Curt
Puritan Board Graduate
I agree with the thought. I wonder, however, if we apply the same thought to those who stay in such groups the PCUSA and the UCC.
Roman Catholic Church?
- Thread starter thistle93
- Start date
- Status
I agree with the thought. I wonder, however, if we apply the same thought to those who stay in such groups the PCUSA and the UCC.
ProtestantBankie
Puritan Board Freshman
1) A false dichotomy. The Church of Rome is a pseudo-Christian Church, a World Religion in and of itself, but it is not Christian. Though, I take a definition of Cult that it does not fit in with.
2) Yes! But they would not be part of the visible Church of Christ. They would therefore be disobedient to scripture to continue in the Roman Church. This individual would have to live in a way that makes his own church call him "anathema".
3) Many of the things you mention could be traced to an actual date. However, the Council of Trent (the response to the reformation) was many particular heresies were made dogma. Suggesting Protestants are anathema... Brings upon the Papacy God's divine anathema.
4) I enjoy Christian writers, and many Roman Catholics would be under the anathema of Trent in any case.
5) As above.
KevinInReno
Puritan Board Freshman
1) Given all its theological errors would you consider the Roman Catholic church a Christian denomination or a cult in vein of LDS and Jehovah Witness?
It's a cult at it's doctrinal core because it's man centered "the pope"
2) Can a Roman Catholic be a genuine Christian given their many theological errors?
As a former Roman Catholic... there are a few people in the pews who clearly know justification and the doctrines of grace properly. They don't accept the council of trent type reforms either... they are mistaken on really the word of God vs the "eucharist" issue however (In the context of give us this day our daily bread)... and that sometimes extends their stay in Rome awhile...
3) When did the Catholic church go wrong, with things such as worship or Mary, mass, infallibility of pope, indulgences, ect... Was part of it to do with Constantine? Any books on topic?
When haven't they? But I think I know what you really mean... ultimately... around 900-1100 AD... essentially everything done in that time has Rome lay the groundwork. You can find it earlier... you can find it later... however with what Paul's talking about in 2 Thes 2, I think that ball really starts rolling with some speed around that time. It's a reasonable tipping point (I take Luther and Calvin's view on 2 Thes 2 on it referring to the office of the Pope).
4) Do you benefit from reading the early church fathers, even though Catholic?
You're assuming the early church fathers are ROMAN Catholic. Which they aren't. Don't take my word for it. Study it up yourself. For example Mariology etc... comes much later.
5) Why do so many reformed people have a problem with Roman Catholic church (which I understand why) but still look favorably on individuals like Augustine who was a Catholic?
There have been Bishops of Rome who have criticized Augustine. There have been those who seem to have embraced his theology. But really they claim Augustine... just as they claim Peter... that doesn't make it so. It also doesn't mean they accept the words of the theologian they claim. Remember after Scripture... Calvin quotes Augustine more than anyone else. Augustine is safe ground for the reformed.
It's a cult at it's doctrinal core because it's man centered "the pope"
2) Can a Roman Catholic be a genuine Christian given their many theological errors?
As a former Roman Catholic... there are a few people in the pews who clearly know justification and the doctrines of grace properly. They don't accept the council of trent type reforms either... they are mistaken on really the word of God vs the "eucharist" issue however (In the context of give us this day our daily bread)... and that sometimes extends their stay in Rome awhile...
3) When did the Catholic church go wrong, with things such as worship or Mary, mass, infallibility of pope, indulgences, ect... Was part of it to do with Constantine? Any books on topic?
When haven't they? But I think I know what you really mean... ultimately... around 900-1100 AD... essentially everything done in that time has Rome lay the groundwork. You can find it earlier... you can find it later... however with what Paul's talking about in 2 Thes 2, I think that ball really starts rolling with some speed around that time. It's a reasonable tipping point (I take Luther and Calvin's view on 2 Thes 2 on it referring to the office of the Pope).
4) Do you benefit from reading the early church fathers, even though Catholic?
You're assuming the early church fathers are ROMAN Catholic. Which they aren't. Don't take my word for it. Study it up yourself. For example Mariology etc... comes much later.
5) Why do so many reformed people have a problem with Roman Catholic church (which I understand why) but still look favorably on individuals like Augustine who was a Catholic?
There have been Bishops of Rome who have criticized Augustine. There have been those who seem to have embraced his theology. But really they claim Augustine... just as they claim Peter... that doesn't make it so. It also doesn't mean they accept the words of the theologian they claim. Remember after Scripture... Calvin quotes Augustine more than anyone else. Augustine is safe ground for the reformed.
Andrew1142
Puritan Board Freshman
I really wanted to believe for a long time that the Roman Catholic church was a Christian church. Actually, I still kind of do want to believe that, but one day I was reading Galatians and just realized that I can't square Galatians 5 with the RCC teachings. Paul's words against the Judaizers are very harsh, "severed from Christ... fallen away from grace." This leads me to think that someone that believes in the insufficiency of grace simply isn't a true Christian.
One thing that James White frequently says is that the difference between the Judaizers and the RCC is that the Judaizers added one thing to the gospel, but Rome adds lots of things to the gospel.
I think that there are true Christians in the RCC, but, as has already been said, they would be Christians in spite of their church affiliation. Furthermore, their being in the RCC would be a hindrance in their relationship to God, and the more involved they are in the RCC, the bigger the problem. Of course, all things work for the good of those who serve the Lord, and it's very possible that while in the RCC, they become exposed to the truth (because they do have the Bible; they just don't use it).
Living in the Bible belt, it seems to me that a lot of Roman Catholics in my area don't really know much about the church teachings, and are theologically not very different from the more ignorant Protestants in my area. (I'm reluctant to use the term "ignorant" because it's really not quite what I wanted to convey.)
I don't want to go into much more detail because if I do, I'll be obligated to make this rigorously researched. But I will say that James White has a book on this (more than one, actually, but one in particular that addresses this very issue), and that is The Roman Catholic Controversy. I read it a few years ago; I might read it again sometime. He also wrote Scripture Alone (there are several books by that name, though) which would also address issues separating Romanists and Evangelicals, as well as The God Who Justifies. John Gerstner wrote a book that I think was called something along the lines of "A Primer on Roman Catholicism," maybe? I've heard Gerstner speak a few times on RefNet and liked him. He's very historically oriented.
One thing that James White frequently says is that the difference between the Judaizers and the RCC is that the Judaizers added one thing to the gospel, but Rome adds lots of things to the gospel.
I think that there are true Christians in the RCC, but, as has already been said, they would be Christians in spite of their church affiliation. Furthermore, their being in the RCC would be a hindrance in their relationship to God, and the more involved they are in the RCC, the bigger the problem. Of course, all things work for the good of those who serve the Lord, and it's very possible that while in the RCC, they become exposed to the truth (because they do have the Bible; they just don't use it).
Living in the Bible belt, it seems to me that a lot of Roman Catholics in my area don't really know much about the church teachings, and are theologically not very different from the more ignorant Protestants in my area. (I'm reluctant to use the term "ignorant" because it's really not quite what I wanted to convey.)
I don't want to go into much more detail because if I do, I'll be obligated to make this rigorously researched. But I will say that James White has a book on this (more than one, actually, but one in particular that addresses this very issue), and that is The Roman Catholic Controversy. I read it a few years ago; I might read it again sometime. He also wrote Scripture Alone (there are several books by that name, though) which would also address issues separating Romanists and Evangelicals, as well as The God Who Justifies. John Gerstner wrote a book that I think was called something along the lines of "A Primer on Roman Catholicism," maybe? I've heard Gerstner speak a few times on RefNet and liked him. He's very historically oriented.
- Status
