- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Interesting how "Evangelicals" are separating themselves from "Protestants".
Posted on 10/6/25 at 2:33 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 10/6/25 at 2:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The issue I have with Roman Catholics is their rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ
I respect your personal theological opinion that Roman Catholics reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I want everybody to know that there is PLENTY of evidence to support an alternative interpretation of Scripture that disagrees with your personal interpretation of Scripture.
1
Posted on 10/6/25 at 2:39 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It gives me no joy or pleasure to condemn Catholicism and seek to correct the errors of its teaching.
My Catholic faith teaches me that God never wanted to be separated from us. Sin produced a chasm that we could not cross on our own. Out of his love, he sent Christ on the cross to bridge that chasm. We can only cross that chasm through Him, no way could we do it on our own efforts. I just taught this to my Catholic “Bible study” students yesterday.
The Bible starts with a marriage (Adam and eve and ends in a marriage- Christ and the church). Throughout the Bible it talks about our faithlessness and adultery but he has always pursued us. It is accepting his love for us through Jesus on the cross that we are “saved”. I was saved, I am saved, I will be saved. It’s not a one and done. It’s a decision to follow him and accept his love everyday. Just because Catholics don’t use your terminology of being “saved” you believe we can’t be? Not sure what I’m missing here. If you’re referring to the frequent Protestant objection that we believe in faith and works. I was never taught that works is what gets you to heaven. But if you have real and true faith, the work of the Holy Spirit will be alive in you and you can’t help but perform good works. Do we look to saints for guidance. Yes! They have gone before us and given us great examples of Gods work in their lives.
I’m not here to argue with you on all the tidbits of Catholic history. Admittedly I’m sure you know more than me. All I know is I have felt Gods presence in my life more now than I ever have as a “born again Protestant”. It’s about our relationship with him. God wants to marry us and be as intimate with us as a married spouse. I don’t enjoy getting into a back and forth through an internet veil. But I’m not going to sit here and let you condemn Catholics behind “true concern”. This is eye opening and very concerning for the future of our faith.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 3:12 pm to Lsukinesalum2001
quote:
But I’m not going to sit here and let you condemn Catholics behind “true concern”.
Thank you. Amen. People need to speak out nicely as you have done here. Foo is nice, but he says we are Condemned for being Catholics. We can nicely respond to him: you are misinformed and mistaken, and you will see for yourself one day.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 3:22 pm to Champagne
quote:I've explained to you many times why I'm here, and it isn't ONLY to condemn Catholicism. If you aren't willing to accept my word on that, I don't know what else to tell you.
You are here ONLY to condemn Catholicism. You are here to Preach Anti Catholicism and you have many allies here supporting you.
quote:He does, and I agree with it. James also says that an intellectual-only faith, like the demons have--won't save. Justifying faith is that gift that God gives to His elect and it receives all the benefits that Christ procures, without any merit added to it on the part of the sinner. Works are a necessary evidence that proves a faith is saving, but works do not justify.
Here's what the Council of Trent said about Faith Alone.
"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."
The key part here is that clause "and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will". You say, Faith Alone. Catholics and EO say Faith without works is dead. We cite James to support us.
LINK
James says Faith without works is dead.
quote:I don't use a Lutheran Bible. He was wrong to add that word, but he was right to believe that's what the verse means.
Martin Luther changed the words of the Bible when he translated it. He added the word "alone" to create the phrase "Faith Alone." That's what weakens your position IMHO.
yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. -Gal. 2:16
quote:Faith is the only instrument that receives God's justifying grace through Christ. Our works do not receive or produce any merit or add to what faith receives in Christ. Works are necessary evidences of a saving faith, so in that regard, works are necessary, but not as a means of justification, but a proof of it.
The OT and NT both have references to Faith and Good Deeds working together. There IS indeed a reasonable alternative to your Faith Alone interpretation and this alternative Book of James view is supported by evidence in the OT and NT.
quote:Yes I dismiss it. You dismiss the Scriptural teaching of justification by faith alone and all of the evidence supporting it.
I understand that you dismiss the alternative interpretation and all of the evidence supporting it. I respect that.
quote:There are no works of any kind that merit justification, except for those performed by Jesus Christ. There is no "good work" that any sinner can do that would please God in itself and produce a status of righteousness in that sinner. It's only the saving work of Christ through His Spirit that saves, by granting the gift of faith to the sinner to receive the forgiveness of sins and the alien righteousness of Christ.
Also I note that sometimes when the NT refers to "works of the law" the phrase refers to the practice of the Mosaic Law Judaism. And we all agree that Christ's New Covenant disposed of the requirements of obeying Mosaic Law for Salvation.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 4:36 pm to Lsukinesalum2001
quote:That's a beautiful way to simplify the gospel, but the problem comes in the details that are taught by the RCC. She teaches that we are the ones who must walk across that chasm of our own free will and without any change wrought in us by God first.
My Catholic faith teaches me that God never wanted to be separated from us. Sin produced a chasm that we could not cross on our own. Out of his love, he sent Christ on the cross to bridge that chasm. We can only cross that chasm through Him, no way could we do it on our own efforts. I just taught this to my Catholic “Bible study” students yesterday.
Champagne gave the anathema language that I was referring to, but I'll repeat it: "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."
The anathema is saying that cooperation is necessary (our works in addition to faith), and that there must be some sort of preparation by the sinner and action taken of his own free will that results in bridging that chasm.
I believe the gospel is this: sin produced death in mankind, and no action or will of a dead man can work to save himself. It is the work of Christ, being willingly sent to bring a dead man to life and enable him to both trust in that salvation and to produce good works of thankfulness from that salvation, that brings a sinner to everlasting life with the Father.
Catholicism teaches that man is sick and may heal himself with the help of Christ. I believe the Bible teaches that we are dead and require a supernatural work of Jesus Christ to bring us to life.
quote:We must accept His love for us as expressed through Christ's death on the cross, yes, and He does pursue His people in particular to save us. We are made born again by the Spirit of God to desire His love for us, and we then willingly embrace what He's done for us by faith as a gift. In doing so, our sins are forgiven and Jesus' righteousness is credited to us then and there, so that we are made right before God.
The Bible starts with a marriage (Adam and eve and ends in a marriage- Christ and the church). Throughout the Bible it talks about our faithlessness and adultery but he has always pursued us. It is accepting his love for us through Jesus on the cross that we are “saved”.
quote:It is one and done in the sense that what God does for us, He will not leave us alone to fend for ourselves. He makes us alive, He saves us, and He preserves us until the end when He will bring us to glory with Himself.
I was saved, I am saved, I will be saved. It’s not a one and done. It’s a decision to follow him and accept his love everyday. Just because Catholics don’t use your terminology of being “saved” you believe we can’t be?
If you do not believe what I just said, there is no confidence that you will be saved in the end, because you could fall away at any point in the future. You could commit a mortal sin and die in the act.
quote:I think you should look at what the RCC teaches on this subject if you truly believe what you just described here.
Not sure what I’m missing here. If you’re referring to the frequent Protestant objection that we believe in faith and works. I was never taught that works is what gets you to heaven. But if you have real and true faith, the work of the Holy Spirit will be alive in you and you can’t help but perform good works.
I agree with your statement that a real and true faith will be accompanied by good works because of the Spirit's work in a saved person, however that description is one that states that good works accompany our justification, not produce it. The question isn't whether or not good works are necessary, but HOW they are necessary: as a necessary evidence of justification, or a necessary contributor to justification.
quote:That's what God's word is for, which includes the "hall of faith" in Hebrews. We can certainly look to those whom God preserved that went to glory before us as examples, but those examples are to be measured in light of God's word. It is the word of God, by the illumination of the Spirit, that ultimately guides.
Do we look to saints for guidance. Yes! They have gone before us and given us great examples of Gods work in their lives.
quote:I won't deny your feelings on the matter. I'll just say that I heard of a Protestant move to the EOC recently and it was an experience and feeling he had that was the cause. Mormons speak of a burning in the bosom that confirms the truth of Mormonism. Let the truth guide you, not your feelings.
I’m not here to argue with you on all the tidbits of Catholic history. Admittedly I’m sure you know more than me. All I know is I have felt Gods presence in my life more now than I ever have as a “born again Protestant”.
quote:He sent His only son, Jesus, to do this very thing: for us to be as a bride for Christ. That relationship is fundamentally based on His election of a people for Himself based on His own love and good pleasure, not according to anything we have done, are doing, or will ever do, and that He elects, He regenerates, He justifies, He sanctifies, and He glorifies.
It’s about our relationship with him. God wants to marry us and be as intimate with us as a married spouse.
quote:I wouldn't expect you or anyone else seeking to defend what you believe to be true. That's precisely what I'm doing.
I don’t enjoy getting into a back and forth through an internet veil. But I’m not going to sit here and let you condemn Catholics behind “true concern”. This is eye opening and very concerning for the future of our faith.
I'd just urge you and other Catholics to consider our own history and your own infallible documents that say something different than what you all are, namely that Protestants are condemned as long as we remain Protestants and reject the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 4:38 pm to Champagne
quote:I don't think you are condemned for your association alone to Catholicism, but because you embrace a false gospel of works righteousness in addition to faith in Jesus. If you add to what Jesus has done for us, then you take away from it.
Foo is nice, but he says we are Condemned for being Catholics. We can nicely respond to him: you are misinformed and mistaken, and you will see for yourself one day.
I'm also calling attention to the fact that Protestants are condemned because we are Protestants, and because we reject the teachings and authority of the RCC.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 6:45 pm to FooManChoo
Foo, I know we tussled over a particular topic but I have no doubt we stand shoulder to shoulder for the kingdom, brother. Keep fighting the good fight
Posted on 10/6/25 at 7:02 pm to FooManChoo
quote:I have put much thought into this topic over the last few years due to a personal acquaintance. One of my seminary professors said he knew evangelical Catholics. I have never had a reason to doubt him and I've always wanted to give people the benefit of the doubt.
I actually disagree with his view that Protestants can call Roman Catholics our brothers
I think there are a lot of Catholics, EOs, Mormons, JWs, Pentecostals, etc, who are "ground level" people and don't know all of the crazy stuff that the leadership believes. I think it's possible for that kind of person to truly love Christ and to serve/minister in his name and to evangelize. In that case, I absolutely would call them my brother/sister. Obviously, I would try to advocate for biblical beliefs over and against the heresies at the top, but I would not exclude them.
I wonder how many Catholics know their view on sanctification/justification. They will say on the one hand that justification is not something that can be earned but on the other hand say that sanctification is a part of the justification process and produces merit. Total doublespeak. IIRC, they also believe that a person is not fully justified until they reach a certain level of sanctification which is straight up biblical heresy, contra forensic justification. Not to mention the added element of purgatory which together, obviate the gospel. I think it's possible for a Catholic to be a true follower of Christ and not know these silly things. In that sense, what makes them different from any other follower of Christ?
quote:I find it sad what Catholics have been told to believe about that. They don't know that it's from scripture. They think protestants made it up and it's part of the reason they need the Magisterium/Papal infallibility/Sacred Tradition/Papal succession/etc
sola scriptura
Posted on 10/6/25 at 7:05 pm to GumboPot
quote:
"Evangelicals" are "Protestants".
Posted on 10/6/25 at 7:11 pm to FooManChoo
quote:I will say again, I started watching Bishop Barron with the hope that I would be better able to elucidate Catholic beliefs. I was astonished to learn that in the dozens of hours I watched, I NEVER heard a gospel presentation, not once.
The issue I have with Roman Catholics is their rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ
utterly unforgivable and shameful
In addition to the fact that I have never even heard of any Catholic evangelizing. How can you be a radical convert to Jesus and not evangelize? Was your life not transformed by your salvation? Do you not know matt 28:19 or Romans 10:9?
Well, the answer is they don't. Because many, many, many of them have been told to not bother reading the Bible. That's what the Magisterium is for. They will inculcate to you what you are supposed to know. Almost every Catholic I have met that I had biblical discussions with was astonished to open their Bible and read. I was told dozens of times they had never heard the things we read.
The Catholic life (for the most part) does not look biblical. And they are ok with that because the Bible is subordinate to the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. That's fine but call it what it is - unChristian
Posted on 10/6/25 at 7:23 pm to somethingdifferent
Good to see you back somethingdifferent.
Perhaps you don’t notice my response to your apocrypha thread. I’m interested in continuing our discussion.
Perhaps you don’t notice my response to your apocrypha thread. I’m interested in continuing our discussion.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 7:26 pm to Champagne
quote:1. It is correct to say that nothing other than faith is required to be justified by Jesus' sacrificial and salvific death. That is called forensic justification and penal substitution. It is the correct, biblical view. 2. I do believe that personal will is involved only to the extent that a person recognize their sinfulness against a holy and righteous God
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema
quote:James said that works, AS A RESULT OF FAITH, is evidence of a "dead" faith.
James says Faith without works is dead
quote:Sure, but not for the purpose and result of forensic justification
The OT and NT both have references to Faith and Good Deeds working together
quote:There is no "alternative interpretation" because there is no evidence. People can say otherwise all they want. There is no part of a person's "work" that can result in justification. It's logically and theologically unsound
the alternative interpretation and all of the evidence supporting it
Posted on 10/6/25 at 7:42 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
It is correct to say that nothing other than faith is required to be justified by Jesus' sacrificial and salvific death.
Is this intellectual assent? Can you point me to the verse?
quote:
James said that works, AS A RESULT OF FAITH, is evidence of a "dead" faith.
Where is this stated? I'm not seeing this in James.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 8:00 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:I don't understand the point you're making and it seems like you didn't read the resources I cited on the formation of canon. That would clear up a lot of your misconceptions
Let’s look at Jews and their canon
quote:This doesn't make the apochrypha canonical
The Essenes and their Dead Sea Scrolls contain what you reject, The Greek speaking Jews outside of Palestine, had a translation in Greek called the Septuagint that contained your apocrypha
quote:To show that even the Jews knew those books contained errors or weren't theologically germane
And why appeal to what the descendants of Pharisees think is inspired when they reject the entirety of the New Testament?
quote:I appealed to Jewish scholars way before the middle ages
And why use evidence dating back to Medieval times?
quote:Because some of the Apostles were still alive and were verbally circulating their eyewitness testimony in addition to the fact that writing was expensive and required education
1st Century AD: Various texts were circulated among early Christian communities, but no formal canon existed
quote:1. Luther was reminding everyone that the apochrypha wasn't canon. 2. Your statement doesn't theologically exonerate the apochrypha. It merely establishes (bad) practice
Therefore for over a thousand years no one questioned the Canonicity of the Catholic Bible until Luther
quote:The canon was known WAYYYYYYYY before Luther in addition to the errors in the apochryphal books
Luther amputated the Bible to eliminate books that disagreed with his personal beliefs
quote:Is the shepherd of Hermas canon? It was loved way more than anything apochryphal and even it didn't make it into canon for the same reasons the apochrypha didn't make it.
I’ll take over 1600 years of the Catholic Bible over the KJV that’s only 400 years old, and still printed your apocrypha for over 200 of those years
You're not going to win this discussion. You have a losing hand.
quote:
You love this Straw Dog don’t you
The Catholics go on and on about "apostolic tradition" but when asked to provide it, "OH THAT'S A STRAWMAN" If you can't produce a quote from Jesus or the Apostles on ANYTHING Catholic that's not already in scripture, then how in the world can you consider something like that to be authoritative or necessary for salvation. I'll say it again, it's like saying God knew there were lots of (Catholic) things necessary for salvation but WHOOPS, he forgot to have people record it in the actual, you know, word of God
quote:There are a few major views on cessationism.
non-scriptural Tradition that 90% of Protestants believe: “public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.”
The gifts ceased with the closing of the canon. (1 Cor. 13:8-11)
The gifts ceased with the departure of the Apostles. (2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4; Eph 2:20)
The gifts are legitimate language in Acts 2 but a prayer language in 1 Cor.
-There is a “prayer language” in the NT; usually Romans 8.26 as evidence and/or 1 Cor 14.15
-Some also refer to “tongues of angels” as separate from “tongues of men” in 1 Cor 14.1
The gifts are legitimate language in Acts 2 and carnal imitation in 1 Cor
-Based upon the Delphi oracle influence upon the pagans in Corinth
-This view is expressed by Paige Patterson
-Influenced by pagan practices, the “spirituals” were trying to imitate Acts
So, yes. There is biblical justification for cessationism
Posted on 10/6/25 at 8:04 pm to Champagne
quote:I'll ask yet again
I want everybody to know that there is PLENTY of evidence to support an alternative interpretation of Scripture
Can you provide any justification for Catholic distinctives/dogma?
A quote from Jesus not already in scripture
A quote from any Apostle not already in scripture
A quote from the Patristics
ANYTHING from ANYONE. I acknowledge that there is scant, scant evidence for pedobaptism but that does not make it biblical and it certainly conflicts with several other passages. But the rest of the enormous Catholic universe, basically nothing.
Just admit it's all made up. It's not biblical. Own it and say you're ok with it because you want the pope to tell you what to think and you want to pretend the Catholic church eliminates "division"
Posted on 10/6/25 at 8:07 pm to Lsukinesalum2001
quote:While that is a position of the church, it's also the position of the church that merit is required to be justified. It's duplicitous.
I was never taught that works is what gets you to heaven
Here's an oldie - "when a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs!"
oof
quote:Those "tidbits" are kind of important
I’m not here to argue with you on all the tidbits of Catholic history
Posted on 10/6/25 at 8:09 pm to GumboPot
Amish still strong and around. The Baptist’s and Methodist among other denominations have been infiltrated with wokeness for quite some time now. IMO
Posted on 10/6/25 at 8:14 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I believe the gospel is this: sin produced death in mankind, and no action or will of a dead man can work to save himself. It is the work of Christ, being willingly sent to bring a dead man to life and enable him to both trust in that salvation and to produce good works of thankfulness from that salvation, that brings a sinner to everlasting life with the Father.
Catholicism teaches that man is sick and may heal himself with the help of Christ. I believe the Bible teaches that we are dead and require a supernatural work of Jesus Christ to bring us to life.
No that's not what Catholics believe.
The Catechism is quite close to your explanation of "I believe the gospel is this . . . ".
Posted on 10/6/25 at 8:28 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:I actually agree that there may be and probably are people verbally aligned to the Roman Catholic Church that are truly saved and are trusting in Christ alone for their salvation and are not trusting in their works, the sacraments, or the RCC for their salvation, due to ignorance of the official teachings or even (hopefully) a rejection of them. They are our brothers and sisters, if so, and I expect that the Lord will convict them and bring them out of Catholicism or whatever false church they belong to in time. I have hope for many of the laity, but the officers and leaders of the RCC subscribe knowingly to a false gospel and I cannot say the same for them.
I have put much thought into this topic over the last few years due to a personal acquaintance. One of my seminary professors said he knew evangelical Catholics. I have never had a reason to doubt him and I've always wanted to give people the benefit of the doubt.
I think there are a lot of Catholics, EOs, Mormons, JWs, Pentecostals, etc, who are "ground level" people and don't know all of the crazy stuff that the leadership believes. I think it's possible for that kind of person to truly love Christ and to serve/minister in his name and to evangelize. In that case, I absolutely would call them my brother/sister. Obviously, I would try to advocate for biblical beliefs over and against the heresies at the top, but I would not exclude them.
I wonder how many Catholics know their view on sanctification/justification. They will say on the one hand that justification is not something that can be earned but on the other hand say that sanctification is a part of the justification process and produces merit. Total doublespeak. IIRC, they also believe that a person is not fully justified until they reach a certain level of sanctification which is straight up biblical heresy, contra forensic justification. Not to mention the added element of purgatory which together, obviate the gospel. I think it's possible for a Catholic to be a true follower of Christ and not know these silly things. In that sense, what makes them different from any other follower of Christ?
I can only judge according to fruit, and if anyone joins themselves to a false church with a false gospel, my hope is that they will one day repent and be brought out by God’s grace.
My condemnation is primarily of the organization and teachings of the RCC. I leave the salvation of each individual up to the Lord.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 8:33 pm to Champagne
quote:Catholicism teaches that man can come to salvation on his own free will, by both the merits of Christ by faith and his own merits of good works working together.
No that's not what Catholics believe.
The Catechism is quite close to your explanation of "I believe the gospel is this . . . ".
A dead man cannot merit life and cannot cooperate for his salvation.
Page 10 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News