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 ...
I have the peace of the Lord Jesus - squabbles are mere moments, not worth getting troubled with. The opening assertion in the article is Truth. Pray to the Lord - not to or “through” the physically dead saints - for wisdom with a humble heart and mayhap He will answer.
A lie about what we teach is Truth?
Opening statement: “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) “
Truth.
I hope we are, too. With Christ in our lives, we ARE in the state of Grace. The only sin that keeps us out of heaven is the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit (rejecting Jesus Christ).
The above is no more relevant to the topic than is your rambling reply. I posted it because I like it. No other reason.
I repeat; if you hate the Religion threads stay away from them. I don't hate the political threads but you must have missed I clearly labeled my reply as "sarcasm intended".
Maybe it's time for you to develop your own web site where you are free to develop the rules.
:)I have one.(((Hugs)))
I prefer to deal directly with what the bible tells me is true, not what some theologian tells me is true. I have read theologians, many of them, but the bible is better. Whether Protestant or Catholic, you are still taking men's opinions over what the bible actually says.
Jesus commands his made disciples to make other disciples. The way that a disciple is "made" is by being baptized. The Greek word for it is givnomai. It is an ordination. We can argue forever that the disciple is elect and would always become a disciple, yada yada, but the Lord instituted a procedure. He commanded it. He also instituted the Lord's supper and no one brings infants to it and gives them bread and wine, at least not that I know of
When little children come unto Jesus for such is the kingdom only implies the childlike faith that is needed; it has nothing whatsoever to do with infant baptizing. We do not know who made up Lydia's household, scripture does not say, so to use that as a defense of infant baptism is a weak argument at best.
You are still saying that baptism is equated with salvation, and telling me that is what I believe. Now you have joined the ranks of those here who like to tell me what I believe, no matter what I say.
I have said repeatedly, that I believe, and all those in my previous church believe, that adult baptism is an act of obedience. Jesus commanded us, we do it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation.
Jesus came "up out of the water". We come up out of the water. Until you understand that you cannot understand the full significance of the rite. A little research into the greek meaning of words will help more than any longwinded opiner. Including me, lol
So the lies spewed by Shea you accept as truth? Amazing. Is it your opinion that Catholics are NOT Christian then?
Is “Shea” code for something? I’m not familiar with that term and neither is Google (or Yahoo!).
I accept no words of humans as Truth unless they comport with God’s revealed Word. I know not if anyone claiming to be a Christian is one, as only God knows that with certainty. It is a different matter to judge what men say and write than to judge men. I do not say that every word of RCC doctrine is false, but that certain key doctrines are false. The main problem (from my point of view) with the RCC is that it elevates man and his traditions to that of of God and His revealed Word. Man is fallible and not up to that task.
Every church and denomination has errors. Those who hold to their errors rather than hold to God’s Truth are the churches in trouble.
Silva, not Shea — the author. He claims that the RCCteaches that which it manifestly does not. Are uyou not ready to acknowledge that?
Error growing into a lie.
It was an error a few days ago, but now that the author has been shown how the Catechism disagrees with his characterization of Catholic teaching, the absence of a retraction makes it a lie -- a culpable and intended untruth.
The first sentence may well be true. Who can argue with the last sentence? Not me. The apodosis of the second sentence, may be true with respect to some other aspect of our teaching, including our teaching on Baptism. In fact I bet it is.
But the protasis is not true. It says that we teach something we do not teach. It is easy to find out that we do not teach that. It took me less than 5 minutes.
When someone errs, that's no big deal. When someone errs and denies it in the face of incontrovertible evidence, that's serious. It breaks a commandment.
If somebody says, "I am here in the name of the Truth," and then not only says but persists in saying something manifestly untrue the kindest thing you can say is that his behavior is ludicrous.
And if a person has not been baptized as an infant or a child, that person should be baptized as an act of obedience.
It is an act of obedience to baptize our children as a sign and seal of God's promise to His family.
The grace that baptism represents is not dependent on our awareness of that grace nor our acceptance of it. It represents God's gift of adoption into His family which is not performed by us, but by God. Baptism is something we do as a recognition of something God has already done -- redeemed His family.
Paul tells the Ephesians that he bows his knee "unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (Eph. 3:14-15.) Charles Hodge wrote that the Greek word for "family" is "patria -- a collective term for descendants of the same father, immediate or remote."
Thus we see that not just individuals but entire households were turned to Christ, such as in the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10:1,2,33,44), Lydia (Acts 16:14-15), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31-33), Crispus (Acts 18:8) and Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16;1:15).
In each case the entire households are received into the visible church together with the heads of those households.
Likewise, children of believing parents are addressed as members of churches at Ephesus (Eph. 6:1-4) and Colossae (Col. 3:20). These children were also baptized, as Paul tells us in Colossians 2:11-12, where he calls baptism "the circumcision of Christ."
Just as the children of believing parents are partakers of the condemnation in Adam, so they are received unto grace in Christ. Thus there is not a single case in the Bible of a person being born and reared in a Christian home who later was baptized after reaching some "age of accountability."
I think we just have to agree to disagree here. I believe we are commanded to baptize our children as members of the new covenant, even as fellow-partakers in the Great Commission, by the grace of God. The assurance I felt from that baptism (which as I said took place when my children were not infants, but youngsters) is something I cherish because I believe it is a gift from God to His family -- a sign and seal of His promise...
"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." -- Acts 2:39
God's plan of salvation by the covenant of grace goes all the way back to Genesis when God promised Adam and Eve a Saviour...
"I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" -- Ge. 3:15
That promise was confirmed again when God said to Abraham and his descendants...
"I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee" -- Gen. 17:7
Later, God promised David...
"Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." -- Psalms 89:3-4
The same covenant of grace is reaffirmed by Peter in Acts 2:39 -- "unto you and your children."
Franklin Schaeffer wrote in his book, "Baptism," --
"If Peter did not mean what the Jews understood him to mean in an Old Testament context -- that God establishes His covenant not just with believers but with our children also -- then there would have been a riot on that day Or if it had been a polite crowd, there would at least have been hands going up saying, "Excuse me, Peter, what do you mean by that? Could you clarify yourself?" It was such a serious thing for the Jew to be told that God is changing a fundamental way in which He deals with people."
The baptism of John is not the same baptism as that of Jesus Christ. Christ never baptized anyone with water, but instead it was with the Holy Spirit that Christ baptizes His own.
"And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." -- John 1:33 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." -- Matthew 3:11
[PM to WM:] 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?
I agree with WM that Holy Spirit knows who are His. All who were predestined were......... predestined, regardless of age at the time of calling home. Based on the totality of scripture, it would seem to grate against the God who is revealed to us if it was true that all abortion victims were automatically damned to hell because they were robbed of the opportunity to become of age and believe.
Do you contend the Holy Spirit does not indwell in these children? What about severely 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 severely disabled as it’s quite clear there would have to be a separate set of requirements.
Here we should note that the Reformed position is that water baptism has nothing to do with salvation. The Holy Spirit will inhabit those who are predestined, not all those who have been water baptized. Surely many who have been water baptized do not wind up in Heaven. We say that under normal circumstances one is saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). However, as you note in supposition, it is most likely true that when faith cannot happen due to impossibility, then it works differently. We must ultimately go back to the Book of Life. Does it make sense that God would only write down the names of those who lived long enough to have faith? I don't think the totality of scripture reveals that to us.
Flying skillets!
IIRC, the RCC catechism teaches that the rite of baptism takes away original sin until the first (or next) sin is committed.
Then begins the endless rounds of confession, forgiveness, sin; confession, forgiveness, sin, etc. until death.
Which is actually saying Christ on the cross didn't save anyone; only the act of baptism saves someone, and even then only temporally and conditionally.
All of which is unScriptural foolishness.
The act of baptism does not take away sin. Instead, sin is not imputed to the believer by the act of Christ on the cross. This gracious fact is promised at baptism, and made known to the believer by the indwelling Holy Spirit at a time of God's regeneration by the renewing of our mind and the rebirth of our heart.
I'm not sure what to do about it. It is easily shown that the guys opening salvo is not true. As far as I'm concerned, a brief peek in the idex of the Catechism provided me with all the rebuttal the article needed
When somebody starts an article with an obvious untruth, I generally don't read further. That was the case here. If the writer doesn't care enough about the truth to do five minutes research, I -- well, I have to budget my time. There are an awful lot of clouds that need watching, after all.
But yeah. If the nature of the conversation is not to try to discern and tell the truth and to make sense of it but to engage in an endurance contest, well, flying skillets is what you get.
I think I'll go check out the clouds.
[Okay. So why concentrate on the “false” teachings of fellow Christians when there are a growing number of Islamists? For the life of me, I will never understand why so many non-Catholics have to take so many shots at the Catholics.]
I will try to make this as simple as possible. The body of Christ believes the Holy Bible is truth and that those who trust their church and disregard the doctrines of the Holy Bible are practicing heresies and therefore may not be saved by grace through faith only.
Saved Christians beleve the Bible of Christ, unsaved Christians beleive the church or denomination they attend saves them and therefore heresies grow and grow until the Lord Jesus returns at the end of the seven year tribulation to begin HIS government over the whole earth as King. The church can not do this , only God’s son Jesus Christ. Search the scriptures for the truth and disregard all other lies, if you will.
[branches of the historic, undivided Church begun by Jesus and his apostles. That is a provable fact which no historian disputes. As I said, you may argue that this Church (or any other) has “lost its way” if you like, but no sane man can deny the apostolic origins of any of these four branches of Christianity.]
Though true enough, all truth is of the scriptures and as we get closer to the tribulation, the church is full of apostates and heretics who continue to mock the WORD of God by adding and taking away of the sure truth of God in Christ Jesus, and it will be awful for those who trust a church doctrine over the doctrine of God’s word.
Search the scriptures from beginning to end.
Let me develop this:
(1) I once got a "cold call" from a brokerage house - Smith Barney, as a matter of fact. The guy "reminded me" of a conversation we'd never had, and encouraged me to open an account at Smith Barney. AS it happened, I HAD an account at Smith Barney, but shortly after this I moved it elsewhere. I thought that if they want me to trust them with my money, lying to me, and doing so carelessly, is not a good way to persuade me to trust them.
Political fund raisers often call me up and tell me all they want is for me to listen to a "message" or a "very important message" from some political leader. Sometimes they'll tell me the message is followed by a "short, one-question poll". Of course, the call always ends up in a request for money.
At that point I say, you said you wanted me to listen to a message but the real purpose of this call was to ask me for money. If you want me to trust you with my money and with the leadership of this country, don't start by lying to me. Goodbye."
This guy wants me to believe that what he says is true. He says that he's reluctantly telling us Catholics that we're wrong, because the truth must be served. But the first thing he says about us is easily seen to be untrue.
If someone tries to get my attention with a falsehood, why should I listen to what he wants me to hear? He began by gratuitously seeking to abuse my trust. I might have listened if he didn't lead with carelessness or dishonesty. I certainly won't listen now.
Nor will I take seriously the words of anyone who glosses over the open and apparent falsehood of the writer. It is remarkable to me that folks say we're not dealing with the point of the article while they won't even acknowledge the falsehood with which the article begins.
As a general principle, if you want to attack my beliefs, then attack what I in fact believe. Do NOT tell me that I "believe the church or denomination [I] attend saves [me]," do NOT tell me I believe something I don't believe and then expect a hearing.
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.