Thursday, September 13, 2007

THEY SAID WHAT?
the unbiblical, unbelievable, & unconscionable attributed to Christianity

When the veracity of Scripture is being challenged and the very gospel of Jesus Christ perverted, we cannot remain silent but MUST "instruct in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict."

As this weeks "bloggenations" is rapidly coming to an end, I want to look briefly at two quotes that have been posited in the name of our Lord and biblical Christianity. What do you think? Let me know your thoughts...

As the Day Draws Near,
Steve
1 Timothy 6:20
PS- I am very privileged to serve the Lord with each one of you who have given countless hours of your time to share your insights from week to week on this blog. I am deeply humbled and honored to be a co-laborer of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Keep on...


Who said these things?
Q-1: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Q-2:"Mary has directed me to Christ in every way and without her, I would not have found Christ. It is through my devotion to her that I found out that the Catholic Church is the only true religion. So if anyone who reads my articles are impressed in any way or have come closer to Christ in any way, it is from the grace of God through Mary that I possess any good qualities."

Was it: Benny Hinn? NO. Pat Robertson? NO. Brian McLaren? well maybe... but, NO.

The Answers:
Q-1: The Roman Catholic Church. (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SECOND EDITION, #841); and

Q-2: a Romanist who has posted before on this blog (there is a question about his real name and identity).

They (The RCC and its sycophants) will deceptively claim that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone... don't be fooled. They practice idolatry through the veneration of Mary and still promise eternal life absent of the gospel; even to those who reject the exclusivity of the gospel of Jesus Christ--as in the case above to Islam.

This is heresy beloved; another gospel, which is no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-9). Could it be any more revealing? Romanism is a false church, representing a false gospel, led by a false teacher, occupying a false office.

Here are the scriptures that refute the erroneous claims asserted in the quotes mentioned above:
Q-1: John 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; 1 John 2:22-24; Hebrews 2:9-18.

Q-2: John 6:35-44; Ephesians 1:4-14.

An encore presentation originally posted 9/23/05

35 comments:

Ephraim said...

Hey, is that Jimmie Neutron's dad?

DOGpreacher said...

hey 'Hammer, thanks for the slammer post to the prior week+ of related posts/comments. You ought to transcript the comments as a learning/teaching tool on how (and how not?) to witness/debate a Catholic. Just a thought.

When will we learn, that if we follow Paul's solemn charge to Timothy (preach the word), and include all 3 ingredients (rebuke reproof, & exhortation), IT IS STILL wonderfully effective today!...I am...

grateful for grace!

Sparks said...

This whole topic has been interesting, informative, educational and timely to me.

Earlier this week a young woman, raised as a Catholic, who recently accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, was baptised and joined my church- asked for help in dealing with her Catholic friends and family who have been badgering her to reverse her decision and return to the "One True Church". Through these many posts I was able to assist her and also directed her to the two websites below:

http://www.bereanbeacon.org/
http://www.whateverycatholicshouldknow.com/

Thanks to all of you who persevered in defending the true Gospel - for in doing so you blessed me and others.

Unchained Slave said...

Sparks:
You might want to send your friend to "The Catholic Undertow"
Mary Ann Collins, a former Catholic nun wrote it for those that have 'been saved' and left the Catholic Church.
It is a compassionate and healing guide grounded in scripture dealing with some of the 'heresies' taught. It also addresses the condemnation from family members.

The entire book is online & free...

Joel said...

Of course, you left out the part a little bit later:
"...the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

So much for universalism. God's mercy may be extended to those who never have a chance to hear the Gospel; the Catechism leaves the question open. That makes sense; His mercy is infinite and He gives it where He will. In fact, this is the same principle on which we can consider Protestants Christians. The Church is necessary, and Protestants, through their faith, are a part of it, even though not fully united with us.

If by your quote you were trying to show that we believe Muslims will be saved, then it was dishonest. (If that wasn't what you meant, then do please clarify; I'd like to think I misunderstood.) We're not universalists; we're just humble enough to acknowledge that God may have plans we're not privy to.

Jeremy Weaver said...

Thanks for the clarification, Joel.
I guess 'wider mercy' is the term we're looking for.
It is still erroneous to claim that anyone outside of Christ's Lordship will enter heaven.

Apolonio said...

Steve Camp: "a Romanist who has recently posted frequently on this blog (there is a question about his real name and identity)."

It's been PhilVaz the whole time, posting as Apolonio. I didn't register a separate user name. I'm pretty much done here, said all I've wanted. You people who think all orthodox faithful believing Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians, including Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and all the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church are damned because they didn't believe in the "true gospel" as interpreted by Martin Luther and Steve Camp, are just nuts. That's all I have to say. Nuts. Not eggs, but nuts. :-)
PhilVaz

pilgrim said...

"all the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church are damned because they didn't believe in the "true gospel" as interpreted by Martin Luther and Steve Camp"

Another overstatement.

And it has been stated the Fathers did not hold to the same Gospel the RCC proclaims.

There was thing called the council of Trent which stretched out over many years--it defined the RC stand.
Prior to that many views existed-and there was opposition to every part of the Trent's decrees--and many if not most of the Father's would not have held to most of Trent.

But I know I won't convince him if he comes back--Just had to get that off my chest.

Apolonio said...

pilgrim: "And it has been stated the Fathers did not hold to the same Gospel the RCC proclaims."

Hello, and I quoted McGrath and Geisler saying that Trent got their doctrine from the Fathers. You are wrong. Now what do you say to McGrath and Geisler? Who can you quote against their understandings?

Steve Camp has claimed his "true gospel" agrees with the views of St. Augustine (I've shown that is clearly false), and he's claimed St. John Chrysostom agrees with his "true gospel" (I've shown that is clearly false). Those are the two major Catholic Christian Fathers of east and west, representing the Latin and Greek sides of Christianity before the 16th century.

The Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, and basically the entire history of Christianity before Martin Luther was therefore DAMNED. Live with it, that is Steve Camp's "true gospel" that you believe in.
PhilVaz

Sparks said...

Is there a constant echo in this corner of cyberspace?

I keep hearing the same things over and over and over and over.......

Apolonio said...

OK I'll post one more note to Steve Camp.

Steve Camp: "They (The RCC and its sycophants) will deceptively claim that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone... don't be fooled."

Don't be fooled. Salvation is by grace alone through Christ alone, by a faith working in love, not by faith alone (Gal 5:6; James 2:24; 1 Cor 13:2). That is the Catholic and biblical gospel.

1992. Justification has been merited for us by the passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.

1996. Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life [John 1; Rom 8; 2 Peter 1].

1997. Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

Steve Camp: "They practice idolatry through the veneration of Mary and still promise eternal life absent of the gospel"

That is not idolatry, the Catholics and Orthodox, the early Fathers and Doctors of the Church who had a high respect for Mary and asked the departed Christian saints for their prayers know this is not idolatry. You do not know what idolatry is. This is not idolatry:

"But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels...as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep." (ORIGEN On Prayer 11 c. AD 233)

"Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish [Christ]." (PECTORIUS Epitaph c. AD 250)

"Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's mercy." (ST. CYPRIAN Letters 56, 60:5 c. AD 252)

"Mother of God, listen to my petitions; do not disregard us in adversity, but rescue us from danger." (Rylands Papyrus 3 c. AD 350)

"You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard...But if the apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs?" (ST. JEROME Against Vigilantius 6 c. AD 406)

Oh and for good measure, a little from Calvinist pastor Charles Drelincourt, who well represents the Reformed belief of the 17th century:

"We do not simply believe that God has favoured the holy and blessed Virgin more than all the Patriarchs and the Prophets, but also that He has exalted her above all Seraphim. The angels can only qualify as servants of the Son of God, the creatures and workmanship of his hands; but the holy Virgin is not only the servant and the creature but also the Mother of this great and living God." (cited in Thurian, a Calvinist scholar and author of Mary: Mother of All Christians)

This "let's ignore Mary" business of Protestantism began well after the Reformation, beloved.

Steve Camp: "even to those who reject the exclusivity of the gospel of Jesus Christ--as in the case above to Islam."

All the Catechism is saying there is that Muslims may be saved if "through no fault of their own" they do not know the gospel. May be saved, not are saved.

Steve Camp: "This is heresy beloved; another gospel"

No that is your opinion, beloved, since what is "heresy" requires something objective. What is "orthodox" and what is "heresy" is not simply what I or you or anyone believe the Scriptures to teach. Many Christians disagree with your interpretations of the gospel, and they do that based on the Scriptures.

Steve Camp: "Romanism is a false church, representing a false gospel, led by a false teacher, occupying a false office."

Thanks, but you just damned the entire history of Christianity, who belonged to the same historical visible Church, had the same gospel, led by the same teachers, the Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Yes I understand, there was no true visible Church before Martin Luther, or John Calvin, or the Westminster Confession. That is your true gospel, and I reject that true gospel. Just so we're clear.
PhilVaz

Apolonio said...

sparks: "I keep hearing the same things over and over and over and over......."

Yes, and I don't see any good responses to what I've said, so perhaps I'll just keep repeating. Repetition is the mother of learning. Repetitionem mater studiorum. Repetitionem mater studiorum. Repetitionem mater studiorum. PhilVaz

pilgrim said...

McGrath and Geisler are not the Biblle, and in many ways they do not speak for me.

Hmm, a couple of verse in Proverbs spring to mind.

For a guy who said he was done--you sure pop up a lot...

Tim said...

Philvaz,

I will quickly note that you did not cite one verse of the Scriptures in context to give validity to the claims that Catholics engage in idiolatry when praying to dead saints. You cited men. Again, when the quote from your cite was posted earlier, it was clear that you hold Mary as one who is somehow participating in your salvation, if not the ultimate one whom your eyes are fixed on.

Lastly, the Scriptures are clear throughout the Old Testament that we are not to communicate with the dead and when one did try to communicate with a saint, he was rebuked. Do you remember the instance of Saul?

Let me remind you. 1 Sam. 28:

11 Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel.
12 And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.
13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
14 And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.
15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.
16 Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?
17 And the LORD hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the LORD hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David:
18 Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the LORD, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the LORD done this thing unto thee this day.
19 Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me: the LORD also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.
20 Then Saul fell straightway all along on the earth, and was sore afraid, because of the words of Samuel: and there was no strength in him; for he had eaten no bread all the day, nor all the night.


Now, I know what you are going to say. You will say he used a medium or that he wasn't praying. However, the means were not to be used and the very act itself of contacting the dead was prohibited by God. Necromancy was a serious sin. I know Catholics speak of the saints as living and spiriually speaking they are. However, they are dead to us. They are physically dead and that was the context of the prohibitions against contact with the dead.

Mary, the true Mary, cannot hear your cries, neither Paul, Peter, or any apostles or godly men or women throughout history. Only God hears and answers prayers. Therefore, repent of your idolatry and turn to the Lord Jesus who is able to save your soul from such sins.

Sparks said...

"Apolonio said...
sparks: "I keep hearing the same things over and over and over and over......."

Yes, and I don't see any good responses to what I've said, so perhaps I'll just keep repeating. Repetition is the mother of learning. Repetitionem mater studiorum. Repetitionem mater studiorum. Repetitionem mater studiorum. PhilVaz "

Just because you repeat the same falsehoods over and over doesn't make them true. Example: George Bush hates black people. George Bush hates black people. George Bush hates black people.
Is it true just because it has been repeated over and over and over by media and entertainment types (including the (false) Rev. Jackson into the entertainment group)? No. But some people will believe it if it is repeated often enough.

As far as damning all of Christianity because the Catholics claim to have created the church from the beginning- perhaps you, sir, need to do some historical research on Christianity- the kind not created by your own church to deceive you from the truth.

The past two weeks I have invested extensively in time reading all of this stuff and researching independently. The Biblical reality wins over Catholic traditions every time.

Joel said...

"The past two weeks I have invested extensively in time reading all of this stuff and researching independently. The Biblical reality wins over Catholic traditions every time."

Sparks, I'd be curious what you've been studying. I find I'm learning a lot more about Protrestantism from reading things like this than I ever knew as a Protestant. If you've been reading similar sources, even if you don't agree with them, at least you can know exactly what it is that you don't agree with. :)

As for the Biblical reality, I find when I compare the two, they match. Not everything we believe is in the Bible, true, but I find the Bible agrees with us where they touch, and doesn't contradict us where they don't, if that makes sense. As I've mentioned before, when you read the Bible at face value, it comes out Catholic.

So anyway, what have you been reading? I really am interested.

Joel said...

"You might want to send your friend to "The Catholic Undertow"
Mary Ann Collins, a former Catholic nun wrote it for those that have 'been saved' and left the Catholic Church.
It is a compassionate and healing guide grounded in scripture dealing with some of the 'heresies' taught. It also addresses the condemnation from family members."

Unchained Slave, there seems to be some question whether "Mary Ann Collins" actually exists or is a construct like Maria Monk. I won't be obnoxious by posting the link here, but if you want to e-mail me (jbmartin at nwi dot net), I'll see if I can find it for you.

Condemnation from family members goes both ways. I was fortunate that my family didn't disown me when I became Catholic (because they believe in once-saved-always-saved), but others haven't been so fortunate. James White's sister comes to mind.

Bhedr said...

>Thanks, but you just damned the entire history of Christianity, who belonged to the same historical visible Church, had the same gospel, led by the same teachers, the Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.<

"How much she hath glorified herself , and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her; *for she saith in her heart, I sit as a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.*"

"And it was told Him(Jesus) by certain which said, Thy mother(the Virgin Mary) and thy brethren stand without desiring to see thee."
"And He answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God and do it."

To do the will of God one must first become His own intimate Son. This happens when you are born again by His Holy Spirit as Yeshua told Nicodemus in John 3. There is no other way. John 10. Theives and robbers exist elsewhere.

Is dulia worship dangerous?
Jesus spoke to this.
"The Father who sent me has Himself testified about Me. You have not heard His voice at any time, and you haven't seen His form. You don't have his word living in you, because you don't believe the one He sent. You pour over the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about Me. And you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. I do not accept glory from men, but I know that you have no love for God within you. I have come in My Father's name, yet you don't accept Me. If someone comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe? While accepting glory that comes from one another, you don't *seek* the glory that comes from the only God. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope."
John 5:37-45

Unchained Slave said...

Joel,
It doesn't matter what the origins of the 'author' of the "The Catholic Undertow" are.
The book is still a compassionate and helpful guide for former Catholics...

Nor does it change the information in the book which is heavily footnoted to 'quantify' and 'qualify' the facts it quotes.


OBTW: I did send you an email - regarding questions on Mary Ann Collins 'fictitous' nature as a 'construct'. Hope you will answer it soon...

Tony said...

Wow, I am very surprised and disappointed at the lack of charity with my separated brothers and sisters in Christ.

It is amazing to me how many are quick to accuse Catholics of idolatry & saint worship. We are the largest Christian denomination in the world and even our Church teaches that idolatry is a serious sin.

Are those who accuse us so arrogant that they are the only ones who see the real "truth" while we go along ingnorant of what we are really doing?

Come on guys, lets use our brains here....

I will continue to pray for all of you, that the Holy Spirit will direct your hearts and minds towards the fullness of Truth He has revealed.

God bless you!

Tony said...

For those of you who seem to misinterpret and distort Catholic teaching, there are many good resources on the internet that help explain the Church founded by Christ.

http://1bread.catholic.org
http://www.catholic.com
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com

The above are three good sites that can help you with the basics.

I understand your disagreement but pray that you would be open to the Holy Spirit and in charity and love, dialogue with one another.

Just as you would not discredit the marvels of medicine just because of the poor work of a bad doctor, I ask that you not discredit the Catholic Church because of the fruit of poor shepherds within her.

Name calling and not taking people at their word when they say what and why they believe, does not solve anything and only serves as a poor witness to all unbelievers.......

I pray that the Lord will bless all discussion that goes on at this blog!

Joel said...

Q-1: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

So is it a Biblical given that God has no intention of bringing any Muslims to Christ? The Catechism doesn't say that Muslims are saved, but that God's plan includes them. Read further and you'll see that it's saying that Islam reflects the desire for the salvation that can only be found in Christ. Whatever these religions teach that agrees with Christianity is true; whatever does not agree with Christianity is false. The Catechism makes clear that Christ is the only way to salvation.

I find it interesting that Protestants can lambaste us both for universalism (by twisting the above quote) and for excluding other Christians (as in the paragraphs below this one, "With the Church there is no salvation.") Which is our heresy?

Q-2:"Mary has directed me to Christ in every way and without her, I would not have found Christ. It is through my devotion to her that I found out that the Catholic Church is the only true religion. So if anyone who reads my articles are impressed in any way or have come closer to Christ in any way, it is from the grace of God through Mary that I possess any good qualities."

How is it idolatry to say that another Christian led you to Christ? I didn't see a single instance of latria in that paragraph. If you're relying on the verses from John and Ephesians to refute this, then you commit the same sin every time you attempt to share the Gospel with an unsaved person.

gigantor1231 said...

Joel

Everything you say with regards to this is laced with worldly wisdom and logic. You are syncretistic in your beliefs as well as your presentation

Col. 2:8

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Col 2:8). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

There is no truth in the Koran because it nullifies any truth by combining it with it's own vain wisdom. If you understood the word of God and what truth is, you and the RCC would recognize this rather than accepting psychretism as legitimate. God's word, the Holy Bible, not the RCC bible, is all that is pure and it holds the only truth, all truth exists within the framework of the word. When the word of God is twisted to accomodate some other gospel or world view then it is made void. You may not like this but even what you like or do not like will not change what is true, so you better get out of the Catholic morass that you are in before it is to late!

ddd said...

Wow... the Romanists are out in full force. I guess when all you believe is material produced by the spin doctors of post-Tridentine Catholicism, then this is where you end up in. Let's face it, the Roman Catholic Church as a religion is only 500+ years old. Just because you keep the building and the post of the pope does not make you the true successor of historic Christianity. True historic Christianity is that which conforms to the Scriptures primarily, and which flows secondarily from the teachings of men of God who faithfully exposit His Word in the ancient churches. The miquotation of the church fathers to support their position is one of the crimes which the RC religion is culpable of. For example, just read Webster and King's 3-voulme book entitled Holy Scripture to see that the church fathers embrace Sola Scriptura in its entirety, except they didn't call it as such back then.

And talking about 'historic continuity', what advantage does the RC religion has over the Eastern Orthodox one? Both claim historic continuity with the apostles and church fathers. Furthermore, of the major cities of ancient Christendom, why is Roman Catholicism with one see in Rome the true church while Eastern Orthodoxy with many sees in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch etc considered false? By numbers alone, Eastern Orthodoxy trumps Roman Catholicism in her historic claim to being the one true church. So if we want to talk about so-called 'historic continuity', why should I choose the RC religion over the Orthodox one?

ddd said...

And talking about the RC position on salvation, in order to hold to the validity of both of these contrary positions: that those who 'through no fault of their own' are not Catholics may be saved, whereas those who clearly reject the RC religion will be damned, the RC religion should stop proselytizing. Since people who are ignorant may be saved, then the preaching of the RC gospel would most probably damn the listerner to hell, whereas before that he may be saved. Since that is the case, why are the RCs so eager to get their message out since it would damn its listerners who may be saved if they didn't hear the message?

Joel said...

Actually, DDD, most of the above comments were from the first time Steve posted this. I had forgotten I'd responded at that time as well. So far I'm the only Romanist who's come back.

And talking about 'historic continuity', what advantage does the RC religion has over the Eastern Orthodox one? Both claim historic continuity with the apostles and church fathers.

And both claim it correctly.

Furthermore, of the major cities of ancient Christendom, why is Roman Catholicism with one see in Rome the true church while Eastern Orthodoxy with many sees in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch etc considered false?

They're not false. They're four of the five original patriarchates, and their apostolic succession is perfectly valid. We're out of communion with them (or they with us, depending on whom you ask) for reasons that are more political than theological.

I have no quarrel with the Orthodox. I do believe that the main stem of the Church followed the Patriarch of Rome, but it doesn't really matter to me either way. I'm a western Christian, which places me under the See of Rome regardless.

And the Orthodox and the Catholics aren't the only historic Christians out there. There are also the Assyrians, the Mar Thoma, the Copts, and the Ethiopian Orthodox. Basically all of them believe the same things. It's only the Protestants who hold to Protestant teachings. Which means either that they all apostasized extremely early on, in exactly the same way, despite vast geological separation, or (heaven forbid), they're right and Protestantism is the novelty.

By numbers alone, Eastern Orthodoxy trumps Roman Catholicism in her historic claim to being the one true church.

Actually, no. About 130-150 million of them, better than a billion of us. Although not all of us can be called "Roman"; that properly applies only to the Latin Rite. There are 20-something other rites in communion with Rome as well.

Since people who are ignorant may be saved, then the preaching of the RC gospel would most probably damn the listerner to hell, whereas before that he may be saved. Since that is the case, why are the RCs so eager to get their message out since it would damn its listeners who may be saved if they didn't hear the message?

If nothing else, we do it out of obedience to the Great Commission. Kind of like the way Calvinists preach the Gospel to people whom God has already damned. I've sometimes wondered if you do it to taunt them.

However, read the passage again. It doesn't say "RC," it says "Catholic." Which includes all baptized Christians, including Protestants. it also doesn't say "will be saved," it says "may be saved." The point is that we don't know exactly what God plans to do about those who have never heard the Gospel and have had no opportunity to repent. We do know that nobody who knowingly and permanently rejects Him will be saved.

Jan said...

Simple rules for my simple mind....

When two views of scripture contradict each other choose the one that describes a bigger and holier God and a smaller and less competent man.

When we think we, either through asserting an ability to accept the gospel on our own or through our works as believers, can add to Jesus work on the cross we demean His glorious and awesome work and make fools of ourselves.

Now the rule doesn't exempt us from the hard work of studying the scriptures, but it does help point us in the right direction.

Joel said...

When two views of scripture contradict each other choose the one that describes a bigger and holier God and a smaller and less competent man.

That's a good rule of thumb, Jan, and I intend to steal it and quote it shamelessly. :) Even though I disagree with the application of it in your next paragraph. I don't think that God's gift of free will abrogates His sovereignty, as you do.

Jan said...

I don't think that God's gift of free will abrogates His sovereignty, as you do.

The problem you have in your view of free will is that there must be some difference that accounts for the ability of some to choose to accept God and for others to reject Him. In any event, those differences are well within God's control. If smarter people choose then it is about God making them smart. If pretty people choose then it is about God making them pretty, etc. When we put the choice back on man, man takes credit for his choosing. This is simply another work that is put at God's feet, just the same as the man who seeks to be justified by his own good life.

There is NOTHING that we have that we can put at God's feet to cancel the debt of our sin. Not works, not our choice to accept the gospel, nothing, nada, zilch.

I thank God that no part of my justification is dependent on me.

Joel said...

When the word of God is twisted to accomodate some other gospel or world view then it is made void.

Nothing makes the Word of God void, Gigantor. Nothing.

And if a thing is true, it's true. If it's false, it's false. It doesn't change from true to false depending on who says it.

Joel said...

When we put the choice back on man, man takes credit for his choosing.

Then he's an arrogant fool. (As many of us often are, me included.) A man who grasps a life preserver doesn't get the credit for his own rescue; the one who threw it to him does. I didn't do anything to make Jesus want to die for me; on the contrary. And I can't claim any virtue in accepting His gift; it's kind of a no-brainer. How many possible answers to "Do you want to go to Hell" are there?

ddd said...

Joel:

So in your opinion, is the issue of whether it is right to have images in church a minor issue between the RC and the Orthodox communions? How about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as opposed to from the Father alone? Furthermore, since mentioning that you are a Roman Catholic because you are a Western Christian, so therefore is it wrong for non-Western Christians to place themselves under the see of Rome instead of the Orthodox sees?

Talking about the legitimacy of the Orthodox churches, what do you make of the anathema pronounced against the Orthdox churches at the Great Schism? Is it still applicable today?

With regards to the apostasy of the various 'historic' strands of Christianity, let me make it clear that I regard the Catholic church as a true church up to the times of the Reformation. Theefore, Protestants have historic community through the Old Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Churh. I'm sure you know that pre-Tridentine and post-Tridentine Catholicims are markedly different...

Joel said...

DDD, those are some really good questions.

So in your opinion, is the issue of whether it is right to have images in church a minor issue between the RC and the Orthodox communions?

I don't think there's any dispute between the sides about that. It was settled at the Second Council of Nicea for both. In the west we tend to use statues, where the eastern churches use flat icons, but that's a cultural thing. The Eastern Catholic churches use the flat ones, too.

How about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as opposed to from the Father alone?

Beats me. Theologians have been arguing over that one in terms I'm not smart enough to understand for centuries; I'm not going to render a ruling on it that they couldn't. I'm told that the issue isn't so much whether the filioque is true as the manner in which it was declared, i.e. at a council that the Orthodox weren't part of. But I'm not so arrogant as to believe that my answer will be better than either of theirs, so I accept the determination of my bishop on the matter. He's the ordained successor to the apostles; I'm not.

Furthermore, since mentioning that you are a Roman Catholic because you are a Western Christian, so therefore is it wrong for non-Western Christians to place themselves under the see of Rome instead of the Orthodox sees?

Again, I don't know. I do believe that Rome is meant to be the leader among sees, and so if the eastern Christians return to communion with Rome, that's a good thing. I'd like to see all Christians united this way. However, I doubt it's going to happen before Christ comes again, so we have to live with what we have. Meanwhile, I'm not in a position to judge the reasons why certain communities returned to communion with Rome. I gather that in most cases it was political issues rather than theological ones, but it wasn't my decision to make.

Talking about the legitimacy of the Orthodox churches, what do you make of the anathema pronounced against the Orthodox churches at the Great Schism? Is it still applicable today?

I believe it's been rescinded, at least on our side. I do know that the mutual excommunication between the patriarchs of Rome and Byzantium have been rescinded. The Catholic Church admits Eastern Orthodox to communion, but it doesn't work the other way. Since both sides have valid apostolic succession, I suppose it's a matter of obedience to one's bishop.

I'm sure you know that pre-Tridentine and post-Tridentine Catholicims are markedly different.

Nope. Trent was called to settle certain questions, and some things like the form of the Mass were codified at that time, but it didn't create any changes in the doctrines of the Church. The question of justification hadn't been raised in past councils, so Trent had to make a ruling on what the historic teaching of the Church had been, based on both scripture and the interpretation of it by the Fathers. The only real difference I see between pre-Tridentine and post-Tridentine is more uniformity, which will happen when a ruling is made.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Trent also corrected most of the abuses that Luther railed against. It took measures to eliminate simony, it required better theological training for clergy, and it settled the question of justification, although not to the Protestants' liking.

gigantor1231 said...

Joel

"Nothing makes the Word of God void, Gigantor. Nothing.

And if a thing is true, it's true. If it's false, it's false. It doesn't change from true to false depending on who says it."

If you knew the word Joel the fundamental tenants of the truth would not be so confused for you. It appears, however, you spend more time reading extra biblical materials than you do reading God's word, allowing the Holy spirit to teach you what truth is.
You apparently do not believe that Satan can take truth, miss apply it and turn it into a lie as he did while tempting Christ in the wilderness. Yes, what he said was from God's word but he took it and miss applied it and turned it into a lie by his miss application! If Jesus threw himself off the temple would He have been injured,Mt. 4:6; Ps.91:11,12?
Will there be Hindus, Buddhist, Muslims.... etc. in heaven? No! Only repentant sinners that have come to the cross of Christ, confessing with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing with their heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved, Rom. 10:9. If you come to the wedding supper with the garments of a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Catholic....insert any world religion or belief system that denies the truth of the Gospel, and you will be thrown into outter darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Only those sinners turned to Christ and trusting in His grace alone will be there, their faith being accounted to them as righteousness, that faith that is placed in Him ALONE.
The word is very clear in what brings people to salvation, first they must be drawn by God, second it is the Gospel that is the power of God to salvation. There is no salvation apart from these two elements. If either is missing then no salvation. This is the word of God and it is the only measure to go by not your popes or priests, not Schuller or Graham but God's word alone holds the truth and gives us direction to salvation.
Joel, it is apparent that you are deceived and you have no desire to turn from the lies of the Catholic church. It appears that you hold the writings of the Catholic fathers in higher esteem than you do the word of God, as the word of God says

Gal. 1:8,9

8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ga 1:7-9). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

I will pray that you be delivered from the deception that you are in Joel, as is you hold to a lie and you are unwilling to respond to the calling of the Holy Spirit to come out from that man made church whose foundation is Rome! May God have mercy on you.

dogpreacher said...

Q1...could be Billy Graham...and he has even gone farther off the deep end than that in his interview with Robert Schuller. Well...I am...

...GFG