Posted on 12/12/2017 5:34:21 PM PST by marshmallow
Yup; that's what the Book your chosen religion has produced; says.
And, using that as a springboard, the leadership of your chosen religion has come up with all kinds of non-biblical things to include into it's version of Christianity, saying; in essense; "Well GOD could have done it; lookee here! Matthew 19:26!"
It's too bad that Rome fails on a major point - also found in the book it produced:
“It was you sir who made the accusation against me:”
Yes, and it was true, but that doesn’t mean I’ve kept a list.
“All I asked was what specifically I said that proved I didn’t have knowledge of Catholic teaching.”
I know what you asked for. And I told you I don’t have a list. And I think you know that’s reasonable.
“I opposed them because they are teaching falsehoods that are not God’s Word.”
I know your opinion.
“I was taught in the Roman Catholic church that grace was a “process of justification.””
I don’t think you were. Grace is a thing. A process is a process. Grace is the active and necessary ingredient but it is not the process itself. Right there that tells me you either don’t know what you’re talking about or whoever taught you did not know what they were talking about.
“I was shocked and amazed that Grace is actually the unearned and awesome gift of Christ, who by His sacrifice and death I am justified. Through faith and by Grace, I am saved from Hell itself.”
Shocked. Amazed. Really? I guess no Catholic ever shared even basic Catholic teachings with you then.
Baltimore Catechism #3:
Q. 456. What do you mean by grace?
A. By grace I mean a supernatural gift of God bestowed on us, through the merits of Jesus Christ, for our salvation.
See what I mean? Or how about:
Q. 475. What is actual grace?
A. Actual grace is that help of God which enlightens our mind and moves our will to shun evil and do good.
Q. 476. Is grace necessary to salvation?
A. Grace is necessary to salvation, because without grace we can do nothing to merit heaven.
Or how about the Catechism Explained (published in 1899):
2. The Holy Ghost dispenses the graces which Christ merited by the sacrifice of the cross.
The Holy Ghost produces nothing in addition to what Christ gained for us. He only increases and perfects that work of Christ; just as the sun when shining on a field does not sow new seed, but develops that which is already sown. A grace is a favor granted to a person who has, no claim to the favor of a sovereign grants a reprieve to a criminal under sentence of death, that reprieve is a grace. So, too, God acts with regard to man, granting Him numberless favors without any merit on the part of man (Rom. iii.24). These favors or graces may be temporal, such as health, riches, station; or spiritual, such as forgiveness of our sins. It is with the latter class of favors that we are dealing now, and it was to secure these for us that Christ consented to die on the cross.
SkyPilot, this one example proves my point. I need no other to show that you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Either you were terrible at learning about the faith or simply had terrible CCD teachers or whatever, but your errors today are directly traceable to your lack of knowledge then. You were “shocked” and “amazed”? It was right there in Catholic teaching and always had been. You simply didn’t know it - as you have admitted.
“The mark of your baptism does not leave your soul.
Except this is a belief without evidence or Scriptural support.
Superior? Oh yeah! Even though the apostle John said that no man has seen God at any time, artists have painted proof that they have, and therefore are superior to John.
At the ceremony of the “Trinity dome” at the biggest RCC Idolatry center in the US, the head honcho of the festivities said:
**This mosaic honors, above all, the truth that Christ is the visible image of the invisible God,” Cardinal Wuerl said.**
Well, whoever designed the image of God apparently decided not to stop at the Son of God. For he (she) must have decided to know what the invisible God looks like: an older, gray haired man, and a bird.
All the cardinal dude had to do is look up at the ceiling and see that God has once again showed artists what he looks like. (sarc)
(Amazing likeness of Mary, I might add)
yep
I suppose FRoman Catholics will cease mocking evangelical “mega churches” now?
Oh wait, who am I kidding? They still rant and rail against Martin Luther despite his having a statue in the Vatican and negotiations nearing fruition to bring Lutherans into communion.
What a disgusting twisted soul you display.
AMEN!
In other words, you can’t refute post #42 either.
Your hour is coming, accuser.
You will NEVER merit Heaven. Take your works and put some ice on that wounded massive ego.
Shocked. Amazed. Really? I guess no Catholic ever shared even basic Catholic teachings with you then.
Yes. Because when I really learned what Grace was, and not the confusing and conflicting RCC teaching of what they present, I was shocked that Christ forgave me and accepted me as I was.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Grace is a participation in the life of God.......Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God....The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity.......Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit." Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church. Among the special graces ought to be mentioned the graces of state that accompany the exercise of the responsibilities of the Christian life and of the ministries within the Church.....
That is a bunch of hodge podge double speak. It mixes works with grace, and teaches that there is "sanctifying grace" and "sacramental grace" - and other un-Biblical and heretical concepts.
So yes, I was shocked to learn that Christ saved me by grace, through faith, alone.
And I was quite happy to learn that. You, like most Catholics, don't believe in real Grace. You believe in that mess of a stew in the Catechism posted in the link above.
Read this:
7 Key Differences Between Protestant and Catholic Doctrine
3. Salvation and Grace Protestants often express the idea that salvation is by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone. This assertion views justification as specific point upon which God declares that you are righteous—a point where you enter into the Christian life.
In contrast, the Roman Catholic Church views justification as a process, dependent on the grace you receive by participating in the Church—which is seen as a repository of saving grace. Dr. Svigel explains the Catholic perspective:
“Grace is treated almost as if it’s a substance, something that can be dispensed through various avenues of change and means… You’re saved by grace, but how you receive that grace and what that grace does and whether it’s a one-time entrance into the Christian life or if it’s a constant movement toward salvation—that’s really the big difference between Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church.”
Not only does the RCC teach "Faith + Works" rather than Faith alone, the RCC teaches that you cannot know if you are saved until the point of your death.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/assurance-of-salvation
"One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell."
Notwithstanding that "Mortal sin" and "Venial sin" are not Biblical concepts either.
Let's see what the Catechism says:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm
1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 -- or immediate and everlasting damnation.596
Again, that isn't even remotely what the Bible teaches about Grace and Salvation.
So since you believe what the RCC teaches vs. the Holy Bible, I can see why you are confused.
Romans 10: 9-13
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Nothing that you posted changes the fact that what you posted yesterday as your “shock” and “amazed” comment was directly dealt with in the passages I posted from the Baltimore Catechism and The Catechism Explained.
Thus, you should have known - if you were knowledgeable about the Catholic Faith - but you did not.
Thus, we can start the list your requested based upon your own posted paragraph:
List of SkyPilot’s Errors Concerning the Catholic Faith
1) Dec. 12, 2017: “I was shocked and amazed that Grace is actually the unearned and awesome gift of Christ...”
Error: SkyPilot insinuates that the Catholic Church taught otherwise (i.e. that Grace is not a gift of Christ.
Evidence of SkyPilot’s Error: Baltimore Catechism #3: Q. 456. What do you mean by grace? A. By grace I mean a supernatural gift of God bestowed on us, through the merits of Jesus Christ, for our salvation.
2) Dec. 12, 2017: “...who by His sacrifice and death I am justified.”
Error: SkyPilot erroneously insinuated that the Catholic Church teaches that we are justified by something other than grace won for us by Christ on the Cross.
Evidence of SkyPilot’s Error: As written in The Catechism Explained (1899):
2. The Holy Ghost dispenses the graces which Christ merited by the sacrifice of the cross.
The Holy Ghost produces nothing in addition to what Christ gained for us. He only increases and perfects that work of Christ; just as the sun when shining on a field does not sow new seed, but develops that which is already sown. A grace is a favor granted to a person who has, no claim to the favor of a sovereign grants a reprieve to a criminal under sentence of death, that reprieve is a grace. So, too, God acts with regard to man, granting Him numberless favors without any merit on the part of man (Rom. iii.24). These favors or graces may be temporal, such as health, riches, station; or spiritual, such as forgiveness of our sins. It is with the latter class of favors that we are dealing now, and it was to secure these for us that Christ consented to die on the cross.
At least two so far.
3) Dec. 13, 2017: “That is a bunch of hodge podge double speak.”
Error: SkyPilot literally created a paragraph out of texts drawn from the CCC by cutting entire passages, paragraph numbers. In other words, what was neatly and soundly laid out in the CCC was forced into a “hodge podge” by SkyPilot. SkyPilot even says, “You believe in that mess of a stew in the Catechism posted in the link above.” In reality, the passages on grace in the CCC are not a mess nor a stew, but discuss a series of issues attached to grace and its effects on us.
Evidence: the very link SkyPilot posted: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
4) Dec. 13, 2017: “You, like most Catholics, don’t believe in real Grace.”
Error: First, SkyPilot is doing mind reading. Second, I do actually believe in “real Grace”.
Evidence: I believe grace transforms a person. I do not believe in the merely juridical like grace that some Protestants de facto believe in. I believe Christ’s grace is so powerful that it transforms our souls and lives making us literally more like Christ rather than just making us forensically acceptable to God. That’s REAL GRACE.
5) Dec. 13, 2017: “Not only does the RCC teach “Faith + Works” rather than Faith alone, the RCC teaches that you cannot know if you are saved until the point of your death.”
Error: SkyPilot suggests that the Catholic Church teaches about the gospel in a way and about salvation in a way that is at variance with truth.
Evidence: SkyPilot has repeatedly touted a nominal belief in sola scriptura. Yet, although a nominal believer in sola scriptura, he ignores passages that show:
1) We are saved by grace which we receive for both faith and works. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/faith-and-works-0
2) As scripture tells us, and remember SkyPilot believes in sola scriptura, we are saved, being saved and will be saved. Salvation is not absolutely assured.
“”Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”
https://www.catholic.com/tract/assurance-of-salvation Even not all Protestants believe in absolute assurance. Example: https://www.amazon.com/Believers-Conditional-Security-Eternal-Refuted/dp/0963907689
6) Dec. 13, 2017: “Again, that isn’t even remotely what the Bible teaches about Grace and Salvation.”
Error: SkyPilot says the following is not Biblical “even remotely”: “1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification 594 or immediately,595 — or immediate and everlasting damnation.596”
Evidence:
“Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death”
Hebrews 9:27; 2 Corinthians 5:10.
“in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven”
Again, Hebrews 9:27; 2 Corinthians 5:10.
“through a purification 594 or immediately,595 — or immediate and everlasting damnation.596”
https://enterthenarrowgate.org/documents/Purgatory%20purification%20after%20death%20by%20fire.pdf
Thus, there’s plenty of evidence that the statement and everything in it are perfectly Biblical. The error is entirely SkyPilot’s.
“Your hour is coming, accuser.”
The hour is coming for all of us.
“You will NEVER merit Heaven.”
Not on my own. Thankfully, I’m not own my own. Christ is with me always.
“Take your works and put some ice on that wounded massive ego.”
You seem to be the one bleating here. Looks like the ego issue is entirely yours.
There are an awful lot of people who call themselves Christians but who don’t read the Bible or understand it at all.
As a honest RC will tell you, that does not mean you know a whole lot about the Catholic faith (including the details of what the RCC means by "salvation by grace," with her means of dispensing it, and her formal means of justification, etc.) And this RC blame conversions on the subjects being "poorly catechized," which either means the church they want us to convert to is a very poor discipler or her subjects are of low IQ, or have little incentive to learn.
And while being ignorant of much of what Rome teaches, at least the details, yet what most RCs "get" is what Rome effectually conveys, which is that she is the one true church which has the "in" with God, and as long as one dies in her arms then eventual entrance into glory can basically be expected. The way Rome treats Ted Kennedy RCs in life and in death itself effectively teaches this.
I myself have learned far more since becoming born again than before, even though I also was an altar boy for years, and was "confirmed" as a weekly and every HDOO Mass-going RC, with 2 uncles were priests. And also as one I actually become born again at age 25 thru sincere deep repentance and trust in the Lord Jesus to save me by His mercy (which need I had never realized) - not any merit of mine - and realized the profound basic transformational changes of Biblical regeneration (thanks be to God). I has kind of like the penitent publican of Lk 18.
The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. (Psalms 34:18)
And not really knowing other churches I remained as a weekly Mass-going (and confession) largely ignorant of Scripture RC for 6 years (evangelical radio helping to feed my hungry soul) with a heart to serve God, becoming a lector and CCD teacher. Meanwhile I evangelizing on my own, telling manifestly spiritually dead souls of their need for salvation, most of whom were Catholics.
For me something profound had occurred, and even nature seemed new to me (though i was now keenly aware of my sinful nature and effects as never before) and (Scripture had become alive, and i sought fellowship of the Spirit in Catholicism, but very rare was the person that I could connect with. RC charismatic groups were better, but they were hobbled by the hierarchy who try to fold them in with the nun's marxist "peace and justice commission." I also went on a couple 8 day directed retreats for my vacation, as i sought to seek the Lord more.
But I was trying to follow the Lord, and working about 60 hours a week as a truck driver/delivery man for a dairy gave me much time to hear various evangelical preachers who overall ministered life to me. I knew there were discrepancies btwn Scripture and Rome, but i did not know of any other church nearby that i felt i could jump into. So it was only after sincerely asking God "if it be Thy will to go to another church, I trust You will show me" - which He quickly manifestly did - that I left Rome for evangelicalism.
And as such I have no personal grudge against Catholicism, but due to my background and it being the predominate faith in my area then it remained a main focus, in the interest of souls, and Truth, though i contend against other faith as well .
And since that time I have learned more about the details of Catholicism (and can appreciate some things, such as the level of maturity of her scholarship, even if in error) as well as seeing the contrast btwn Catholicism, esp. the Roman version , and the NT church of Scripture.
Which disallows her as uniquely being the one true church, as well as even being a true church, though she has always retained enough Truth so that poor and contrite souls could lay on hold of the risen Lord Jesus for salvation, and thus the spiritual body of Christ, the only one true church, could continue to prevail against the gates of Hell, though paradoxically Rome has become as those gates for multitudes, as have liberal Prot. churches.
Indeed, and the "What wee believe" section of the New Life church at issue lacks anything specific besides the The Nicene Creed, which itself is critically lacking as a statement of faith, and the church also offers,
Declaring the reign of Christ into the atmosphere changes the atmosphere.
There you go. Climate Change Church.
As comforting as this delusion may be to you, the act of sprinkling (with proper form and matter) does not render one regenerate, for which the faith which baptism requires and expresses is required, (ACts 2:28; 8:36,37; 15:7-9) which an infant cannot provide nor does he need to.
Cease with the propaganda which continues to be exposed, by the grace of God.
So you promote a church which is such a poor teacher that those who convert are victims of that, while we can partly blame your own ignorance of Scripture (or a diminished view of it) for your conversion.
For looking at the only wholly inspired and substantive record of what the NT church believed (Acts onward, which writings show us how the NT church understood the gospels), what we see (or fail to) is,
1. The primacy of Scripture:
Contrary to Rome, the basis for the veracity of their Truth claims was not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (thus "Keating, founder of Catholic Answers: "...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true," - Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275), but that of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Writing being God's chosen means of sure preservation and Scripture being the supreme substantive transcendent authority, (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:11), thus when dealing with the people of God,
Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures. (Acts 17:2)
And the veracity of even His preaching was subject to testing by Scripture, not vice versa. (Acts 17:11):
Miracles also attested to their authenticity, (Rm. 15:19) but which are not the supreme standard,
And as is abundantly evidenced, the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
It can be argued that this is not sola scriptura, since while the primacy of Scripture can be substantiated, the full sufficiency was not. Yet full sufficiency should be understood as referring to the formal sense (such as a clear gospel message, as Acts 10:36-43) as well as the material sense, in which Scripture provides for, by way of sanction etc., everything from reason to additional revelation being given.
The argument is also made that obedience to oral teaching was enjoined, and from which support for required submission to whatever Rome has or will solemnly define is extrapolated.
However, SS preachers can also enjoin obedience to oral teaching under the premise that it be Scriptural, as was the case with apostolic preaching. Yet men such as the apostles could also speak as wholly inspired of God, and provide new revelation, which neither SS preachers nor pope claim to do.
Requiring submission to wholly inspired preaching which is even subject to testing by Scripture is simply not the same thing as ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility whereby something like the Assumption must be believed, even though it was so lacking in even early historical testimony that (Ratzingers attested) Roman scholars disallowed it as being apostolic tradition .
2. Peter as the street-level leader among the apostles, and first pastor, versus the as the rock of Mt. 16:18 and first of a line of infallible popes.
The belief that Peter was the rock of Mt. 16:18, and thus that the church looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church (esp. from Rome) is not what we see manifest in the record of the NT church (and which even Catholic researchers, among others, provide testimony against , and is contrary to it. In contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
And rather than the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church, we see no exalted reverence of Peter as in Roman Catholicism, with not even one exhortation in any of the letters to the churches to look to or submit to Peter as their supreme head. For good (the norm) or for bad, Peter is street-level leader among the 11, and lead pastor of the first church, and the first to use the keys to the kingdom of God, that being the evangelical gospel. (Acts 2; 10; 15:7-9; Col. 1:13) As such, unlike Paul, (Acts 20:17) he does not call any council and charge preachers, but exhorts the assembled elders to treat the Gentiles consistent with the gospel of grace, God having "purifying their heart by faith," (Acts 15:9) while consistent with this, it is James who issues the concluding Scripturally substantiated judgment as to what should be done. (Acts 15)
Peter is also listed after James in Gal. 2 as one of those who appeared to be pillars, and who (contrary to his overall holy character) lead souls astray by his example, resulting in him being publicly rebuked by Paul, who stated "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing," (2 Corinthians 12:11) but who of his own accord sought to make manifest his sanction by those who seemed to be pillars.
After in contrast to the focus and centrality ascribed to the pope in Catholicism,Acts 15 Peter is left out of any mention in the last 13 chapters of Acts, the narrative focusing on the labors of Paul, who only mentions Peter (sometimes as Cephas) in two of his 13 letters of instruction, nor is Peter mentioned in Hebrews, James, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. And while Peters own 2 letters convey a general pastoral sense, what is lacking is any reference to him as a supreme head ("a servant," "an apostle," "an elder") or anything distinctively Catholic. Instead, Peter refers to Scripture as "a more sure word of prophecy," distinctively attesting to its Divine inspiration. (Note also that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" is not referring to interpretation of Scripture, which Catholics wrongly interpret it as forbidding, but of how prophecy was given by Divine inspiration, so that the prophets did not know "what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." - 1 Peter 1:11)
3. Presbyteros succeeding apostles.
Except for Matthias being chosen for Judas (which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles: cf. Rv. 21:14, and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots: cf. Prov. 16:33)), there are no manifest successors to any apostles, even though James was martyred. (Acts 12:1,2) And the Spirit of Christ, who records things of much lesser importance, would not fail to record the election of a successor to James, or preparation for a successor to Peter.
But what we do clearly see is ordained of God is that of appointing presbyters/elders, who, like Timothy, were charged with taken the "oversight" of the churches. (1Pt. 5:2; Acts 20:28)
Thus the record of the NT church simply does not manifest Peter as being the RC pope, nor any successors to any apostles after Judas, while the elders are given oversight of the churches, and which are not Catholic priests.
4. No distinction in office btwn bishops and elders, but which are not celibate Catholic priests.
Bishops and elders refer to those in one office: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1.
And in referring to which the Spirit of Christ never uses the distinctive words for a separate sacerdotal class of clergy (“hiereus” and “archiereus", over 280 times in the NT, denoting for Old Testament kohen or their pagan equivlents) known in English as "priests."
While the English word "priest" is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," the problem is that Catholicism translates both hiereus and presbuteros as "priest." thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distinctive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, and Catholicism attempts to justify using the same distinctive word for both OT "ko^he^n" and NT presbuteros via an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbuteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function. Which brings us to,
In addition, the normative state of NT pastors was that of being married, as almost all the apostles were as well, and with celibacy/continence being a gift not all have. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;..One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 Timothy 3:1-2,4-5) Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. (1 Corinthians 7:7)
5. The primary active function of pastors is that of preaching, not uniquely being ordained to conduct the Lord's supper, nor is it a sacrifice for sin as the transubstantiated body and blood of Christ, to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life, with this being the paramount central practice of the NT church.
Rather than dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin which NT pastors are never described as doing in the life of the church, instead the primary active function of pastors is preaching, (1 Timothy 4:2) by which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) for the word is called spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7) In contrast, nowhere in the record of the NT church is the Lord's supper described as spiritual food, and the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself.
Rather than being manifest as the paramount life-giving priestly practice of the NT church, apart from reference to the "feast of charity," (Jude 1:12) the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one letter to the churches (statements such as "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart" (Acts 2:46; cf. Acts 2:42; 20:7,11 are not clearly referring to the Lord's supper), and in which communion of the body and blood of Christ refers to the church as "one bread" having fellowship with Christ, whose sacrificially death they are remembering and showing, like as pagans have fellowship with the object of their dedicatory feasts. Which believers are thus warned against, but in both cases this fellowship was not by actually consuming the physical body and blood of their respective objects of worship.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. (1 Corinthians 10:16-20)
And in the next chapter the church is the body of Christ which is not being recognized as such due to Corinthians selfishly eating separately and to the full, while ignoring others, and thus "shame them which have not," completely contrary to the sacrificial love of Christ shown by His death by which He purchased the, and which is what they were supposed to be remembering and thus showing.
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not...For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come...he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22,26,29)
This hypocritical treatment of believers for whom Christ died being the problem, the solution was,
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
6. Salvation by effectual faith, versus actually being made good enough to be with God.
Scripture both promises,
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38) And (by the same Peter) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43) And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)
Likewise, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)
Seeing we know that souls were told and realized purification of the heart by faith and received the Holy Spirit before baptism because God, "knoweth the hearts" which "believeth unto righteousness," (Rm. 10:10) and that "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," (Romans 4:5) then it is apparent that it is effectual faith, the faith which effects obedience, that appropriates justification, with the works that will follow justifying one as being a saved believer, having complete, saving faith. Otherwise, if God does not justify the ungodly, by his faith being counted for righteousness, but must await a certain act, then James contradicts both Moses (Gn. 15:6) and Paul who testify, "what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Romans 4:3) which was long before Abraham offered up Issac, (Gn. 22) which is what James points to as justifying Abraham, fulfilling Gn. 15:16). However, it is hardly tenable that Abraham was not saved before Gn. 22, yet the issue in James 2 is the kind of faith that saves, and that is the kind that effects works, justifying one as being saved.
7. Believer's baptism, versus infant baptism and baptism itself effecting regeneration.
The NT knows no baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38) while it is the faith that baptism requires and expresses which appropriates justification (and may be the occasion for conversion), versus the act itself of baptism effecting regeneration, even for morally incognizant souls.
8. All f believers are called “saints, with the next realization after this life for true believers is being with the Lord, not RC purgatory.
True believers are accepted in the Beloved, and positionally seated together with Him in Heaven, and have boldness to enter into the holy of holies, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6; Heb. 10:19; cf. Phil. 3:21) and will go to be with the Lord at death or at His return. . (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul, who expressed he would go to be with the Lord at death, yet was not already perfect. (Phil. 3:10f)
And with the only suffering for believers that is manifestly taught as after this life being that of the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
9. Prayers to Heaven are only addressed to the Lord.
Nowhere in Scripture to anyone else is Heaven - except by pagans - despite the approx. 200 prayers in Heaven in all of Scripture. Faced with trying to justify why the Holy Spirit would not include even one prayer by a believer to anyone else is Heaven when He so abundantly records prayers, yet does record pagans praying to created beings, Caths must resorting to extrapolating this from praying for each other in the earthly realm, but which ignores the manifest divisions.
10. No prostration, knelling or bowing down in supplication before graven images.
Nowhere do we see the NT church in prostration, knelling or bowing down before a statue, let alone praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, with adulation, attributes, glory and titles being ascribed which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them. Which would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine by playing word games they avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
More can be listed of what NT church "fathers" believed as seen by their writings, and reveals they were not Catholic, and thus (based on how Catholics divide them) were Protestant, though false beliefs are also found under that non-monolithic umbrella. It is salvific Truth that is essential, and enough has been and is still present in Catholicism for some souls to be saved, for "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." (Psalms 34:18) However, overall she has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, as has liberal Protestantism, while the only one church is that which was purchased with the sinless blood of Christ, and is His body and His bride, which alone always only consists 100% of believers (there are even a few RCs in it). Thus it cannot refer to any one particular organic church(es), which inevitably become amalgams of wheat and tares.
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.