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.

[Religion Moderator]

Jack Chick material is not allowed on the Religion Forum for any reason.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I remember the Romans murdered Christ.

Amen.

Rome had all the power. The Jews had none of it. Pilate washed his hands of the guilt of murdering Christ. Do we imagine that soap and water so eaily erased his sin?

"The Passion" was a pretty good movie on many counts, but the Jews have a point when they say Gibson let the Romans off the hook and placed all the blame on the Jews...again.

[Quix]

You change the word worship but it still is, with some.. A rose is a rose.. even if you call it a carrot..

I know people that worship their cars..

Parsing words only fools the naive, or preconcieved.. You of course are wrong, some catholic priests worship their groins.. sad to say..

I know people that worship their church..

As do I, sadly . . . &/or their pastors, &/or their doctrine, &/or their particular Christian club/denomination or congregation; &/or their magnificent organ, choir; &/or their TV--a LOT of that . . .

Of course, some claim that a huge percentage of RC edifice reps ARE IMMUNE from being human . . . and such idolatries common to man--their particular faction being from Alpha Maritari in the Constellation of the Twin Bulls--Talking Bull Lesser and Talking Bull Greater. /sar

BTW, narses . . . a loving hint . . . brought to you thru the courtesy of a friendly Protty: a better answer upthread (your #601) would have been-->This is not Spain. And this is not !!!THE INQUISITION!!! And you are not The Chief Inquisitor. But you might be able to get extra points for trying to reinstitute something similar. I wouldn't bet on it, though. While some have made valiant attempts at reinstituting something similar--it's never really caught-on in these parts.

[trisham]

Oh I see---all these postings by NYer are messages "...filled with love and with charity." Of course you'd agree if I posted messages "filled with love and with charity" from ex-Priests?

***********************

Friend, you may post as you wish. If it is meaningful to you, I'm sure it will also touch the hearts of others.

May God bless you and yours on the beautiful Sunday.

[hosepipe]

[ the Jews have a point when they say Gibson let the Romans off the hook and placed all the blame on the Jews...again ]

It was an equal hit job.. Herod would have killed ot had killed by the Romans any serious nationalistic Rabbis.. or even serious religious Rabbis.,. Pilate was not stupid he had Herod do the dirty work.. One account has Pilates wife healed by Jesus of some malady though. If so it could explain some things.. Like why Pilate even dealt with some itinerate Jew(Jesus) at all..

[redgolum]

For which most of his followers denounced and decried him for. Luther made a horrible decision there. But then you also have to remember most kings and princes of the time (Catholic and Protestant) had mistresses. Luther was trying to bring Philip’s mistress into a form of marriage, rather than have the sanctioned adultery that was so common at the time in say France.

Again he made the wrong call, but you need to understand the situation at the time (which to be honest most nobles lived immoral lives).

[redgolum]

Indeed you are correct. The main reason that the Reformation happened the way it happened was because the princes jumped in. If they hadn’t, well Luther would have probably remain a popular professor at his university, but that would have been it.

The funny thing is that Luther was not very found of the Prince’s. As I said before, he would let himself be used by them if it could save him (Frederick is a good case), but did not like many of their political games. In fact, it has been said that Luther was the cause of both sides of the Peasant war.

[narses]

This article is the same style. It knowingly lies about what the RCC teaches and sets that strawman argument up to bash the RCC.

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1977620/posts?page=295#295 where the author of this pack of lies is called on the lies. And ignores that calling.

The poster of this thread posts tract after tract that imitate (by deliberate mistatements concerning the RCC beliefs) the dishonest and banned Jack Chick polemics.

[narses]

“You of course are wrong, some catholic priests worship their groins.. sad to say..”

You confuse worship and sin. Sad.

[redgolum]

Well, going by the text of the Bible alone, I guess one can make the case that the polygamy attributed to the patriarchs was never condemned. Myself, I can barely manage one wife. ;-)

And that is why Luther made that call. Later, he regretted it and said that in effect, he screwed up and caused Phillip to remain in sin. The OT did not forbid multiple wives, though in later years (mainly around the time of the exile in Babylon) it fell out favor. By the time of the Maccabees revolt, the leaders of the time had outlawed polygamy.

Funny story. Someone asked Luther shortly afterwords if he would take another wife. He said something along the lines of "Katy would kill her! I have enough trouble with one wife!". Luther loved his wife very much (you can see this in his letters), but had no desire to add another one.

In the same lines, I have often thought the David and Solomon would not have gotten themselves into trouble had they just had one wife.

[hosepipe]

[ You confuse worship and sin. Sad. ]

Sometimes worship "IS" sin.. depends on what you worship..
You know.... the 10 commandments..

[narses]

Sigh. Yes, but to claim that the Church teaches sin is ridiculous. The Catholic Church condemns idolatry, sexual sins, all sins in fact.

[hosepipe]

[ Yes, but to claim that the Church teaches sin is ridiculous. The Catholic Church condemns idolatry, sexual sins, all sins in fact. ]

So do the Protestant Churchs.. but sin happens in both..
Members of both worship strange stuff.. even the hierarchy..

Which is my point.. although I point at Roman Catholics its true in both paradigms.. Apostasy is a equal opportunity demon.. One cannot fix what one does not acknowledge.. But then the Roman Catholics have much more invested in their hierarchy than protestants do.. considering Apostolic succession..

[Religion Moderator]

As far as I know, Ken Silva, the author of the article and the addressee of the open letter at post 295 - is not a Freeper. If he has responded to the open letter, I have not seen the response posted here.

Also, I have seen no references to any banned sources (Jack Chick, KKK, Aryan Nations, VDare, Christian Identity, false "Jesus Oath", etc) on his website. The source is allowed.

The Religion Forum is NOT ecumenic.

The open threads are like a town square. Posters there should expect challenges even ridicule. Personal attacks against a religious leader or author etc. - as long as he is not a Freeper - are allowed. Issues are rarely "settled" on open threads - posters should expect a need to rebut the same allegation endlessly.

The closed threads (devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses) are treated as if they are a church meeting behind closed doors. No disruption is tolerated.

Posters who are easily offended should stay away from the open threads and instead post to the closed threads.

Click on my profile page for more guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.

[wmfights]

In baptism, being able to look back and seeing God’s promise being fulfilled in your life.

How does a baby a couple months old look back on their life? I can see how an adult who has been quickened by the Lord, has come to Faith and realizes how lost they are without Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour can look back and see God's promise being fulfilled.

In the Supper, spiritual union with Christ.

We have Christ in us and where two or three are gathered in his name he is with us.

So yes, there is grace in the Sacraments.

Why not join the RCC then. How is what you're saying any different than what they say?

[wmfights]

Great stuff there, if you really want to know what the Church teaches, as opposed to what Jack Chick types claim.

I focus first on Scripture and then I like to read history. I really don't see why you want to denigrate everyone who doesn't agree with you with comments like "Jack Chick types". I learned after about a year on FR that RC's look at any criticism of their church as an attack on their faith, so I tend to ignore the over the top comments. As a Baptist we don't look at the church as our Faith so when we find error in it we are pretty quick to criticize it ourselves.

Thanks for the info though on Baptism. It's kind of interesting because different RC posters have said different things and they all seem to be pretty confident they know what their church teaches.

My church and it's teachings seem to be a little less complicated to present. We believe in the five Solas and do not believe the two ordinances that our Lord gave us impart Grace.

Would you agree or disagree that if a church taught that more was required of a Christian than believing the Gospel in order to be saved that church was preaching a different Gospel than what is found in Scripture?

[narses]

Would you agree or disagree that if a church taught that more was required of a Christian than believing the Gospel in order to be saved that church was preaching a different Gospel than what is found in Scripture?

The Gospel as taught requires more than simple belief. Denying the simple words of the Gospel to claim that "more" is required than simple belief is a tautology.

[Mad Dawg]

Actually it appears that Pastor Silva did answer my email on Friday. Unfortunately his email ended up in the directory I reserve for junk. I erred in not checking more carefully. He was prompt.

His email, which illustrates a major gambit of Sado-Evangelism, namely: changing the subject, follows. After it I have posted my reply.

His email:

From: Apprising Ministries [mailto:apprising@hughes.net] Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 10:39 AM To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Baptism and the RC Church

Hello xxxxxx,

Thank you for contacting Apprising Ministries.

Below you write: "May I ask exactly what service you hoped to perform by carelessly promulgating a falsehood?"

You do realize that the additional quotes you cite in your letter only further my contention that the apostate Church of Rome preaches a false gospel, right?

For Christ's honor I labor,

Pastor Ken Silva President Apprising Ministries http://apprising.org/ Ezekiel 3:7-14

General Editor Christian Research Net http://christianresearchnetwork.com/ 2 Corinthians 11:12-15

Here's my reply:

Sir,

Thank you for your email.

I was going to write, “Thank you for your response,” but your email was not a response. You changed the subject and did not address the issue I raised.

The issue is not what furthers your general contention. The issue is that you said that the Catholic Church teaches a thing which it in fact does not teach.

Now you know that the Church does not teach what you said it teaches. Even if it were stipulated that the Church “preaches a false gospel”, I cannot understand how someone committed to Him who called Himself the Truth would use falsehood to establish what he thought was the true Gospel

How can it be a labor in the honor of Christ to say what is not so? I ask again what service you hope to perform by persisting in what you now know to be a falsehood.

Yours faithfully in Christ,

[narses]

Thanks!

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Translation: You caught me, but you are evil, therefore I can lie all I want.