The Town Hall Archives

rosie · Inquisitive Member Joined: 07 Jan 2003 Posts: 1197

I don't know if it's wrong, but Catholics sure do have some good verses to back up what they believe about salvation. Razz

Not that I agree with them, of course.

For instance "For by GRACE are ye saved" and "born of water and of spirit" and such.

Hawkeye: so you think there's Christians in it, but would you call it a Christian denomination?

Jonathan · Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:26 pm Post subject:

Amadeo · Senior Member Joined: 14 Sep 2003 Posts: 1207

Jeremy · Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:08 am Post subject:

Coralfish · Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:46 am Post subject:

hawkeye · Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:45 pm Post subject:

Jared · Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 4:06 pm Post subject:

To start with the last thing really said, the quote from Augustine:

It may seem like a minor point, I suppose, but Augustine said "In non-essentials, liberty" -- not "diversity." Diversity of belief for the mere sake of diversity makes no sense whatsoever in any age.

The real question here would seem to be, however, what we consider essential, and perhaps as a secondary consideration, what we do concerning non-essentials. (That is, do we ignore what we believe to be false doctrines in our own church because they are non-essential?)

There are many non-essentials when it comes to Christian doctrine. The whole question of free will versus predestination comes immediately to mind, as do questions of dispensations or of eternal security and of many traditions. What, then, are the essential doctrines upon which one can never compromise and under the banner of which the entire church must be unified? Clearly, these are matters related to salvation and the nature of God.

Others have noted that the word "cult" has a somewhat confusing meaning, referring to religious beliefs that deviate from the standard. Some have suggested that by this definition, something as large as the Roman Catholic Church cannot possibly be a cult. For now, I suggest that we dispense with considerations of size and consider the standard not in terms of denominations, but in terms of biblical Christianity, as best as we can grasp it.

The problem with Roman Catholicism is that it has elevated tradition to the level of scripture and puts forth doctrines recorded nowhere in the scriptures. The Catholic Church, it is true, believes the Bible, and more to the point, it believes that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. That is not in dispute. What is called into question is the Church's interpretation of the scripture and their many additions to its teachings.

Since salvation is undeniably central to all matters of faith and practice, I should like to focus on that issue. The Bible is clear on this point: salvation is by grace, through faith, imputed unto us by the blood of Christ, something we could never have gained through works. The preceding statement is, to me, essential to Christian belief. There can be many disagreements as to how we get to the point of salvation (I believe in free will), whether or not we can lose it (I believe that we cannot) and the like, but the basic understanding of salvation as the finished work of Christ, given freely to those who believe, is essential to biblical Christianity.

I emphasize that point -- the work of salvation is complete. Yes, it is worked throughout our lives. No, the work in our individual lives is not complete (although He who is faithful and just will complete it in us). But the sacrifice has already been made, and it was sufficient unto the propitiation of the sins of all those who call upon Him for salvation. Our salvation, therefore, is not based upon works. The sacrificial system of atonement was done away with by the blood of the Lamb, and we need no longer take any such steps to ensure our salvation.

We have an eternal High Priest who intercedes on our behalf. We believe in the priesthood of believers, no longer needed a mere man to go to the Lord on our behalf, as He who sits at the right hand of God the Father does so for us.

Saving faith recognizes that Christ is the author and finisher of our salvation. The Catholic Church, meanwhile, has a system of church ordinances it teaches are necessary for salvation. Be it baptism, the rite of confirmation, the taking of the Eucharist, acts of penance and confession or receiving extreme unction, the sacraments are a plan of salvation other than the one preached in the Bible.

Our salvation is not dependent on the penance ordained by a father confessor, as the Heavenly Father sent His Son to pay that price long ago. Nor is it based on a sprinkling of water, for the only fountain that saves is that which was drawn, as the song puts it, from Immanuel's veins.

Where we spend eternity is not contingent on the wafers of the Eucharist, for the Lord's Table is but a remembrance of when Christ was literally broken for us. We are partakers only symbolically in communion.

And our salvation does not rely on a priest getting to our dying bodies in time to administer the last rites. We live with the assurance of salvation, not the fear that we will die before a priest arrives, mortal sins left unconfessed.

There are a great many doctrines of the Catholic Church with which I take issue, from praying to the saints can to the doctrine of transubstantiation to that of papal infallibility. And indeed, many more: the assumption of Mary, the existence of purgatory and limbo, indulgences (whether it be the medieval bills of sale or modern versions like masses for one's self or others, including the dead, or of annulments of marriage or any other pardon for sin drawn from a supposed treasury of the excess good works of the beatified)...

I subscribe to the principle of "sola scriptura"; doctrines not based on scripture are not doctrines at all. They are tradition and conjecture.

Because Roman Catholicism does not align with scripture on the critical matter of salvation, I am hard-pressed to consider it an acceptable Christian denomination. To be sure, there are true believers in the Catholic Church. I know quite a few. Nevertheless, the gospel preached by the Roman Church is not the one we find in scripture.

It was asked earlier how Catholicism could possibly be so wrong, since it was the only church for so long. This query misses several important considerations.

For one thing, "Catholic history" tends to go back considerably farther than the Roman Catholic Church as we now understand it does. Those now referred to as the early popes never referred to themselves as popes, never considered themselves to be vicars of Christ, never preached the doctrines now espoused by the Catholic Church.

In the early days of Christianity, a number of bishoprics were established to oversee the churches in particular cities in a very general sense. They were organizers of the presbytery, ambassadors of the faith and certainly prominent people, but they were not popes. For one thing, there were quite a few of them, and the seat of Rome was not of any particular importance at first. (In fact, the bishops of Antioch were the most highly respected in the early years.)

Church fathers such as Ignatius, Tertullian, Justin and Polycarp are now venerated as Saints by Catholics, but in their day, Roman Catholicism didn't even exist. It did not begin to emerge until at least Constantine's day, when, following his "experience" (I will not make an effort here to expound on the question of whether or not it was genuine), he invited a select group of church leaders -- who were actually dissidents of a small minority at the time -- to a series of conferences where the new doctrines of the Roman Empire could be hashed out.

(In many ways, it makes sense that those who attended were the outcasts of the day, as many believers did not want Christianity mixed with the state in such a way. Especially when the state was Rome.)

Is was at this time, when Christianity gained prominence in Rome, and especially as it became a state religion during the reign of one of Constantine's sons, that false doctrine really began to seep into the church (which is not to say that none existed previously). Even then, however, the majority of the teachings seemed mostly in line with biblical Christianity, as we see with the works of the early councils, such as Nicea.

The new affiliation with Rome led to the consolidation of power in that city, although disputes lasted for centuries. Indeed, they still raged on in 1055, when the Catholic Church was split.

During the period of Roman Church dominance that ensued, those believers who came to find more and more to distrust with the doctrines being taught did, in fact, congregate outside the state church, but much like the believers who did so in private when Christianity was outlawed in the empire, they did so in secret, for now "heresy" was outlawed.

And there were many "heresies." Some, admittedly, truly were heretical. Augustine's treatment of several of the heresies of his day was quite sound, and at first, matters of heresy led to church discipline (despite the fact that it was a state church), not a state sanction of imprisonment or death. In time, however, penalties became more severe, and this happened just as the forbidden "heresies" began to include matters of biblical practice. Thus, many Christians were driven underground as the Roman Catholic Church grew ever larger and more powerful.

At no time in history was Roman Catholicism the only church, although at many times and in many places, it was the only visible church, for those that opposed the teachings of Catholicism feared for either their livelihoods or their very lives. And as Catholicism spread, it moved into areas that had scarcely been touched by previous biblical teaching, meaning that the only Christianity the new converts knew was that of Catholicism, and the only teaching that from the mass.

Again: there are, and were in times past, many saved Catholics. This does not, however, justify the many unbiblical teachings of the Catholic Church, and especially not those which deny the finished work of Christ on the cross, for that is the cornerstone of Christian belief.

Oh, and as a side note, related to what Coralfish said about the new beliefs (never mind how infallible doctrine, dogma and papal bull seems to change so much) post-Vatican II allow for acceptance of Protestants as Christians... Well, as I understand it, that doesn't apply to me. Most of you may be "separated brethren," but I, as one baptized into the Roman Catholic Church who is now separated from it, am anathema.

I hear it's not good to be anathema.

rosie · Inquisitive Member Joined: 07 Jan 2003 Posts: 1197

How do Catholics deny the finished work of the cross? Just the baptism thing? I'm thinking that they follow Christ, so they're Christians. Or is that too simple?

Jared · Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 4:44 pm Post subject:

rosie · Inquisitive Member Joined: 07 Jan 2003 Posts: 1197

I thought it was just baptism, not all the rest. What is extreme unction?