B
bibleberean
Guest
Biblejunky,
please do not call people names it is against the TOS.
Thanks,
Robert
please do not call people names it is against the TOS.
Thanks,
Robert
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
O
Orthodox Christian
Guest
At first I thought I read this this as "there are a lot of lost Catholics who need to hear and understand the gospel" to which I would reply "amen." Just as I would should the same be said about Orthodox, Baptist, Messianic, etc. There are many people in the churches who simply take faith as an accessory, something secondary/ancilliar to their 'real lives.'Bibleberean said:
We all need to repent and grow and deepen our walk.
But then I read the quote as written, and it seems to imply that all Catholics are 'unsaved.' Now, I know that BB has said this is not his perspective, but then there is this
First, Robert, I know you're a sharp guy. That is essentially a circular argument, and not worthy of repeating.
Second, the inevitable conclusion of Dave Hunt's premise is that anyone who claims to be a true, passionate follower of Christ and remains Catholic must be either 1. deceived, and thus not 'born again,' and thus hellbound or 2. a liar
Third, Hunt presumes here that his particular reading of doctrine is the logical one. Obviously, the Berean call now disagrees. One is left to wonder if Hunt had it correct and went overboard, according to the Berean Call, or if Hunt showed that he was never really a "wholehearted believer" in Jesus.
Being as he is now one of those Charismatics, apparently.
I say none of this with rancor, malice, or sarcasm. Rather, it seems quite clear that there are logical flaws with Hunt's appeal to logic AND his conclusion on what a devout and Spirit-led/filled Catholic believer would commune with.
James
P
Pelagia
Guest
Wait a minute BJ,
I didn't mean it that way, honest. I really appreciated your explanation. I only asked about the Bible, because I figured you would know the history of that too. And I think the initial question was really about how the actual Bible came together...the New Testament. Meaning, how did the books in the New Testament get chosen, above other books?
In Christ,
Pelagia
I didn't mean it that way, honest. I really appreciated your explanation. I only asked about the Bible, because I figured you would know the history of that too. And I think the initial question was really about how the actual Bible came together...the New Testament. Meaning, how did the books in the New Testament get chosen, above other books?
In Christ,
Pelagia
B
BibleJunky
Guest
Pelagia said:
Alright, I'll accept that, They were chosen either by John at patmose (SP?) when he was exiled there or by the missionaries at Antoich.
Believe me, they knew the difference between the proper gospels and books of the apostles, and the forgerys.
They had the Holy Spirit. :D
BibleJunky
B
bibleberean
Guest
If a Roman Catholic understands the teachings of his or her church then that individual Catholic is not saved.
"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema." (ibid., p. 52 -- Seventh Session, Sacraments In General, Canon 4)
A person cannot believe that a person is saved by grace through faith and believe that keeping the Catholic Sacraments and decrees of the RCC is necessary for salvation at the same time.
Paul makes that clear in Galatians chapter one.
Adding anything to the gospel of salvation perverts it and makes it another one...
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Galatians 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Here we have people that believe the gospel. That is why in the above verse Gal. 1:7 it calls it a gospel which is "not another". Adding anything to the gospel perverts it.
Rome has added it's sacraments and laws to the gospel.
Galatians 1:8 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 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Paul is so concerned that people understand the gravity of this sin he repeats himself!
Rome has a gospel which is not another but it is a perverted gospel.
The article "Can a Good Catholic be Saved" is not circular reasoning nor is it flawed. It makes valid points and asks valid questions none of which are ever addressed by it's critics.
"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema." (ibid., p. 52 -- Seventh Session, Sacraments In General, Canon 4)
A person cannot believe that a person is saved by grace through faith and believe that keeping the Catholic Sacraments and decrees of the RCC is necessary for salvation at the same time.
Paul makes that clear in Galatians chapter one.
Adding anything to the gospel of salvation perverts it and makes it another one...
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Galatians 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Here we have people that believe the gospel. That is why in the above verse Gal. 1:7 it calls it a gospel which is "not another". Adding anything to the gospel perverts it.
Rome has added it's sacraments and laws to the gospel.
Galatians 1:8 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 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Paul is so concerned that people understand the gravity of this sin he repeats himself!
Rome has a gospel which is not another but it is a perverted gospel.
The article "Can a Good Catholic be Saved" is not circular reasoning nor is it flawed. It makes valid points and asks valid questions none of which are ever addressed by it's critics.
O
Orthodox Christian
Guest
In point of fact, Hunt's argument is circular, and I will prove it:Bibleberean said:
Begin with the question "Can a good Catholic be saved?" The answer given is 'yes, but anyone who is saved would not remain Catholic.' The hidden, circular premise is not that a person who understands salvation as does Dave Hunt would remain Catholic- for that is an obvious and unequivocable response of "no." The underlying circularity is that anyone who is saved would agree with Dave Hunt on what being saved is/means.
This further presumes that anyone who has a slightly different view on the role of action in faith- an Arminian, for example- cannot be saved.
Likewise, Hunt, who is now a Charismatic.
I'm wondering if you will address my questions about Hunt from my previous post, Robert.
Vic C.
Member
You people amaze me sometimes. LOL
Soma starts a thread knowing full well the responses he will get and you all flock to the spider's web like bees to honey! :o
Soma, stop playing head games, especially with new members that don't know you. :P
The rest of you... PLAY NICE! :smt075
I'm not joking. 8-)
Soma starts a thread knowing full well the responses he will get and you all flock to the spider's web like bees to honey! :o
Soma, stop playing head games, especially with new members that don't know you. :P
The rest of you... PLAY NICE! :smt075
I'm not joking. 8-)
B
bibleberean
Guest
People in all denominations can have doctrinal error and still be saved even Roman Catholics.
Dave Hunt's article makes that clear.
The issue is that Rome teaches another gospel.
As an ex-Catholic I can tell you that Rome has added to the gospel just as Paul explained in Galatians 1
If a Catholic believes that grace of salvation is given a bit at a time through the sacraments, laws, and membership it it's church that Catholic is not saved.
There is nothing circular nor misleading about that.
"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema." (ibid., p. 52 -- Seventh Session, Sacraments In General, Canon 4)
A Jew can no longer be saved by keeping the law of Moses as it adds to the gospel...
Paul had just stated in Galatians 1 the following words...
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Galatians 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Galatians 1:8 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 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Paul then says in Galatians 2
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
If the OT laws could not save a person after Jesus fulfilled the law that God Himself gave to Moses and the prophets what makes Rome think it can invent "New Laws" for salvation?
Rome teaches many false doctrines that state that men must obey it's canons and decrees in order to be saved.
Council of Trent
"If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, let him be anathema." (ibid., pp. 102 and 103 -- Fourteenth Session, Chapter III, Canon 6)
As an ex-Catholic, Rome has cursed me to the eternal flames of hell. It teaches tha salvation is in the church
Vatican II
"Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is 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 (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), 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." (Vol. 1, pp. 365 and 366)
There is either salvation in the finished work of Christ on the cross through belief in His death, burial and resurrection or faith in salvation through the Roman Catholic Church.
It is impossible to believe both and be saved.
Dave Hunt's article makes that clear.
The issue is that Rome teaches another gospel.
As an ex-Catholic I can tell you that Rome has added to the gospel just as Paul explained in Galatians 1
If a Catholic believes that grace of salvation is given a bit at a time through the sacraments, laws, and membership it it's church that Catholic is not saved.
There is nothing circular nor misleading about that.
"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema." (ibid., p. 52 -- Seventh Session, Sacraments In General, Canon 4)
A Jew can no longer be saved by keeping the law of Moses as it adds to the gospel...
Paul had just stated in Galatians 1 the following words...
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Galatians 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Galatians 1:8 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 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Paul then says in Galatians 2
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
If the OT laws could not save a person after Jesus fulfilled the law that God Himself gave to Moses and the prophets what makes Rome think it can invent "New Laws" for salvation?
Rome teaches many false doctrines that state that men must obey it's canons and decrees in order to be saved.
Council of Trent
"If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, let him be anathema." (ibid., pp. 102 and 103 -- Fourteenth Session, Chapter III, Canon 6)
As an ex-Catholic, Rome has cursed me to the eternal flames of hell. It teaches tha salvation is in the church
Vatican II
"Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is 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 (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), 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." (Vol. 1, pp. 365 and 366)
There is either salvation in the finished work of Christ on the cross through belief in His death, burial and resurrection or faith in salvation through the Roman Catholic Church.
It is impossible to believe both and be saved.
B
bibleberean
Guest
More proof that Rome is an apostate church...
UNAM SANCTAM
Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302
"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the church is one, Holy, Catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remmision of sins,"
This is salvation in the church not in Christ...
Rome also teaches that it is necessary to submit to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Contrast this with the true gospel. Notice that being subject to the tyrant of Rome is not part of what saves us.
1Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Does anyone see the Pope's name mentioned in the following verses?
Acts 4:10-12 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the NAME OF JESUS, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Does salvation come through faith in the Popes or through faith in Christ?
UNAM SANCTAM
Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302
"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the church is one, Holy, Catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remmision of sins,"
This is salvation in the church not in Christ...
Rome also teaches that it is necessary to submit to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Contrast this with the true gospel. Notice that being subject to the tyrant of Rome is not part of what saves us.
1Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Does anyone see the Pope's name mentioned in the following verses?
Acts 4:10-12 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the NAME OF JESUS, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Does salvation come through faith in the Popes or through faith in Christ?
H
Henry
Guest
That picture was disturbing, the very thought of kissing that mans ring is sickening to me. As the word says they have replaced God with a man. Forget the pope, preist and pastors they are all the same heresy.
P
Pelagia
Guest
BJ wrote:
And I'll accept your apology for calling me a moron. I guess that's your way of apologizing; I don't know you, at all, so I will consider it a positive response. But, I have learnt what your negative responses look like. I hope you feel better today. I know that people can be very aggrevating.
If anybody is interested about history, I found out that the Bible was compilled in 351 A.D. at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea. Before that, the documents were in the possession of various hierarchs. There were Seven Holy Councils in total, the last taking place in 787 A.D.
In Christ,
Pelagia
And I'll accept your apology for calling me a moron. I guess that's your way of apologizing; I don't know you, at all, so I will consider it a positive response. But, I have learnt what your negative responses look like. I hope you feel better today. I know that people can be very aggrevating.
If anybody is interested about history, I found out that the Bible was compilled in 351 A.D. at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea. Before that, the documents were in the possession of various hierarchs. There were Seven Holy Councils in total, the last taking place in 787 A.D.
In Christ,
Pelagia
Vic said:
Ya hit it right on the nail Vic!
Stirring up confusion is no different than taking sides with the devil.
It's a shame that the webs in the attic have to be cleaned up and "cleared" up in order to set things "straight", onto the right path.
Jesus is the only way, not doctrines of men.
.
F
fiat
Guest
Hey all,
I've been away for the past few days and was unable to continue where I left off! Sorry! I'll answer a couple issues tomorrow, but one question for you tonight. I hear continually that "Rome preaches a different Gospel," but no where do I hear what the method for determining the correct interpretation of Scripture is. The authority of the Apostles was absolutely essential to the early Church. Has that necessity dissolved? Who are we to think that our personal interpretation of Scripture will be inerrant when even the early Church, which understood the context and culture of Christ's teachings, still found the authority (given by Christ to the Apostles) essential?
oy...time to sleep. :o night! God bless!
I've been away for the past few days and was unable to continue where I left off! Sorry! I'll answer a couple issues tomorrow, but one question for you tonight. I hear continually that "Rome preaches a different Gospel," but no where do I hear what the method for determining the correct interpretation of Scripture is. The authority of the Apostles was absolutely essential to the early Church. Has that necessity dissolved? Who are we to think that our personal interpretation of Scripture will be inerrant when even the early Church, which understood the context and culture of Christ's teachings, still found the authority (given by Christ to the Apostles) essential?
oy...time to sleep. :o night! God bless!
S
Soma-Sight
Guest
I have been watching a lot of EGWN lately and see much Godliness in many Catholic practices!
Particularly the Friar in the brown robe (Franciscan) that come on late at night.
Then I stared thinking.......
You know the RCC was pretty much the ONLY big Church system (non - heretical) up until about 1600! Without them there would be no Gospel preserved today and the ONLY people that were saved PRIOR to 1600 HAD to be in the RCC system!
This is simple deductive logic vic not a flame war!
Since Christ is absent in all other religions at this point in history, the only viable people that will not burn in hell forever are those that are in the RCC prior to 1600!!
Its only simple logic!
And sense 1600 years = a lot of believers in the ONLY way.....
NUMBER WISE THE RCC HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE SAVED SOULD THEN ANY OTHER DENOMINATION!
PRAISE THE LORD!
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REFUTE THE SIMPLE LOGIC!
T
ThinkerMan
Guest
Soma-Sight said:
There is a different logical conclusion.
That for over 1200 years (~300 until the Reformation) that no one was saved. Very, very, very few could read, so it would have been essentially impossible for them to have a "protestant" relationship outside of what the Church told them. Communion and attendance at a service in a language you couldn't understand was enough for them, as far as they were concerned.
Until bibles became prevelant and printed after the 15th century, no one outside of a few theologians could have even had the opportunity to criticize the church, so the masses most certainly wouldn't have had the opportunity, and very likely zero desire, to question the Church's teachings to pursue a "protestant" relationship with God.
Unfortunately for most, that explanation seems a bit harsh, and certainly makes it sound like God was inept and couldn't get his point across to anybody for over half of the time since the bible was formed.
So Soma, I agree to an extent. If salvation exists, either the the RCC/Orthodox have saved the most, or almost no one. Neither answer seems acceptable to many here.
And the third option, that people were saved at generally the same rate they are now, is problematic since it makes the Reformation irrelevant as it does any theological differences between RCC/Orthodox and protestants.
S
Soma-Sight
Guest
Very Good!!!
LOLOLOLOL
You have a wonderfully diverse mind!
Too bad it EXPOSES the idiocy of the Fundamentalist attitude towards God.
C
cj
Guest
Soma-Sight said:
No Soma, the idiocy belongs to you.
In love,
cj
C
cj
Guest
Soma-Sight said:
You have no clue as to what godliness is.
Soma-Sight said:
The above statement confirms that you don't know.
Soma-Sight said:
You're right, because concluding that Friars have much godliness based on a show tells us that you couldn't have been thinking before.
Soma-Sight said:
You're funny. Not only do you show us that you have no clue as to what godliness is, but now you show us that the same goes for what the Church is.
Soma-Sight said:
And of course, we can now add the Gospel to the list of your cluelessness.
Soma-Sight said:
Only if you are considering all of this while outside of Christ.
Soma-Sight said:
And herein we begin to be able to see the problem you encounter, for if you don't have a clue as to What and Who the Gospel is, then we can know that you have no clue as to What and Who Christ is, and thus your statement above is made in abject ignorance.
Soma-Sight said:
No Soma,..... its simple-mindedness of the fallen self.
Soma-Sight said:
Denominations can save no person,.... never have been able to (Judaism) and never will (every one of the harlot daughters along with the mother whore).
Soma-Sight said:
That was not difficult Soma.
In love,
cj
B
bibleberean
Guest
cj said:
No personal attacks...
Formal warning...
O
Orthodox Christian
Guest
ok, to get this back on track
I would say, rather, this thread and ThinkerMan's post highlight the problems inherent in the wholesale attack on Catholicism/Orthodoxy:
1. If RCC/EOC are both 'apostate,' then few, if any Christians, existed between the 2nd century and the 16th
2. Why would God preserve the bible, yet allow millions of innocent people to be "deceived" by the only Christianity they knew? IE, why did God not preserve His people and His Church?
3. If one concludes that many were 'saved' in those days, this leads one to ask why a Reformation would even be required (the irrelevancy of which TM spoke of).
These are questions which merit discussion, in my opinion.
I would say, rather, this thread and ThinkerMan's post highlight the problems inherent in the wholesale attack on Catholicism/Orthodoxy:
1. If RCC/EOC are both 'apostate,' then few, if any Christians, existed between the 2nd century and the 16th
2. Why would God preserve the bible, yet allow millions of innocent people to be "deceived" by the only Christianity they knew? IE, why did God not preserve His people and His Church?
3. If one concludes that many were 'saved' in those days, this leads one to ask why a Reformation would even be required (the irrelevancy of which TM spoke of).
These are questions which merit discussion, in my opinion.