height of error and arrogance for this author to trumpet his presumptions about "another Gospel." If Jesus meant what He said in Matthew 16:18 (that He would build His Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) and St. Paul meant what he said in 1Timothy 3:15 (about the "Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth"), then there is a more than implicit doctrinal "indefectability" involved in the Church's very existence. If Jesus is God, then this conclusion of indefectability is unavoidable. If He is God, He must both mean and expect to fulfill His promises. He is God. Therefore, He spoke the truth about His church! It is the supreme irony that your very position on the Church must imply that either Jesus didn't mean what He said (a rather cavalier position for God to take on such an important point!), or He was a total liar and fraud who was in no position to fulfill what He promised! Does God provide for what He establishes or not? Does not this providence of God presuppose that the doctrines of His Church that have existed from the beginning are what he intended, as opposed to doctrines that have only begun to exist 1500 years or more after His ascension???

In short, it matters little what your author has to say. Yes, his take on the Gospel is radically different from the Catholic Church's. But that difference is reflected in his Gospel's relative novelty, and therefore speaks to its illegitimacy. It is impossible that Jesus Christ would create a Church, endow it with an inerrant Scripture, and then leave that Church to disintegrate into "apostasy" barely a minute after the Last Apostle drew his last breath. Yet that is what one must conclude to suppose that the Johnny-come-lately, post-"Reformation" Gospels (Which one, BTW? They are legion!) have any legitimacy and are what Christ Himself desired.

In summary, the Catholic Church has demonstrable continuity in its teachings going back to the beginning. The concept of Divine Providence by itself presupposes that God would properly guide the Church He cared to establish. To think differently is to force one to conclude that either Jesus didn't care enough, or that He was a liar and fraud. No Christian, of whatever stripe, I presume, would ever willingly make such a charge. Therefore, it behooves all Christians to get with the program and do the honest research necessary to get themselves into the doctrinal continuum that extends back to Christ and the Apostles. To do anything less, when the truth of it can be reasonably suspected, is spiritual death. To do anything less, even in total "invincible ignorance," is still to go objectively against the will of God.

[Godzilla]

[ Really? And where might we find this little historical “fact”? ]
http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/ebooks/millers/toc.htm

And you believe everything you find on the internet too?

[Claud]

Why not rely on the one source we should all be able to agree on for accuracy, Scripture.

A claim was made about the Church in A.D. 315, which falls in the domain of history and not Scripture.

Rome as the center of power in the early church only emerged later.

Again, this is a statement of history, for which the NT is only marginally helpful, as it doesn't address this question.

And how much later are you talking about? Read the epistle of St. Clement on behalf of the Roman Church to the Corinthians ca. 95 and there's certainly a tone of authority there. Read St. Ignatius's letters on the way to his martyrdom in Rome around 110, see how he addresses the Churches of Asia and then the much more reverential tone he takes with Rome. Read Irenaeus, who says outright in about 160-170 that all Churches everywhere must agree with the Church in Rome.

Of course I understand that these sources are not infallible as Scripture is. But there seems to be a rather bad tendency in some quarters of Christianity to ignore them entirely, as if they didn't matter whatsoever. That's not a theological mistake, but it is a fatal historical one.

[RobbyS]

The Catholic Church dates back to the First Century as does the Church of Rome. The name itself, of course, dates only to the 18th Century. Still most Anglicans simply referred to the Church of Rome with which they were in schism. Even the Reformers accepted the antiquity of the Roman Church —how could they not, or was Paul addressing a fiction— though they asserted that it had succumbed to radical error. The Orthodox probably mark the birth of Roman Catholicism, or papalism, at the schism of the 11th Century.

[Claud]

Do you mind my asking what church you go to, so I’m not accusing you of things that you don’t adhere to?

And Betty White white. ;)

[wmfights]

But, as I have had to say several times in the last few weeks, all of the doctrines that the author (and, presumably, you, as well, Manfred) holds which are at variance with the Catholic Church's take on things are no more than 500 years old, with many of them having a considerably more recent vintage than that.

Would you include the five Sola's in that?

[Claud]

excellent post!

[LongTimeMILurker]

I thought the Lutherans and Catholics had agreed that Salvation was by Grace, but that Works also play an important role.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if you don't mind:

the Catholic Church is the Light of Truth

God is Light. The Catholic Church is not God. The Catholic Church is not Light.

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. - I John 1:5

We Christians, all of us, are children of the Light.

Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; - Hebrews 1:3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:1-13

And that is the part that matters:

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. – John 3:19

For thou wilt light my candle: the LORD my God will enlighten my darkness. - Psalms 18:28

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. – Matthew 5:14-16

For ye were sometimes darkness, but now [are ye] light in the Lord: walk as children of light: - Ephesians 5:8

The LORD [is] my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD [is] the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? - Psalms 27:1

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. – John 8:12

Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. – I Thessalonians 5:5

So let us remember this:

Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. – 1 John 2:8-10

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[magisterium]

As they are commonly understood today? Yes. Especially Sola Scriptura, which denies the authority of Sacred Tradition, which was held to be authoritative, like Scripture, from the beginning.

[Rutles4Ever]

Hand me down Apostles is a mental construct..

Interesting, that's the same argument atheists use to deny the existence of God.

You cannot hand down Apostleship..

Then why did they lay hands on Paul?

God appoints Aposles they are not elected or groomed by men..

Excuse me, how did Matthias end up taking the place of Judas? Or is that part redacted in your Bible?

If Apostleship can't be handed down, I assume you believe that Original Sin can't be handed down, either.