Pope: Other Christians not true churches

[AJ_Skins]

The class called "Roman Catholicism" was part of my Bible college training. Our textbook was Boettner's book of the same name. In it he gives a fair representation of the RCC, as well as citing hundreds and hundreds of RCC sources and authorities.

That book is clearly biased in its treatment of the subject. It is a polemic against the Catholic Church, not an objective academic overview. It is no wonder your views are so skewed. You really are making yourself, and a lot of other people, look bad with your ignorance and bias, skinsfan51.

[skinsfan51]

Look, you are over-analyzing the issue, and overstating the divergence. Most Protestant denominations celebrate the Lord's Supper, and it has the same meaning and symbolism that it has in the Catholic Church. The difference is the question of the RCC's view that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, while Protestants believe it is purely symbolic, and that the Catholic Church believes ongoing participation in communion is necessary for salvation.

It's not the same, AJ. When we take "communion" or the "Lord's Supper" we partake of a small, flat cracker and a small cup of grape juice. We are simply remembering what Christ did for us on the cross, and how his finished work bought our redemption. It is not required for salvation, but comes after salvation, and there is nothing mystical about it.

The Catholic church does not see it that way. They believe they are sacrificing Christ all over again every Mass, and that the elements are literally the body and blood of Jesus. That is absolutely not true or Scriptural (or scientific, for that matter). As a matter of fact, to say that the "host" is Jesus and to pray to it, is nothing short of blaspheme.

[AJ_Skins]

It's not the same, AJ. When we take "communion" or the "Lord's Supper" we partake of a small, flat cracker and a small cup of grape juice. We are simply remembering what Christ did for us on the cross, and how his finished work bought our redemption.

The Catholic church does not see it that way. They believe they are sacrificing Christ all over again every Mass, and that the elements are literally the body and blood of Jesus. That is absolutely not true or Scriptural (or scientific, for that matter). As a matter of fact, to say that the "host" is Jesus and to pray to it, is nothing short of blaspheme.

Again, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. There are plenty of things to take issue with when it comes to the Catholic Church without buying into the conspiracy theories and half-truths that have been peddled by people on the Protestant side with an ax to grind.

[skinsfan51]

That book is clearly biased in its treatment of the subject. It is a polemic against the Catholic Church, not an objective academic overview. It is no wonder your views are so skewed. You really are making yourself, and a lot of other people, look bad with your ignorance and bias, skinsfan51.

And yet I've quoted your own authorties who have clearly backed up what I've claimed, so I'm not sure how I look bad or am ignorant.

Have you read Boettner's book through, cover to cover?

[skinsfan51]

Again, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. There are plenty of things to take issue with when it comes to the Catholic Church without buying into the conspiracy theories and half-truths that have been peddled by people on the Protestant side with an ax to grind.

LOL. You are backpeddling. You have no argument. I've posted plenty over the last several days here to show that there is absolutely no comparison between the Catholic Mass and what I call the "Lord's Supper." There are not in any way the same.

If you think otherwise the refute me. Otherwise, don't make false claims.

[techboy]

Its all in how you interpret Scripture and symbology. Some believe the beast will come from the tribe of Dan and be a Jew. :2cents:

There's also an interesting argument (and I find myself more and more persuaded of it, though I have not committed myself to any particular eschatology at this point) that the Beast in Revelation is actually Nero, and that almost all of Revelation was already fulfilled, with the apocolypse occuring in AD 70 with the destruction of the Temple. Obviously, this fulfillment excludes the Second Coming, and a few other prophecies.

Why 6-6-6 Doesn't Matter (which was aimed at debunking the idea that that date is somehow dangerous) lays out the basic case for 666 representing Nero.

ThePreterisSite Study Resources has a bunch of articles on the general subject.

I offer these because while many are familiar with the Left Behind style anti-Christ, I find that many Christians have never been exposed to this idea.

Rebornempowered or AsburySkinsFan are both preterists, I believe, and can probably offer more.

Of well-known theologians of the day, R.C. Sproul is a preterist. (and yes, AsburySkinsFan, so is Dr. Ben Wellington, but who's ever heard of him? )

Actually, Zguy28, I thought you were too... I guess not.

By the way, the biggest problem with partial preterism is that it requires an authorship of Revelation which was pre-A.D. 70 (obviously, if it is prophecying the destruction of the Temple), which is a bit earlier than many scholars place it, but is still a plausible dating.

[70th Week]

By the way, the biggest problem with partial preterism is that it requires an authorship of Revelation which was pre-A.D. 70 (obviously, if it is prophecying the destruction of the Temple), which is a bit earlier than many scholars place it, but is still a plausible dating.

And therein lies the problem. Some scholars date Revelation around 95 a.d.

Also, the fact that there has been no 144 thousand witnessing Jews, no locusts the size of horses coming out of hell, Satan has not been bound, no blood in a battle up to the horses bridle, no great white throne judgement, and many more......

And as some has linked 666 to Nero there has been some using the greek to link 666 to the word "computer" (and many other words I can't remember )

[AJ_Skins]

And yet I've quoted your own authorties who have clearly backed up what I've claimed, so I'm not sure how I look bad or am ignorant.

I'm not sure what you mean by "your own authorities". Maybe you haven't read my previous posts. My only authority is the Bible--and I believe the teachings of the Catholic Church are erroneous in many areas, as are those of many other churches, Protestant included. Nevertheless, I try to stick to reality, instead of buying into distortions and half-truths from people who not only practice boasting and division, but revel in it.

Have you read Boettner's book through, cover to cover?

No, and I have no interest in doing so. I looked it up on Amazon.com and read the excerpt. The whole premise of the book is "exposing the lies of the Catholic Church" and so forth. You are making yourself, and by extension everyone who could be viewed as agreeing with you, look ignorant.

[AJ_Skins]

LOL. You are backpeddling. You have no argument. I've posted plenty over the last several days here to show that there is absolutely no comparison between the Catholic Mass and what I call the "Lord's Supper." There are not in any way the same.

If you think otherwise the refute me. Otherwise, don't make false claims.

I guess I haven't stated my view clearly enough. I think the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the subject is wrong. I do not, however, think it is an error which will send people to hell. You give the impression that you do. You treat the Catholic Church and all of its members as if they are your enemy. They are not. I believe that any Catholic, including the Pope, who truly believes in Jesus Christ is saved. As such, they are Christians. Brothers. I just happen to believe they are bound by a massive burden of man made tradition that is not supportable in scripture.

As for the severity of various erroneous doctrines, I think transubstantiation is a minor one, frankly. I view the idea of praying to anyone other than God as a far more grievous and dangerous error.

[techboy]

And therein lies the problem. Some scholars date Revelation around 95 a.d.

I noted that, but such things are not certain, and a pre-70 date is at least defensible. As I said, though, that's probably the biggest sticking point.

Also, the fact that there has been no 144 thousand witnessing Jews, no locusts the size of horses coming out of hell, Satan has not been bound, no blood in a battle up to the horses bridle, no great white throne judgement, and many more......

There are plausible answers to all of those on the site I linked, and preterism does hold that some events have not yet occurred. I'm by no means an expert, and I don't really want to debate it anyway. I was just tossing it out there as an often overlooked alternative.

I will note, though, that none of these problems are any worse than the problem more "traditional" (and I use the quotes lest AsburySkinsFan lecture me about Darby) eschatologies have, which is the unnatural split between the 69th and 70th weeks in Daniel that such views require, and yet no explanation thereof is contained in the text.

And as some has linked 666 to Nero there has been some using the greek to link 666 to the word "computer" (and many other words I can't remember )

Obviously numerology can (and has) been used to prove anything, so if that was the only argument, it would be weak indeed. As a small piece of the whole, though, and considering the cultural, religious, and linguistic ideas of the time, I think it at least needs to be considered.

Anyway, given your user name, do I need to ask your eschatological views, or is that just a coiincidence?

[Zguy28]

Actually, Zguy28, I thought you were too... I guess not.

Are you dissappointed?

I'm actually a combination of sorts. While generally I'm an Historic Premill, I also take much of eschatology in an Idealistic way. Almost all of Revelation is symbolic of events throughout history in my opinion.

[endzone_dave]

Skinsfan51,

I don't understand one thing. If salvation is achieved through believing that Jesus is the Son of God and that he will forgive us ofour sins, why does it matter if we Catholics are worshiping him incorrectly? All Catholics believe Jesus is the Son of God and that he will forgive us of our sins. Won't he forgive us for worshiping him incorrectly? Or is that the one thing that he won't forgive us for?

[skinsfan51]

I'm not sure what you mean by "your own authorities". Maybe you haven't read my previous posts. My only authority is the Bible--and I believe the teachings of the Catholic Church are erroneous in many areas, as are those of many other churches, Protestant included. Nevertheless, I try to stick to reality, instead of buying into distortions and half-truths from people who not only practice boasting and division, but revel in it.

My apologies. After dealing with so many I never know who believes what. Anyway, I'm not sure how you can say that I'm not dealing with reality when it is the Catholic authorities I've quoted. Maybe you'd like to post these "half-truths"?

No, and I have no interest in doing so. I looked it up on Amazon.com and read the excerpt. The whole premise of the book is "exposing the lies of the Catholic Church" and so forth. You are making yourself, and by extension everyone who could be viewed as agreeing with you, look ignorant.

So you've gotten all your understanding from an Amazon.com excerpt? I guess that says it all. Tell me, AJ, what is wrong with exposing lies and error, IF THERE ARE REALLY LIES AND ERROR?

[AJ_Skins]

There's also an interesting argument (and I find myself more and more persuaded of it, though I have not committed myself to any particular eschatology at this point) that the Beast in Revelation is actually Nero, and that almost all of Revelation was already fulfilled, with the apocolypse occuring in AD 70 with the destruction of the Temple. Obviously, this fulfillment excludes the Second Coming, and a few other prophecies...

Eschatology is not my strongest area, and I think it is impossible to put interpretation of prophecy into a neat box, but I think the premillenial view is essentially correct. Preterism appeals to people who would like to discard Christianity altogether, and as such I think it should be approached with the utmost skepticism.

[mbws]

The one true Church = |_| Let us pray, "TOUCHDOWN, WASHINGTON REDSKINS!!!!" |

[skinsfan51]

Skinsfan51,

I don't understand one thing. If salvation is achieved through believing that Jesus is the Son of God and that he will forgive us ofour sins, why does it matter if we Catholics are worshiping him incorrectly? All Catholics believe Jesus is the Son of God and that he will forgive us of our sins. Won't he forgive us for worshiping him incorrectly? Or is that the one thing that he won't forgive us for?

If you were friends with a king and that king told you how to do something very important, but you chose to do it another way, would you be surprised if the king was upset at you? Would he be just in being upset with you? Wouldn't it sound silly to say, "Hey, I believe in the King just like you do. What difference does it make if I don't obey him like he wants?" Of course it would.

In the Roman Catholic system salvation is based on two things: what Christ did and what a person can do to earn it. They have to be faithful, they have to partake of the Mass, they have to do good works, they have to contribute financially, they have to confess to a priest, etc., etc. There is never an assurance of salvation, and never a guarantee that one is totally right with God unless they are totally right with the Church.

But I'm telling you, and the whole board, that you CAN know you are saved. It's not a progressive salvation that you hope to win at the end of your life if you end up being good enough. No. You CAN'T be good enough. It's a faith and trust in Jesus Christ alone, plus nothing. You can be saved and never attend church again. (That's not God's will for you, but it's not a requirement for redemption.) You can be saved and never do another good work in your life; although you will out of love for Christ once you're saved.

I heard a preacher put it this way: you are a beggar on the street, and in your tin cup you have a few pennies. Every day you rattle your can and beg for a few crumbs of bread. One day the Prince of that land passes your way and sees you begging. Much to your astonishment he approaches you and says, "Beggar, give me your cup of pennies and I will give you access to all the riches in my kingdom and make you my son and heir." The beggar, in disbelief and anger, says, "You're mocking me! No one cares for me. I'm a dirty old beggar." But he says, "I'm telling you, if you'll give me your pennies I'll give you all my riches and make you my son." But first you must give up all you have and follow me. You must die to yourself, your ambitions, your dreams, and follow me. Lose your life for me, and you'll find it. Trust me."

So it is with salvation. We are but poor dirty beggars in this world. Our lives are stained with sin and even our "good works" and attempts to please the Prince are like filthy rags. But then the Prince (Jesus) passes by and offers all of us the opportunity to exchange our dirty rags for His pure robes. Our sin for his purity. Our emptyness for his will. Our degenerate family, with Adam as our head, for his eternal family where we are clothed in royalty! And yet most beggars will refuse such an offer. Most will say, "It's too good to be true. It's a fairy-tale. No thanks. I'll just keep clanging my cup." Or they'll say, "The cost is too high. I won't give up all I have for you." So the Prince passes on to the next beggar.

How foolish are those that reject?!! All I said is true. The Prince stands ready to make the change in YOU and all who will listen. Will you let him? All you have to do is ask in sincerity by admitting you're a sinner and ask him to cleanse you in his blood. Tell him you'll do anything for him no matter the cost and he will save you. It's not a game or hoax or fairy-tale. It works!

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." -1 John 5:13

[skinsfan51]

I guess I haven't stated my view clearly enough. I think the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the subject is wrong. I do not, however, think it is an error which will send people to hell. You give the impression that you do. You treat the Catholic Church and all of its members as if they are your enemy. They are not. I believe that any Catholic, including the Pope, who truly believes in Jesus Christ is saved. As such, they are Christians. Brothers. I just happen to believe they are bound by a massive burden of man made tradition that is not supportable in scripture.

As for the severity of various erroneous doctrines, I think transubstantiation is a minor one, frankly. I view the idea of praying to anyone other than God as a far more grievous and dangerous error.

But I've clearly stated on this very thread that I don't hate anyone and that I don't consider them the enemy. But I do consider the system an enemy, and it is that that I am fighting againt. Not the Catholics on this board. But since they adhere to their system of belief they take it as a personal attack on them. I understand it, but it's not actually what I'm doing.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation is a major error. Untold thousands lost their lives in the middle ages for standing against it in word or deed. That alone speaks of how "major" it is. It was a major factor in the Reformation. It's also the highlight of Catholic worship, so it cannot by nature be a lesser evil.

[prophet]

http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/19/why-cant-we-all-just-get-along/

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

(By John MacArthur)

As Christians we must understand that whatever opposes God’s Word or departs from it in any way is a danger to the very cause of truth. Passivity toward known error is not an option for the Christian. Staunch intolerance of error is built into the very fabric of Scripture. And tolerance of known error is anything but a virtue.

Jesus clearly and unashamedly affirmed the utter exclusivity of Christianity. He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Obviously, that sort of exclusivity is fundamentally incompatible with post-modern tolerance.

Truth and error cannot be combined to yield something beneficial. Truth and error are as incompatible as light and darkness. “What fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).

We can’t tell the world, “This is truth, but whatever you want to believe is fine, too. It’s not fine. Scripture commands us to be intolerant of any idea that denies the truth.

Lest anyone misunderstand, I’m not defending dogmatism on any and every theological issue. Some things in Scripture are not perfectly clear. But the central teachings of Scripture (in particular, those things related to the way of salvation) are so simple and so clear that even a child can understand.

Those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Westminster Confession, 1:7).

All the truth that is necessary for our salvation can be easily understood in a true way by anyone who applies common sense and due diligence in seeking to understand what the Bible teaches. And that truth — the core message of Scripture — is incompatible with every other system of belief. We ought to be dogmatic about it.

No wonder post-modernism, which prides itself on being tolerant of every competing world-view, is nonetheless hostile to biblical Christianity. Even the most determined post-modernist recognizes that biblical Christianity by its very nature is totally incompatible with a position of uncritical broad-mindedness. If we accept the fact that Scripture is the objective, authoritative truth of God, we are bound to see that every other view is not equally or potentially valid.

There is no need to seek middle ground through dialogue with proponents of anti-Christian world-views, as if the truth could be refined by the dialectical method. It is folly to think truth given by divine revelation needs any refining or updating. Nor should we imagine that we can meet opposing world-views on some philosophically neutral ground. The ground between us is not neutral. If we really believe the Word of God is true, we know that everything opposing it is error. And we are to yield no ground whatsoever to error.

[AJ_Skins]

I absolutely agree that we ought to speak the truth as we know it, and argue against error. However, the Bible is full of teachings about how you ought to do such things, and they must be followed if your attempts are going to be fruitful. If you display a proud, boastful nature in trying to correct others, they will not listen.

[skinsfan51]

http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/19/why-cant-we-all-just-get-along/

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

(By John MacArthur)

Lest anyone misunderstand, I’m not defending dogmatism on any and every theological issue. Some things in Scripture are not perfectly clear. But the central teachings of Scripture (in particular, those things related to the way of salvation) are so simple and so clear that even a child can understand.

There is no need to seek middle ground through dialogue with proponents of anti-Christian world-views, as if the truth could be refined by the dialectical method. It is folly to think truth given by divine revelation needs any refining or updating. Nor should we imagine that we can meet opposing world-views on some philosophically neutral ground. The ground between us is not neutral. If we really believe the Word of God is true, we know that everything opposing it is error. And we are to yield no ground whatsoever to error.

Excellent article. I cut out everything but the two paragraphs above because it's those two that I want to comment on.

Notice that he considers any doctrine related to salvation as a "central teaching." That would be one of those "essentials" from previous posts. This is exactly why I've stood firm on the Transubstantiation issue. It's a central teaching of salvation and therefore important.

I just say "amen!" to the last paragraph, and I intend to yield no ground whatsoever to error, come what may.

[Mister Happy]

If the Catholic Church is not the true church, then what is?

It's not like there are only 2 different Christian churches. There aren't even only 2 different Bibles.

[endzone_dave]

http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/07/19/why-cant-we-all-just-get-along/

All the truth that is necessary for our salvation can be easily understood in a true way by anyone who applies common sense and due diligence in seeking to understand what the Bible teaches. And that truth — the core message of Scripture — is incompatible with every other system of belief. We ought to be dogmatic about it.

Apparently I wasn't blessed by God to have been born with enough common sense because I certainly have tried hard to understand. I have faith but I don't have faith AND common sense, which will be my doom.

[skinsfan51]

I absolutely agree that we ought to speak the truth as we know it, and argue against error. However, the Bible is full of teachings about how you ought to do such things, and they must be followed if your attempts are going to be fruitful. If you display a proud, boastful nature in trying to correct others, they will not listen.

I agree 100%. But out here dogmatism is really hated (unless it is them speaking, then it's ok). Peeps out here don't like someone speaking black and white. It's too course, and it's really a matter of pride on their part.

I can say with a perfectly clear conscience before God that I have no pride or boasting in my postings. I don't seek my own glory. That's a waste of time. I don't have any. And it's clear I'm not boastful by the very definition of that word. But I am without a doubt black and white. I am very dogmatic on issues I feel strongly about, and on issues I feel take honor and glory from the Lord. That seems to offend people, and I don't try to offend just to offend. But if the truth offends, so be it.

Those that have stood for something in history have not always been popular. I'm not seeking it either. I just want to be true to my God. It is his approval that I seek, and his alone.

[skinsfan51]

Apparently I wasn't blessed by God to have been born with enough common sense because I certainly have tried hard to understand. I have faith but I don't have faith AND common sense, which will be my doom.

Could you be trying too hard? I'm not being sarcastic. The Gospel message is simple. Ask God to show you ask you read the Bible. He will do it. He paid an incredible price to get you to understand His love for you. He won't leave you out because you don't think you have common sense.

"Call unto me and I WILL answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things." -Jer. 3:33

[endzone_dave]

Could you be trying too hard? I'm not being sarcastic. The Gospel message is simple. Ask God to show you ask you read the Bible. He will do it. He paid an incredible price to get you to understand His love for you. He won't leave you out because you don't think you have common sense.

"Call unto me and I WILL answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things." -Jer. 3:33

It's not that.

Take faith and works. I firmly believe that Jesus died for our sins but if I went out and burned down an orphage, I would most likely doomed to hell. That is an extreme example.

Another example would be believing Jesus died for our sins and not even caring about following his example. I could be mean to other people, only caring about myself and no others, never lend a helping hand to anyone, steal, murder... I don't think I would end up with salvation.

This seems like common sense to me. And if this is wrong, my common sense doomed be.