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 ...
I really must correct this. Baptism takes away original sin permanently and completely, yes. But original sin and actual sin are different things--I believe St. Thomas said that original sin could be called sin "only by analogy".
Despite my having had original sin removed from my soul, the effects of it still remain. (Like a medic can take a bullet out of a soldier's leg, but the soldier may well have pain at that spot for the rest of his life.) What are the effects? Even in my restored state, I still have an attraction to sin, which we call concupiscence.
As part of my sanctification, I have to rid myself of this attraction. No two ways about it. If you and I are still attracted to sin, we cannot live in heaven.
That's where Confession comes in. It gives me grace (ah sacramental theology again!) to destroy that attraction and to substitute in its place an attraction to God. In the process, I restore the health of my soul and prepare it for the supernatural life in heaven where sin does not exist.
Baptism is like a gate to eternal life. Once the gate is open, it's open for good. Confession is like a medicine of eternal life. However many times you are wounded or killed by sin, it can be applied and re-applied.
All well and good, except the act of baptizing and being baptized is wedded to discipleship. Infant baptism can only be seen as a blessing, not true baptism, since baptism is an immersion into Christ.It is not a "sign and a seal", that is what you have accused me of thinking. It is a deliberate act done by one who hears Jesus say "Follow me".
Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
And that must be where we differ because baptism isn't tied to what we do, but who we are.
If we are a member of His family, we will become disciples. And not because we were baptized by some moment in time alteration of our destiny, but because salvation is His will for our lives.
One way or another, that is made known to us and we receive that Good News with repentance, obedience and belief.
The verses you give don't support baptism, per se; they tell us what we are required to do -- pick up His cross and follow Him. And by the Holy Spirit within us, we will.
Infant baptism recognizes and gives thanks for the new and better covenant, the promise that was given to believers and their seed. We're no longer waiting for our Saviour; He has come and salvation has been won on the cross.
And if a person is a member of Christ's flock, determined by God from before the foundation of the world, then baptism is a sign and seal of that eternal birthright in which we have faith.
So unlike in the RCC, it doesn't really matter when baptism happens from our perspective. Your fear for those who were baptized as children just seems to me to be more fear from Rome -- do this work or else you stand a good chance of dying in condemning sin.
Which, of course, is not true. Anyone who is God's will see heaven at the moment of his death, baptized or not. Because those who are God's have been baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire. The ceremony of baptism is a stand-in for the real thing; it isn't salvation itself.
I have no fear of any child's salvation, whether baptized or unbaptized. You are having difficulty not projecting what it is you believe, onto me.
First off, I don't believe in infant baptism, so I consider none of them were actually baptized in the first place. Since baptism doesn't save anyone, has nothing to do with forgiveness of sin, etcetera, you are the one arguing from Rome's position, not me.
Is partaking in communion "work"? How about assembling ourselves in public worship?
When one wants to be Christ's disciple, you go on His terms, not your own.
No baptism is not a "stand-in for the real thing". Again, you are equating it with the act of salvation and condemning me for supposedly saying the same thing, which I adamantly deny.
After regeneration,because he has a regenerated heart and mind, a Christian will desire to associate with like-minded people, so he will go to church. He will desire prayer, he will desire baptism and he will desire communion. He will desire to imitate Christ and have the Christian walk.
Here's an anectdote: I have HBO and one night caught Big Brother. Now it seems that some of these young people are under the impression that they are of the Christian faith. They read the bible in the daytime, talk about believing in God, and at night engage in the most foul language and licentious behavior, even apparently, sexual orgies. Their parents, clergy and churches have done these people a grave disservice. I'm not condemning any of them though, but it is disconcerting.
So what it comes down to, all disciples are believers, but are all believers disciples? The Christian walk is not a works based religion, but a way of life.
The Lord said , “...and there shall be ONE FOLD and ONE SHEPHERD.” John 10:16, ……. That way the truth will be transmitted faithfully because our souls depend on it. The problem with Protestantism is that you have as many interpretations of the Bible as you have churches. Your argument is the same old argument against the Primacy of Peter. But YOUR views do not square with recorded history, which is a good thing since my salvation depends on the accurate transmission of the true Gospel. Not your version. I am confident God has not come down from on high and gave you a “new” revelation. But now I am beginning to understand why your church leaders preach to you ‘sola scriptura’, that way you don’t get bogged down doing research that might change your faith.
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.
Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people’s names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.
2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called “rock.” Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:
1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the “small rock,” he would have used “lithos” which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).
Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon “Bar-Jona.” The use of “Bar-Jona” proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, “Bar” means son, and “Jonah” means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.
Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”
Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter’s leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).
Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.
“The blessed apostle Peter, in his successors, has handed down what he received. Who would be willing to separate himself from the doctrine of whom the Master himself instructed first among the apostles?” Pope Sixtus III, [regn A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch (A.D. 433).
“But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Epistle 10 (A.D 445).
“And so he too rejoices over your good feeling and welcomes your respect for the Lord’s own institution as shown towards the partners of His honour, commending the well ordered love of the whole Church, which ever finds Peter in Peter’s See, and from affection for so great a shepherd grows not lukewarm even over so inferior a successor as myself.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 2 (A.D ante 461).
“Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid...Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).
“I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.” Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius’ Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345).
“For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest.” Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).
“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail” Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).
“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.” Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).
“The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today.” Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).
“Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgments...For (Peter) himself has care over all the Churches, and above all that in which he sat nor does he suffer any of its privileges or decisions to be shaken” Pope Zosimus [regn A.D. 417-418 ],To Aurelius and the Council of Carthage, Epistle 12 (A.D. 418).
“The rising pestilence was first cut short by Rome, the see of Peter, which having become the head to the world of the pastoral office, holds by religion whatever it holds not by arms.” Prosper of Aquitaine, Song on the Enemies of Grace, 1 (A.D. 429).
“Peter in his successors has delivered what he received.” Pope Sixtus III [regn. A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch, Epistle 6 (A.D. 433).
Amen, exactly so. And as we know and agree, the HS acts of his own accord, his actions have nothing to do with anything we do or try to do. The HS regenerates the heart and mind.
And that must be where we differ because baptism isn't tied to what we do, but who we are
And once again we see that we don't differ, we are in complete agreement.
Then explain why Ignatius of Antioch wrote the following in 107 AD:
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
You still playing in your band "Simple Minds"?
There is one church, i.e. a universal(catholic) church.. There always has been, is now, and always will be.. one church.. However the sheep pen(s)(John ch 10) is not IT/THEM".. The church or "flock" are those called OUT of the sheep pens.. Because, you see, the word eklesia(church) MEANS the called out ones.. it does not mean a building or synagogue.. OR sheep pen..
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.