Pulpit Magazine

Posted in Apologetics, Catholicism |

48 Responses to “Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 6)”

1. on 19 May 2007 at 1:08 am   Gerry

   John,

   You said: For example, it was Jesus Himself who stated, “he who hears My word, and believes . . . has passed out of death into life” (Jn. 5:24)—without undergoing any sacrament or ritual, and without any waiting period or purgatory. The thief on the cross is the classic example. On the most meager evidence of his faith, Jesus told him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise” (Lk. 23:43). No sacrament or work was required for him to procure salvation.

   I say: As far as Purgatory, I gave both a biblical account of the teaching and also showed it was clearly taught from the beginning via the church fathers yesterday so I won’t cover that again..

   As far as the thief on the cross, he was not able (hanging on the cross) to be baptised..We obviously have a Most Merciful Father that would not hold that against him even though Jesus teaches that it is necessary in (John 3:5) and Peter taught that “it saves” (1 Peter 3:21). There are also many others verses which show it’s necessity.

   Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: “Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted” (Large Catechism 4:6).

   Because Our God is a merciful God, The Catholic Church has taught that there are three types of baptism…1) Water baptism in the name of The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit by either immersion or sprinkling/pouring. 2)Baptism of desire (the thief on the cross) 3) Baptism of blood (Martyrdom).

   New Advent explains it below:

   X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT
   The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

   (1) The Baptism of Desire
   The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The “baptism of the Holy Ghost” is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate”. The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): “He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” And again: “If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice “except by the washing of regeneration or its desire” (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

   We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: “Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it.” St. Augustine (IV, De Bapt., xxii) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.

   (2) The Baptism of Blood
   The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term “washing of blood” (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (De Bapt., xvi) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the “washing of water” (lavacrum aquæ). “We have a second washing”, he says “which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood.” St. Cyprian (Ep. lxxiii) speaks of “the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood” (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XIII, vii) says: “When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism.”

   The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven” (verse 32); and: “He that shall lose his life for me shall find it” (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Adv. Valent., ii) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.

   Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tr. lxxiv in Joan.): “He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him.” This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)

2. on 19 May 2007 at 6:55 am   donsands

   “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees”

   John teaches that this is the imputed righteousness that we receive. I am still thinking this over, since RC Sproul would disagree with him here.

   We all agree that Christ’s righteousness is imputed, and that with our sins imputed to Him is our salvation.

   But here it seems our Lord is pointing to the Pharisees “workmanship” in this life. They are whitewashed tombs.
   We need to have a different righteousness than this is what I think our Lord may be saying here.
   And this would be our sanctification, not justification. This would be an evidence that we truly are the elect children of God, those who have been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

   This was once again a marvelous teaching, all in all. Very edifying.

3. on 19 May 2007 at 7:11 am   Charles E. Whisnant

   Was Jesus refering to the “works” of the scribes and Pharisees or their spiritual condition? Were the scribes and Pharisees believers or non believers? This would then define if Jesus was talking about “justification” or “sanctification.” “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisee, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” Matthew 3:20. The scribes and Pharisees were viewed as the best kind of persons living at the time. If they didn’t get to Heaven, how can anyone get there.

   Charles

4. on 19 May 2007 at 7:38 am   Mrs. Burrows

   Charles, do you agree that the righteousness the scribes and Pharisees had that Jesus was talking about exceeding was that of self-righteousness(of the same line of thought as to what God referenced through Paul in Romans 10)? Those that have God-righteousness imputed are those that enter the the Kingdom of Heaven.

   Hope this helps.

5. on 19 May 2007 at 8:21 am   Nate B.

   Gerry,

   I won’t be able to interact much today, since it’s Saturday. But I wanted to give a brief response.

   Regarding Baptism: 

   We talked about baptism yesterday, so I’ll refer everyone back to the analysis of Stander and Louw.

   Do we (as evangelical Protestants) believe baptism is important? Absolutely. It is an ordinance established by Christ in which new converts publicly identify with Christ and His body, the church. It symbolizes unity with Him in His death and resurrection, and is an external sign of the internal regeneration that has taken place in our hearts. Insofar as all true believers will want to obey Christ, they will also desire to follow Him in baptism (which is commanded by Him). But is water baptism what saves us? Certainly not. Even the apostle Peter clarified this in 1 Peter 3:21 that it is not the external act (”the removal of dirt from the flesh”) that saves, but the internal reality of a Spirit-baptized heart (”an appeal to God for a good conscience”).

   Regarding Purgatory:

   For those interested in studying Purgatory, I would recommend the following links: here, here, and here.

   Additional articles on various topics can be read here, here, and here.

   Here is what James White wrote in an online debate about the history of Purgatory:

   ***

   Let’s review, then look at the scant number of Biblical passages Rome has cited in defense of this doctrine, and close by noting the vast number of Biblical passages that teach contrary to the fundamental elements of the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, most specifically, the teaching of Holy Scripture that Christ’s death is complete, perfect, finished, and fully propitiatory.

   The sole Jewish source cited, even by the 1994 Catholic Catechism, is 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, wherein we read of a group of Jewish fighters, all of whom were idolaters. They carried pagan idols under their clothing, and God struck them down as punishment. This uninspired book, rejected as canonical by such notable early Fathers as Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and Jerome, as well as Pope Gregory the Great and at least fifty other major ecclesiastical writers up to the time of the Reformation, including Cardinal Cajetan, the prelate who interviewed Luther, says that the Jewish leader offered prayers and sacrifices for these dead soldiers. It seems that any connection at all with the dead is sufficient at this point, for obviously, since idolatry is a mortal sin, and would not send one to purgatory, but to hell itself, this passage is hardly supportive of the doctrine we examine tonight. At the very best it would have to be said that the passage indicates an error in thinking on the part of the Jews, but given its highly unusual nature, and the fact that no canonical Scripture supports it, its very use begins to illustrate for us the highly questionable nature of purgatory as a dogma of Christian faith.

   When we come to the earliest centuries of the Christian church, we find no doctrine of purgatory. What we do find fairly early on are prayers for the dead, often cited as evidence of at least an implicit concept of purgatory. Yet, as historians such as Le Goff point out, these primitive prayers are actually contradictory to the modern concept of purgatory. They pray for their loved ones that they might have refrigerium, refreshment, and yet this is couched in terms of the pleasures of paradise, a state defined as “peace and light.” Mohrmann comments that refrigerium referred to “heavenly happiness,” and that, “Among later Christian writers refrigerium is used in a general way to denote the joys of the world beyond the grave, promised by God to the elect.” Neale, upon collating and studying ancient liturgical sources, concluded, “(1) that prayers for the dead . . . have been from the beginning the practice of the Universal Church. (2) And this without any idea of a purgatory of pain, or of any state from which the departed soul has to be delivered as from one of misery.”

   The ease with which modern apologists for Roman Catholicism point to these prayers without taking serious note of their character, and the lack of a meaningful context by which to make them truly supportive of their case, should give us reason to examine their claims more carefully. Indeed, Tertullian, upon making reference to making oblations on the anniversary of someone’s death frankly admitted, “If you look in Scripture for a formal law governing these and similar practices, you will find none. It is tradition that justifies them, custom that confirms them, and faith that observes them” (De corona militis 3.2-3). What a strange, strange statement if, in fact, the passages Roman Catholic apologists cite are, in fact relevant. Evidently, Tertullian recognized that this was merely a practice, not a doctrine, let alone a dogma. How time transformed this simple practice into something wholly different!

   The chief architects of the earliest concepts that lead to purgatory only decrease our confidence in the doctrine. In the East we have Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Both wrote extensively, and much of what they said would not be believed by almost anyone here this evening, Catholic or Protestant. Both engaged in allegorical interpretation that was devoid of meaningful exegetical content, and while Origen did know both Greek and Hebrew, his view of Scripture as having all sorts of levels of meaning led him to ignore the literal, historical-grammatical meaning and focus upon an allegedly higher, “spiritual” meaning. Both likewise were influenced more by Plato than by Paul, leading to a strange, and in fact unorthodox, theology. Both men were led into wild speculations, especially in regard to the idea of a corrective, punitive, cleansing of the soul. This idea came primarily from Greek philosophy and dualism, surely not from Scripture.

   At the same time non-canonical, gnostic-influenced works, such as the Apocalypse of Peter or Paul, likewise presented a concept of the afterlife derived not from the Bible but from Greek philosophy. These works, despite their non-canonical status, deeply influenced the rise of purgatorial thinking in the middle ages.

   In the West we find Augustine strangely giving credence to a concept of purgation as well, though, as he likewise believed in predestination and election, and the idea that saving faith is a gift of God, he melded these concepts into a strangely inconsistent whole that led him to believe that such sufferings would only avail for the elect and none others. He was influenced in his thinking by his mother’s dying request to be remembered in his prayers.

   But most importantly we find, a full half millennia after the founding of the Church, Gregory, bishop of Rome, known as Pope Gregory the Great today. This man’s theology was a mess: he was at best a semi-Pelagian who gave tremendous weight to the idea of merit and works; he did not believe man was dead in sin, but only wounded or sick; he was ignorant of both Greek and Hebrew and knew absolutely nothing of biblical backgrounds as well. He would not have made it out of any decent undergraduate Bible program today. Yet, he wrote extensively, putting his manifest ignorance on paper. One of his works, completed after he became Pope, was a work on Job, filled with the most inane and silly allegorical interpretation.

   Schaff gives us an illustration of Gregory’s thinking in this work: The names of persons and things, the numbers, and even the syllables [of the book of Job], are filled with mystic meaning. Job represents Christ; his wife the carnal nature; his seven sons (seven being the number of perfection) represent the apostles, and hence the clergy; his three daughters the three classes of the faithful laity who are to worship the Trinity; his friends the heretics; the seven thousand sheep the perfect Christians; the three thousand camels the heathen and Samaritans; the five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred she-asses again the heathen.

   Ironically, this same work contains Gregory’s rejection of Maccabees as a canonical work. But it was another work of Gregory, the Dialogues, that is of importance to us tonight. These dialogues between Gregory and the Roman archdeacon Peter abound, as Schaff says, “in incredible marvels and visions of the state of departed souls.” Gregory admits that he is transmitting hearsay only and did not, himself, see any of these alleged visions.

   This is the work, however, that becomes foundational to the development in the middle ages of the doctrine that became dogma at the Council of Florence yet 900 years in the future. And so we have the beginnings of what would, eventually, become the modern dogma of purgatory: scattered references from Origen the allegorist who believed even Satan himself would be saved and who likewise believed in the pre-existence of souls; Tertullian who became a Montanist; Augustine who was deeply influenced by his mother’s request and whose exegesis of Matthew 12 ignored the simple parallel passage in Mark 3 that, as we shall see, renders Matthew 12 irrelevant to its use by Rome today, and most importantly Gregory, who could not even read the original languages, offered allegorical interpretation in the place of true exegesis, and who passed on hearsay stories about visions of the afterlife that became central to the development of the concept of purgatory during the Middle Ages. Indeed, did not Peter warn us about what happens when untaught and unstable persons distort the Scriptures?

   Time precludes delving much into the development of the actual dogma of purgatory, primarily in the 12th century, and its elevation to the status of dogma by the Council of Florence in the 15th century, a council history shows to have been political in nature, one that could hardly be said to have seriously considered anything of an exegetical or biblical nature. Indeed, Florence spent more time worrying about where to put the chairs for the seating of the Greek delegates than it did on the study of the Bible. Yet, the modern Catholic church views Florence as the 17th ecumenical council, and the modern catechism relies upon Florence and Trent to define purgatory in section 1031.

   ***

   To read the rest, go here.

   Thanks,
   NB

6. on 19 May 2007 at 8:29 am   Nate B.

   To All:

   I just discovered that William Webster (who wrote The Church of Rome at the Bar of History) has a website with numerous helpful articles on it.

   It is definitely worth a visit.

   One of my favorite articles is in regard to how the early church understood the “rock” of Matthew 16:18. Also see the one on penance.

   Anyway, this site is a helpful resource for those studying the Roman Catholic Church in the context of church history.

   - NB

7. on 19 May 2007 at 11:28 am   Charles E. Whisnant

   The Pharisees and scribes that Jesus addressed were not believers. They performed all the works of their regligious sect. They crossed all their T’s. They prayed all their prayers. They fasted like they taught. They based their getting into the Kingdom by their works of doing good deeds and doing what their religious sect asked of them. Sounds like those in the Catholic Church. Some believe all that Jesus Christ did on the Cross, they believe in the shed blood of Christ for their sins. they believe their sins have been forgiven. Yet they continue to think they need to do all the “Church” requires of them to make sure they stay saved, or continue to be saved. Doing all these things will assure them that they have been saved. At their funeral the Priest will do all he can to make sure that they get into heaven and not purgatory.

   There are some Catholics that really believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, (as I would believe the Gospel) There are some that also believe what the “Church” is teaching them to do as well. So they try to believe both. So then can a person do both and be saved according to the Scripture?

   Charles

8. on 19 May 2007 at 11:41 am   Jesse Johnson

   Charles,

   That really is the million dollar question: “can a person do both (believe the Gospel and follow RCC teachings) and be saved.”
   The unequivocal answer is “no,” and let me explain why with this footnote: there are people in the RCC who are genuinely saved. These people fall into two camps: those who know but ignore the church’s teachings, and just have not left for some reason or another; those who do not know what the church teaches, but do have a saving knowledge of Christ. That second group is predominant in the United States, because of how closely the RCC seems to resemble a gospel teaching church here.

   If a person believes that they are saved completely by the work of Christ on the cross and by faith in the resurrection, they recognize that they cannot add to that work. In fact, the act of belief implies repentance from presenting your own works before God as meritorious in a salvific way.

   A person who thinks they gain merit in a salvific way by their deeds, has yet to turn from self-righteousness and embrace the Gospel. This is really the main point of John’s post this morning. I know there are many Roman Catholics who claim to believe both in sola fide and the RCC doctrines (of which I no doubt expect to hear from in the next few days). It is the protestant position that they are mutually exclusive, and if you try to hold on to both you are not understanding one correctly.

   The issue is: do you turn from trusting your own works and embrace the finished work of Christ, or do you embrace the work of Christ, and then seek to add/achieve merit for yourself by your own works, even if those works are enabled by the Grace of God. The first would be the Gospel of sola fide, and the second would be something else entirely.

   Thanks,
   Jesse

9. on 19 May 2007 at 1:49 pm   Cindy

   Jesse is right, you can’t do both……..believe the Gospel, yet practice all the RCC teachings…….

   God says……”Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it”…….Matt. 7:13-14

   I don’t consider myself an Evangelical Protestant, but rather a Bible-Believing Born-Again Christian. Protestants has to many origins and connections with Rome.

10. on 19 May 2007 at 3:25 pm   Charles E. Whisnant

    “A person who thinks they gain merit in a salvific way by their deeds, has yet to turn from self-righteousness and embrace the Gospel.” Jesse said

    Today in our society there seems to be no one definition of who is a Christian. Every group, like the Roman Catholics believe they know who a “true” Christian is. It’s depending upon your understanding of the nature of faith, the work of Jesus on the cross, the effect of justification on a person.

    To Roman Catholics, a Christian is often defined according to their baptism status. Their definition is “true” to them, why? Because it agrees with their fundamental beliefs, including their understanding of the Bible, the declarations of many Church Councils, and even Early Church Fathers, the statements of many of their popes, and their church’s tradition.

    And I might add Gerry has done a very excellent job of expressing the “true” Catholic view of who a Christian is.

    The number of Christians in the world today? You would have to know the “correct” definition of “Christian” to know that.

    But there is no “consensus on what the “correct” definition of “Christin is” among all religious groups, because they all believe they are Christians.

    Well, John MacArthur, Jr, Nate Busenitz, Jesse Johnson, Phil Johnson and many of you believe that there is one and only one correct defintion of the term “Christian.” To us we defind “Christian” according to their justification by God i.e. their salvation status. We believe this is “true” because of our foundational beliefs: that the Bible is inerrant, that salvation is by grace.

    So you read Gerry’s and Co. what they believe to be “true” as to who is a Christian. And you read Jesse and Nate and John MacArthur’s viewpoint, as who or how a person becomes a Christian We know by Sola Scriptura.

    There is only one way in which a person can become “Christian” biblically. And not as a cab driver said in New York when ask why he had all those religious symbols on his rear view mirror? He said, I want to make sure I get to heaven, so I want to make sure I know all the ways to get there.”

    “Are you a Christian? Born-again?” How do we know? Sola Scriptura.

    By reading Gerry’s point of view and John MacArthur’s point of view, do you see two points of views? Do we need to believe one or the other to be a ‘true” born again Christian?

    Charles

11. on 19 May 2007 at 3:39 pm   Gerry

    Charles,

    I have to commend you on your statements above..Well done!

    God bless you, for at least you give some credence to the fact that the Catholic interpretation (whether you believe it or not) is just as valid as any other. Thank you for that.

12. on 19 May 2007 at 3:52 pm   Gerry

    Nate,

    Let me address your comments on baptism first..

    you said: (Baptism)is an external sign of the internal regeneration that has taken place in our hearts

    I say: Are you sure your not a closet Catholic (I’m kidding), because here is the definition of a sacrament:

    “Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace”

    You said: But is water baptism what saves us? Certainly not. Even the apostle Peter clarified this in 1 Peter 3:21 that it is not the external act (”the removal of dirt from the flesh”) that saves, but the internal reality of a Spirit-baptized heart (”an appeal to God for a good conscience”).

    I say: You left off the beginning part of 1 Peter 3:21, so I’ll include it for you.

    1 Peter 3:
    20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
    21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

    ***21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now*******

    That’s pretty clear to me…

13. on 19 May 2007 at 4:08 pm   Cindy

    Gerry………

    There is an excellent book written by a former catholic called “Understanding Roman Catholicism” by Rick Jones and another one written by Thomas Heinz called “Answers to my Catholic Friends”.

    I hope and pray you will find the Truth. But only God knows your heart…..that is, if you are truly looking for an intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and if you truly want to know Him, apart from yourself. I pray God will reveal His Truth to you and give you a revelation of who Jesus Christ truly is………see Colossians 1:26-27

14. on 19 May 2007 at 4:47 pm   Charles E. Whisnant

    We are all sinners by nature, we start this life as sinners, and we will never get any better. There is no righteousness in us from the time of birth to the moment we die. We will never rise above that state of being. All the works we may do, and many are very good for mankind, Sometimes we are asked to do many religious acts that man is instructed to do in order to bring about his salvation.

    When you are an expositional teacher/preacher, your form of apologetics is scripture, and in my case, teaching one book at a time, verse by verse. I was in Romans for over 150 sermons. The source of my belief about salvation came from a study of the Scripture. Could I learn from Romans how a sinner as I could become a “Christian” or be “born-again?”

    I tried to set aside my Baptistic beliefs or even what I thought my Baptist peers believed about salvation. I was not going to try to disprove what the Roman Catholics were saying about being saved. We had several Catholics in our church. Thus I never addressed the belief system of salvation by the Catholics. One person asked me, “Can I ask you a question?” I said yes. She said, “Why are Baptist always bad mouthing Catholics? But she said I have found that you don’t do that. You seen to use only Scripture to prove your position. I spend sixteen years doing that.(in one church)

    You are saved not by being a Baptist or even a Catholic. Being a Baptist or a Reformed Presbyterian, will not guarantee our salvation.

    What I see here in these discussions over the last week has been to learn better the views of the belief systems of Roman Catholics.

    For someone to take on John MacArthur and Jesse Johnson and Nate as Gerry has in the manner he has has to be admired.

    No Gerry, I haven’t changed my views as to the way we are saved by this exchanged, but I have a better understanding of your positon of Catholics theology and its Traditions.

    I really believe if one would start from a Scripture only position, and not from our already religious presuppositional views we just might arrive with the right Bibical position.

15. on 19 May 2007 at 5:11 pm   Charles E. Whisnant

    Cindy commented to Gerry:
    “I hope and pray you will find the Truth. But only God knows your heart…..that is, if you are truly looking for an intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and if you truly want to know Him, apart from yourself. I pray God will reveal His Truth to you and give you a revelation of who Jesus Christ truly is.”

    Cindy that is really not good Christian Apolegetics. I believe that Gerry is seeking the TRUTH, and that he desires for an intimate relationship with the Lord, and he desires to want to know Him. Herein is the dilemma. While you and I may not believe he is necessary correct about his Catholic position, we do know that God can reveal Himself to any of us.

    We know that we are born again, not by our belief, or works, but by the Spirit that God puts in us that we are born again.
    And we know that God can change our belief system if He so chooses, when God chooses us, he will change us.

    And we know a Christian is someone who has been chosen by God, and that speaks of the sovereign grace of God in salvation.

16. on 19 May 2007 at 5:39 pm   Cindy

    Charles……….I am so sorry I am not “scholarly” according to you. You don’t have to “delve into abstract theology” to know Christ. A simple 4 year old child can understand what it means to trust Jesus and personally know Jesus.

17. on 19 May 2007 at 5:47 pm   Gerry

    Charles,

    You said: No Gerry, I haven’t changed my views as to the way we are saved by this exchanged, but I have a better understanding of your positon of Catholics theology and its Traditions.

    I say: Thank you for your comment. I didn’t come here to “convince” anyone..only the Holy Spirit can do that. I came only to “clarify” what the Catholic Church “really” teaches rather than what you “think or hear” it teaches.

18. on 19 May 2007 at 5:52 pm   donsands

    Gerry,
    I went to a Catholic baptism, and the priest said that this baby is born-again as he ministered the sacrament.
    Do you believe this? And is this the teaching of the Catholic Church, or was it simply a false statement made by this priest?

    Thanks.

19. on 19 May 2007 at 6:13 pm   Gerry

    Jesse,

    You said: That really is the million dollar question: “can a person do both (believe the Gospel and follow RCC teachings) and be saved.”
    The unequivocal answer is “no,” and let me explain why with this footnote: there are people in the RCC who are genuinely saved. These people fall into two camps: those who know but ignore the church’s teachings, and just have not left for some reason or another; those who do not know what the church teaches, but do have a saving knowledge of Christ. That second group is predominant in the United States, because of how closely the RCC seems to resemble a gospel teaching church here.

    I say: That was a pretty judgemental statement..

    Let’s break it down:

    “The ones who know, but ignore” (ignore what, you must have examples since you wrote it?) and have not left for one reason or another (again, examples..)

    “those who do not know what the church teaches”
    *** I would say 75% leave because of not knowing what the Church teaches (because of bad catechesis or not ptting any effort into it) and the other 25% leave because of issues with women ordination, sexual immorality, divorce, contraception, etc…

    “but do have a saving knowledge of Christ. That second group is predominant in the United States, because of how closely the RCC seems to resemble a gospel teaching church here”

    **The saving knowledge of Christ is “taught” by The Church and it doesn’t just “seem” to resemble the gospel message IT IS the gospel message as you can see below from the earliest Christians:

    Ignatius of Antioch
    “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

    ****Questions to consider 1) Do you have a bishop or priest? 2) Do you celebrate the Eucharist? If not, why not, since it is taught from the beginning.

    The Martyrdom of Polycarp
    “And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).

    ***One of the elect and a Bishop of the Catholic Church…

    Cyril of Jerusalem
    “[The Church] is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned, and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body, and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description” (Catechetical Lectures 18:23 [A.D. 350]).

    ** “teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly”,***

    “And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is—for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’—nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God” (ibid., 18:26).

    ***but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church**

    Augustine
    “We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard” (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).

20. on 19 May 2007 at 6:21 pm   Mrs. Burrows

    donsands, that isn’t only a Catholic teaching. My mother was Catholic and then Lutheran for nearly 45 years; at her funeral, the officiating minister(Lutheran faith) referenced her being a Christian because she was baptized(it was pedobaptism as a Catholic) along with mentioning a myriad of deeds.

    https://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2612

    https://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3967

21. on 19 May 2007 at 6:35 pm   Charles E. Whisnant

    Cindy

    Scholarly! I don’t know you so I can’t say that. I wasn’t trying to be disrespectful, my wife would have killed me.

    I don’t think a four year old can really understand the Gospel. (They don’t have the cognitive ability) I don’t think a forty year old can undestand the Gospel even with the cognitive ability. That is another subject.

    Gerry

    I realize in your comments that you are just stating your Catholic position. That’s a good position to take in your approach. For me to read all your comments is a testimony to your approach. There are some people that I would not get pass the their first sentence. At least you are getting people to read your comment. Of course that could be…… (a light moment)

    Its 9:30 p.m. here in Ohio. The Yankee’s lost again to the Mets. Back to NASCAR. THe Reds are not doing much better.

    This has been a great week of study. A personal sad week in the lost of my friend Jerry Falwell. And learning that Dr. Lee Roberson died at 97, pastor at Highland Park Baptist April 29th.

22. on 19 May 2007 at 6:46 pm   Cindy

    So many catholic “scholars” come to Evangelical web sites and blogs to help the “separated brethern” come back to Rome……..that is their ultimate goal. Before, the Protestants would be burned at the stake, but now they are more civil calling Protestants separated brethern. These people are called “Jesuits”. They are very skilled in debate, skilled in scripture and church history, but their goal is to make catholicism “Evangelical” so that Protestants will look more favorably upon them and even perhaps go back to Rome as we see many doing.

    But those who know the TRUTH, can see through the eloquent words spoken. There is such a thing as spiritual discernment and we are to use it and ask the Holy Spirit to give it to us. Jesus saw through the Pharisees and into their hearts…………Matt. 23.

    According to most Evangelicals today, Jesus would be accused of being divisive. But to have the Holy Spirit means you are governed by TRUTH, and nothing less. And that means that speaking the TRUTH is more important than reputation and friends. Paul said in Galations, “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the Truth?”. Jesus spoke the TRUTH and it got Him crucified, as it did Paul and Peter and even many prophets were stoned simply because they bore witness to the Truth.

23. on 20 May 2007 at 2:04 am   Gerry

    Charles,

    Thank you for your kind words. You are a very wise and charitable man. I couldn’t agree more with your statement concerning salvation and Church membership.

    Cindy,

    You said: There is an excellent book written by a former catholic called “Understanding Roman Catholicism” by Rick Jones and another one written by Thomas Heinz called “Answers to my Catholic Friends”.

    I say: I’ll make a deal with you, I’ll read your book if you read the stories below from former Protestant ministers??? Deal??

    http://www.chnetwork.org/converts.htm

24. on 20 May 2007 at 5:40 am   Mrs. Burrows

    “former Protestant ministers”? I can point to Trish Telesco that at one time was a dedicated and close worker with Benny Hinn(that would perceived Protestant, yes?) that is now a Wiccan. There are some people that were never “one of us” and if they walk in some other religion of works to become and be kept saved in their spiritual blindness and zeal for God they still aren’t “of the given faith” according to the Word of God.

    Catholic doctrine teaches the following concerning church membership in regards to salvation(see part VI The Necessary Means of Salvation and IX Members of the Church along with the other points):

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

    Salvation is of the Lord as the Alpha & Omega…it is His work with the believer being His workmanship, beginning to end. He, as the Potter, makes vessels of mercy fit for honor and glory. He also makes vessels of wrath fit for dishonor and destruction. It’s about being or not being in Christ of God’s mercy and call and choosing and enabling and performing to the day of Jesus Christ. It isn’t about clay from the lump running or willing but all about His mercy and compassion and His sovereign will. Romans 9

    His salvation is a total package(saves from the debt of sin in the “past”, power of sin in the “present”, presence of sin in the “future”).

    Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform [it] until the day of Jesus Christ: Philippians 1:6

    But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead: Who delivered us from so great a death(”past”), and doth deliver(”present”): in whom we trust that he will yet deliver [us](”future”); …Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. 2 Corinthians 1:9, 10, 22

    Maybe these links will help(and for the sake of comment brevity):

    http://www.reformed.com/pub/newbirth.htm (The New Birth)

    http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/whatismonergism2.html (Monergism vs. Synergism)

    Hope this helps.

25. on 21 May 2007 at 3:07 am   Gerry

    To Nate and all,

    I won’t be avaiable for most of the day, but would like your opinions on the:

    JOINT DECLARATION
    ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

    by the Lutheran World Federation
    and the Catholic Church

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

26. on 21 May 2007 at 3:11 am   Gerry

    Nate,

    One more quick question..

    I had posted my answers to James White’s refutations on Purgatory..what happened to it?

    Thank you and God bless.

27. on 21 May 2007 at 9:33 am   ALAN

    That Lutheran-Roman statement, just FYI, is pretty worthless really. It lacks the word “alone” after “faith” in the relevant sections on justification.
    Or it could say “faith and works” or sthg to that effect.
    But as it is, it resolves nothing, so to me it seems to be a limp-wristed, lame, and liberal attempt at ecumenism.
    They swung at a whiffle ball and still whiffed.

28. on 21 May 2007 at 10:33 am   Kit

    Charles, are you suggesting in your post above that there are multiple ways to Heaven? Surely not.

    To all,

    The issue of faith + works = salvation, or rather, faith = salvation + works, is just that. It’s really that simple. The heart of the issue is “what saves us”. That’s it. The bible clearly teaches that we are saved by grace through faith. Period. The phrase, “you will know them by their fruits” says it all in my opinion. That really sums it up. The Faith part saves you, but to someone that professes “faith” but has no works, something is wrong here. A true believer will have fruit, period. So in one sense, works are “required”, but not so far as to say that you are saved by them. You are validated by them. Shown to be a true believer by them. The RCC takes this idea too far and says, “see, see what James is saying, it’s faith + works = salvation”. I would say (as well as most people here I would assume), the bible plainly says otherwise, and works play the role of validating ones faith. Thoughts?

29. on 21 May 2007 at 10:33 am   Pulpit Magazine

    Gerry,

    We get a ton of spam over the weekend … which is filtered out by our moderation queue. If your comment got stuck in that queue, it may have been deleted. (Our spam filters are set pretty high, so sometimes legitimate comments get mistakenly categorized as spam.)

    Perhaps you could try reposting it?

    - NB

30. on 21 May 2007 at 12:57 pm   ALAN

    Gerry said:

    21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

    ***21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now*******

    That’s pretty clear to me…

    Fair enough.
    It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

    That’s pretty clear to ME. Pope Peter should never have said that if he believed like you do.

31. on 21 May 2007 at 1:25 pm   Charles E. Whisnant

    WAS THE THIEF ON THE CROSS SAVED AND DID HE GO TO HEAVEN THE MOMENT THAT HE DIED? Was there anykind of works required of this man before he died? Was Jesus correct to say “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”? No works.

    How fast (if I might say that) does Justification by faith work?

    The moment God applies to the sinner salvation, the sinner is born again, and he at that moment receives eternal life. Luke 23:43 “Today.”

    So the issue is what is the process following regeneration? Salvation could never take place unless all the means whereby God could save someone had already happen. That is grace alone.

    You are not being saved in the sense of being born again that does happen instantly. Justification happens at the very moment of regeneration.

    That is the only way a person is born again.

    Charles

32. on 21 May 2007 at 5:20 pm   Gerry

    Nate,

    Thanks for you reply, but it will be a couple of days before I can devote the time for reply.

    God bless…

33. on 21 May 2007 at 5:23 pm   Gerry

    Alan,

    you said: That’s pretty clear to ME. Pope Peter should never have said that if he believed like you do.

    I say: I don’t understand your statement. Could you please clarify?

    Thank you.

34. on 21 May 2007 at 5:25 pm   Gerry

    Charles,

    I believe the thief was saved and went to heaven.

35. on 22 May 2007 at 9:00 am   ALAN

    Sure, Gerry.

    You cited 1 Pet 3:21 to try to say that water baptism is a salvific act.
    I just pointed out that you neglected to take into acct the 2nd half of the verse, where “Pope” Peter tells us that “…it is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience.”

    It’s NOT water baptism but rather Spirit baptism that saves.

36. on 22 May 2007 at 4:22 pm   Gerry

    Alan,

    The Spirit is received via the water and proper formula (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)..

37. on 23 May 2007 at 10:38 am   ALAN

    Gerry,

    My authority is not your ipse dixit. I’m surprised you hold your own 1st Pope’s words in such low esteem.

38. on 23 May 2007 at 5:47 pm   Gerry

    Alan,

    In John 3:5:

    5 Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

    What part of the “water and spirit” that Jesus speaks of is confusing to you?

39. on 24 May 2007 at 2:53 pm   ALAN

    A couple of possibilities:

    1) “Water” = physical birth
    “Spirit” = born again

    2) “Water” = spiritual birth
    “Spirit” = spiritual birth, using a Hebrew idiom, repeating Himself

    One thing of which we can be 100% sure is that it can’t be that baptism is required for justification, b/c baptism is a work and we are saved APART FROM WORKS.

    Why do you insist that we are saved BY works, at least partially? No matter how much we discuss Eph 2, it continually amazes me how RCs run away from it.

40. on 24 May 2007 at 3:15 pm   Gerry

    Alan,

    Have I ever run away from a conversation?? Come on!

    Why can’t you take Jesus’s words at face value??? You keep on injecting your own thoughts and possibilities..He said “Water and Spirit” (That is baptism)..

    In John 3:5:
    5 Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

    AGAIN, What part of the “water and spirit” that Jesus speaks of is confusing to you?

    Read my first post again where I talked about the different types of baptism.

    As far as Faith and Works, again I go to James Chap 2 (SCRIPTURE)

    14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
    17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead
    20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
    21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
    22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.

    24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

    26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

    ***The only place in the bible where Faith and Alone are mentioned and it flat out REJECTS “faith alone”

    Let’s look at it again..

    “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”
    “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.”

    I don’t understand how you can claim “faith alone” and “scripture alone” and not see how plainly obvious it is in scripture that baptism is necessary and how faith ALONE is unbiblical??

41. on 25 May 2007 at 7:15 am   ALAN

    Gerry,

    No, you’re showing me you don’t run away from discussions (and kudos to you) but you run away from the meaning of Eph 2.

    And in this comment you didn’t even mention Eph 2! Can’t you see why I said that?
    James 2 has been dealt w/ earlier by Pastor MacArthur himself, I’m not going to repeat it.

    But what I will do is call attention to the fact that Eph 2 says we are saved by faith apart from works in order to do good works.
    You say we are saved by faith with works.

    The difference is clear.

42. on 25 May 2007 at 3:12 pm   Gerry

    Alan,

    Is Pastor MacArthur “infallible”on “his” version of James 2??? It is so plain that you would have to really play on words to get any other meaning.

    As far as Eph. 2 you are reading way too much into it. I think I addressed it in GREAT detail.

    24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

    26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

    God bless..

43. on 29 May 2007 at 2:14 pm   ALAN

    Gerry,

    There is no reason to assume that just b/c someone is not infallible they have nothing good to say. One might considerate it good form to actually respond to the arguments already made.

    I also responded to your citation of James 2. I’ll paste it here:

    FF Bruce’s commentary on Galatians 5 can prove handy:

    “To seek it [justification] through faith in Christ was to seek it on the ground of God’s grace; to seek it through legal works was to seek it on the ground of their own merit…Paul has already made it clear (3:10) that those who seek justification through legal works do not attain it (cf. Rom 11:7), but rather incur the curse of the law; what he emphasizes here is the incompatibility of faith and works, of divine grace and human merit, where justification of the sinner before God is in question.

    Here [5:5] is such a reference, however; by contrast with the vain hope of righteousness by legal works, he says, we who believe in Christ are enabled by the Spirit, through faith, to wait confidently for the hope of righteousness. The law holds out no such sure hope as this. The ‘hope of righteousness’ is the hope of a favourable verdict in the last judgment (Rom 2:5-16). For those who believe in Christ such a verdict is assured in advance by the present experience of justification by faith…In their case the eschatological verdict of ‘not guilty’ is already realized.”

    –F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (Erdmans 1988), 231-232.

    And here is a quick cut and paste of some quotes in another article dealing w/ this topic:

    “There is no reason to assume that James was commenting on Paul. Notice that there is no reference in his epistle to Jewish/Gentile relations in the church, which is the point of departure for the Pauline doctrine.

    And there is no reason to assume that James is using the word in the same specialized sense as it acquires in Pauline thought. A word is not a doctrine. The reason we have a Pauline doctrine of justification is not because Paul uses the word, but because he has laid out a detailed theological model of justification—such as you don’t find in James.

    From what I can tell, James is making a much simpler point, where faith and works are equivalent to hearing and doing (1:22-25). Don’t be hearers of the word only, but doers as well. This is a common admonition in Scripture…faith is not the ground of our justification. The ground of our justification is penal substitution. Faith is merely a condition of its individual application to the sinner…sanctification is a necessary condition of salvation, but not a condition of justification.
    …we’re not talking in generic terms about man’s relation to God, but in specific terms about the sinner’s relation to his Judge.”
    

    For the purposes of this discussion, you can consider me in agreement w/ the author of that article.
    My own brief commentary is this:
    Paul discusses forensic justification of the dead, dirty sinner before a loving, yes, but also holy and just God in various psgs thru the NT, including Romans 2-10, most of Galatians, heavy references in Colossians, and Ephesians 1-2 (among other places). It is out of these places that the Reformation doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone has been derived. I say “Reformation doctrine” simply to give it a name and set it apart, but I will be happy to defend it from biblical exegesis.

    James, by contrast, as noted above, is not discussing justification of the sinner before God.
    A final note - what does James’ “justification” mean, then? It is the validation before witnesses of the faith that exists. In the case of Abraham, for example, he lifts the knife to kill Isaac and thus validates the fact that he has faith in the eyes of:
    -Isaac
    -Sarah his wife
    -the billions who have read Genesis over the centuries

    The problems of the conundrum you think I have are manifold.

    Eph 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace, NOT by works.
    Romans 3:28 says we are justified by grace apart from the works of the Law.
    Romans 11:6 says that grace mixed with works is no longer grace.
    Scripture thus contradicts Scripture if what you have said is true.
    Also, the context of the psgs out of which we derive the Pauline doctrine of justification are clearly related to justification.
    The context of James 2 is not.

    Your problem is that your position says that we have to do good works to be saved. Eph 2:8-9 says that we DO do good works, but AFTER we’re saved. Why? B/c the very good works that we’re supposed to do AFTER we’re saved DO NOT SAVE US.

    Please consider bowing the knee to Scripture rather than to the man-made traditions that have claimed your allegiance up to now.

    Peace,
    ALAN

44. on 30 May 2007 at 6:08 am   Gerry

    Alan,

    The problem with both of the “pillars” of the Protestant “reformation” (sola fide and sola scriptura) is that they are both not biblical, so it takes a great deal of effort for you and others to make the scripture passages that are so clear against them to make them mean something else..

    For instance…here Bruce gives his rather lame commentary on what “he thinks” James is saying:

    “From what I can tell, James is making a much simpler point, where faith and works are equivalent to hearing and doing (1:22-25).”

    See what I mean…since Romans and James (among other)do not fit neatly into “reformed theology” one must try and come up with another reason or “interpretation” for the contradiction.

    Also..You said: “James, by contrast, as noted above, is not discussing justification of the sinner before God.

    Really?? Let’s look at two verses in James…

    21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

    24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

    It seems pretty clear that he is referring to justification to me…especially when it says NOT BY FAITH ALONE.

    The Catholic Church, as I have stated numerous times, DOES NOT teach we are saved by works. But as James and Galatians say Faith workig through love. Faith in Jesus Christ is ALWAYS first, but works must flow from the faith or it is dead as it says in James

    Sola scriptura is the reason that there are 30,000+ different denominations apart from the Catholic Church. Each has their own “interpretation” even when scripture clearly speaks against personal interpretation and for an authoritative, teaching Church that already existed. It is you and others that have abandoned the True Faith that was handed down from Jesus Himself and has lived and taught through the Holy Spirit for nearly 2000 yrs in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

    It is you and others that have followed a different gospel apart from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles and are following “a tradition of men” Luther, Calvin, MaceArthur etc..

    The scriptures flowed out of an existing visible Church through the Holy Spirit so since there is only ONE Holy Spirit there cannot be more than ONE valid interpretation. Since Jesus gave Peter and his successors the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose and also promised that the gates of hell would not overcome His Church, I think it’s a safe bet to go with the Church that Jesus Himself founded.

    My allegiance is to Jesus Christ and His Church. Unfortunately, you are following a man made tradition of sola scriptura and sola fide. Former evangelicals write of the same problems that I speak of above.

    http://chnetwork.org/daconv.htm
    http://chnetwork.org/cbconv.htm

45. on 04 Jun 2007 at 1:06 pm   Cindy

    Charles,

    I don’t know if you will get this and read this comment because it’s a little late but hopefully you will see this. I know you are a pastor somewhere in Ohio and that you are an older gentlemen, so I meant no disrespect earlier when I responded to your comment to me about me not having good Christian apologetics.

    The problem with a lot of Christians who believe in divine election is that they somehow leave it all in God’s hands and although that is true because we know nothing works apart from God for scripture indicates that, it in no way negates man’s responsibility to SEEK GOD!

    The Bible repeatedly says to SEEK GOD while He may be found. God says you will find ME when you seek for ME with ALL YOUR HEART. God also promises that HE is a rewarded to those who DILIGENTLY seek Him. The problem with the world is that most people are not REALLY, TRUTHFULLY, seeking God. They are content with intellectualism and worldly, vain philosophy because it appeals to the lust of the flesh, the pride of life.

    It is man’s responsibility to SEEK GOD, yet the Bible says in Isaiah that there is no one righteous, no one seeks God for each and everyone has gone to his own way and also in the Gospel of John, I believe, Jesus said, “No one can come ME unless the Father draws him first.

    All I know is that when I witness to people I make it known to them that they have a choice AND they are responsible for that choice, (whether or not they choose to submit to the Gospel and the righteousness of Christ), because God will hold them responsible for their choice before Him (Romans 1) and God will hold me responsible for telling them the Gospel.

46. on 12 Jun 2007 at 8:21 am   Gerry

    Didn’t have the time to retype my rebuttal to White’s comments on Purgatory, but Kevin Tierney does a great job below:

    http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a94.htm

47. on 18 Feb 2008 at 7:30 am   Erik

    Gerry,

    A sad day is it when we lose a soul to a false religion that claims to hold the truth and being the only true church. Sola Scriptura is all that we need, Grace alone and Christ alone, and by the Glory of God alone. All external mumbo-jumbo of the Catholic and/or Charismatic movement is no Christianity, but a false image of a fallen angel, a created being by God. I am no theologian, but I know one thing: It is by Christ alone that we can come to the Father, God. As one verse in the Bible says: Do not call any one on earth father, for one is your Father,even he who is in Heaven. The Pope is called the Holy Father, a title that belongs only to God. So all theological discussions are worthless when we hold to a man who is as much a sinner as the next. He is in as much a need of a Savior as any one else on earth. And the only Man who can save us is Christ. Mary has no power whatsoever…as if the Catholics think she is without sin and also a co-redemtrice. A shame for the Christian faith. If we keep on defending our positions as born-again christians and pretend that Catholicism is questionable or worthy to defend, then only one person wins: Satan, the Angel of Light. How can we, as humans, convince a man who is blinded by the angel of light. Let the Spirit of Truth work. And if he believes the ‘Holy Spirit’ he has, let us rest assure that! Or he is deceived or he has not yet come to the Truth. (Which is quite impossible to believe, because only with God’s Spirit we can see the Truth.) Did not Christ say: I have not come to bring peace, but the sword? And did He not say that father will be against son, son against father, mother against daughter-in-law and daugther-in-law against mother? Christ never advocated unity under one Church as the Catholic Church claims. Catholicism is based on the absolute horrible fact that Peter visited Rome and became the first Pope/Bishop of Rome, but Peter never visited Rome in his entire life. His mission was with the Jews in Israel. I recommend strongly to go to a excellent website by an ex-catholic dominican priest: http://www.bereanbeacon.org. That God may reveal the Truth of His Son unto you.

48. on 13 Mar 2008 at 11:51 am   Kim Noble

    Mark 7:1-13

    1The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem,
    2and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed.

    3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders;

    4and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

    5The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?”

    6And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
    ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
    BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
    7′BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
    TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’

    8″Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

    9He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

    10″For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’;

    11but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’

    12you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;

    13thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website