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 ...
801 is... More!
I thank God for you, too!
Click on my profile page for guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.
We were given specific commands from Christ. One was to be baptized. One was to preach the Great Commission. Not only that but no one can come to Christ save the Father call him. A Christian needs to be called. As much as you'd like to think it, as a mother, mommy and daddy can't enroll him, like pre-school. That's a Catholic practice and that of anyone who believes he was "born a Christian." Ye must be born again. It doesn't conflict election.
Already said I don’t believe it is “an outward sign of an inward change” because it isn’t. It’s an act of obedience. Now infant baptizing, that’s really nothing and for reasons I won’t elaborate on just yet, no it does not correspond to circumcision.
I see the text. It does not contradict my thesis. I would say the very use of the word "transubstantio" supports my thesis, but I would not say it does so conclusively. I don't know of anybody who says "HOW" transubstantiation occurs. The very use of "substantio" however presupposes a "realistic" (as opposed, say, to "nominalistic") understanding of what the "esse" of a thing is.
In general, the Church does not make doctrinal pronouncements out of the blue. She does prescribe an entire system of infallible dogmata. She responds to controversy and, if anything, delays making a pronouncement.
And as to the infallibility jibe: if we ignore certain words and supply others we can make any teaching of the Church into something ridiculous. Not every act of a council is understood at the time (or ever after) to be infallible.
As to the tax jibe: First you can trace from there to our current situation where the civil doctrine is that we OUGHT to delegate our charitable work to the government, and to oblige other people to pay for our charities. I don't think that's so good either.
But to equate the meaning of "nation" in 1215 with its meaning today, to suppose that the integrity of states or anybody's understanding of the position of the Church with respect to the state was, could have been, or even should have been what it is now is, IMHO, in the same ballpark as refusing to study Washington or Jefferson because they had slaves.
And my recollection of the early sequels to the Reformation was cuius regio, eius religio - which comes down to the local brigand in charge gets to say which Church you go to and what you must believe. I wouldn't call that a great leap forward.
For one thing, they do it to girls too ...
Just sayin'
(Actually, now that we've learned about genital mutilation, that joke isn't a funny as it used to be ...)
John the Baptist's baptism was a Jewish rite that was practiced for the forgiveness of sins and required repentance. To fulfill all righteousness, Jesus was baptized by John.
Whenever a Gentile converted to Judaism one of 3 things that was required of him was to perform this rite. It meant that he was dead to his old pagan life and was born anew, a spiritual being.
However, this was not the case after Jesus. Now baptism symbolizes the believer's identity with Jesus Christ in his death, his burial and his resurrection. Romans 6:3-5, Col:2:12
Furthermore we see the act as a specific commandment given to us from Christ Himself. In Matthew28:18-20 He said to go and make disciples baptizing them and to do as He commanded.
In Acts 2:38-41 we see that all who heard the word were baptized, but they also had, and have to continue steadfastly as well.
Also, and this is extremely important, by obeying this command, and doing it prayerfully and publicly, we become witnesses to the resurrection, and that is a powerful and gracious gift from God. Every believer should desire it.
And if I had my druthers, there's be more baptisms by immersion because the link with death and resurrection is so visibly powerful.
But leaving aside the ex opere operato question, the regeneration and the "paschal" side of Baptism are primary.
And many Christians who are supposedly called and baptized as adults fall away. So the "calling" from our human perspective happens gradually as we are sanctified from day one, if indeed we are among the elect. Some believe themselves to be called and yet they still fall away, showing they were never truly drawn by God in the first place. So it's God's calling that matters which He does infallibly according to His decree from all eternity. Our response to that call is in time, but the reason for the call has always existed by God's election, which is what infant baptizing attests to. It recognizes the covenant family, not by men's public acceptance of that covenant (which smacks of certain secret societies) but by God's declaration of that eternal covenant.
As much as you'd like to think it, as a mother, mommy and daddy can't enroll him, like pre-school. That's a Catholic practice and that of anyone who believes he was "born a Christian."
Protestant and Catholic infant baptizing have nothing to do with each other. RC baptism regenerates; Protestant infant baptism does not. RC baptism confers saving grace (which can still be lost, go figure), and Protestant infant baptism does not.
Does God determine the family? Does God give you your spouse and your children? Certainly. And that's what infant baptizing recognizes. God deals in families, and He always has, from Adam and Eve on down. Are all baptized children elect? Nope. God loved Jacob, yet He hated Esau. It's His call.
Lydia's household was baptized and we can assume there were children in that household.
Most importantly, Christ admonished those who tried to prevent the children from coming to Him. Those who believe in adult baptism are ignoring His very clear direction which is repeated in three of the four Gospels...
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 19:13-14 "Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
"But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." -- Mark 10:14
"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." -- Luke 18:16
The kingdom of God exists from before time, from before men can choose correctly. For the elect, the victory was won for them by Christ before they were even born, "before they could do anything good or evil."
Ye must be born again. It doesn't conflict election.
And all those who are elected will be born again as part of our sanctification. But it seems that adult baptism places our salvation on the moment of baptism when it is actually a fact of God's creation from before the foundation of the world and made known to us daily as we are sanctified.
I would urge you to read up on the history of Zwingli's study group that was infiltrated by two RC priests who encouraged some of the members of that study group to be rebaptized which is an error.
We are born again; we do not need to be baptized again.
This same study group declared pacifism to be the order of the day. What better way to undermine the Reformation than 1) break with the historical, orthodox practice of baptizing our children, and 2) urge reformers to stop contesting the papacy and Rome's error, and instead simply withdraw from the argument?
F. Nigel Lee has written a great book showing how the Anabaptists emerged from medieval Romanist influences -- "Anabaptists and their Stepchildren" - Dallas: Commonwealth Publications, 1992.
I actually think reformed adult baptizers and reformed infant baptizers are preaching something similar, only those who preach infant baptism do so from day one because God has commanded us to bring our children into the covenant family, rather than from the day God decides to make Himself known to us. We are His from the beginning.
She does NOTprescribe an entire system of infallible dogmata
I am not wrong, although you quoted correctly.
When they refused Jesus for Barabbus they received the curse of Jesus crucifixation upon themselves and their children.
HOWEVER you missed the point of the Lord’s Supper, in Luke Chapter 22. When Jesus took the bread, he said “this is my body GIVEN for you, etc”, and a few verses later he said this “this cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you” NIV. As I said before, NOONE took Jesus life, because he predetermined to give it for you and me.
Jesus could have stopped time and walked away. He gave his life willingly because he was divine, and came for that purpose. All that took place could have been done by anyone with double or triple insults and it wouldn’t have mattered HOW it happened...just that it was predetermined that Jesus would be the sacrificial lamb for our sin once and for all. The crucifixtion and his blood became the New Testament promise of salvation, and the Old Testament ceased to be the path of sacrificing animal blood for sin.
My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." - John 15:12-13
Christ founded His Church on St. Peter. I have extra-Biblical proof of it. If that offends you and you decide to respond like an adolescent and not continue our little discussion that is your choice.
But there is hope. I told my dad today that the important thing is to die in the state of Grace. Everyone is so worried about so many petty things but in the final analysis, are we good Christians. I hope we are. ;-)
Well put. Everyone likes to cast stones at the Church because Her teaching is incompatible with THEIR beliefs. This is one of the beauties of the Church, it does not sway to public opinion, truth isn’t decided by a vote. It is what it is and people are always free to leave her. It takes a strong faith to withstand the slings and arrows of Her many enemies throughout the centuries. That She still stands is a testament to God’s faithfulness and mercy. :-)
That is a common misunderstanding of Scripture. The Rock upon which the church (not the RCC, the invisible church comprised of those are saved by Christ) is the Lord Jesus.
See Ephesians chapter 2:
“11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
And the privileges and blessings of the gospel
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”
And the letter from Peter, 1 Peter chapter 1:
“1 Pet 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.”
and on into Chapter 2:
“2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”
Well, it's a vexed disagreement at least. But the upstate returns aren't in yet and the disagreement is not resolved.
But I don't see that holding that Peter has a unique role in the Church necessarily contradicts our Lord's position as Head of the body. Consequently, the marvelous texts you adduce, together with the simple declaration, "... He is the head of the body, the church ..." from Colossians 1:12-20 which we recite weekly (more or less) in evening prayer do not seem to be to contradict Peter's role.
I do think it comes down to a disagreement about the nature of "apostolicity" or "vicariate". Al Gore may have thought that being VICE-president entitled him to be president some day, and some popes have certainly allowed God to be usurped in their personal lives, but in general we don't teach that Peter or anybody supplants Christ as head of the body, the church.
FWIW.
IHS is a good Lord. And to put our hope in Him is a duty. And to be able to so so is an infused virtue, a gift! (as are Faith and Love.) Hope does not disappoint.
After all these hundreds of posts, I’m still wondering if it troubles you or if you have a comment on the fundamental untruth of the opening assertion of this article.
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.