# Rome's Christology



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

Is the Christ of the Roman Catholic Church the same Christ of the scriptures?

Rome does in fact embrace the Apostles Creed, but do their other illicit ideas cause a chain reaction in regards to undermining an orthodox Christology?


----------



## blhowes (Feb 29, 2004)

[b:09dc7e8aaf]Scott wrote:[/b:09dc7e8aaf]
Is the Christ of the Roman Catholic Church the same Christ of the scriptures?

Well, its spelled the same. Beyond that...


----------



## Gregg (Feb 29, 2004)

> [i:f0c44524de]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:f0c44524de]
> Is the Christ of the Roman Catholic Church the same Christ of the scriptures?
> ____________________________
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

> [i:280515198e]Originally posted by Gregg[/i:280515198e]
> [quote:280515198e][i:280515198e]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:280515198e]
> Is the Christ of the Roman Catholic Church the same Christ of the scriptures?
> ____________________________
> ...


----------



## Gregg (Feb 29, 2004)

> [i:a4d01b58c6]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:a4d01b58c6]
> [quote:a4d01b58c6][i:a4d01b58c6]Originally posted by Gregg[/i:a4d01b58c6]
> [quote:a4d01b58c6][i:a4d01b58c6]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:a4d01b58c6]
> Is the Christ of the Roman Catholic Church the same Christ of the scriptures?
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

Greg,
I see what you are saying. However, if RC's believe that justification by faith is NOT alone through Christ, I ask again, is it the same Christ of the bible and haven't they trusted in vain?


----------



## BrianLanier (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:ab130df6b0][i:ab130df6b0]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:ab130df6b0]
Greg, 
Question to you: If the RCC's view of Christs propitiation is flawed as well as their view of soteriology, can it be the same Christ of the scriptures? [/quote:ab130df6b0]

Just thinking out loud here, but if that is the conclusion (i.e. a different Christ) then wouldn't the same be true for pretty much all non-Calvinist? That is 'self conscience' non-Calvinists. I mean since most non-Calvinists have a skewed view of Christ's propitiaion and therefore soteriology. Just a thought...

[Edited on 2-29-2004 by BrianLanier]


----------



## Gregg (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:6645081a54][i:6645081a54]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:6645081a54]
Greg,
I see what you are saying. However, if RC's believe that justification by faith is NOT alone through Christ, I ask again, is it the same Christ of the bible and haven't they trusted in vain? [/quote:6645081a54]
__________________________

Reply...

I still say yes,(although I don't think my reasoning is going to be enough). I also believe many Catholics are and will be saved in spite of their stance on justification.

Gregg


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:569566550b][i:569566550b]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:569566550b]
[quote:569566550b]
Question to you: If the RCC's view of Christs propitiation is flawed as well as their view of soteriology, can it be the same Christ of the scriptures? 
[/quote:569566550b]

Well, you have just knocked out about 75 percent of protestant evangelicals. The Arminian view of those things are also flawed...are you willing to say that they, say Norman Geisler, do not have the Christ of the Scriptures?

And, are you 100% correct on all your views of soteriology?

And, I saw the movie. It didn't portray a false view of Christ (theologically). In fact, there is a flashback and we read the words (since it is in Aramaic), [b:569566550b]&quot;No one can come to me unless the Father draws him.&quot; [/b:569566550b] This wasn't a little blurb, this was in the middle of very intense sequence of events, and everyone in the movie saw that posted up on a huge screen. We Calvinists should rejoice at that. 

So much for the false soteriology.

-Paul

[Edited on 2-29-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:569566550b]

Paul,
What do the scriptures say? 

Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

As far as Geisler is considered, or anyone else for that matter, as Jonah states, 

Jon 2:9 But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. [b:569566550b]Salvation is of the LORD[/b:569566550b]. 
(Obviously, my emphasis added)

In regards to my soteriology, yes, I trust in HIM alone. I believe the scriptures say that I have a confidence in this. 

Paul,
You say that theologically, they were right on. How can you say that when you know that Rome does not share you view. In fact, the Pope and Gibson would tell you differently. I understand from M. Kodaks posts that the walk along the Via De Rosa had Jesus falling exactly the number of times that coincide with the RC's &quot;Station of the Cross&quot; fiasco.

You mention John 6:44. The only problem with this is the contradiction that prevails. Rome is steeped in semi-Pelagianism and Nestorian error &amp; because of that, grace is NOT irresistible..........


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:cc4312e64f][i:cc4312e64f]Originally posted by Gregg[/i:cc4312e64f]
[quote:cc4312e64f][i:cc4312e64f]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:cc4312e64f]
Greg,
I see what you are saying. However, if RC's believe that justification by faith is NOT alone through Christ, I ask again, is it the same Christ of the bible and haven't they trusted in vain? [/quote:cc4312e64f]
__________________________

Reply...

I still say yes,(although I don't think my reasoning is going to be enough). I also believe many Catholics are and will be saved in spite of their stance on justification.

Gregg [/quote:cc4312e64f]

Greg,
This is a can of worms friend. Where does it end? How about the native in the jungle whom never knows the truth of scripture?

[Edited on 2-29-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:2b308c2e1f][i:2b308c2e1f]Originally posted by BrianLanier[/i:2b308c2e1f]
[quote:2b308c2e1f][i:2b308c2e1f]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:2b308c2e1f]
Greg, 
Question to you: If the RCC's view of Christs propitiation is flawed as well as their view of soteriology, can it be the same Christ of the scriptures? [/quote:2b308c2e1f]

Just thinking out loud here, but if that is the conclusion (i.e. a different Christ) then wouldn't the same be true for pretty much all non-Calvinist? That is 'self conscience' non-Calvinists. I mean since most non-Calvinists have a skewed view of Christ's propitiaion and therefore soteriology. Just a thought...

[Edited on 2-29-2004 by BrianLanier] [/quote:2b308c2e1f]

Brian,
I hear you. This idea does not give me peace. It may be true.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:e78c666d9e][i:e78c666d9e]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:e78c666d9e]
[quote:e78c666d9e]
Paul, 
You say that theologically, they were right on. How can you say that when you know that Rome does not share you view. In fact, the Pope and Gibson would tell you differently. I understand from M. Kodaks posts that the walk along the Via De Rosa had Jesus falling exactly the number of times that coincide with the RC's &quot;Station of the Cross&quot; fiasco. 
[/quote:e78c666d9e]

Scott,

This is because the MOVIE does not teach that. the only way one could get that out of it is by Catholic presuppositions, but they read the Bible ITSELF that way to, so is the Bible itslef false? No, of course not. My point is that the MOVIE does not teach it. And as far as John 6:44, maybe THEY have that worldview, but IT WAS NOT taught in the movie. All the MOVIE says is &quot;No man can come to the father but by me.&quot;!!!! I cannot believe that Calvinists are taking it this far. Even when I point out something good you have to say it's no good.

by the way, have...you..seen...the movie? I mean. is this scholarly? Is this how we reason in other matters? Do we only base it of biased reports, or do we check our sources?

...Anyway, your free to your opinion, and I know that it is against your conscience so I don't want to try and force something on you. Just understand that you, and others, may be going a bit far with this issue.

I am going to do a compolation over the next few months and find EVERY movie I can that even has a hint of a violation and make sure that those movies are not watched either. Because you should be consistant. For example, i think braveheart has some statues of Christ...so i hope you won't watch that anymore. But staytuned for the &quot;shocking: list i will compile and post. All I ask is consistancy because of how the few who have seen it have been treated. staytuned for the backtracking guys.

-Paul [/quote:e78c666d9e]

Paul, 
One last comment. You say that the movie does not teach these errors. No, I have not seen it. However, I have read many areview as well as have personally witnessed Gibsons statements about his production. You are correct brother, I will not see the movie. let me ask you a question. Paul, you have been academically blessed. God has saw fit to gift you with wisdomn and knowledge. You are well aware when there is error afoot. Brother, but what about the bleeping sheep whom wander about as if they had no shepherd? Gods word says, &quot;My people perish for lack of knowledge&quot;. The movie has all sorts of dangerous inuendo; maybe not for you or I, but for the bleeping sheep, there is grave danger.

Do not think for a minute that the RCC is not counting upon numbers flocking to their illicit black masses in the future secondarily to this thing..........

Love ya brother.


----------



## Gregg (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:6421c5810f][i:6421c5810f]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:6421c5810f]


Greg,
This is a can of worms friend. Where does it end? How about the native in the jungle whom never knows the truth of scripture?

[Edited on 2-29-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:6421c5810f]

_________________________

Reply...

Is it a can of worms only because you can't see past having to have all the correct doctrine only as the prerequisite (sp?) to salvation?

Do you doubt that God has some of his elect from among those in the Catholic faith also?



[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Gregg]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

Greg,
In regards to your last post. May I extrapolate a tad on what I meant by &quot;can of worms&quot;?

You state:
I also believe many Catholics are and will be saved in spite of their stance on justification.

Do you understand what you are saying? You are saying that people can be saved outside of trusting solely in Christ. Christ alone justifies. If a person gets this one wrong, there are eternal consequences. Do you understand that the whole idea of protestantism is built on this doctrine. It is this doctrine that Luther was enlightened to. It was this doctrine that drove Luther to abandon Rome and nail his thesis on the Wittenberg Door. Without this doctrine, men do not need Jesus, they can be justified by some other means. 


Hate to be the one to tell you this, but when it comes to saving faith, if you HAVE the wrong doctrine, i.e. Christ plus a works salvation, example: If I am good enough, If I do enough good things, etc, you are probably not trusting solely in the work of Christ, hence you are probably still perishing in your sins.

Jesus Himself said:
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.&quot;

What truth do believers need to know to be saved?

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

How is that hearing the word of God brings about faith?

What exactly do you think one needs to know to gain eternal life?

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

John 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Seriously Greg, no one is saying that all RC's are perishing. However, those whom are trusting in something other than Christ are sorely mistaken. Those whom come upon the doctrine of Justification by faith alone will abandon the RC error and seek out a true church.

Sola Christos
Christ alone = salvation
Rome + Christ = error
Christ + Rome = error 
Mary + Christ = error
Christ + Mary = error
Christ + Anything = error

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Feb 29, 2004)

Scott,

Do you think were you saved before you were a 5-point Calvinist? Or is nobody saved until after they've accepted both Christ and Calvin? 

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

Craig,
As described in the parable of the soils, those seeds who fall upon good soil will assuredly produce fruit. 

18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
23 [b:85ce4663ae] But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it;[/b:85ce4663ae] which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Understanding counts for something.....

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## pastorway (Feb 29, 2004)

Scott,

I hear what you are saying. I would perhaps word it this way.

Same Christ. Different Gospel.

DO the Jews even today not still worship and try to obey the God of the Bible? The only true God? Sure they do. But they have a wrong gospel. A gospel of works without the fulfillment of Christ.

Likewise, many cults do uphold the same Christ, the same Second Person of the Trinity, however their error is that they change His work, thus changing the gospel.

Can RCC members be saved. Sure. Despite their church. All of us were lost when we were called to salvation by the Spirit of God.

But will an RCC member stay in the RCC if they are saved? I don't think so. If God saves them, I exapect He will remove them from a system that denies the gospel. They will not be able to stomach it as they grow in the knowledge of truth.

Do we haev to have all our theological ducks in a row? Nope. Praise God. 

But we do have to repent of our sin and place our faith in Christ alone for salvation.

As for Paul, I appreciate your crusade to point out inconsistencies in the lives of those who for conscience sake in obedience to the Word of God have taken a stand against this movie. It does so much to prove your point in using your &quot;freedom&quot; to see the movie when you can then prove that those of us who will not are still vile sinners without setting foot in the theater. Why don't you spend your time a little more wisely and fight those that would change the gospel and ammend the Word of God instead of fighting those who would try to uphold the Word and the gospel as something that does not need to be (and indeed should not be) tampered with?

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:365cbca505][i:365cbca505]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:365cbca505]
Scott,

I hear what you are saying. I would perhaps word it this way.

Same Christ. Different Gospel.

DO the Jews even today not still worship and try to obey the God of the Bible? The only true God? Sure they do. But they have a wrong gospel. A gospel of works without the fulfillment of Christ.

Likewise, many cults do uphold the same Christ, the same Second Person of the Trinity, however their error is that they change His work, thus changing the gospel.

Can RCC members be saved. Sure. Despite their church. All of us were lost when we were called to salvation by the Spirit of God.

But will an RCC member stay in the RCC if they are saved? I don't think so. If God saves them, I exapect He will remove them from a system that denies the gospel. They will not be able to stomach it as they grow in the knowledge of truth.

Do we haev to have all our theological ducks in a row? Nope. Praise God. 

But we do have to repent of our sin and place our faith in Christ alone for salvation.

As for Paul, I appreciate your crusade to point out inconsistencies in the lives of those who for conscience sake in obedience to the Word of God have taken a stand against this movie. It does so much to prove your point in using your &quot;freedom&quot; to see the movie when you can then prove that those of us who will not are still vile sinners without setting foot in the theater. Why don't you spend your time a little more wisely and fight those that would change the gospel and ammend the Word of God instead of fighting those who would try to uphold the Word and the gospel as something that does not need to be (and indeed should not be) tampered with?

Phillip [/quote:365cbca505]

Phillip,
One of my points is that I believe Rome, as well as much of their staunch followers, do not have their Christology down. It is not drawn from the same plank as us. At first glance they may seem to agree, i.e. their adherance to the Apostles Creed, yet their other essential doctrines cause their Christology to flake.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 29, 2004)

Let's think this through, because it raises several interesting points. 

Do we all have to hold the very same doctrinal views [i:da396723b0]about[/i:da396723b0] Jesus in order to be said to be to be speaking of the [i:da396723b0]same[/i:da396723b0] Jesus?

Is it a distortion of Who He is or what He has done? Is it Jesus, or is it the gospel?

Many think they are believing Him. He tells them to depart for He never knew them. But they don't seem surprised to meet Him. They thought they were serving Him but He reveals that He did not know them. The shocker is not meeting Jesus, it is finding out that the focus of their life regarding Him was wrong.

Were they following a false Christ, or believing a false gospel? There is, I think, a subtle difference.

Phillip


----------



## Gregg (Feb 29, 2004)

Scott, I understand the reformation. When I came out of the Catholic faith it was for very similar reasons. I understand that it is not my works that can save me. It is a tremendous burden lifted from upon my shoulders to rest in God's redemptive grace alone.

But I still believe I will see many Catholics in Heaven. I hope to see my parents as well as my brothers family and other relatives and friends who are Catholic. 

THE REFORMERS SOUGHT TO REFORM THE CHURCH, NOT TO CONDEMN EVERYBODY WHO BELIEVED THAT WORKS PLAY A SMALL ROLE IN THEIR REDEMPTION.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Gregg]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Feb 29, 2004)

Gregg,

I sent you a U2U message.


----------



## Guest (Feb 29, 2004)

Amen Gregg.


----------



## Gregg (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:b93d43f13f][i:b93d43f13f]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:b93d43f13f]


Phillip,
One of my points is that I believe Rome, as well as much of their staunch followers, do not have their Christology down. It is not drawn from the same plank as us. At first glance they may seem to agree, i.e. their adherance to the Apostles Creed, yet their other essential doctrines cause their Christology to flake. [/quote:b93d43f13f]
_________________________

Reply...

Scott, if what you say above is true, then wouldn't those of the Arminian denominations also err (as the Catholics) because they believe they must accept Christ (which is really a gospel of works also).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

Greg,
All men must accept Christ.........

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:f5e2e5bc65][i:f5e2e5bc65]Originally posted by Gregg[/i:f5e2e5bc65]
Scott, I understand the reformation. When I came out of the Catholic faith it was for very similar reasons. I understand that it is not my works that can save me. It is a tremendous burden lifted from upon my shoulders to rest in God's redemptive grace alone.

But I still believe I will see many Catholics in Heaven. I hope to see my parents as well as my brothers family and other relatives and friends who are Catholic. 

THE REFORMERS SOUGHT TO REFORM THE CHURCH, NOT TO CONDEMN EVERYBODY WHO BELIEVED THAT WORKS PLAY A SMALL ROLE IN THEIR REDEMPTION.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Gregg] [/quote:f5e2e5bc65]

I disagree. You see, when Luther stood at Worms, the jist of what he was proclaiming was in fact that Rome was perishing.

~For the record, everyone here knows me well enough so that I do not need to give my personal confession of faith. I know salvation is of God. I know no man knows anothers heart. I know that there are RC's that are saved and on their way out of the RCC. I know that there are JW's that are saved, Mormons etc. However, they are then rejecting their past errors and moving forward toward truth.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Gregg (Feb 29, 2004)

> [i:ebf51cc89f]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:ebf51cc89f]
> 
> 
> I disagree. You see, when Luther stood at Worms, the jist of what he was proclaiming was in fact that Rome was perishing.
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

Indulgences assuredly were part of it as they were a work.

Luthers complaint was primarily that, Justification by faith alone vs works. Luther read Romans and the book ruined him.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Gregg (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:9a2df0715e][i:9a2df0715e]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:9a2df0715e]
Greg,
All men must accept Christ.........

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [/quote:9a2df0715e]

Reply...

This is true, but you really dodged the main point of what I was asking so I'll rephrase it.

Do the Arminians also err (as in a gospel of works) because they believe that they can accept Christ at any time such as by reciting the sinners prayer (which really is a gospel of works also) especially if they are responding within their own power.

Wouldn't this then be salvation by grace plus works?


----------



## Gregg (Feb 29, 2004)

Scott, were you Catholic (before becoming reformed)?

Just curious.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

Greg,
I did not dodge your question intentionally. You trying to pigeon-hole me? I was raised RC. Schooled parochially!
I have the bruises to prove it.
Arminianism is heresy. I have never met an Arminian. Churches today are not true Arminians. The sinners prayer does not save. Anyone trusting in anything other than Christ is barking up the wrong tree.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:6dd7c70306][i:6dd7c70306]Originally posted by Gregg[/i:6dd7c70306]
Scott, were you Catholic (before becoming reformed)?

Just curious. [/quote:6dd7c70306]

The word &quot;Catholic&quot; is used in the apostles creed to describe the universal body of Christ. I was raised -Roman Catholic- There is a difference!


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 29, 2004)

Scott,

A quick opinion here. Romanists (please don't cede to the Papists the good term &quot;catholic&quot; ) do in a real sense have the same Christ as Protestants, if one considers that to consist of the definition of the Person (one Person, two natures, etc.) of Christ.

Where Rome errs is not in Christology, but in soteriology - i.e. the Work of Christ. I can be confident in asserting this, and give Rome her due with respect to the Trinity and Person of Christ, because my view is that Roman soteriology is damnable. It is worse than Arminianism. There are so many problems with Romanism (sacraments, role of the minister, what grace is, perseverance, limbus patrum, limbus infantum, Mariolatry, baptismal regeneration, justificational synergism, syncertism, and on and on) that the least thing we should be worried about with is trying to somehow show a linkage between soteriology and theology proper that causes the later to be necessarily false as well.

We could say the same of dispensationalism, for example, which has a perfectly orthodox Christology, but warped ecclesiology and (to some extent) soteriology as well.

Does that make any sense?


----------



## Gregg (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:f9d299618e][i:f9d299618e]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:f9d299618e]
Greg,
I did not dodge your question intentionally. You trying to pigeon-hole me? I was raised RC. Schooled parochially!
I have the bruises to prove it.
Arminianism is heresy. I have never met an Arminian. Churches today are not true Arminians. The sinners prayer does not save. Anyone trusting in anything other than Christ is barking up the wrong tree.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:f9d299618e]

Reply...

Ok if not true Arminianism, then free will.

Wouldn't reaching out to accept Christ by reciting the sinners prayer or coming forward at a crusade be a work?

If so wouldn't this be a gospel of grace plus works?

Why then aren't you condemning protestant free will churches?

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Gregg]


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2004)

Fred:

Thank you. That was more eloquently put forth than what I said concerning the Christ of RC being the same as Protestants.

Gregg:

One can believe in &quot;free will&quot; without being an Arminian. Just not libertarian free will.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 1, 2004)

Fred, 
It may be me, but at this point I will have to respectfuly disagree with you here. Justification is at the center here because it gives shape to all the other doctrines as they apply to the believer. If justification is misunderstood or applied erroneously, it skews the Christology. Justification is never separated from Christology. Christology and justification are the two sides of one coin. For instance, The International Church of Christ believe in baptismal regeneration. As far as their Christology goes, they identify with us, yet we acknowledge (as well as Walter martin) that they are a cult and a false church. Why is it when it comes to Romish doctrine we tend to dance around the issues at hand. Let us call a horse a horse, after all, we do it with groups like the C.O.C.

Lets be consistant!

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:251aab3661][i:251aab3661]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:251aab3661]
Fred, 
It may be me, but at this point I will have to respectfuly disagree with you here. Justification is at the center here because it gives shape to all the other doctrines as they apply to the believer. If justification is misunderstood or applied erroneously, it skews the Christology. Justification is never separated from Christology. Christology and justification are the two sides of one coin. For instance, The International Church of Christ believe in baptismal regeneration. As far as their Christology goes, they identify with us, yet we acknowledge (as well as Walter martin) that they are a cult and a false church. Why is it when it comes to Romish doctrine we tend to dance around the issues at hand. Let us call a horse a horse, after all, we do it with groups like the C.O.C.

Lets be consistant!

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:251aab3661]

Scott,

I think the answer is that it takes more than minimally proper Christology to make a Christian church.

By, the way, if you do a search, you will find that I have never intimated that Romanism is a church of Christ. It is, as the Confession states, a synagogue of Satan.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 1, 2004)

I am with Fred here. No doubt the RCC is a huge cult. But a cult does not automatically have [i:f90ea870c8]everything[/i:f90ea870c8] wrong.

A cult, by definition, is a sect that holds to an abberant theology of the Trinity, especially with regard to the Person or the Work of Christ. Think Oneness Pentacostalism, JW's, Mormons, etc. What do they change? The Personhood of God and/or the Work of Christ (ie the gospel).

You can have the &quot;right&quot; Jesus with the &quot;wrong&quot; gospel.

Phillip

[Edited on 3-1-04 by pastorway]


----------



## Gregg (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:fe9854723b][i:fe9854723b]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:fe9854723b]
Let us call a horse a horse, after all, we do it with groups like the C.O.C.

Lets be consistant!

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:fe9854723b]

____________________________

A Horse is a horse of course...of course (sung to the tune of Mr Ed)

Does anybody here remember Mr. Ed?:thumbup:

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Gregg]


----------



## blhowes (Mar 1, 2004)

[b:fde673a948]Gregg asked:[/b:fde673a948]
Does anybody here remember Mr. Ed?:thumbup: 

:thumbup: Wi-i-i-i-i-i-l-l-l-l-l-l-b-u-r


----------



## raderag (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:7f8f6aaedd]
Where Rome errs is not in Christology, but in soteriology - i.e. the Work of Christ. I can be confident in asserting this, and give Rome her due with respect to the Trinity and Person of Christ, because my view is that Roman soteriology is damnable. 
[/quote:7f8f6aaedd]

Hi,

Would you say that RC soteriology is damnable because it includes imfused righteousness as part of justification? Or, is there something else that makes it damnable?

Is it only damnable when the contraversy came up, or is it universally damnable?

I am wondering where Augustine would fit into this since he believed that our works merit salvation since they are from God (infused righteousness).


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:d9ca1ef9c6]
Would you say that RC soteriology is damnable because it includes imfused righteousness as part of justification? Or, is there something else that makes it damnable? 

Is it only damnable when the contraversy came up, or is it universally damnable? 

I am wondering where Augustine would fit into this since he believed that our works merit salvation since they are from God (infused righteousness). 

[/quote:d9ca1ef9c6]

I for one do not think it is [u:d9ca1ef9c6]necessarily [/u:d9ca1ef9c6]damnable, but it is a grave error that needs to be corrected whenever confronted with someone who believes it.

Are we saved by &quot;faith&quot;, or a more accurately defined understanding of faith ? ?



[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## raderag (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:297b51d372][i:297b51d372]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:297b51d372]

I for one do not think it is [u:297b51d372]necessarily [/u:297b51d372]damnable, but it is a grave error that needs to be corrected whenever confronted with someone who believes it.
[/quote:297b51d372]

No doubt it is a very serious error. If someone in their heart thinks that their works, from God or themselves, can save them, they have serious problems.

[quote:297b51d372]
Are we saved by &quot;faith&quot;, or a more accurately defined understanding of faith ? ?
[/quote:297b51d372]

We are saved through faith in Christ's perfect obedience, sacrifice, and resurrection. Even those that hold to sola fide do not have a perfect faith. Anyway, I think we are on the same page.


[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Visigoth] [/quote]


----------



## JohnV (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:30fb29ade6][i:30fb29ade6]poted by Scott Bushey[/i:30fb29ade6]
Phillip, 
One of my points is that I believe Rome, as well as much of their staunch followers, do not have their Christology down. It is not drawn from the same plank as us. At first glance they may seem to agree, i.e. their adherance to the Apostles Creed, yet their other essential doctrines cause their Christology to flake. [/quote:30fb29ade6]
When I first started reading this thread I was wondering what Scott had in mind. It is certain that the RCC is presenting another gospel, but is it representing another Christ? And then I read pastor Way's post, about the subtle difference. 

Now I have this question in my mind: is it not less condemning to say they are presenting another Jesus than to say they are misrepresenting the true Jesus? In the former they are equated with false churches; in the latter they are equated with the work of the antichrist. It is more serious, in my thinking, to charge Rome with mirepresentating the true Christ of Scripture than it is to charge them with serving another Jesus.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:55ff3e8766][i:55ff3e8766]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:55ff3e8766]
[quote:55ff3e8766][i:55ff3e8766]poted by Scott Bushey[/i:55ff3e8766]
Phillip, 
One of my points is that I believe Rome, as well as much of their staunch followers, do not have their Christology down. It is not drawn from the same plank as us. At first glance they may seem to agree, i.e. their adherance to the Apostles Creed, yet their other essential doctrines cause their Christology to flake. [/quote:55ff3e8766]
When I first started reading this thread I was wondering what Scott had in mind. It is certain that the RCC is presenting another gospel, but is it representing another Christ? And then I read pastor Way's post, about the subtle difference. 

Now I have this question in my mind: is it not less condemning to say they are presenting another Jesus than to say they are misrepresenting the true Jesus? In the former they are equated with false churches; in the latter they are equated with the work of the antichrist. It is more serious, in my thinking, to charge Rome with mirepresentating the true Christ of Scripture than it is to charge them with serving another Jesus. [/quote:55ff3e8766]

John,
In my opinion, they are doing more than just misrepresenting the Christ of the scriptures. This is the whole point behind what Luther posed. The church of Rome which met at Worms leveled the charge of 'anathema' upon Luther for his view of justification by faith alone. The Christ of Rome does not (literally or technically) justify. It has been said that the Christology of Rome is acceptable based upon the idea that they agree with us that Christ was God in the flesh, that they are elbow to elbow with us in regards to the Apostles Creed, yet in my opinion their soteriology undermines their Christology. How could it not? Unless of course one doesn't effect the other........is this not theology proper? One element does in fact effect the other. Singularly, they would seem ok. But one cannot look at just one aspect of one's theology and say, &quot;that is orthodox&quot;, hence, the theology, singularly MUST be orthodox, making their whole system acceptable.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:f7e9f743e4][i:f7e9f743e4]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:f7e9f743e4]
[quote:f7e9f743e4][i:f7e9f743e4]poted by Scott Bushey[/i:f7e9f743e4]
Phillip, 
One of my points is that I believe Rome, as well as much of their staunch followers, do not have their Christology down. It is not drawn from the same plank as us. At first glance they may seem to agree, i.e. their adherance to the Apostles Creed, yet their other essential doctrines cause their Christology to flake. [/quote:f7e9f743e4]
When I first started reading this thread I was wondering what Scott had in mind. It is certain that the RCC is presenting another gospel, but is it representing another Christ? And then I read pastor Way's post, about the subtle difference. 

Now I have this question in my mind: is it not less condemning to say they are presenting another Jesus than to say they are misrepresenting the true Jesus? In the former they are equated with false churches; in the latter they are equated with the work of the antichrist. It is more serious, in my thinking, to charge Rome with mirepresentating the true Christ of Scripture than it is to charge them with serving another Jesus. [/quote:f7e9f743e4]

John,

BINGO!!!

That is why Romanism is so much worse than even atheism. It is poison in the milk bottle. To whom much is given, much is expected. 

That is why everytime it is mentioned here that Rome has this little bit of orthodoxy or that little bit, it is more damnable than if they did not have it. Romanism is damnable. It is damnable for many, many reasons. The Reformation is clear on this. Even if there were no second commandment issue, every single Magisterial reformer would have spoken out against Gibson, and would have disciplined members of their churches going to see a Papist &quot;passion play.&quot;


----------



## JohnV (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:6264104f24][i:6264104f24]posted by Scott Bushey[/i:6264104f24]
John, 
In my opinion, they are doing more than just misrepresenting the Christ of the scriptures. This is the whole point behind what Luther posed. The church of Rome which met at Worms leveled the charge of 'anathema' upon Luther for his view of justification by faith alone. The Christ of Rome does not (literally or technically) justify. It has been said that the Christology of Rome is acceptable based upon the idea that they agree with us that Christ was God in the flesh, that they are elbow to elbow with us in regards to the Apostles Creed, yet in my opinion their soteriology undermines their Christology. How could it not? Unless of course one doesn't effect the other........is this not theology proper? One element does in fact effect the other. Singularly, they would seem ok. But one cannot look at just one aspect of one's theology and say, &quot;that is orthodox&quot;, hence, the theology, singularly MUST be orthodox, making their whole system acceptable. [/quote:6264104f24]
I wasn't disagreeing with you, but I guess my flair for words leaves something to be desired. :biggrin:

It makes little difference in the end whether Christ is mesrepresented or whether it is another Christ. It is as Fred says, &quot;poison in the milk&quot;, or the toxic mixed in with the good, that makes it so vicious an error, for, mixing metaphors, it fishes in the streams in which God's elect swim, and not just in foreign waters. They would cause one of His little ones to stumble, calling for the millstone sentence to be preferred to the judgment that awaits them.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 1, 2004)

Sorry john, I wasn't implying that you disagreed necessarily! 

That is the drum I have been banging since this board was taken over by Gibson. A half lie is worse than a whole one...it is more virulent.

Nuff said:kiss:


----------



## raderag (Mar 2, 2004)

[quote:004083e4d3][i:004083e4d3]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:004083e4d3]
Is the Christ of the Roman Catholic Church the same Christ of the scriptures?

Rome does in fact embrace the Apostles Creed, but do their other illicit ideas cause a chain reaction in regards to undermining an orthodox Christology? [/quote:004083e4d3]

Wouldn't this imply that the medieval church had the wrong Christology, which in turn would mean the church had a period of full apostasy?


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2004)

No, because one can accept the creed at face value. I do not have to understand all the intricacies of the doctrines of the incarnation and trinity in order to be saved. I simply have to believe what the Bible says in the plainest sense.

I Timothy 3:16

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: 

He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.


----------



## Canadian Baptist (Mar 2, 2004)

These issues are huge! Especially in conjunction with the recent movie &quot;Passion.&quot; I have been looked at as a zeolous theology nut around our church because I keep bringing up the Catholic's knowing and willful, repeated and outright denial of the gospel. 
The bottom line in salvation is-- how are we made right with God. The Catholic's do not deny that grace is needed. They say they don't believe that we are saved by works or by lawkeeping. However, they anathemetize anyone who dares to believe in Justification by faith alone. They also anathemetize anyone who believes in the great doctrine of imputation. We are supposedly justified by an inward working and actual righteousness in the soul. They confess that justification is a &quot;process&quot; and that we must &quot;prepare&quot; for it. They confess that real propitiation happens in the Mass. The Traditionalist Catholics, of which Mel Gibson is associated directly with, appeal specifically to the Council of Trent as authoritative even more strongly than modern Catholics seem to. I have seen the movie and was disgusted with scenes where Mary appears to be the stalwart, rather than the Lord Jesus. All that aside, Catholics are not just another denomination. They have had centuries to re-evaluated their stance on justification and refuse to renounce Trent. They are not a pillar and ground of the truth. Let's reach out to them with the good news that God can declare sinners righteous on the basis of the blood and righteousness of Christ alone. They don't need to &quot;prepare&quot; themselves, or help God out (synergism) or go through life not knowing if they are really justified. (all Catholic teachings) They too can be justified by faith and have peace with God. As for the Catholic church...

Revelation 18:4
And I heard another voice from heaven saying, &quot;Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues


----------

