# The Pope and the Papacy by John MacArthur



## fivesolas (Mar 24, 2009)

> http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-291.htm
> 
> And for tonight I want to talk about the Pope and the Papacy because it’s been in the news so much.  This isn’t really going to be a sermon, I’m just going to try to take you through a little bit of an understanding of it.  I want to talk about the Pope himself, and then talk about the Papacy in general.  I’m going to tell you at the beginning what is at stake because of what I am going to say will surely offend those who are devout Catholics.  It will surely offend those who believe that Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.  Some will read it as unkind and unloving but nothing is more loving than the truth.  To let somebody perish in a false system isn’t loving at all.  To rescue people out of a ****ing and false religion is the only loving thing to do.
> 
> And there’s a lot at stake here.  Not too many years ago some evangelical Protestants got together, Chuck Colson and some others, Bill Bright and some others and they met with some Roman Catholics and they came up with a document called “Evangelical and Catholics Together.” And in that document they celebrated a common faith and a common mission.  And they said we need to embrace each other and carry out this gospel mission together.  This was shocking, to put it mildly, to many...to all of those people who affirm clearly a biblical gospel.  There was immediately a counter to that and all kinds of things brought to bear upon the signers of E.C.T.    Perhaps the most notable, at least in my experience, was a special private session called in Florida where I was locked up with a very formidable group of people for a period of seven hours, including those on the other side, J.I. Packer, Charles Colson being the notable ones, Bill Bright from Campus Crusade.  It was myself and R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton representing the biblical side a reformed theology and for seven hours we talked about this...what is the gospel?  Are the Catholics saved or not saved?  That’s really important.  It became a discussion of are the Anglicans saved or not saved?  Does everybody who is within quote/unquote Christendom automatically saved?  Are they saved because they’re baptized?  Are they saved because they quote/unquote believe in Jesus?  It was a very heated discussion at many points.



Good article here. It carries the boldness of a true Christian and a good challenge to evangelicals.


----------



## Free Willie (Mar 24, 2009)

Good Grief!


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 24, 2009)

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-291.htm

And for tonight I want to talk about the Pope and the Papacy because it’s been in the news so much. This isn’t really going to be a sermon, I’m just going to try to take you through a little bit of an understanding of it. I want to talk about the Pope himself, and then talk about the Papacy in general. I’m going to tell you at the beginning what is at stake because of what I am going to say will surely offend those who are devout Catholics. It will surely offend those who believe that Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ. Some will read it as unkind and unloving but nothing is more loving than the truth. To let somebody perish in a false system isn’t loving at all. To rescue people out of a ****ing and false religion is the only loving thing to do.

And there’s a lot at stake here. Not too many years ago some evangelical Protestants got together, Chuck Colson and some others, Bill Bright and some others and they met with some Roman Catholics and they came up with a document called “Evangelical and Catholics Together.” And in that document they celebrated a common faith and a common mission. And they said we need to embrace each other and carry out this gospel mission together. This was shocking, to put it mildly, to many...to all of those people who affirm clearly a biblical gospel. There was immediately a counter to that and all kinds of things brought to bear upon the signers of E.C.T. Perhaps the most notable, at least in my experience, was a special private session called in Florida where I was locked up with a very formidable group of people for a period of seven hours, including those on the other side, J.I. Packer, Charles Colson being the notable ones, Bill Bright from Campus Crusade. It was myself and R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton representing the biblical side a reformed theology and for seven hours we talked about this...what is the gospel? Are the Catholics saved or not saved? That’s really important. It became a discussion of are the Anglicans saved or not saved? Does everybody who is within quote/unquote Christendom automatically saved? Are they saved because they’re baptized? Are they saved because they quote/unquote believe in Jesus? It was a very heated discussion at many points

HOW DO YOU PROPOSE WE PROPAGATE THE GOSPEL WHEN WE BELIEVE SO DIFFERENTLY ?

Pope Says Nonbelievers Can Be Saved Even Without Faith in Jesus Christ 




In his general audience on November 30, Pope Benedict XVI said that whoever "seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent," will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith ("Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope," Zenit, Nov. 30).

The Pope quoted Augustine, one of the "fathers" of the Catholic Church, who claimed that even pagan Babylonians would be saved if "they have a spark of desire for the unknown, for the greatest, for the transcendent, for a genuine redemption." This, of course, is pure heretical nonsense.

The Lord Jesus Christ taught that men are condemned already because they are born estranged from God because of sin and that the only way to heaven is to be born again through faith in Him (John 3). The apostles taught the same thing. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

HOW ROME DENIES SALVATION BY GRACE ALONE

In ecumenical circles the claim is made with increasing frequency that Rome now accepts the doctrine of justification by grace alone. The recently approved agreement between the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican, the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification," makes this claim. Many supporters of the Promise Keepers movement have written to me making this claim. Those who promote the idea that there are "Evangelical Catholics" often make this claim.

That the Roman Catholic Church does NOT believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone by the finished atonement of Jesus Christ alone is evident in the following indisputable facts:

JUSTIFICATION BY GRACE ALONE DENIED BY TRENT

At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the declarations of which are still in force, the Roman Catholic Church formally condemned the biblical doctrine of faith alone and grace alone. Consider the following declarations of Trent:

"If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).

"If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).

JUSTIFICATION BY GRACE ALONE DENIED BY VATICAN II

In its most formal and authoritative statements since Trent, Rome has continued to deny that salvation is by grace alone through Christ's atonement alone through faith alone without works or sacraments. Consider the following statements of the authoritative Vatican II Council of the mid-1960s, called by Pope John Paul XXIII and attended by more than 2,400 Catholic bishops--

"For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, 'the work of our redemption is accomplished,' and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church" (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, para. 2).

"As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which 'Christ our Pasch is sacrificed' (1 Cor. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out" (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 1, 3, p. 324).

"... [Christ] also willed that the work of salvation which they preached should be set in train through the sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical [ritualistic] life revolves. Thus by Baptism men are grafted into the paschal mystery of Christ. ... They receive the spirit of adoption as sons" (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Chap. 1, I, 5,6, pp. 23-24).

"From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners, particularly the works which human weakness finds hard. Because the sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for God's law were thought to be very valuable, penitents used to turn to the martyrs to be helped by their merits to obtain a more speedy reconciliation from the bishops. Indeed, the prayers and good works of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted that the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people" (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 3, 6, pp. 78,79).

ROME DENIES SALVATION BY GRACE ALONE IN ITS DEFINITION OF JUSTIFICATION

Rome's gospel is a confused combination of faith plus works, grace plus sacraments, Christ plus the church. It redefines grace to include works. It confuses justification with sanctification. It confuses imputation with impartation. It views justification not as a once-for-all legal declaration whereby the sinner is declared righteous before God and is granted eternal life as the unmerited gift of God, but as a PROCESS whereby the sinner is gradually saved through participation in the sacraments. There is no eternal security in the Roman gospel because salvation allegedly depends partially upon a man's works. According to Roman Catholic theology, Christ purchased salvation and gave it to the Catholic Church to be distributed to men through its sacraments. This is not only a false gospel, it is a blasphemous usurpation of Christ's position as only Lord and Savior and Mediator.

The authoritative Addis and Arnold Catholic Dictionary, with the Imprimature (ecclesiastical authorization for printing) of E. Morrough Bernard, 1950, says justification "consists, not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God's grace and gifts" This dictionary plainly states that the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is contrary to that of the Reformation, noting that "the Council of Trent was at pains to define most clearly and explicitly the Catholic tradition on the matter, placing it in sharp opposition to the contrary tenets of the Reformers."

Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia, published in 1991, defines justification as "THE PROCESS by which a sinner is made righteous, pure and holy before God." "Justification in the Catholic Tradition comes about by means of faith in Christ, AND in a life of good works lived in response to God's invitation to believe. ... That works are clearly required in the New Testament for union with Christ is seen in the many parables such as the Good Samaritan, Lazarus and Dives, and others" (emphasis added).

ROME DENIES SALVATION BY GRACE ALONE IN DOZENS OF OTHER WAYS

Not only in most authoritative declarations and not only by its definition of justification, but in dozens of other ways Rome denies the once-for-all sufficiency of Christ's atonement, His sole mediatorship, and the doctrine of salvation through faith alone by grace alone without works.

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITS DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. The New Catholic Catechism (1994) dogmatically declares: "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit.' God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism..." (1257).

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITS DOCTRINE OF THE MASS, by claiming that in the mass "the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated" and "the work of our redemption is carried out" (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy).

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITS DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: "The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ... The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Saviour" (New Catholic Catechism, 1129).

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITS DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY, claiming that "the doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed" (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS DOCTRINE OF CONFESSION. "One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience" (New Catholic Catechism, 1493). "Individual and integral confession of grave sins followed by absolution remains the only ordinary means of reconciliation with God and with the Church" (New Catholic Catechism, 1497). "The sacrament of Penance restores and strengthens in members of the Church who have sinned the fundamental gift of ... conversion to the kingdom of Christ, which is first received in Baptism" (Vatican II, Decree on Confession for Religious).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS DOCTRINE OF THE PAPACY: "For 'God's only-begotten Son ... has won a treasure for the militant Church ... he has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven, and to his successors who are Christ's vicars on earth, so that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation'" (ellipsis are in the original) (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, Chap. 4, 7, p. 80).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS PRIESTHOOD: "The purpose then for which priests are consecrated by God through the ministry of the bishop is that they should be made sharers in a special way in Christ's priesthood and, by carrying out sacred functions, act as his ministers who through his Spirit continually exercises his priestly function for our benefit in the liturgy. By Baptism priests introduce men into the People of God; by the sacrament of Penance they reconcile sinners with God and the Church; by the Anointing of the sick they relieve those who are ill; and especially by the celebration of Mass they offer Christ's sacrifice sacramentally" (Vatican II, Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 2, I, 5, p. 781).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS DOCTRINE OF MARY: "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the Saviour's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace" (New Catholic Catechism, 968). "... Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation. ... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix" (New Catholic Catechism, 969).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS DOCTRINE OF THE SAINTS: "Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin" (New Catholic Catechism, 1475).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS THROUGH THE CHURCH: "There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. ... Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin" (New Catholic Catechism, 982).

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITS DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. ... Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead" (New Catholic Catechism, 1471).

CONCLUSION

Rome has not changed its doctrinal position or its claims to be the one, true, holy, apostolic church. It is engaged, rather, in a clever ploy. It is using the ecumenical movement to bring the separated sons home to the papa (which is the meaning of the term pope), and it is succeeding brilliantly. The amazing fact is that Rome has not hidden its goal in ecumenical relations. Consider the following statement from Vatican II:

"The term 'ecumenical movement' indicates the initiatives and activities encouraged and organized, according to the various needs of the [Roman] Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity. ... The results will be that, little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, ALL CHRISTIANS WILL BE GATHERED IN A COMMON CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARIST, INTO THE UNITY OF THE ONE AND ONLY CHURCH, which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. THE UNITY, WE BELIEVE, SUBSISTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS SOMETHING SHE CAN NEVER LOSE" (emphasis added) (Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 4, p. 416).

For those who claim to be Evangelical Catholics and who claim to believe that salvation is by grace alone, I say you are deceiving yourself and others by remaining in the Roman Catholic Church which explicitly denies what you claim to believe. God's curse is upon those who preach a false gospel and Rome certainly falls under that curse. The Bible warns that those who affiliate with error become partakers with that error.
Source: Republished December 8, 2005 (first published September 5, 1998) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) - http://www.wayoflife.org


----------



## Free Willie (Mar 24, 2009)

Have any of you read ECT? Would you like to borrow my copy?


----------



## vanguard1 (Mar 24, 2009)

i believe that the  RCC  is a cult and i agree with john mc carther on this. but not on a lot. the RCC. is a cult because it  does so many things that go against the bible, 1. nowhere in the bible is a child ever baptized, 2 jesus said call no man father on the  earth for you have one father in heaven,3 baptism is going under water  the greek word means to dye a piece of clothing, 4 you are not to pray to the dead (mary) or other saints (so called)ect.ect.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 24, 2009)

MacArthur was a little soft IMO...


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 24, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> Have any of you read ECT? Would you like to borrow my copy?



I'll take it but we already agree Willie... I got your back!!!

Believe it or not guys it ain't a cult and the Pope ain't the anti-Christ. 

And IMO we should find something else to take to task that is far more dangerous than they ever have been. For instance Islam. Mexican's re-inventing the Mayan sacrifices. Almost anything else...


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 24, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Believe it or not guys it ain't a cult



How so? Please explain further.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 24, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> Have any of you read ECT? Would you like to borrow my copy?



I've read it. It is a shame to the Name of Jesus.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 24, 2009)

gemcgrew said:


> How so? Please explain further.



Pretty sure they ain't passing out kool aid with arsenic in it...

There's no use trying to explain it. If you believe it is then you are going to no matter what. I am ashamed of how "evangelicals" act in regards to Catholics today.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 24, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Pretty sure they ain't passing out kool aid with arsenic in it...
> 
> There's no use trying to explain it. If you believe it is then you are going to no matter what. I am ashamed of how "evangelicals" act in regards to Catholics today.



This was your statement,"Believe it or not guys it ain't a cult". I was just asking for your explanation of how it is not a cult. Unless I am mistaken, do you not claim to be Reformed? What are you reformed from?


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 24, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Pretty sure they ain't passing out kool aid with arsenic in it...
> 
> There's no use trying to explain it. If you believe it is then you are going to no matter what. I am ashamed of how "evangelicals" act in regards to Catholics today.



I would rather be a shame to those who compromise the Gospel than a shame in the sight of God.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 24, 2009)

gemcgrew said:


> How so? Please explain further.




Easy, your definition of cult is specific to you and the people you associate with and the definition is narrow and not universaly acceptable. 

Evangelicals have a very narrow definition of cult, which is unique to them. ( If you don't believe me reseach it, I'm not inventing this.)

I would agree that according to the definition of Evanelicals that the RCC is a cult. But as a grade seven graduate the definition does not square with Mr Webster's definition, social science and a grade seven understanding of what a cult is, what are it's caracteristics and what it takes to get out of one. Therefore as a grade seven graduate alone, I have to  agree with my primary school teacher's definition of what the animal looks like and what it feeds on... And as a university graduate as to what the fundamentalist's definition is.

On a spiritual level, cult applied to the RCC is a strrrrrrrrrrrrrrretcccccccccccccccccccch! and a half.

However, peace to all....

Hebrews chaper 5:7

IN the days of His flesh(Jesus) offered up definite, special petitions (for that which He not only wanted but needed)  and supplication with srong crying and tears to Him Who was (always) able to save Him (out) from death, and He was heard becaue of His reverrence toward God ( His godly fear, His peity, in that He shrank from the horrors of sepparation from the bright presence of the father).

8Although He was a Son, He learned (active, special ) obedience through what He suffered

9 And (His completed experience) making Him perfectly (equipped), He became the Author and Source of eternal salvation to all those who give heed and obey Him,

10 being designated  and recognized and saluted by God as High Priest after the order ( with the rank) of Melchiaedak.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 24, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> I would rather be a shame to those who compromise the Gospel than a shame in the sight of God.



There is a difference between improvise and compromise. Blasphamy you say? Does love compromise or does it improvise. You are probably never shamed in the sight of God, the issue at stake is problably other that you fear...


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 24, 2009)

gemcgrew said:


> This was your statement,"Believe it or not guys it ain't a cult". I was just asking for your explanation of how it is not a cult. Unless I am mistaken, do you not claim to be Reformed? What are you reformed from?



I am a PCA Presbyterian who does hold very very closely to Reformed Doctrine. However I am not one who spends his time berating Catholics. I see lots of good in the Catholic Church that is missed by many who run around claiming to speak on behalf of God and do so in the Reformed or Evangelical cloak.

The Catholics of America are far closer to us Protestants than Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or even (sorry guys) European and Latin American Catholics. 



fivesolas said:


> I would rather be a shame to those who compromise the Gospel than a shame in the sight of God.



You will find out I am sure. But promoting a hateful doctrine as you have towards the Catholics who we (Protestants) do agree with on 90% of doctrine... Including the Trinity, Communion (you can argue transubstantiation all you want but they are taking the literal word here), Baptism, Virgin Birth, and mission work. 

I make every effort to learn and so should anyone wanting to refute the doctrines of other Christian denominations what they actually are. That means shockingly enough reading something actually written by a Catholic... Not what MacArthur says about them. More than likely he only knows what some other protestant wrote about them. 

I don't think you will be doomed to eternal separation just because you are Baptist. I believe some of your doctrines are just as damaging with maybe even a more widespread effect as some Catholic Doctrines. And I have not claimed Baptists to be a Cult as you have Catholics.

A little real research here might be useful guys.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 24, 2009)

gordon 2, 
Actually, I have no common ground with Catholics to begin discussion. My question was directed to Celtic. 

Note: I never said Catholicism was a cult. Celtic said it was not and I was merely curious to his defense of Catholicism.

Thanks


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 24, 2009)

gemcgrew said:


> gordon 2,
> Actually, I have no common ground with Catholics to begin discussion. My question was directed to Celtic.
> 
> Note: I never said Catholicism was a cult. Celtic said it was not and I was merely curious to his defense of Catholicism.
> ...




cool. sorry for my misunderstanding.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 24, 2009)

> You will find out I am sure. But promoting a hateful doctrine as you have towards the Catholics who we (Protestants) do agree with on 90% of doctrine... Including the Trinity, Communion (you can argue transubstantiation all you want but they are taking the literal word here), Baptism, Virgin Birth, and mission work.



If you believe that Protestants agree with 90% of Roman Catholic doctrine one wonders what manner or type of Protestantism your familiar with? There is no Protestant of old that I am familiar with that would espouse or give assent to such a statement. 

No, in fact, the universal testimony of Protestantism is that the papacy and its teaching is the apostacy foretold in Scripture, is that Antichrist, the Man of Sin. 

The fact is that while Catholocism espouses an orthodoxy, it undermines and undercuts every tenant of that orthodoxy. It appears as a lamb but speaks like a dragon. Rev 13:11


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 24, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I don't think you will be doomed to eternal separation just because you are Baptist. I believe some of your doctrines are just as damaging with maybe even a more widespread effect as some Catholic Doctrines.



Another thread is in order, or would you please PM me what you believe to be the more damaging Baptist doctrines.

Thanks


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 24, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Pretty sure they ain't passing out kool aid with arsenic in it...
> 
> There's no use trying to explain it. If you believe it is then you are going to no matter what. I am ashamed of how "evangelicals" act in regards to Catholics today.



I don't think is evangelicals against Catholics, I think is Bible believing people against the Papacy and all that it stands for.
I personally don't have anything against Catholics, I have 3000+ In My Church.

As far as the Pope being the anti Christ that is Just Gibirish, The anti Christ has to be a Jew as Jews will never allowed a non-jew to rule in Israel , unless it is by Occupation, The Bible says he will be a man of Peace and through peace he will destroy many, who is the religion of Peace ?


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 24, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> If you believe that Protestants agree with 90% of Roman Catholic doctrine one wonders what manner or type of Protestantism your familiar with? There is no Protestant of old that I am familiar with that would espouse or give assent to such a statement.
> 
> No, in fact, the universal testimony of Protestantism is that the papacy and its teaching is the apostacy foretold in Scripture, is that Antichrist, the Man of Sin.
> 
> The fact is that while Catholocism espouses an orthodoxy, it undermines and undercuts every tenant of that orthodoxy. It appears as a lamb but speaks like a dragon. Rev 13:11



You don't know the voice of the church, cause you would not be saying such things about it.  The mystical voice in the chruch belongs and is available to all deciples, smart, average, rich, poor, stutterers, the sick, the healty, the elderly et al.  Plumbers, factory workers, labourers, dentists, priests, nuns, mothers, dads, chemists, social outcasts, teachers, women, men, children, business people, soldiers, and more, much more. This mystical voice  far exceeds in worth church doctrine and the authority of church herierchy.

It is levan to a meaningful life with God, it is the life of the chruch which speaks of a life of plenty with the Lord. 

Your visions seen in a glass darkly can't see past The Book? and so Lambs to dragons are the birds.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> If you believe that Protestants agree with 90% of Roman Catholic doctrine one wonders what manner or type of Protestantism your familiar with? There is no Protestant of old that I am familiar with that would espouse or give assent to such a statement.
> 
> No, in fact, the universal testimony of Protestantism is that the papacy and its teaching is the apostacy foretold in Scripture, is that Antichrist, the Man of Sin.
> 
> The fact is that while Catholocism espouses an orthodoxy, it undermines and undercuts every tenant of that orthodoxy. It appears as a lamb but speaks like a dragon. Rev 13:11



You really do know nothing about them yet vomit this stuff excathedra... 

Like I have said before ever read anything by them rather than what MacArthur (who I am sure also has probably never read anything by them either) says about them. This is where most of the misunderstandings start.

It is a ridiculous statement for you to make about them being the anti-christ.




gemcgrew said:


> Another thread is in order, or would you please PM me what you believe to be the more damaging Baptist doctrines.
> 
> Thanks



Go back and search and I am sure you can find what I have said about this.



Lowjack said:


> I don't think is evangelicals against Catholics, I think is Bible believing people against the Papacy and all that it stands for.
> I personally don't have anything against Catholics, I have 3000+ In My Church.
> 
> As far as the Pope being the anti Christ that is Just Gibirish, The anti Christ has to be a Jew as Jews will never allowed a non-jew to rule in Israel , unless it is by Occupation, The Bible says he will be a man of Peace and through peace he will destroy many, who is the religion of Peace ?



Not looking for "the" anti-Christ in the first place.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

gordon 2 said:


> You don't know the voice of the church, cause you would not be saying such things about it.  The mystical voice in the chruch belongs and is available to all deciples, smart, average, rich, poor, stutterers, the sick, the healty, the elderly et al.  Plumbers, factory workers, labourers, dentists, priests, nuns, mothers, dads, chemists, social outcasts, teachers, women, men, children, business people, soldiers, and more, much more. This mystical voice  far exceeds in worth church doctrine and the authority of church herierchy.
> 
> It is levan to a meaningful life with God, it is the life of the chruch which speaks of a life of plenty with the Lord.
> 
> Your visions seen in a glass darkly can't see past The Book? and so Lambs to dragons are the birds.



John 10:26-29
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 

You point me to your system and tell me I should hear its voice. But the Son of God points me to Himself, and says I am His if I hear His voice. All that the Father has given the Son (election) come to Jesus, and He gives them eternal life. 

This illustrates why Romanism is a false way. It leads people away from Christ and to themselves.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> You really do know nothing about them yet vomit this stuff excathedra...
> 
> Like I have said before ever read anything by them rather than what MacArthur (who I am sure also has probably never read anything by them either) says about them. This is where most of the misunderstandings start.
> 
> ...



Celt, it is not me, but you, that impugn and slander the universal reformed and protestant testimony concerning the papacy.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> John 10:26-29
> But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
> 
> You point me to your system and tell me I should hear its voice. But the Son of God points me to Himself, and says I am His if I hear His voice. All that the Father has given the Son (election) come to Jesus, and He gives them eternal life.
> ...



You are shooting fish in a barrel?

" You point me to your system and tell me I should hear its voice."??/?????

I responded because you yourself said you hear its voice, "It appears as a lamb but speaks like a dragon." If it speaks like a dragon then you hear its voice.

"But ye believe not,...." and your conclusion that romanism is a false way in undecipharable to me. I'm trying to understand you, but so far I can't.

I can only conclude that you have in your heart that the "romanish" are not His sheep and so I will leave you with your heart and God's blessing on you.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 25, 2009)

vanguard1 said:


> i believe that the  RCC  is a cult and i agree with john mc carther on this. but not on a lot. the RCC. is a cult because it  does so many things that go against the bible, 1. nowhere in the bible is a child ever baptized, 2 jesus said call no man father on the  earth for you have one father in heaven,3 baptism is going under water  the greek word means to dye a piece of clothing, 4 you are not to pray to the dead (mary) or other saints (so called)ect.ect.



I agree.

I've always wondered about the prayer thing when Jesus says clearly...

Luke 11:1-4 (King James Version)

Luke 11
 1And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. 

 2And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. 

 3Give us day by day our daily bread. 

 4And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

gordon 2 said:


> You are shooting fish in a barrel?
> 
> " You point me to your system and tell me I should hear its voice."??/?????
> 
> ...



Did you look up the verse in Revelation 13? that's what I meant. Yes, the papacy speaks...just like the Bible says in Revelation and Daniel. To listen to it as in obey it, is to leave Christ and follow another. But I am His sheep...I have heard the voice of the Son of God...and am following Him, and Him alone.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Did you look up the verse in Revelation 13? that's what I meant. Yes, the papacy speaks...just like the Bible says in Revelation and Daniel. To listen to it as in obey it, is to leave Christ and follow another. But I am His sheep...I have heard the voice of the Son of God...and am following Him, and Him alone.



And so do I. That is why I follow the poor.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 25, 2009)

I don't follow the poor, I do help feed and clothe them.
I follow Jesus who provides for me to provide for them.

Our church has a huge missions program, and we are Baptists...believe it or not.  Some of our men go to South America every year to build houses, they send missions to support them year round...and that's just one thing we do.
Not one single church group has a corner on the missions market, I don't think that can be used as an edge on Jesus.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Celt, it is not me, but you, that impugn and slander the universal reformed and protestant testimony concerning the papacy.



No you pretty well skew it and refuse to look at the Church (both Protestant and Catholic) and what people ACTUALLY are taught.

We have had this difference before and you get all your info from people who are little more than sheets. That is not fair nor correct.

And the Catholic Church of the 1500's is not who we are dealing with today. Much less in America.

Your lack of knowledge on the subject and bile is pathetic. And a poor reflection on the rest of us. I am not Catholic but I cannot stand the anti-Catholic rhetoric spewed forth here. It's unnecessary and not at all helpful. Or enlightening for anyone. Even if you are right who do you expect to sway?


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 25, 2009)

vanguard1 said:


> i believe that the  RCC  is a cult and i agree with john mc carther on this. but not on a lot. the RCC. is a cult because it  does so many things that go against the bible, 1. nowhere in the bible is a child ever baptized, 2 jesus said call no man father on the  earth for you have one father in heaven,3 baptism is going under water  the greek word means to dye a piece of clothing, 4 you are not to pray to the dead (mary) or other saints (so called)ect.ect.



Are you serious?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 25, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Are you serious?



Yeah I am afraid he is... See what most believe?

Could one of you answer this point by point here? That would be most helpful. I know the answers and the scripture behind it but maybe a Catholic would do more justice (and they view me as a traitor anyway)...


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No you pretty well skew it and refuse to look at the Church (both Protestant and Catholic) and what people ACTUALLY are taught.
> 
> We have had this difference before and you get all your info from people who are little more than sheets. That is not fair nor correct.
> 
> ...



I don't think I have skewed anything. Make no mistake celt, Rome has not changed. 

I am in pretty good company in my understanding of the Scripture...Calvin, Luther, Sir Isaac Newton, Bunyan, Spurgeon, et. These men were(are) true Christians and I believe they, along witht he Westminster Divines and the entire Reformation were correct in their assesment of Romanism. I will close with a quote by Spurgeon:



> "It is the bound and duty of every Christian to pray against this Antichrist and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question.  If it be not the popery in the church of Rome, there's nothing in the world that can be called by that name." Again I say, John said there are many Antichrists, here is the supreme embodiment of it to these great leaders, these great Reformed leaders through the ages.  Spurgeon went on to say, "Popery is contrary to Christ's gospel and is the Antichrist and we ought to pray against it.  It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Savior and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Spirit and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the Vicar of Christ on earth.  If we pray against it because it is against Him who shall love the persons though we hate their errors, we shall love their souls though we loathe and detest their dogmas.  And so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened because we turn our faces toward Christ when we pray."



This quote was in MacArthur's message...


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> I don't think I have skewed anything. Make no mistake celt, Rome has not changed.
> 
> I am in pretty good company in my understanding of the Scripture...Calvin, Luther, Sir Isaac Newton, Bunyan, Spurgeon, et. These men were(are) true Christians and I believe they, along witht he Westminster Divines and the entire Reformation were correct in their assesment of Romanism. I will close with a quote by Spurgeon:
> 
> ...



I'll go along with quoting Luther and Calvin but not MacArthur in any stretch of the imagination. And I will say again you know nothing of the Catholic Church and prove it by quoting MacArthur.

But hatred is always irrational and simple minded.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I'll go along with quoting Luther and Calvin but not MacArthur in any stretch of the imagination. And I will say again you know nothing of the Catholic Church and prove it by quoting MacArthur.
> 
> But hatred is always irrational and simple minded.



The quote is Spurgeon's, which was found in Mac's sermon. 

And I do know the papacy's teaching.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> The quote is Spurgeon's, which was found in Mac's sermon.
> 
> And I do know the papacy's teaching.



Really???

What is it concerning pergutory? Mary? The Trinity? Communion? Age of the earth? Come on. Show it without the bigoted remarks.


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> The quote is Spurgeon's, which was found in Mac's sermon.
> 
> And I do know the papacy's teaching.



Actually you do not.  It has been proven by your posts.

Why don't you focus that negative spite you have into something productive like stopping abortion, or world peace, it would be time and energy well spent...instead of continuously driving to taint your witness with hatred.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Actually you do not.  It has been proven by your posts.
> 
> Why don't you focus that negative spite you have into something productive like stopping abortion, or world peace, it would be time and energy well spent...instead of continuously driving to taint your witness with hatred.



The Gospel is more important.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 25, 2009)




----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Really???
> 
> What is it concerning pergutory? Mary? The Trinity? Communion? Age of the earth? Come on. Show it without the bigoted remarks.



Why do you have to profane God's elect? I am in doubt that the Word of God is in you...

I will keep the subjects you have quoted simple...

1. Purgatory - the papacy teaches in such a place which in the Scripture is no where to be found. 

2. Mary - the papacy teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary, sinlessness, and worship of her through prayer. The Scripture knows no such teaching. 

3. Trinity - The papacy has as its official teaching the true doctrine of the Trinity, but the popes usurp the Godhead in each of the 3. Namely, God the Father (popes take the name Holy Father), Christ (popes usurp Christ's sole headship as Head of the Church) and Vicar of Christ (which is to say, substitute Christ, which only rightly belong to the Holy Spirit). 

4. Communion - The papacy teaches the false doctrine of transubstantiation. 

5. Age of earth - The papcy is in line with secular humanism in its acceptance of evolution. 

You left quite a few out. Namely, papal authority, or primacy. The papacy teaches:



> But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] ...  Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.





> ...all the faithful of Christ must believe "that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.
> 
> ... the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by a duty of hierarchical submission and true obedience, not only in things pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation... [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Vatican Council I, 1870]




Here in these papal teachings are the roots of heresy, arrogance, speaking against the Most High, usurpation, abomination, et. This is enough to so clearly render the papacy Antichrist I am surprised and marvel that others are surprised at that notion, even outraged and hateful toward those who do recognize the papacy for what it is. 

The world truly wonders after the beast.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Why do you have to profane God's elect? I am in doubt that the Word of God is in you...
> 
> I will keep the subjects you have quoted simple...
> 
> ...



Since a fellow protestant is labeled a traitor by you and not following with "protestant" tradition I'll let Dominic or Dawg or Willie point out how wrong you are here.

You might want to read a book called "Beyond Smells and Bells" or another by a man who graduated from Moody Bible named "Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic" or even for the light reading a book called "Catholic answers to Protestant Questions".

While I know very pointedly why I am a Presbyterian I also am fully aware of the teachings on Papal authority and you just blew over them. That is a deeper issue that 99% of the people in this world do not know.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Since a fellow protestant is labeled a traitor by you and not following with "protestant" tradition I'll let Dominic or Dawg or Willie point out how wrong you are here.
> 
> You might want to read a book called "Beyond Smells and Bells" or another by a man who graduated from Moody Bible named "Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic" or even for the light reading a book called "Catholic answers to Protestant Questions".
> 
> While I know very pointedly why I am a Presbyterian I also am fully aware of the teachings on Papal authority and you just blew over them. That is a deeper issue that 99% of the people in this world do not know.




I think you just not able to debate the subject. You labeled my speech as bigoted, which is to lable me a bigot, as the papists have done, and so I ask you, why do you profane God's elect? Those who seem to hate their brethren as I am getting the impression from you, do not have the Word of God in them. I hope that is not the case, but it seems that way...? 

I am content to read the papal writings themselves, and not those unregenerate evangelicals who have apostocized. 

Nor did I "blow over" the teaching of papal authority. I took EWTN's own statement, which was quoting a pope on the matter. But I wanted to see your reaction to it before I referenced the source. http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/papal_primacy.htm

You claim to be a presbyterian, but you are not submitted to the pope, and therefore, according to the papacy, you do not have salvation. Even the Roman Catholics on this board, seeking to not give offense (I suppose) water down the papacy's own teaching. 

The papacy has always taught and continues to teach that there is no salvation outside their church. 

The Bible teaches, and has always taught, that there is no salvation outside of Christ.

The papal system is the worst of heresies because it pretends to be true Christianity while leading men away from Christ and to itself. This is why the Bible calles it a harlo t. It pretends to be the bride of Christ but teaches men to worship that which is not God, usurps the place of God, stands in the temple of God as if it is God. This is Antichrist. 

It leads people away from Christ so that they live their lives without hope. They have no hope of eternal life. No hope of forgiveness of sins. No security in Christ. The system so teaches a person that they are left feeling unsecure and working hard to earn the favor of God. Because of this, I hate this system. It is the opposite of the true Gospel of God which gives eternal life, everlasting consolation and hope, the full and complete forgiveness of sins, and rest for men's souls. 

-five


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> I think you just not able to debate the subject. You labeled my speech as bigoted, which is to lable me a bigot, as the papists ....



A person who uses the derogatory term of "papist" is a bigot.  Just as if someone used derogatory terms for those of the Jewish faith, would also be "bigots." Looks like you put that label on your lapel, not me or anyone else, by the continued use of derogatory terms.  Especially after you pled ignorance of it being a less than endearing term, yet now, continue to use it.  SO now what is your excuse for continuing to use that term?  

What a wonderful religion you profess.  You need to double -check your flag, I think you are under the wrong army.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 25, 2009)

No. If you read what is said non-Catholics who are Christians are not doomed. They do believe we have some of the Truth in the Protestant Church. 

I am not hating God's elect. You are bashing and using bigoted hate speech against some of his though.

I can debate it but would rather a Catholic answer those questions. If I need to I will. But you will say exactly this again.

Personally going by the fruit of the spirit I would say the Catholics on here are more assured of their salvation than many of the Protestants. 

You would be far wiser to look at how and specifically WHY Reformedpastor commented on another thread about why Catholicism was wrong and did so without calling them papists (which is a bigoted and hateful term today). 

And you might also want to look back at what Luther wanted to do... Which was REFORM the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was left in place for 1500 yrs before the Reformation. Why? Did God not find the need to reform it?

Some of the greatest periods of our history are under Catholic teachings. However we DID expand and explode  after the reformation. Why? Political reforms brought about by the Reformed movement. Which you being a Baptist have also decided were useless. So by your view I am not a true Christian either since I am not following the Baptist traditions.

And I love a Baptist talking about the Elect... Talk about cherry picking...


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> ....
> 
> The papacy has always taught and continues to teach that there is no salvation outside their church.



That is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.  Earler in the church's history yes, but not anymore.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a100.htm
To ascertain whether you are saved or not, do not ask the name of you church or denomination. Ask if you know the Word of Truth, the Gospel, and whether you truly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ or not. If you genuinely believe in Jesus, you are a member of His body, the church, and in this sense it is perfectly true to say that there is no salvation outside the church! Being "saved" and "a member of the church" (the spiritual body of Christ) are one and the same thing.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm
"The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize."


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 25, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> That is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.  Earler in the church's history yes, but not anymore.
> 
> http://www.justforcatholics.org/a100.htm
> To ascertain whether you are saved or not, do not ask the name of you church or denomination. Ask if you know the Word of Truth, the Gospel, and whether you truly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ or not. If you genuinely believe in Jesus, you are a member of His body, the church, and in this sense it is perfectly true to say that there is no salvation outside the church! Being "saved" and "a member of the church" (the spiritual body of Christ) are one and the same thing.
> ...



Thanks!!!

Like I have been saying the Church Luther and Calvin railed about isn't the one we are talking with now...

Now who wants to go deal with the Muslims? Or are you guys to shakey to take on a cleric?


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> A person who uses the derogatory term of "papist" is a bigot.  Just as if someone used derogatory terms for those of the Jewish faith, would also be "bigots." Looks like you put that label on your lapel, not me or anyone else, by the continued use of derogatory terms.  Especially after you pled ignorance of it being a less than endearing term, yet now, continue to use it.  SO now what is your excuse for continuing to use that term?
> 
> What a wonderful religion you profess.  You need to double -check your flag, I think you are under the wrong army.



I have never called myself a bigot, but you have used it continually. And I have shown that the denotative meaning of papist is not what you say it is, but rather your own connotation your placing on it. 

And, in a somewhat sarcastic tone, I say papist. Because when the papists attack the brothers of Christ by calling them names then they are acting as papists...in the negative sense. 

A papist, btw, is someone who is submitted to papal authority. Are you saying your not submitted to papal authority? 

My guess is your just looking for a reason to get offended.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> I have never called myself a bigot, but you have used it continually. And I have shown that the denotative meaning of papist is not what you say it is, but rather your own connotation your placing on it.
> 
> And, in a somewhat sarcastic tone, I say papist. Because when the papists attack the brothers of Christ by calling them names then they are acting as papists...in the negative sense.
> 
> ...



Maybe in the past it wasn't derogatory but thanks to you and others like you that has changed. Kind of like a few other words in our language.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> That is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.  Earler in the church's history yes, but not anymore.
> 
> http://www.justforcatholics.org/a100.htm
> To ascertain whether you are saved or not, do not ask the name of you church or denomination. Ask if you know the Word of Truth, the Gospel, and whether you truly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ or not. If you genuinely believe in Jesus, you are a member of His body, the church, and in this sense it is perfectly true to say that there is no salvation outside the church! Being "saved" and "a member of the church" (the spiritual body of Christ) are one and the same thing.
> ...



Interesting. If what your saying is true, then the papacy does change its official teaching...and that is quite a thing in and of itself. The Roman Catholic church does change its ways and doctrines...wow. 

I will look further into this. recent statements by ratzinger lead me to think otherwise though..


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Maybe in the past it wasn't derogatory but thanks to you and others like you that has changed. Kind of like a few other words in our language.



Its actually the other way around. I used to be derogatory in the past, but changed over time to take other connotations. 

Or so goes the history of that word. 

But personally I think some are just using it as an exuse to take an offense, hit the flag button, and dodge the actual issues.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> That is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.  Earler in the church's history yes, but not anymore.
> 
> http://www.justforcatholics.org/a100.htm
> To ascertain whether you are saved or not, do not ask the name of you church or denomination. Ask if you know the Word of Truth, the Gospel, and whether you truly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ or not. If you genuinely believe in Jesus, you are a member of His body, the church, and in this sense it is perfectly true to say that there is no salvation outside the church! Being "saved" and "a member of the church" (the spiritual body of Christ) are one and the same thing.
> ...



Ok, so for your two sources to say the papacy taught one thing in the beginning, but another thing today, is to use a non-catholic website that is a ministry to reach out to Roman Catholics, which another Roman Catholic chided me for using the other day, and a non-catholic and non-christian website...? 

I took your statement at face value, believed the best, responded, and then looked at the sources. 

I want to see official roman catholic teaching on the subject.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Interesting. If what your saying is true, then the papacy does change its official teaching...and that is quite a thing in and of itself. The Roman Catholic church does change its ways and doctrines...wow.
> 
> I will look further into this. recent statements by ratzinger lead me to think otherwise though..



If anything the current Pope is maybe even more Ecumenical than most of the rest. And he at least sees the need for Christian unity in this time of crisis with Islam.


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Its actually the other way around. I used to be derogatory in the past, but changed over time to take other connotations.
> 
> Or so goes the history of that word.
> 
> But personally I think some are just using it as an exuse to take an offense, hit the flag button, and dodge the actual issues.



Once again, you are wrong.  I don't see Catholics dodging issues.  I have few more posts than you, so I would say that I have a little mor exposure than you.  But I can say with clear conscience, I don't go calling people on this board derogatory terms nor smirk about it, just because I don't agree (rather you don't understand) their religion.


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 25, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Ok, so for your two sources to say the papacy taught one thing in the beginning, but another thing today, is to use a non-catholic website that is a ministry to reach out to Roman Catholics, which another Roman Catholic chided me for using the other day, and a non-catholic and non-christian website...?
> 
> I took your statement at face value, believed the best, responded, and then looked at the sources.
> 
> I want to see official roman catholic teaching on the subject.



One minute you won't read Catholic sites because they are biased, now you want one ...  sweet mary mother of god.....


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> If anything the current Pope is maybe even more Ecumenical than most of the rest. And he at least sees the need for Christian unity in this time of crisis with Islam.





> Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
> 
> On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63





> "...these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.



This is not ecumenism, which is disgusting in and of itself, but rather a re-assertion of papal primacy...now suggesting, basically, they while these "separated" communions are not submitted to the pope, they are still connected to the pope. 

What hogwash and arrogance. 

The bottom line is the current pope doesn't recognize other churches unless they have apostolic succession and transubstantiation. I would really like to hear him explain how these other churches can have transubstantiation apart from the papacy.

Forgot the source http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 25, 2009)

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus does not mean that only faithful Roman Catholics can be saved. The Church has never taught that. So where does that leave non-Catholics and non-Christians?

Jesus told his followers, "I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). After his Resurrection, Jesus gave the threefold command to Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Tend my sheep. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:15–17). The word translated as "tend" (poimaine) means "to direct" or "to superintend"—in other words, "to govern." So although there are sheep that are not of Christ’s fold, it is through the Church that they are able to receive his salvation.

People who have never had an opportunity to hear of Christ and his Church—and those Christians whose minds have been closed to the truth of the Church by their conditioning—are not necessarily cut off from God’s mercy. Vatican II phrases the doctrine in these terms:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciences—those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16).

Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery (Gaudium et Spes 22).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
Every man who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ and of his Church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (CCC 1260).


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

More from the Vatican:



> From what has been stated above, some points follow that are necessary for theological reflection as it explores the relationship of the Church and the other religions to salvation.
> 
> Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: 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 (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”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78



This does not seem to be saying anything else than what Rome has always said. You need the Roman Catholic church to be saved. Jesus saves you, and He is doing it though the sacraments of the Roman Catholic church, and ONLY the Roman Catholic church. 

To this pope I say: The true Church of Christ preaches the Gospel and thus open the Kingdom of God to all men, by declaring the righteousness of God which is found in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone. 

This is the doctrine of the Scriptures. 

-five


----------



## Free Willie (Mar 25, 2009)

You minimize the power of God in your statements. God is way bigger than what can be found in your Bible. You attempt to tell God who he can save and cannot save. You are telling God how to tend to His creation. 

Extremely dangerous.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 25, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> You minimize the power of God in your statements. God is way bigger than what can be found in your Bible. You attempt to tell God who he can save and cannot save. You are telling God how to tend to His creation.
> 
> Extremely dangerous.



Dangerous to trust in the Word of God alone? lol I will live dangerously then..

Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Matt 21:42

Matthew 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

John 7:38
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Acts 18:28
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

1 Corinthians 15:3
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1 Corinthians 15:4
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

2 Timothy 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 25, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> You minimize the power of God in your statements. God is way bigger than what can be found in your Bible. You attempt to tell God who he can save and cannot save. You are telling God how to tend to His creation.
> 
> Extremely dangerous.


Never thought I would Agree with you in Anything LOL


----------

