Rome's tactics.

[Eleanor]

Well then, things arent always as they appear. I have a very good understanding of RC doctrine. They believe in baptismal regeneration. If you disagree, find a correct source. Ask a Catholic perhaps?

I've seen them state that more than once.

Friend, it's more than symbolic.

 

[Eleanor]

Baptismal Regeneration in one form or another is held by a significant portion of Christianity. Almost all, if not all, of the earliest expressions of Christianity link regeneration with baptism. It's not the domain of the RCC only.
However, that's not what you said in your OP. You said they (RC's) "remove regeneration, the removing the corrupt nature into the image of God.."
Baptismal Regeneration is still regeneration and the removal of sin (including "original sin"), even if it differs from your view. Section 1215 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "This sacrament [baptism] is also called 'the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,'

I disagreed with your statement(s) that RC's "remove regeneration" and "replace the work of the Holy Spirit." They don't, nor does baptismal regeneration in general.
That correct source for RC doctrine would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church which once again states: "This sacrament [baptism] is also called 'the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,'
Regeneration for RCs still involves the work of the Holy Spirit. It says so right there in their catechism.

Which regeneration is necessarily linked to a human action, while Scripture states it is a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5) who is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8); i.e., it is linked to nothing human.

 

[Eleanor]

Thoughts? How sad.

It is time you studied the origin and beliefs of catholicism.
It IS the early church instituted by Jesus. It holds the beliefs of the early church Jesus set up..

So Jesus set up purgatory. . .and "penance". . .and indulgences. . .and. . .?

 

[Eleanor]

Thoughts? How sad.

It is time you studied the origin and beliefs of catholicism.
It IS the early church instituted by Jesus. It holds the beliefs of the early church Jesus set up..
Several things are definitively true:
1/ The early church passed on the true faith by "word of mouth and letter". AKA tradition. Which is why Paul told you to stay true to that.
2/ Scripture was not written as a comprehensive faith manual,

And you know this, how?

and on many topics it is ambiguous.

Such as?

 

[Josheb]

The RC Church has given people a religion that will allow them to indulge in their sinful lusts and yet still appear to be Christians.
holding to a form of godliness although they have denied its power; avoid such people as these. 2 Tim 3:5.

One of the first things they do, (along with Arminians) is remove regeneration, the removing the corrupt nature into the image of God. This keeps many in the RCC and keeps them from going to a true church.

The RCC replaces the inward regenerating work of the Holy Spirit with the outward ordinance of baptism. So, the outward ordinance of baptism replaces the inward regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

The next thing the RCC does is provide a substitute for the internal sanctification of the whole person.

Thought? comments so far?

Can a person who follows R.C. theology per the R.C. church be saved assuming he does not change?
I tend to say No ... what's your opinion and why?

My best friend is RC. He is my best friend because he is a devout Christian, not (just) a devout Catholic. He understands the differences between RCC doctrine and Doctrine) and scripture. He endeavors to practice scripture to best of God's enabling, and he does a better job than most Protestants I know. He acknowledges his sinfulness, the depravity sin brings, and his inability to stand before God apart from his reliance on Christ.

I am not the judge of anyone's eternal disposition, but if I were I'd say my friend will be there to greet us all and those who make overgeneralizations about RCs will be embarrassed (and have to account for all those vain words).


RCCism can be just as inane and insane as Protestantism (or EOism). I know RCs who think ritual saves and I know EOs who think two-dimensional images don't violate the second commandment, but sculptures do, and I know Prots who think the mark of the beast is a computer chip. And I know many from all the groups whose faith amounts to attending a religious service once a week more often than not.

Thought? comments so far?

I think the op attempts to suggest to much and will benefit from focusing on one topic at a time. Diversity like that is usually a sign someone is trying to figure out some things and various aspects get mixed in and time, conversation, and thought will sort out the focus. An entire thread with multiple pages of posts could be spent on the removal of regeneration (and the comparison between RC removal and Arminian removal). The correlation between that removal and the appeal to purity of a "true" church could also consume an entire thread on its own. The same holds true form the RCC regenerative view of baptism, simply because there's a lot of diversity of thought among Prots concerning 1) baptism and 2) the nature of sacraments. I know you, @Carbon, have been studying sanctification for some time and one of your previously reported preferences is Berkouwer (who spent much of his work on the subject criticizing RCCism), and Forde (who is Lutheran, not Calvinist).

There's a lot going on in the op. If we're discussing the Christian Church then a good place to start with ops like this is...

1 Corinthians 1:10-17
Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

1 Corinthians 3:1-23
And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? ..............So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.


Sectarianism is as old as the Church. One of the biggest paradoxes in Christianity is that Catholics, EOs, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals and all the others will be found standing right next to one another in the end and one diverse group will be standing with arms and voices raised in praise and another just as diverse group will be found writhing in agony surrounded by flames because God is not a respecter of denominations. It is Jesus alone by which anyone is saved by grace.

 

[Carbon]

My best friend is RC. He is my best friend because he is a devout Christian, not (just) a devout Catholic. He understands the differences between RCC doctrine and Doctrine) and scripture. He endeavors to practice scripture to best of God's enabling, and he does a better job than most Protestants I know. He acknowledges his sinfulness, the depravity sin brings, and his inability to stand before God apart from his reliance on Christ.

Well, thanks be to God.

 

[Josheb]

Well, thanks be to God.

Yes. Thanks and glory be to God. That being said, I've also known a few RC wack jobs.

 

[fastfredy0]

Re:
Can a person who follows R.C. theology per the R.C. church be saved assuming he does not change?
I tend to say No ... what's your opinion and why?

My best friend is RC. He is my best friend because he is a devout Christian, not (just) a devout Catholic. He understands the differences between RCC doctrine and Doctrine) and scripture. He endeavors to practice scripture to best of God's enabling, and he does a better job than most Protestants I know. He acknowledges his sinfulness, the depravity sin brings, and his inability to stand before God apart from his reliance on Christ.

I don't know about your friend. The question was asked about a hypothetical person that follows R.C. doctrine to the letter. Do you think such a person could be saved?

 

[Carbon]

Yes. Thanks and glory be to God. That being said, I've also known a few RC wack jobs.

Same here brother.

 

[Carbon]

Re:
Can a person who follows R.C. theology per the R.C. church be saved assuming he does not change?
I tend to say No ... what's your opinion and why?

I don't know about your friend. The question was asked about a hypothetical person that follows R.C. doctrine to the letter. Do you think such a person could be saved?

Martin Luther was.

 

[fastfredy0]

Martin Luther was.

Seems to me Martin did NOT follow the Roman Catholic doctrine; rather, he was a thorn in their side.

Save me time finding the rules ... where is one allowed to post pics?

 

[Carbon]

Seems to me Martin did NOT follow the Roman Catholic doctrine; rather, he was a thorn in their side.

Save me time finding the rules ... where is one allowed to post pics?

Look in the "Other" category. You'll see photographs etc...

 

[Josheb]

Re:
Can a person who follows R.C. theology per the R.C. church be saved assuming he does not change?
I tend to say No ... what's your opinion and why?

The devil is in the details. I've long witnesses two sets of doctrines in the RCC. There is the official set that rarely gets taught in its entirety at the level of the common practitioner and there is the set that is taught at the practical level that much of the elite rarely speaks of. Then there are the huge divides between the left and the traditional, and the traditional and the Traditional. Marxism has increased its influence over the last half century, so a lot of unrecognizable interpretation of RC doctrine and practice has occurred that's just complete nonsense no matter who is looking at it. Social Justice, for example, has its roots in RCCism but that tradition from which the Protestant ethos was developed is radically difference from the hijacking the Left has performed. Modern social justice as a theory espousing the idea that all people should have equal rights, opportunities, and treatment has nothing to do with James 1:27.

I don't know about your friend. The question was asked about a hypothetical person that follows R.C. doctrine to the letter. Do you think such a person could be saved?

Yes. The reason such a person can be saved is because doctrine does not save! There is, to be sure, a set of core beliefs that are required for salvation but there's not a single member of this forum who has all his/her doctrines correct. Can a person be saved without being regenerate? No. Can a person believe his/her regeneration occurred through baptism? Yes. Might he be wrong? Yes. Is s/he saved? If God saw fit to regenerate that person, then it was not dependent on that person's beliefs pertaining to regeneration (or baptism). There's a huge segment of Christianity who doesn't have a clue what the word "regeneration" means, much less a doctrine on the matter exists.

 

[Carbon]

Seems to me Martin did NOT follow the Roman Catholic doctrine; rather, he was a thorn in their side.

Ha, you may be surprised he was a very good Catholic. He did drive them all nuts because even through self-flogging and sleep deprivation etc he couldn't make himself pure.

 

[fastfredy0]

The devil is in the details.

Well, that's true and that would make my question difficult to answer. No K.I.S.S. rule here.

there's not a single member of this forum who has all his/her doctrines correct.

Agreed. The problem with theological study is you get more things wrong because you have accumulated many more facts, though the percentage of errors among one's known facts should diminish.

Can a person be saved without being regenerate? No. Can a person believe his/her regeneration occurred through baptism? Yes. Might he be wrong? Yes.

True enough.

If God saw fit to regenerate that person, then it was not dependent on that person's beliefs pertaining to regeneration (or baptism).

As stated, I agree with this statement. Anyone God saves (regenerates) is saved. If God choose to regenerate Satan, then Satan would be saved. But, God has pointed out effects of regeneration that can be used to determine whether one is regenerated. I know of one effect that, if not present, proves one is not regenerated.
1) Faith in Christ (now I grant that the substance of saving faith is debated but I think 3 things must be included or one is not saved
a) If you never heard of Christ before death ... then one knows that person was not regenerated
b) If you don't believe Christ is God .... then one knows that person was not regenerated (I can list verses if asked)
now, getting back the the original question: "Is an R.C. saved if he follows R.C. doctrine.... I grant the R.C.s have no issue with (a) and (b)
..... but now entertain (c)
c) If you believe you are saved by your works as well as faith, which is what R.C. doctrine teaches then this is a sign that
you have not been regenerated. Now, as proof that one is not saved if they believes they must perform works
I offer:
Galatians 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one … this is the theme of Galatians… We will be able to infer from the rest of the letter the nature of the doctrinal perversion and this other "gospel". Galatians 5:2 Notice, it is I, Paul, who tells you that if you receive circumcision [as a supposed requirement of salvation], Christ will be of no benefit to you [for you will lack the faith in Christ that is necessary for salvation]. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, if you seek to be justified [that is, declared free of the guilt of sin and its penalty, and placed in right standing with God] through the Law; you have fallen from grace [for you have lost your grasp on God’s unmerited favor and blessing]. 5 For we [not relying on the Law but] through the [strength and power of the Holy] Spirit, by faith, are waiting [confidently] for the hope of righteousness [the completion of our salvation]. 6 For [if we are] in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but only faith activated and expressed and working through love. AMP
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (possibly means: relies on the Law alone)

.... and since the R.C. faith universally believes in salvation by faith and WORKS I come to the conclusion they are NOT SAVED. I hope I'm wrong, maybe I am.

The fallacy of argument by authority follows: (giggle)
R.C. Sproul: “If you trust upon anything else than Jesus Christ in addition to Jesus Christ you lose Christ, all or nothing at all. Christ does not become of less effect; he becomes of no effect if you try to add something to Him

Sproul goes on to say that he thought Arminians are saved, but barely by which he meant “as long as they don’t take their theology to its logic conclusion. They would not be Christians if they put their trust in their own righteousness”. When Sproul initially came to faith he thought it was his choice; he didn’t know of scripture that described the process.


... that's my 2 cents worth in regards to whether an person who follows R.C. doctrine is saved.

 

[Josheb]

.... and since the R.C. faith universally believes in salvation by faith and WORKS I come to the conclusion they are NOT SAVED. I hope I'm wrong, maybe I am.

I don't think that's wrong, but I think that's wrong .

I again appeal to the actual Catholic individual. He or she might well agree with you are me and if were to cue up the Catholic website and show them their statements are different than what the RCC supposedly teaches we'd likely hear, "Well that's not what I believe, I'm definitely Catholic but I don't believe that." We've got a pair of RCs in this forum who've been caught in similar seeming contradictions. It's like those many Dispies who, when shown the official teaching, say, "Well that's not what I believe," yet everything else they'd post is modern futurism, modern futurism, modern futurism. I've even had friends tell me, "I don't even know what Dispensationalism is! (how can I be a Dispensationalist if I don't know what that is?)"

I suppose I have met RCs who say faith and works save, but most I know will articulate a position similar to the classic Reformed position that an authentic faith begets faithfulness (works). As you and everyone else knows, my position on the RCs I've met here is that they're ideologues, so what we read is ideology. Perhaps the crux of the issue here because we know there are ideologues in Calvinism (they are usually the strict determinists), as well as every other ~ism. I try to take a benevolent approach to RCs, considering them siblings in the faith until I read/hear otherwise, because 1) a genuine convert to Christ can articulate that experience with some authenticity and scriptural integrity, and 2) it doesn't take an ideologue long to betray the attachment to the ~ism over the person of Christ. The fact is most of us, especially the Reformed among us, still hold some theological allegiance to the RCC. We wouldn't appeal to Augustinian views if we didn't (and we wouldn't celebrate Christmas in December, either).

Not to digress again but I recently suggested to a group of EOs that theirs was a protestant (not Protestant) denomination simply because their institution was birthed as a product of division, or protest, against the doctrines and practices of the RCC. You'd have thought I'd said Satan was the Messiah and they were all his children because some of them would have covered me in pitch and used me as a streetlight if they could have. To them theirs is the older, orthodox viewpoint (hence the name) and they and they alone are the true Church and it's the RCC who are the heretics. It did not matter that I could provide a list of commonly shared views. No matter what testimony I might provide regarding my own life, I could not be saved and could have nothing to offer in conversation because I'm not EO. I happen to know not all EOs believe that way because I also recently had a lengthy conversation with an EO Father and we talked for a couple of hours with manners and respect and without a hint of rancor, discovered common ground (he knew very little of the Dispensationalism, eschatology, and although somewhat knowledgeable of Reformed Theology, was unaware of the divisions between the two models. Yet we share d a lot of common ground Christologically, soteriologically (although EO hamartiology is somewhat different), and ecclesiological outside of his firm believe only the EO is the true Church. You're probably aware of the trend for many Prots to convert to EOism.

I recently had a dear friend convert to RCism and it mystifies me why he would do so. Did he suddenly exit the Church with his conversion to the RCC? Does that conversion trump his prior conversion to Christ? That's definitely going to run into conflict with TULIP's "P," if so. Either he was never a saint, or his sainthood was not preserved by God.

I know that's digressive in places, so I'll wrap it up with this: My conversations with RC clergy are much more varied. I've found some ideologues, but I also know many who either agree with a doctrine I describe (which is invariably Reformed even if I never mention that word) or acknowledge the difference with RCism but hold the difference not to be critical..... which, if I understand the op correctly, is fundamentally what this discussion is about. I am, therefore, still inclined to lean on Paul's admonition to the Corinthians and his implicit acknowledgment differences and sectarianism exist but the determining fact is knowing and being known by Christ crucified and resurrected.


My mom was RC. After her conversion from RCCism to Christ, she used to say, "The problem with the Catholic Church is they've got a Jesus who's still hanging on the cross when he's dead, buried and resurrected as Lord and Savior!" I have yet to meet a Catholic who believes Jesus is literally still hanging on the cross and not resurrected as Lord and Savior.

.

 

[Arial]

I again appeal to the actual Catholic individual. He or she might well agree with you are me and if were to cue up the Catholic website and show them their statements are different than what the RCC supposedly teaches we'd likely hear, "Well that's not what I believe, I'm definitely Catholic but I don't believe that." We've got a pair of RCs in this forum who've been caught in similar seeming contradictions. It's like those many Dispies who, when shown the official teaching, say, "Well that's not what I believe," yet everything else they'd post is modern futurism, modern futurism, modern futurism. I've even had friends tell me, "I don't even know what Dispensationalism is! (how can I be a Dispensationalist if I don't know what that is?)" I suppose I have met RCs who ay faith and works save, but most I know will articulate a position similar to the classic Reformed position that an authentic faith begets faithfulness (works). As you and everyone else knows, my position on the RCs I've met here is that they're ideologues, so what we read is ideology. Perhaps the crux of the issue here because we know there are ideologues in Calvinism (they are usually the strict determinists), as well as every other ~ism. I try to take a benevolent approach to RCs, considering them siblings in the faith until I read/hear otherwise, because 1) a genuine convert to Christ can articulate that experience with some authenticity and scriptural integrity, and 2) it doesn't take an ideologue long to betray the attachment to the ~ism over the person of Christ. The fact is most of us, especially the Reformed among us, still hold some theological allegiance to the RCC. We wouldn't appeal to Augustinian views if we didn't (and we wouldn't celebrate Christmas in December, either). Not to digress again but I recently suggested to a group of EOs that theirs was a protestant (not Protestant) denomination simply because their institution was birthed as a product of division, or protest, against the doctrines and practices of the RCC. You'd have thought I'd said Satan was the Messiah and they were all his children because some of them would have covered me in pitch and used me as a streetlight if they could have. To them theirs is the older, orthodox viewpoint (hence the name) and they and they alone are the true Church and it's the RCC who are the heretics. It did not matter that I could provide a list of commonly shared views. No matter what testimony I might provide regarding my own life, I could not be saved and could have nothing to offer in conversation because I'm not EO. I happen to know not all EOs believe that way because I also recently had a lengthy conversation with an EO Father and we talked for a couple of hours with manners and respect and without a hint of rancor, discovered common ground (he knew very little of the Dispensationalism, eschatology, and although somewhat knowledgeable of Reformed Theology, was unaware of the divisions between the two models. Yet we share d a lot of common ground Christologically, soteriologically (although EO hamartiology is somewhat different), and ecclesiological outside of his firm believe only the EO is the true Church. You're probably aware of the trend for many Prots to convert to EOism. I recently had a dear friend convert to RCism and it mystifies me why he would do so.

Could you maybe throw a couple of paragraphs in there?

 

[Josheb]

Could you maybe throw a couple of paragraphs in there?

Done


g'night all

 

[Carbon]

Yes, Christ established His Catholic Church, protected it with the Holy Spirit, and has no expiration date.

And aint it something that your church teaches abominations like this:

Without the priest, the death and passion of our Lord would be of no avail to us.

 

[Carbon]

It's also surprising how little scripture authority the RCC cites as a basis for their doctrine of the priesthood. Basically the main and perhaps the only support it has is in Mathew 16:18-19
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.