Posted on 04/13/2008 5:51:16 PM PDT by Edward Watson
I think I'll go read the Belgic Confession right now to pump up my day.
I do have issues with Mormon doctrine as it does not fall within orthodox Christian doctrine. Enough said from me.
Fair enough.
“they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous.” — Caliph Omar on destruction of the library at Alexandria
Just a little thought for you!
IMO, creeds are divisive. They don't contain all that the sect believes. I could put out "my own" creed (belief), but it would be awfully long to include all that I believe. However, if I say I believe what is recorded in the Bible, that would include all that I believe. Thusly, any creed I would put out would have to have to have qualifications attached to it for the beliefs I have that are not listed. Talk about writing a book...:-)
I would never suggest that creeds are a substitute for Scripture itself, nor would I suffer accusations that they are fabrications of doctrine. I would say that creeds are excellent summaries of where Scripture speaks to certain subjects, and exist as historic documents as to who took what side in prior ecclesiastical/doctrinal disputes.
Okay, I agree on this point. But the same thing results: the creed only pertains to the topic it addresses; and the topic isn't explained as to why one believes it. It leaves out the total of the beliefs of the individual or sect.
The practical result of any refusal to use a creed/confession/doctrinal statement of some kind, is such that every time someone wants to investigate a brother's doctrine, they must go through the Bible - all of it - and see how each agrees with each other's reading, point-for-point, of:
Again, you're limiting the statement to a shortened amount of what one believes, or what a sect believes. If you were interested in finding out what one believes, a partial belief on a single topic or list of topics in summarized fashion would not give you what beliefs are behind what is listed on a creed. Thusly, creeds don't really tell a person all that much.
IMO most of the churches that are called "Protestant" aren't deserving of that historic title, and it would be wise to understand and recognize the profound differences between them. IMO only those believers that individually and institutionally submit themselves to the historic creeds of the church can truly be said to be "in agreement", since the creeds are covenantally binding summaries, and provide a useful way for insiders and outsiders to test themselves on whether they are doctrinally and congregationally unified together.
I agree with your first sentence above. Your second sentence needs some clarification. You talk about "historic creeds of the church;" I would ask you, what "creeds" and "what church" are you talking about. Insiders, IMHO, should know the totality of what is believed by their church, but "outsiders" would only know what is summarized in the "creed." The beliefs not mentioned would still be suspect.
What if I were to give you a short summary of a few articles of belief that I held to? Would that tell you what I believe, or would you keep on requiring more and more to satisfy your curiosity as to what I really believed?
For example:
1. I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God.
2. I believe in the First Resurrection.
3. I believe in baptism.
4. I believe that Jesus will return in the flesh to raise the dead.
5. I believe that by grace I am saved through faith; and not of myself: for it is the gift of God.
6. I believe in the immaculate conception.
Okay, there is a shortened summary of what I believe. Does that tell you anything? Or does it tempt you to dig deeper? What I listed above is a "creed." It leaves out a lot of what I believe; the result, you don't know anything of what I believe in any detail. Each and everyone of the above would require an explanation. Would you agree with them as they are listed? I sincerely don't think you would...
BTW, what would you title a church that had the Scriptures, but was never a part of the RCC or the Church of England, yet existed in England before the Reformation movement started by Luther? Especially if it called itself "the church of Christ"?
Just a little thought for you!
????????????????????
What's there to "think" on?
That your aforementioned rationale is a paraphrase of perhaps the greatest cultural luddite in the history of humanity.
“Well lo and behold, when I began letting the Church founded by Jesus Christ lead me instead of leaning on my own understanding to qualify the Church, God in His grace granted me the relief from my torment and powerlessness against sin.”
Would you say this is the normal experience of the majority of Catholics?
Because I have never heard anything like this from a Catholic in my life.
Are you saying that you are free now from some besetting sin or that sin, in general, no longer troubles you?
******
“No matter how many people tell you how great their Windows PC is, when all yours ever does is crash and burn, you eventually give Mac a try.”
Not intending to provoke you here, but that sounds more like the experiences of the scores of ex-Catholics I know. They say that their experience of religion was dry and dead and they only found fulfillment and joy once they heard the Gospel from a Bible-believing church and realized that they could be saved by grace through faith -— right then and there. And that they could know Jesus, and walk with him day by day.
I really do look forward to your thoughts on this. I must stress that I’m not trying to provoke you. I’m saying this because it is my personal experience that people struggle with anger towards that groups which believe they have come “out” of.
Both of you talk about Baptist groups that existed before Luther and Calvin. Can you tell me who these groups are and what they believed. I am aware of what the CHurch Fathers believed and the early Church writings say starting with St. Clement of Rome (90 AD), the Didache 90-110 AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch 107AD, St. Justin Marytr 155 AD, St. Irenaues 175 AD, St. Hippolytus of Rome 215AD, etc, and the COuncil of Nicea 325 AD, and there is nothing Baptist in any of those writings.
So, as others have stated, even Luther and Calvin defined what they believed in contrast to the Catholic CHurch. Those two, as Henry VIII and Thomas Cramner, Zwingli, Knox, etc, all defined what they belived in comparison to the Church of Rome and the Catholic CHurch. I am sorry to tell you but no “reputable Church History Scholar” supports your thesis.
I have read several Church histories by non Catholic Scholars including the Anglican Church historian such as Henry Chadwick, and Lutherans such as J. Pelikan (his 5 volume history of CHristianity was written before he became Eastern Orthodox), and they do not support your thesis.
The work of other Protestant CHurch historians such as J.N.D. Kelly, Philip Scaff, etc does not support you all’s theory.
In summary, the Baptist movement started with disagreement between English puritans and the anabaptist groups none as the Mennonites. The founder of modern Baptists is attributed to John Smyth in 1609, when he and some English exiles found the Baptist Church in Amerstand. In 1639, the Baptist movement was brought to the United States when Roger Wiliams founded the first Baptist Church in Providence, RI.
Also, the original Baptist Confession of John Smyth in 1609 drew heavily on the Calvinist Westminister Confessions and the only major confessional difference was on Baptism, which the Calvinst had a higher view of and believed should be administered to infants.
Regards
AMEN!
That your aforementioned rationale is a paraphrase of perhaps the greatest cultural luddite in the history of humanity.
Now that's funny :-)
Not at all, though I strongly suspect one raised Catholic, and remaining faithful, would have no experience of the torment and powerlessness against sin that I have known.
That would certainly explain why you have never heard such a witness before. They couldn't tell you about something of which they had never known.
Are you saying that you are free now from some besetting sin or that sin, in general, no longer troubles you?
I beg your pardon my FRiend, but I feel constrained to limit my witness to laying hold of the promise of Romans chapter 7, as written by St. Paul.
I'm not trying to be evasive. I just believe what you make of that witness is between you and God.
...but that sounds more like the experiences of the scores of ex-Catholics I know. They say that their experience of religion was dry and dead and they only found fulfillment and joy once they heard the Gospel from a Bible-believing church...
I understand, but recognize the distinction I'm making. I'm not claiming I found fulfillment and joy in the Catholic Church; I'm saying I found release from enslavement. THAT is where my joy and fulfillment comes from.
I recognize the love and zeal for God so many have found among the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Churches, and I take nothing away from that, but I do wonder how much of their personal experience actually comes from God's activity in their lives as opposed to standard ecstatic practices and interpreting the events of life by a self-fulfilling paradigm.
In the end, it's not up to me to say what God will or will not do with his people. Others have tried to put God in a box by turning Holy Writ into a manual of legalisms to determine what He would and would not do, approve, and bless. Those people generally haven't had a good record.
I must stress that I'm not trying to provoke you. I'm saying this because it is my personal experience that people struggle with anger towards that groups which believe they have come "out" of.
I understand. No need to worry about provocation for simple discussion. I love my "separated brethren." They taught me to love Jesus and the Bible. The only thing I can not countenance is the wanton blasphemy of God's Church by those who fancy themselves modern day Prophets of old.
I do not profess to understand all that has happened to me, but perhaps this may speak to you: When you're married for a long time to a spouse you truly love, it's almost like you can't see their physical appearance any more. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't appreciate their appearance. It just seems that once your eye identifies their person, you see them with the love of your heart no matter what they happen to be wearing or physical condition.
What I have found so peculiar is that now that's how I see everyone during Mass. Every old man is a handsome young hero wearing a worn and faded uniform. Each beautiful young girl is my own darling daughter. All the mentally handicapped adults are adorable cooing babes.
I realize that's not who these people are, but that's how I see them now, and I think this too is from the Lord.
The Greek in I Cor 6:20; Rev 5:9 use the word agoradzo literaly translated as "to purchase out of the market", and carries the meaning of buying or acquiring something in the forum.
The Greek in Gal 3:13 contains the word exagoradzo intimating literally to "purchase out of the market, and carries the meaning of buying or acquiring out of the forum.
The Greek in Tit 2:14; I Pet 1:18-19 contains the word lutroo, literally "to loose, set free" and carries the meaning to release on receipt of a ransom.
When one combines all three words in the context they're used it can be seen that people are redeemed from something (formerly being slaves in the slave market of sin), and redeemed by something (Jesus came along and purchased us with His shed blood), and redeemed to something (taking us out of the market - untying our bonds of sin and liberating us)
But this redemption is not the whole story. Because Christ's finished work on the cross also reconciles the world and its people in relation to the Father (not vice versa). Moreover, of the believer at conversion it is personal, experiential and not general (II Cor 5:20). II Cor 5:19 makes it clear that the object of reconcilliation is NOT God (but man). Because of Christ's work the world is salvable. However, that notwithstanding, an individual's reconcilliation is only through faith. Then and only then are one's sins forgiven, albeit having been attoned for on the cross.
Man losing his favorable disposition toward God is confirmed in a disposition of enmity against Him (Rom 8:7). Since enmity was sin and fallen man's disposition was characterized by enmity, it is proper to call man's changed dispostition "sin". This is what is referred to as "sin nature".
This sin nature governs or controls ALL of the rest of man's being. It enslaves the whole unregenerate man, functioning as his master (Rom 6:18-20). It is a legal position of authority. This doesn't mean that man will in all cases act as bad as he is capable of, but it does mean that ALL mankind individually (and collectively) knows no bounds to depravity. As such, Man is wholly unable and incapable, ableit perhaps not unwilling, of rescuing himself; despite seeing a need to do so.
The fact that Christ was born without a sin nature (Luk 1:35; Heb 4:15), and having no father, would suggest that one's sin nature is inherited through one's father (and their father's father, etc.). That would go far to explain why it was absolutely necessary for Christ to experience a Virgin Birth. This is especially true considering that Man reproduces after his own kind, then each of Adam's decendants inherited Adam's original sin nature (notwithstanding any additional ethical, moral and physical corruption).
Sin nature must be inherited, in that nowhere in scripture is it stated or implied that Adam is our representative. So Adam's original sin can NOT be imputed to us. Rom 5:12 tells us that all Mankind (through history, present and future) DID sin when Adam did. Rom 5;12-14 tells us that we actually did sin when Adam originally did. In Rom 5:12 the verb "sin" is aorist tense, and that implies that all sinned at a particular point in history (not some arbitrary moment in any individual's lives). That intimates that the instant we are born we are guilty of sin. Scripture tells us that the wages of sin are death. So stillborn babies are evidence of sin nature inherent in flesh from get go. However, that does not speak of the condemnation (or judgment) that befalls all sinners upon the age of moral reason.
Moreover, from the Fall to the giving of the Law, people died. However, sin was not imputed onto Mankind until the giving of the Law (Rom 4:15; 5:12-14). That notwithstanding, consider:
Ro 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Reading that, one can immediately come away with a clear understanding that at least innocent little babies are excempt from that scathing condemnation.
Since we were seminally in Adam when he sinned, ALL have subsequently inherited his sin. What's interesting to note is that while this may be true, Adam had the prerogative to name ALL living things on the Earth. It wasn't until AFTER the fall that he named Eve, i.e. the setting of the sun and coming of darkness to the world; I digress.
It would appear that your concerns are predicated upon guilt. Which in and of itself is a good thin, in that it is useful to convict one of their shortcomings. Without this guilt there can be no certitude concerning salvation in the first place. However, justification (a legal declaration of righteousness) does not confer in and itself any measure of sanctificatin.
The question of faith alone or faith plus works is made difficult by some hard-to-reconcile Bible passages (cf. Jas 2:24; ff. Rom 3:28, 5:1; Gal 3:24); Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works). In reality, Paul and James did not disagree at all. The only point of disagreement some people claim is over the relationship between faith and works. Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9) while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works. This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his life – then he likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).
Paul says the same thing in his writings. The good fruit believers should have in their lives is listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Immediately after telling us that we are saved by faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). Paul expects just as much of a changed life as James does, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17)! James and Paul do not disagree on their teaching on salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that faith in Christ produces good works.
Sanctification is progressive and ongoing throughout one's life and has three elements: separation (holiness), purification and maturation (the emphasis being on growth and maturity). Sadly enough, some of those who are born again never walk after Christ, but do manage to crawl after Him.
"Perfection" in the NT intimates "completeness" and "maturity" not absolute sinlessness (I Jno 1:8; cf. 2:1-2). A quite good example would be Paul; perfect in "postition" but not in "experience" concurrently (Phi 3:12, 15).
Once one has been "born again" what is to be done with the "old man"? Three answers to this can be found. The first being to "Hold him down!" through mere containing effort, although the lid frequently pops off). Another would be to "Wipe him out!" But he just keeps coming back. The last is to counteract him through the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Sactification has three tenses: past, present and future. The past tense (Heb 10:14; I Cor 1:30) is established at the moment of saving grace. It is possible to be positionally sanctified despite sinfull conduct (I Cor 1:2; cf. I Cor 3:1-4). The present tense is progressive in nature toward Christ-likeness (Eph 4:11-15; II Cor 3:18). Sactification is an exhortation (I Pet 1:15-16; II Pet 3:18). It is related to moral and righteous living (I Ths 4:3-4; 4:7). It builds upon existent sanctification, having both negative and positive aspects (Col 3:8-12).
There are many means to facilitate one's sanctification. One should strive to present one's body and total personality to Christ (Rom 12:1-2). The formula to accomplish that objective is to confess any known sin (I Jno 1:9). Claim the promise of the filling of the Spirit (I Jno 5:14,15) to make this personal. The theme "know, reckon, yield" of Romans 6 appears to refer to the same once-for-all decision. One must actively yield "once-for-all" to the Spirit's control in a wholehearted act of consecration. Walk by faith of the Holy Spirit's power and control (Gal 5:16). In order to do that one must obey Christ as Lord (Rom 6:16,17). One should meditate upon God's Word (cf. Psa 119:9, 11; ff. Psa 1:1-3). Culture a regular routine (not ritual) of prayer (Mat 26:41). Live in obedience to divine revealed will (I Jno 1:7). Confess any known sin that crops up after the initial, "once-for-all", presentation of yourself to God as found in Rom 12:12 (I Jno 1:9). God will be sure to discipline you to be sure you grow.
The future tense of sanctifiction is the instantaneous completion of the progress in holiness at glorification (I Jno 3:2; Eph 5:25-27).
Victory over temptation can be achieved through crises commitment to power of Christ (one should realize that one can't overcome temptation on their power). Wear the whole promise of God (Eph 6, i.e. Word, prayer, witness, faith, salvation, truth). Quote God's Word (prerequisite to this: reading, study, memorization). Claim victory through prayer for help and deliverance for your position in Christ. Relax as one grows in Christ and trust Him to gain the victory by faith. Meditate on the things of God, utilizing positive replacement, i.e., the power of positive spiriting (Phi 4). Meditate on the fact that Christ died for that sin; it would hurt Him if we yielded. One has to wonder how much somebody loves somebody else if they just can't abstain or refrain from hurting that professed "loved" one. One has to wonder the value one places on the price paid to be ransomed. Yikes, that thought should cut us all to our quicks and prick our concience with shame. But is that in of itself not good? Pain is good in that it warns us something is wrong. If that doesn't occur, then our concience is most likely seared to that of unfeeling scar tissue. Finally, if the temptation is physical: remove oneself from the situation.
No, our failures to resist temptation can NOT be attributed to a particular church. No the blame falls squarely upon our individual shoulders. Perhaps the church's share in that blame in that they fail to edify, encourage, exhort, admonish godly, or rebuke ungodly behavior. Paul speaks of the seeming contradiction of being "born of the Spirit" and our sin nature in Romans 6.
In Rom 6:1,2 he states that believers must die to sin, and live to God. The apostle is very full in pressing the necessity of holiness. He does not explain away the free grace of the gospel, but he shows that connection between justification and holiness are inseparable. Let the thought be abhorred, of continuing in sin that grace may abound. True believers are dead to sin, therefore they ought not to follow it. No man can at the same time be both dead and alive. He is a fool who, desiring to be dead unto sin, thinks he may live in it. Nothing here can be construed as to the efficacy of one's faith as it pertains to the church one belongs to; quite to the contrary.
Jude 1:3 ¶ Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.Of our common salvation (peri tês koinês hêmôn sôtêrias). See this use of koinos (common to all) in Tit 1:4 with pistis,, while in II Pet 1:1 we have isotimon pistin,. I was constrained (anagkên eschon) "I had necessity" cf. Luk 14:18; Heb 7:27. To contend earnestly (epagônizesthai) Late and rare (in Plutarch, inscriptions) compound, here only in N.T. A little additional (epi) striving to the already strong agônizesthai (agôn contest) cf. I Tit 6:12 agônizou ton kalon agôna, i.e., to STRIVE, FIGHT, make WAR. For the faith (têi--pistei) dative of advantage. Here not in the original sense of trust, but rather of the thing believed as in verse Jud 1:20; Gal 1:23; 3:23; Phi 1:27.
I'm not clear on this. Which faith? How many faiths are there? Is there some sort of implication here?
Paul's question in Rom 6:3 is urged by their Christian baptism and union with Christ. Baptism teaches the necessity of dying to sin, and being as it were buried from all ungodly and unholy pursuits, and of rising to walk with God in newness of life. Unholy professors of Christian faith may have had the outward sign of a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness, but they never passed from the family of Satan to that of God. The corrupt nature, called the old man, because derived from our first father Adam, is crucified with Christ, in every true believer, by the grace derived from the cross. It is weakened and in a dying state, though it yet struggles for life (and even for victory). Nevertheless, the whole body of sin, whatever is not according to the holy law of God, must be done away (our Christian liberties notwithstanding), so that the believer may no more be the slave of sin, but live to God, and find happiness in His service (and in accordance to our measure of our love for Him who redeemed us).
The strongest motives against sin, and to enforce holiness, are stated in Rom 6:11-15, i.e. being made free from the reign of sin, alive unto God, and having the prospect of eternal life, it becomes believers to be greatly concerned to advance (progress) in their sanctification. But, as unholy lusts are not quite rooted out in this life, it must be the care of the Christian to resist their motions, earnestly striving, that, through Divine grace, they may not prevail in this mortal state. Let the thought that this state will soon be at an end, encourage the true Christian, as to the motions of lusts, which so often perplex and distress him. Let us present all our powers to God, as weapons or tools ready for the warfare, and work of righteousness, in His service. There is strength in the covenant of grace for us. Sin shall not have dominion. God's promises to us are more powerful and effectual for mortifying sin, than our promises to God. Sin may struggle in a real believer, and create a great deal of trouble, but it shall not have dominion; it may vex him sorely (but that very vexation should be a good thing in and of itself), but neither vexation (nor the sin) shall "rule" over him. Shall any take occasion from this encouraging doctrine to allow themselves practice of any sin? ALL sin should be repugnant (and morally reprehensible) to all true Christians. Does that imply that Christians will NEVER "fall off the wagon" of sin? Can one infer from that that a great preacher will never commit adultry or fornication? If SO, then that preacher was NEVER saved in the first place? Nonsense.
Nevertheless Paul tells us that far away should be such abominable thoughts; so contrary to the perfections of God, and the design of his gospel, so opposed to being under grace. What can be a stronger motive against sin than pure unadultrated love of Jesus Christ (or Messiah) or the God who sent Him? Shall we sin against so much goodness, and such love? It doesn't mean we're unsaved, it just means we're mealy-mouthed wretched slugs not worthy of the slightest favor. And yet...
Paul continues by saying that we are freed from the dominion of sin. Every man is the servant of the master to whose commands he yields himself; whether it be the sinful dispositions of his heart, in actions which lead to death, or the new and spiritual obedience implanted by regeneration. The apostle rejoiced: now they obeyed from the heart the gospel, into which they were delivered as into a mold. As the same metal becomes a new vessel, when melted and recast in another mold, so the believer has become a new creature. And there is great difference in the liberty of mind and spirit, so opposite to the state of slavery, which the true Christian has in the service of his rightful Lord, whom he is enabled to consider as his Father, and himself as his son and heir, by the adoption of grace. The "dominion" of sin consists in being "willingly" slaves thereto, not in being harassed by it as a hated power, struggling for victory. Those who now are the servants of God, once were the slaves of sin.
There is the "searcher of the hearts of men". HE knows what is in the heart. At times He is pleased, and at times He is grieved. However, that Divine grief will NOT, now, or in the future, manifest itself as "punishment" for sin. There will be a "loss of reward" that ALL of the body of Christ will experience (except its Head). For some that loss will be extreme, significant and staggeringly collosal. However, and that notwithstanding, there will be no tears in heaven. We get over it (whatever that means). There is nothing there but rebuke, and shame and embarassment (and lack of reward).
The end of sin is death, and of holiness everlasting life. The pleasure and profit of sin do not deserve to be called fruit. Sinners are but plowing iniquity, sowing vanity, and reaping the same. Shame came into the world with sin, and is still the certain effect of it temporally and spiritually. Though the way may seem pleasant and inviting, yet it will be bitterness in the latter end (Satan laughing at YOU most gleefully at your taste of that). From this condemnation the believer is set at liberty, when made free from sin. If the fruit is unto holiness, if there is an active principle of true and growing grace, the end will be everlasting life; a very happy end! Though the way is up-hill (at times quite steeply indeed), though the way is narrow, thorny, and beset with tribulations, yet everlasting life at the end of it is certain. The gift of God is eternal life. And this gift is through Jesus Christ our Lord. Christ purchased it, prepared it, prepares us for it, preserves us to it; he is the All in all in our salvation.
What a breathtaking concept: we've already won the race (now we just have to run the race and instead of getting a first place trophy, we get rewarded on how well we helped others win with us!!!!!
Astonishing...
Or you are mistaken.
I do? When have I done that?
There is a fundamental difference between Biblical Christianity and any "religion" on the planet. I don't say "every other religion" because biblical Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship as children to a loving Father, which every true Christian has with God through Jesus Christ. Succinctly put, the difference is a religious belief in that which has been done for us, as opposed to religion of practices and ritual that augment/complete one's salvation (or putativel accomplish that outright).
Being a Christian does not mean being a member of any denomination or Church. In fact, the Bible denounces all religions as instruments of Satan to keep mankind in darkness, shut off from the light of the gospel by which alone one can be saved, for “the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not” (2 Cor 4:4).
Christianity is predicated on being a member of the body of Christ, which is accomplished by faith and trust in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of your sins. It means that you do not add your works to His work. Sincerity doesn't forgive sins. Membership in a church doesn't forgive sins. Doing works of penance doesn't forgive sins. Praying to Mary doesn't forgive sins. Forgiveness is received in the faithful trust and acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. You must trust Jesus, God in flesh, for the forgiveness of sins, not a man-made ritual and certainly not the Catholic saints. Even though the Roman Catholic Church affirms the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and His physical resurrection, it greatly errs in its doctrine of salvation by adding works to salvation.
One of the most frustrating aspects of addressing the Roman Catholic gospel is the prevailing ignorance regarding what Catholicism actually teaches. Most evangelicals are clueless regarding Catholicism. And many practicing Catholics (including a surprisingly high number of priests and nuns) simply do not know the actual extent of the salvation requirements of their Church.
The official Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation is that the grace of God is infused into a baby at baptism1 -- making him/her justified before God. This justification can be lost through sin and must be regained by repeated participation in the many sacraments found in the Roman Catholic Church. These sacraments increase the measure of grace in the person by which he or she is enabled to do good works
According to the teaching of the Reformers, faith, in the sense of fiducial faith, is the sole cause of justification (sola fide doctrine). In opposition to this teaching, the Council of Trent declares that, side by side with faith, other acts of disposition are demanded (Denzinger 819). As such are named: fear of Divine justice; hope in the mercy of God for the sake of the merits of Christ; the beginning of the love of God; hate and detestation of sin; and the purpose of receiving Baptism and of beginning a new life. The Council describes the ordinary psychological course of the process of justification, without thereby defining that all individual acts must be present in the given sequence, and that only these can be present. Just as faith, as the beginning of salvation, must never be absent, so also sorrow for sins committed must never be lacking, as forgiveness is not possible without an inner aversion from sin. Denz 793, cf. Denz 897.2All Catholics "know" that it is the Church which saves them, but few understand what the Roman Catholic legalistic system of salvation demands. Foundational, it is this: Refusal to obey the laws and decrees of the Church is a mortal sin which condemns one to hell if each such transgression is not confessed to and absolved by a priest before death.
It is the rare Catholic who attends Mass on all the holy days of obligation. Not to do so is a mortal sin, yet one would be hard pressed to find a Catholic who can name a significant number of them. Ten holy days of obligation are recognized worldwide, but in the U.S. only six require attendance at Mass. The conference of bishops decides which ones are abolished and which feast days are to be transferred to a Sunday. It seems rather incredible, as well as unbiblical, that having a current liturgical calendar (in order to know what days of each year attendance is required) should be necessary to qualify one for heaven!
Few lay Catholics are familiar with the Code of Canon Law, containing more than 1,750 laws which dictate Church rules and practice. Most know the laws they agree with and which ones they reject, but few Catholics understand that they have no such liberty of choice in the matter as it pertains to their salvation; something the Church doles out with an eyedropper. Nevertheless, the extra-biblical tradition and dogma imposed on the people are nothing more than "the commandments of men" (Mat 15:9), i.e., a profusion of rules and regulations. As a consequence the people are put under tremendous legalistic burdens and shut out of the kingdom of heaven (Mat 23:13).
Unlike God's immutable laws, Catholicism's extra-biblical legalities are arbitrary, capricious and variable yet carry eternally damning consequences. Eating meat on Friday was once a mortal sin; today, it's not observed (but it actually is still on the books). Divorced Catholic who remarried were formerly excommunicated; today that's not the case. While it is claimed that these are rules ordained by God, would our Lord make hell the penalty for generations of people, and then remove the penalty for a subsequent generation committing the same act?
I fail to comprehend how the dogma and tenets of the Roman Catholic Church can give one peace of mind compared to Jno 5:24. On what basis would one who rejects the teaching that contraception is a mortal sin be confident that receiving the Eucharist as Viaticum at the point of death assures one of eternal life?
Can a faithful Catholic agree with what the Bible states as being foundational for salvation while also agreeing that "the sacraments of the New Law [canons and decrees of the Church] are...necessary for salvation" and "without them... men" cannot "obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification..."3? Adding anything to faith is condemned as a false gospel by the Apostle Paul (Gal 1:6-9).
Well, yeah, for sure. Just look at what Paul's response to the Phillipian jailer's question (Act 16:30):
"Believe on Christ and that will get you started on a long road of good deeds, church membership, sacraments, prayers to the saints, etc. If you stick with it, eventually, after excruciating suffering in the flames of purgatory and if enough Masses and Rosaries are said for you, heaven's gates will at last open."
I accept, without hesitation, and profess all that has been handed down, defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and by the general Councils, especially by the Sacred Council of Trent and by the Vatican General Council [Vatican II, which reaffirmed Trent], and in a special manner concerning the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff....4And with that oath, the faithful undertakes earning their salvation: putting stones in one's shoes, wearing haircloth shirts, flagellation, crawling on one's knees towards some Marian shrine, staggering under the load of some heavy cross, purchasing candles to burn before the image of "our lady" of (which one?) or this or that saint. Actually nailing oneself to a cross will earn a whole bunch of salvation points for not only oneself but probably for a few others as well. Never mind knowing anything about God or Jesus if you know of them (reading the Bible isn't important); having a right standing with Jesus' Church is all that matters.I recognize the Holy Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church as the mother and teacher of all...and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Christ. ...This same Catholic Faith, outside of which nobody can be saved, which I now freely profess and to which I truly adhere, the same I promise and swear to maintain and profess... until the last breath of life....5
Attend Mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation, be up on one's confession and penance, regularly perform corporal works of mercy and recite many prayers to any one of a myriad of saints for indulgences, and definitely die wearing a scapular.
"Come unto me and I will give you rest" (Mat 11.28) bestows no peace of mind, but the Roman Catholic Church that insists that all must come to her and that she alone can provide to repentant sinners what Christ himself promised but cannot perform without her priesthood's mediation DOES.
Salvation is obtained through works in obedience to the "New Law". Vatican II declared that "preaching the Gospel" (the task of the biships) is to help all men "attain salvation through faith, baptism and the observence fo the commandments"6 and "that God himself has made known to the human race how men by serving him can be saved..."7
Its comforting to know, and peace of mind can be found there, that the ultimate outcome on one's deathbed after a lifetime of baptism, Mass, sacraments, good works, alms (can't forget alms), suffering, rosaries, confession, blessings, holy water, etc. is essentially uncertain with respect to dying in mortal sin. Should that misfortune befall one (despite all one's other accomplishments), their soul goes not to purgatory, but straight to Hell (from which there is NO escape).
For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, the work of our redemption is accomplished...8Never mind that there's nothing in the gospel that Paul preached about the "works of salvation" being "set in train".But He [God] also willed that the work of salvation which they [the apostles] preached should be set in train through the sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical life revolves...The liturgy is...the fount from which all her [mother church's] power flows9
Oh, well, what a glorioius liberty can be found in the doctrine, dogma, and tenets of Catholic ritual and tradition; the list is endless.
Ro 5:6 ¶ For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
May we stand firm in our love for all, robbing no one of heaven by compromising the biblical gospel, which alone is "the power of God unto salvation" (Rom 1:16).
I concede I may be wrong in my assessments, but the destiny of your eternal soul depends that I am not so.
==============================
Notes:
1) Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2020
2) Ott, Dr. Ludwig, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder, 1962 pp. 253-4
3) Trent, 7th Session, Canon 4
4) Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.SS.R, The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (Tan Books & Publishers, Inc., 1977, Imprinatur Joseph E. Ritter, S.T.D., Archbishop of St. Louis), 26-27.
5) ibid., 26-27.
6) Flannery, Austin O.P., gen. ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, rev. ed. (Costello Publishing, 1988), vol. 1, p. 378.
7) ibid., p. 46.
8) ibid., p. 1.
9) ibid., p. 4, 6.
I'm sure I don't have to remind you of what the Lord said about "a rich man" entering the kingdom of God.
... biblical Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship...
I'm sure "biblical Christianity" has no problem being a "religion" when it comes time to file for "tax exempt" status. Conversely, I dare say the distinction you note holds up only so long as "biblical Christianity" is the exclusive source for making that distinction.
A gratuitous assertion may be just as gratuitously denied.
...the Bible denounces all religions as instruments of Satan to keep mankind in darkness...
Where?
It means that you do not add your works to His work.
If the United States Supreme Court rules that burning a flag is protected "speech," does that mean the founding fathers would have agreed?
You are free to define yourself and others as you like; that does not mean God is obligated to agree with you. I am convinced, because of what has been done in my life, that to a very great extent, He does not agree with you.
I fail to comprehend how the dogma and tenets of the Roman Catholic Church can give one peace of mind compared to Jno 5:24.
You fail to comprehend, because you look "at" instead of "along." Cf. Meditations in a Toolshed by CS Lewis.
I concede I may be wrong in my assessments, but the destiny of your eternal soul depends that I am not so.
I think not. Wisdom is vindicated by her children. God had more than twenty years to make good on His biblical promises while I believed as you do.
That being said, do you actually know what the hell you're talking 'bout? Eh?
What does that matter?
All you really need to determine is if you believe my witness.
From there everything falls into place or not.
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.