Posted on 02/28/2008 6:25:40 AM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A DIFFERENT GOSPEL
In their lust for unity the Emergent Church and post-evangelical “Protestants” are right now embracing the Roman Catholic Church as another Christian denomination. But the issue is simple: If, as taught the Church of Rome, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without “the new birth in baptism” then we are now in hopeless contradiction with the Gospel contained in Holy Scripture.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)
Speaking The Truth In Love
Let me make this as clear as I possibly can for the Roman Catholics who may read this work in Christ from Apprising Ministries. I personally am former member of the Church of Rome and care very deeply about those, such as the majority of my own family line, who are trapped in this apostate man-made system of religion known as Roman Catholicism. I also fully realize that what I say may sound “unloving” and possibly even “harsh.” However, there is just nothing that I can do about that. By not telling the Truth we aren’t doing anyone a service.
(Excerpt) Read more at apprising.org ...
***The Catholics don’t read a different gospel. They read the same one that you do.***
Actually, on a couple of other threads, they tell me that I DON’T read the same gospel.
Seems to be a regular tactic of RCC folk: whine to the moderator when your beliefs are challenged. I guess centuries of the RCC persecuting those who disagreed lends itself to an attitude of thinking one is right and should not be questioned; and tends to rub off on some who cling to the RCC traditions.
History is compliant with Scripture in this regard: the Lord preserves His saints and Word for generations to to come until He returns. No matter what mans and his religions may try to do.
I thought that's what I said. The water AND the Spirit is what regenerates. John's Baptism was just water.
And as for the Westminster Confessions...what is that to me, or anyone else for that matter? One synod of like-minded folk cannot reinvent what the entire Church has always taught for 2000 years.
The Council of Trent...Declarations on the SacramentsCANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.
On Baptism
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
ditto!
It is a mystery why some of these folks seem to have nothing to do, but findfault with a neightbor who has so much in common, they seem to look for things to divide instead of uniting.
Thanks phatus. It is worrisome...even within the traditions spawned by the Reformation there is not the absolute anti-sacramentalism that some are insisting on. Some strong Lutheran/Anglican/Methodist voices on this would definitely be helpful for people who cannot get past what they see as a solely "Catholic" distinctive.
Stick around...I may need you in this discussion! :)
Mmmm....that's a superb question. Thoughts, wmfights?
I remember the Romans murdered Christ.. as the RCC murders church history.. Hand me down Apostles is a mental construct.. You cannot hand down Apostleship.. God appoints Aposles they are not elected or groomed by men.. The RCC began in about 313A.D. or so.. before that there were other centers of christian worship.. and there still is..
Not according to scripture!
The Romans carried out the act for those who said kill Jesus instead of Barabbas!
***
Matt 27
1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
****
15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
19 ¶ When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
21 The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
24 ¶ When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
****
John 18
28 ¶ Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.Now, the "sign" part is what you've been saying, but what I'm wondering is what "and seal" means there. When I think "seal" I think an imprint, a mark, a ratification of something. That's more than just symbolic the way I see it. Attach it to the rest of the passage and it becomes even more striking: "a seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins..." That sounds quite sacramental to me.
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time."...not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred." Wow. Again, that sounds sacramental.
So I'm going back now and looking at Chapter 27.1 which you posted: "Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace". Again that word "seals". And especially 27.2, which talks of "There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." 27.3 is a little harder nut to crack. Of course it is contrary to Catholic teaching to say that the sacraments have no power, but the Westminster divines say that the grace of a sacrament is conferred (!) upon the work of the Spirit. Since the Catholic cannot even imagine a sacrament without the Spirit, I wonder whether our position and this one is really that far apart.
As I've been saying, no one believes that the water itself *without the Spirit* can effect sacramental grace. Or else John's Baptism would have sufficed. But that doesn't happen in the Christian life. When a Christian baptizes validly, the water and the Spirit, the sign and the seal, are always tied together.
I remember the Romans murdered Christ..
7 posted on 02/28/2008 10:00:22 AM EST by hosepipe
***
I have read various accounts of the misconceptions the mainstream has of the various events in the Bible as taught by the Tradition of Men, but when one check the Scriptures they testify of a different account than the one that is continued to be perpetuated down through the ages
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1977620/posts?page=267#267
“Mmmm....that’s a superb question.”
If I follow the argument, then only those infants that are baptized have this special “indwelling Spirit”, i.e. mostly of western European descent, and the other infants from different religions are out of luck?
It seems that the example of David’s first son carries; an uncircumcised dead baby who David knows he will see again. There are no scriptures that say a baby must be baptised or that baptising a baby insures salvation or even hints of salvation.
I choose not to answer questions on demand.
= = =
OH, GOODNESS!
THERE YOU GO AGAIN . . .
trying valiantly to be Biblical, sane, pracitcal, wise and generally one of the sharper tacks in the drawer! LOL.
Ahhhhhhhhhh, WELS . . .
What . . . a pontifical, exclusive, Christian club I’ve experienced that to be! LOL.
Thankfully, at least once upon a time, Holy Spirit gave input to their mission board in an unmistakable way that shook them to their starchy, narrow, rigid sensibilities . . . and freed a number of wonderful missionary families to follow God greatly closer.
Sadly, the Milwauee Vatican quickly resumed their craziness even after God had so dramatically demonstrated HIS sensibilities in such matters.
Mystifying.
BTW, has the denomination been growing or shrinking the last 10 years?
IIRC, more than a congregation or two left the fellowship to follow God more directly and freely—and continued to grow . . . ahhhh . . . yes . . . FELLOWSHIP! LOL.
Sigh.
I don’t think I’ve ever met a Christian club MORE given to trying to squeeze Almighty God into insufferably tiny AND UNBiblicale little boxes than the WELS hierarchy does.
And I consider their pontifications on FELLOWSHIP a wholesale farce. They insist on, essentially, IDENTICAL DOCTRINE, BELIEFS about ESSENTIALLY EVERY jot and tittle or else OUT OF THE ‘FELLOWSHIP’ you go.
YET, EVERY leader has his nuances on this or that Scripture . . . they just play political games with them and bide their time until THEIR FACTION gets in enough power to make THEIR sensibilities WELS LAW.
What a farce.
The bottom line for me . . . is that . . .
Almighty God’s Nature is such that
HIS MERCY TRIUMPHS OVER HIS JUDGMENT . . .
He is looking for Biblical reason to save folks . . .
vs
Biblical excuse to damn them.
There is no accountability, responsibility without freedom to choose. This is even a principle in our law and courts.
I think it’s foolishness to construe God as being more harsh and punative than humans.
Oh
WHOOP-T-DO.
RC edifice reps ROUTINELY, CHRONICALLY
post hereon outrageously blasphemous idolatrous thread titles deliberately poking sticks in the eyes of Prottys and our sense of Scripture and God’s priorities.
Yet y’all are the agrieved, beleagured, abused Christian Club?
Wellllll excuuuuzzzzeeeeee me!
Balderdash.
I suppose it’s technically possible to insult an organization.
But an organization is an abstract edifice in some respects.
Is the building insulted?
Are the bylaws?
How about the parking spaces? Do they roll up and refuse to cooperate—refuse to allow parking when they are insulted?
Ahhhhhhh, yes, individuals IN an organization can FEEL insulted. Bystanders can agree that they were insulted . . .
But that involves choice . . . a choice TO BE OFFENDED.
And the Bible has a number of things to say about that in the NT . . . none of them good.
However, if TAKING UP OFFENSE unnecessarily is what jiggles your jollies . . . who am I to discourage you!
Welllllllllllllll, Dear Heart,
we are RELIGIOUS and even . . . spiritual . . . creatures.
We just are.
Made that way.
It would be virtually impossible to have a forum like FR AT ALL without RELIGIOUS stuff erupting on it constantly because it is our nature.
Better have a place to shove all such than have it degrade the whole of the forum into RELIGIOUS WARS.
Besides . . . it’s a wonderful place for folks to “iron sharpen iron” and to explore other perspectives.
And, it’s a wonderful mission field.
If folks can’t stand the heat, they should stay out of the kitchen.
BTW, thanks for reminding me of the long-in-process thread about Fatima.
Now which flash drives did I save all that on . . .
Seems to be a regular tactic of RCC folk: whine to the moderator when your beliefs are challenged. I guess centuries of the RCC persecuting those who disagreed lends itself to an attitude of thinking one is right and should not be questioned; and tends to rub off on some who cling to the RCC traditions.
History is compliant with Scripture in this regard: the Lord preserves His saints and Word for generations to to come until He returns. No matter what mans and his religions may try to do.
= =
Good points.
I have never found ANY
Biblical justification for infant baptism AT ALL.
Infant dedication, sure.
However, the article on which this thread is based seems itself to be based on an easily avoidable untruth.
See my #219 (though I'm not sure why you should, actually. It's just another Dawg rant.) It's a waste of time, I think, to have any kind of serious discussion when the framework is, at best, culpably careless and, at worst, slanderous.
While I could scarcely disagree more with your ecclesiology and ideas of authority, I do from time to time give thanks to God for you. So there.
Rather, Muslims claim to be the one true religion, and that the scriptures of the Jews and Christians are altered and corrupted from what was originally given. Much like what Protestants say about Catholics
At least reformed Christians have the Scriptures on which to stand, while Muslims have the vain imaginations of their dead prophet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.