Is Roman Catholic Baptism valid?

[rembrandt]

[quote:d1d07e2687][i:d1d07e2687]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:d1d07e2687]
Did the Church Fathers ever anathamatize the gospel?

Rome did - and does. Trent still stands to this day as a monument to her whoredom. [/quote:d1d07e2687]

yeah, thats a good arguement.

But I would say, that they have anathamized an [i:d1d07e2687]understanding[/i:d1d07e2687] of justification. I do believe it is flawed, but they don't cease to be a 'true church' at that very moment, given that they still do believe in enough knowledge of justification that can save somebody.

Paul

 

[Me Died Blue]

[quote:6a8257beb9][i:6a8257beb9]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:6a8257beb9]
The only criticism I would like to point out here is that ministers do not obtain there calling from the church but from God. The church only confirms it. For instance, who ordained John the Baptist? Just a thought. [/quote:6a8257beb9]

Agreed, but God still uses means to bring about His purposes. As to John the Baptist, the historic Presbyterian position is that the ordinary procedures of ordination must be followed [i:6a8257beb9]except[/i:6a8257beb9] in extraordinary cases, where a by-passing of the ordinary procedures is essential. I would say that John the Baptist's was such a case.

[quote:6a8257beb9][i:6a8257beb9]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:6a8257beb9]
Let me also say that I think Rome is within the realm of the historic Christian faith in their [i:6a8257beb9]basic[/i:6a8257beb9] and most [i:6a8257beb9]important[/i:6a8257beb9] beliefs. I believe they preach the gospel, just in a very tainted and distorted way.

Having a protestant understanding of justification is NOT necessary!!! Unless you want to say that all the baptisms performed prior to the Reformation were false. I believe, along with the Reformers, that Rome does dispense the true sacraments.[/quote:6a8257beb9]

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot accept the Gospel that modern Rome preaches as [i:6a8257beb9]any[/i:6a8257beb9] Gospel at all, tainted or not. They preach salvation by the works of man, which denies the one theme that is central to all of the talk of redemption throughout the entire Bible. Understanding justification to be by faith alone is at the heart of the Gospel, which is what the whole Bible is dedicated to expounding. A salvation apart from self-merit is the [i:6a8257beb9]only[/i:6a8257beb9] thing that sets Christianity apart from the rest of the world's religions, and thus I cannot acknowledge a church that denies it as explicitly as Rome does as a true church.

As to all pre-Reformation baptisms being false, and the Reformers acknowledging the validity of Roman baptism: I never said I believe all pre-Reformation baptisms were false, but rather, I agree with the Reformers that they were valid. However, mentioning this viewpoint of theirs does not apply to your argument, because it was not until the Council of Trent that Rome explicitly denied the heart of the biblical Gospel to the extent that they continue to today. I'm with the Reformers that the Rome prior to the Reformation was a true church, but I also believe that they would be with me that the Rome of the 21st century is not a true church. We touched on that issue some on this page: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=4894&page=2.

In Christ,

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:f0a444af0c][i:f0a444af0c]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:f0a444af0c]
[quote:f0a444af0c][i:f0a444af0c]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:f0a444af0c]
Did the Church Fathers ever anathamatize the gospel?

Rome did - and does. Trent still stands to this day as a monument to her whoredom. [/quote:f0a444af0c]

yeah, thats a good arguement.

But I would say, that they have anathamized an [i:f0a444af0c]understanding[/i:f0a444af0c] of justification. I do believe it is flawed, but they don't cease to be a 'true church' at that very moment, given that they still do believe in enough knowledge of justification that can save somebody.

Paul [/quote:f0a444af0c]

actually, they have anathamatized the Bible's teaching on justification. Rome has said that if a man believes salvation is by grace alone, he is going to hell. That is what they say.

And they actually do not have "enough knowledge of justification that can save somebody." People can be saved in the Roman church [i:f0a444af0c]in spite of[/i:f0a444af0c] it and its teachings, but not [i:f0a444af0c]because of it[/i:f0a444af0c].

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:c0b9cc4a86][i:c0b9cc4a86]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:c0b9cc4a86]
[quote:c0b9cc4a86][i:c0b9cc4a86]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:c0b9cc4a86]
[quote:c0b9cc4a86][i:c0b9cc4a86]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:c0b9cc4a86]
Did the Church Fathers ever anathamatize the gospel?

Rome did - and does. Trent still stands to this day as a monument to her whoredom. [/quote:c0b9cc4a86]

yeah, thats a good arguement.

But I would say, that they have anathamized an [i:c0b9cc4a86]understanding[/i:c0b9cc4a86] of justification. I do believe it is flawed, but they don't cease to be a 'true church' at that very moment, given that they still do believe in enough knowledge of justification that can save somebody.

Paul [/quote:c0b9cc4a86]

actually, they have anathamatized the Bible's teaching on justification. Rome has said that if a man believes salvation is by grace alone, he is going to hell. That is what they say.

And they actually do not have "enough knowledge of justification that can save somebody." People can be saved in the Roman church [i:c0b9cc4a86]in spite of[/i:c0b9cc4a86] it and its teachings, but not [i:c0b9cc4a86]because of it[/i:c0b9cc4a86]. [/quote:c0b9cc4a86]

Good points. I still think there are elements in Rome of a true church. They have misunderstanding of justification, it is very horrible, but it is not a complete return to the law [i:c0b9cc4a86]all together[/i:c0b9cc4a86]. There have always been true and vaild camps within the Christian church, who have liked to emphasize James' perspective on the importance of works. I allow for some misunderstanding and some tolerance. Just because they don't place more emphasis on St. Paul than another writter doesn't make them totally invalid. And if they [i:c0b9cc4a86]condemn[/i:c0b9cc4a86] St. Paul's theology, that definitely puts their church in judgment, but it still does not mean that in some [i:c0b9cc4a86]sence[/i:c0b9cc4a86] it is a church.

Paul

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:92795ca7ab][i:92795ca7ab]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:92795ca7ab]
Good points. I still think there are elements in Rome of a true church. They have misunderstanding of justification, it is very horrible, but it is not a complete return to the law [i:92795ca7ab]all together[/i:92795ca7ab]. There have always been true and vaild camps within the Christian church, who have liked to emphasize James' perspective on the importance of works. I allow for some misunderstanding and some tolerance. Just because they don't place more emphasis on St. Paul than another writter doesn't make them totally invalid. And if they [i:92795ca7ab]condemn[/i:92795ca7ab] St. Paul's theology, that definitely puts their church in judgment, but it still does not mean that in some [i:92795ca7ab]sence[/i:92795ca7ab] it is a church.

Paul [/quote:92795ca7ab]

Paul, if you are correct, then you must cease protesting and rejoin Rome. If Rome still has the gospel and is a true church, then the Reformers never should have departed from her. The original Westminster Confession made this clear with its statement on the pope.

 

[Guest]

[b:dd6710bd4d]Is this the Gospel?[/b:dd6710bd4d]

CANON 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

CANON 12: "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed"

Canon 14: "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema."

Canon 23: "lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,- except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema."

Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."

Canon 30: "If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema."

Canon 33: "If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

[b:dd6710bd4d]Or this?[/b:dd6710bd4d]

Ineffabilis Deus
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception (December 8, 1854)

Our soul overflows with joy and our tongue with exultation. We give, and we shall continue to give, the humblest and deepest thanks to Jesus Christ, our Lord, because through his singular grace he has granted to us, unworthy though we be, to decree and offer this honor and glory and praise to his most holy Mother. [b:dd6710bd4d]All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin[/b:dd6710bd4d] -- in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints; in her who is the safest refuge and the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is [b:dd6710bd4d]the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world;[/b:dd6710bd4d] in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers. We have, therefore, a very certain hope and complete confidence that the most Blessed Virgin will ensure by her most powerful patronage that all difficulties be removed and all errors dissipated, so that our Holy Mother the Catholic Church may flourish daily more and more throughout all the nations and countries, and may reign "from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth," and may enjoy genuine peace, tranquility and liberty. We are firm in our confidence that she will obtain pardon for the sinner, health for the sick, strength of heart for the weak, consolation for the afflicted, help for those in danger; that she will remove spiritual blindness from all who are in error, so that they may return to the path of truth and justice, and that here may be one flock and one shepherd.

Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and [b:dd6710bd4d]having in her care the work of our salvation[/b:dd6710bd4d], she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even [b:dd6710bd4d]stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son[/b:dd6710bd4d], Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.

THAT is another Gospel.

Mark

 

[DanielC]

What about this: while in Romania, a friend of mine was wondering if she should be baptized again. She was baptized as an infant in the Eastern Orthodox Church (particularly, the Romanian Orthodox Church). She also says that her parents are not christians, even though they attend a protestant church every now and then.

What would you tell her?

 

[pastorway]

The RCC preaches [i:e9d27974d5]another gospel[/i:e9d27974d5]. Another gospel that cannot save. Another gospel that leads men to hell. Another gospel that denies the Scriptures. Another gospel that steals glory from Christ and gives it to Mary, the saints, angels, and other people.

The Mormon church baptizes in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost....are they Christians too? Would a person who was covnerted to Christ from Mormonism need to be baptized or would his baptism be accepted as valid?

What is different between Rome and Mormonism? They both preach another Jesus and another way of salvation.

If a church does not have the gospel then no formulation of words can transform a religious ritual into a sacrament! Doing it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does not make it baptism.

Rome is far beyond the scope of being a true church. They think their baptism regenerates you. How any reformed church or person can accept such a superstitious ritual as if it were an ordinance of the church is really quite beyond me.

Phillip

 

[Scott Bushey]

I agree wiyth Phillip on this one. Even though I have heard a descent defense in regards to the trinity and the fact that Rome embraces the Apostles creed, I have to acknowledge the fact that (as I have said elsewhere) Rome's theology destroys any theological good embracing the AC may bring about.

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:0296519c8b]Paul, if you are correct, then you must cease protesting and rejoin Rome. If Rome still has the gospel and is a true church, then the Reformers never should have departed from her. The original Westminster Confession made this clear with its statement on the pope.[/quote:0296519c8b]

Rome was not the [i:0296519c8b]only[/i:0296519c8b] church at the time of the Reformation. The Eastern Orthodox were excommunicated by Rome around 1100. I should either return to Rome or the East if I didn't have an excuse. But I believe that there was a just cause for the Reformation. I am rethinking some of Luther's patience in dealing with Rome, but over all, I think the [i:0296519c8b]initial[/i:0296519c8b] cause was a good thing. We excaped rampant papal tyranny and oppression. When such thing is the case, and given that Rome is not the [i:0296519c8b]only[/i:0296519c8b] church, I see it a good thing to seperate, until one day the offending party will repent.

I believe along with [i:0296519c8b]most[/i:0296519c8b] Reformed theologians that Rome was THE Church atleast for the first 800 years. One day, probably not until in heaven, I hope to be reunited to her and enjoy the fellowship of all the departed saints through all ages.

Paul

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:ea5cf58401][i:ea5cf58401]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:ea5cf58401]
[quote:ea5cf58401]Paul, if you are correct, then you must cease protesting and rejoin Rome. If Rome still has the gospel and is a true church, then the Reformers never should have departed from her. The original Westminster Confession made this clear with its statement on the pope.[/quote:ea5cf58401]

Rome was not the [i:ea5cf58401]only[/i:ea5cf58401] church at the time of the Reformation. The Eastern Orthodox were excommunicated by Rome around 1100. I should either return to Rome or the East if I didn't have an excuse. But I believe that there was a just cause for the Reformation. I am rethinking some of Luther's patience in dealing with Rome, but over all, I think the [i:ea5cf58401]initial[/i:ea5cf58401] cause was a good thing. We excaped rampant papal tyranny and oppression. When such thing is the case, and given that Rome is not the [i:ea5cf58401]only[/i:ea5cf58401] church, I see it a good thing to seperate, until one day the offending party will repent.

I believe along with [i:ea5cf58401]most[/i:ea5cf58401] Reformed theologians that Rome was THE Church atleast for the first 800 years. One day, probably not until in heaven, I hope to be reunited to her and enjoy the fellowship of all the departed saints through all ages.

Paul [/quote:ea5cf58401]

Paul,

Rome was [i:ea5cf58401]the[/i:ea5cf58401] Church. Eastern Orthodoxy was viewed by the Roman Church (and the Reformers) as having schismatically departed from the Church by denying a fundamental aspect of the Trinity (the filioque clause). The EO church was not seen as the true church by the Reformers or Romanists.

The reason that Calvin could advise separating from Rome is that it was not a true Church (I think that makes him a bit schitzophrenic on the issue of Romanist baptism, but that is neither here nor there at this point). If Rome was a true church, Calvin states that it is unlawful to depart from a true church:

[quote:ea5cf58401]
"We have said that the symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments, for these cannot any where exist without producing fruit and prospering by the blessing of God. I say not that wherever the word is preached fruit immediately appears; but that in every place where it is received, and has a fixed abode, it uniformly displays its efficacy. [b:ea5cf58401]Be this as it may, when the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time the face of the Church appears without deception or ambiguity; and no man may with impunity spurn her authority[/b:ea5cf58401], or reject her admonitions, or resist her counsels, or make sport of her censures, far less revolt from her, and violate her unity, (see Chap. 2 sec. 1, 10, and Chap. 3. sec. 12.) For such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of his Church, that [b:ea5cf58401]all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of his word and sacraments is maintained, he regards as deserters of religion.[/b:ea5cf58401]" (Institutes IV.i.10, emphasis added) [/quote:ea5cf58401]

But in point of fact Calvin did counsel leaving the Rome, because it was not a true church:

[quote:ea5cf58401]"Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives. There, [b:ea5cf58401]instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of lies[/b:ea5cf58401], a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light. [b:ea5cf58401]In place of the Lord's Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered[/b:ea5cf58401], the worship of God is deformed by a varied mass of intolerable superstitions; doctrine (without which Christianity exists not) is wholly buried and exploded, the public assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety. [b:ea5cf58401]Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ.[/b:ea5cf58401]" (Institutes IV.ii.2, emphasis added)[/quote:ea5cf58401]

So you see, your position, Paul is not Calvin's.

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:37f8cd10b5]Rome was the Church. Eastern Orthodoxy was viewed by the Roman Church (and the Reformers) as having schismatically departed from the Church by denying a fundamental aspect of the Trinity (the filioque clause). The EO church was not seen as the true church by the Reformers or Romanists.[/quote:37f8cd10b5]

[i:37f8cd10b5]I said[/i:37f8cd10b5] they were excommunicated. The EO also excommunicated Rome. So how do you know which is right? I mean, EO refused to accept the Pope, which sparked all kind of fires, and lead to the double excommunication. Rome had no right to excommunicate EO, because they were also THE Church. Both sides were thirsty over political interests, therefore I see them as both in the wrong. These confused Church situations are hard to deal with, but I see them as both THE valid Church, just divided (like OT Israel).

[b:37f8cd10b5]SO, here we have that Rome is no longer the final authority in all maters. We have a higher ecclesiastical court to appeal to. This is the Universal Church.[/b:37f8cd10b5] This is my best arguement, and a very valid one at that. A modern example would be that if a denomination excommunicated someone, they have the greater part of Christendom who they can appeal to. They may or may not see the excommunication as valid, and they may or may not receive that person into the church. So to reiterate, it is NOT dependent upon [i:37f8cd10b5]one part[/i:37f8cd10b5] of the Body's rulings.

In regards to the Reformation, as I said, I am rethinking Luther's right to do as he did. Should he have had more patience, and dealt with things more gradually? Maybe. But I am not going to wrestle with these things here. If Luther was wrong, then he was wrong. But that doesn't make the Reformation full of invalid churches. I believe the necessity prevailed...

[quote:37f8cd10b5]So you see, your position, Paul is not Calvin's.[/quote:37f8cd10b5]

Can you show me that Calvin thought that Rome was in [i:37f8cd10b5]no sence[/i:37f8cd10b5] a church?

Paul

 

[fredtgreco]

Paul,

Can you show me where in any sense - other than in accepting Rome's baptism - that Calvin thought Rome was a true church?

Remember that Calvin says [b:7f68b037b2]"all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of his word and sacraments is maintained, he regards as deserters of religion."[/b:7f68b037b2]

So then if Calvin also says: [b:7f68b037b2]"Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ"[/b:7f68b037b2]

We can infer quite easily that Calvin did not think himself guilty of being a deserter of religion. He also therefore did not see Rome as even a "Christian society." If he did, then his second statement is a lie.

The EO is not an equal but divided part of the Church. They have denied a part of the doctrine of the Trinity. They are wrong. The Bible is correct - everywhere that it speaks of the Spirit of Christ - the EOs are wrong, and hence schismatic. They are schismatic over a fundamental doctrine, the Trinity, not a secondary one (say, eschatology or the role of the magistrate).

There is no universal church in the sense that you describe it. There is a universal church in the invisible sense, but there is no vague body that tolerates opposite teachings on cardinal doctrines of the faith. This is not a "just get along" thing. One body teaches the Scriptures, the other the doctrine of devils.

Such is true of Rome. She has denied the gospel, and is under the anathama of God (viz. Gal. 1) . That at least was one thing Rome got right - if the gospel is denied, then those denying it are anathama. The only problem was that Rome was against the Bible. Rome is a synagogue of Satan, whose leader exalts himself in the place of Christ, and he is antichrist. Any who are saved in the Papist body are saved in spite of its teachings not because of it. Rome leads souls to death and destruction. It is analogous to the false wicked prophets and shepherds who are rebuked by Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

I have never heard or read any Reformed divine or theologian every acknowledge anything good or valid from Rome but (sometimes) her baptism. The Mass is denounced in the most vile of terms. You read what Calvin had to say about their "preaching." Her priests are not called ministers of the gospel. Her precious doctrines (Mariolatry, purgatory, papal infallibility, etc) are despised and refuted.

Please show me any place where Rome is upheld other than accepting her baptism as legitimate.

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:2475de1ab7]Can you show me where in any sense - other than in accepting Rome's baptism - that Calvin thought Rome was a true church?[/quote:2475de1ab7]

No. I just think that he did not think that it was not [b:2475de1ab7]a[/b:2475de1ab7] church in a sence (in which case there would be [i:2475de1ab7]some[/i:2475de1ab7] truthfullness in it.

[quote:2475de1ab7]The EO is not an equal but divided part of the Church. They have denied a part of the doctrine of the Trinity. They are wrong. The Bible is correct - everywhere that it speaks of the Spirit of Christ - the EOs are wrong, and hence schismatic. They are schismatic over a fundamental doctrine, the Trinity, not a secondary one (say, eschatology or the role of the magistrate).[/quote:2475de1ab7]

"The Orthodox recognize seven Ecumenical Councils, up to the Second Nicene Council (787)" (Hall of Church History). The EO DOES accept the orthodox view. "The filioque clause found in the Western version of this creed is one of the major disagreements between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity. [b:2475de1ab7]This clause was not accepted even by the Western Church until the turn of the first millennium[/b:2475de1ab7]" (creeds.net). [b:2475de1ab7]The filioque was NOT in the original creed! Thus they do adhere to all the major creeds![/b:2475de1ab7]

[quote:2475de1ab7]There is no universal church in the sense that you describe it. There is a universal church in the invisible sense, but there is no vague body that tolerates opposite teachings on cardinal doctrines of the faith. This is not a "just get along" thing.[/quote:2475de1ab7]

There is a tolerance level. We cannot agree on every minute detail. Frame's "Evangelical Reunion" captures what I am talking about here.

[quote:2475de1ab7]I have never heard or read any Reformed divine or theologian every acknowledge anything good or valid from Rome but (sometimes) her baptism.[/quote:2475de1ab7]

Frame says in his book that a Roman priest is his brother in Christ and working alongside with him for the same cause.

Paul

 

[BrianLanier]

[quote:20de537470][i:20de537470]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:20de537470]
Frame says in his book that a Roman priest is his brother in Christ and working alongside with him for the same cause.
[/quote:20de537470]

PLEASE say this isn't so!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!:sniff:

 

[BrianLanier]

[quote:bc322f5115][i:bc322f5115]Originally posted by BrianLanier[/i:bc322f5115]
[quote:bc322f5115][i:bc322f5115]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:bc322f5115]
Frame says in his book that a Roman priest is his brother in Christ and working alongside with him for the same cause.
[/quote:bc322f5115]

PLEASE say this isn't so!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!:sniff: [/quote:bc322f5115]

Well, I just researched this statement and to let Frame speak for himself:

"The sort of unity my wife experienced in her neighborhood Bible study I have also experienced, especially in pro-life activity. In a recent rally I attended, the most eloquent speaker by far was a Roman Catholic priest, and he was at his best when he spoke of salvation through Christ alone. Oh yes: he also mentioned that he addressed Mary in prayer. He carefully explained that he did not worship Mary, but that she was part of the communion of saints, and that he desired her fellowship as he desired that of living saints in bringing his requests to God. I still do not share his assurance that Mary hears our prayers and somehow relays them to God. But in that context the distance between my views and those of the priest, on that matter anyway, did not seem terribly far apart. He was fighting - far more heroically than I, for he had been to jail often for his convictions - a battle for Jesus and for the little ones made in God's image. I have no doubt that he and I are fighting the same battle."

A little ambiguous on what that battle is. They are both battling against abortion but he seems to imply more than that.

 

[BrianLanier]

Here are some other quotes from Frame on the subject:

"In my Protestant bliss, I can say fairly complacently that the 1054 split between east and west was due to papal arrogance. My Roman Catholic friends are welcome to try to set me straight. But as for the doctrinal issue, whether the Spirit proceeds only from the Father or from the Son as well, it is hard to imagine why that should be the cause of so momentous a division. It is a very difficult question, one hard to resolve from Scripture. And the concept of "procession" is mysterious indeed, part of the mystery of the Trinity itself. The meaning of it is not at all obvious. I think I can defend the western position, but I cannot see why it should be made a test of orthodoxy. Certainly one can be a knowledgeable and effective minister of God's Word whichever position he takes - or without taking any position at all."

and

"Granting that Luther was right in his doctrinal dispute with Rome, was he also right to start a new denomination? "Well, he was excommunicated," someone will say. "What else could he do?" Well, he could have continued to teach as an excommunicate Catholic (while rejecting the grounds of the excommunication), praying that God would one day establish his theology in the whole church. [b:8b8369fc78]Was Luther required to start afresh because the Roman Catholic Church was no longer a true church? But the Reformers did not believe that the Roman Catholic Church had totally lost all the characteristics of a true church. They did not, for example, rebaptize people who had been baptized as Roman Catholics[/b:8b8369fc78].3"

and

"4. Of course, formal judgments by one church that another church is totally apostate have been exceedingly rare in church history. Augustine did not make such a judgment against the schismatics and heretics of his day; [b:8b8369fc78]the Protestant reformers did not make it against the Roman Catholic Church[/b:8b8369fc78]; the Puritans did not so judge the Anglican Church; nor did J. Gresham Machen so condemn the Presbyterian Church U. S. A"

and finally

"[b:8b8369fc78]Very much the same is true with the Lord's Supper. I agree with the Protestant reformers that the Roman mass is blasphemous because in it there is idolatrous worship of the host (thought to be the literal body of Christ) and because the mass is regarded as some sort of continuing sacrifice for sin[/b:8b8369fc78]. These are serious errors, and they would prevent me from participating in Roman Catholic communion unless I could get assurance that those doctrines were not held by the particular congregation in question. [b:8b8369fc78]Yet I do not deny that in such circumstances the Lord's Supper is being received[/b:8b8369fc78]. Think of a parallel with preaching (for the Reformers usefully regarded the sacraments as "visible words"): A sermon may contain a mixture of error and truth. Yet the presence of error does not prove that the truth has not also been present."

I must say that I am definately NOT in agreement with Mr. Frame here. I think that I am more and more have a bad taste in my mouth for Mr. Frames work.

I know how you feel Fred.

 

[rembrandt]

Even if you don't agree with him, I thank you for posting that!

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:ad51c2da96][i:ad51c2da96]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:ad51c2da96]
Frame says in his book that a Roman priest is his brother in Christ and working alongside with him for the same cause.
[/quote:ad51c2da96]

Could you provide a reference for this please? I think this is a serious charge which some here would like to see verified.


Also, I don't want this thread to get locked up, so let's please try to stay on the issues at hand.

How does Rome qualify to be a true church?
It has been answered "they hold to the ecumenical Creeds."

So let's explore this aspect further before we move on to other qualifications regarding the validity of Rome.

What is required to say someone holds to the Creeds? Must you only hold to the Creeds in name only (i.e. like the liberals)? Or must you also hold to the biblical meaning of those words?
For instance, let's take the Apostle's Creed's.
[quote:ad51c2da96]I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen. [/quote:ad51c2da96]

Let's examine this phrase, "[b:ad51c2da96]the forgiveness of sins[/b:ad51c2da96]."
What does Scripture say regarding the forgiveness of sins? Obviously, it is found through the once for all atoning work of Christ on our behalf, imputed to our account through faith.

Is this how Rome understands this phrase? Obviously not. Forgiveness is acheived through a semi-pelagian scheme of grace+works, no different than any other false religion.

So do they really hold to the Apostle's Creed?
Can such an interpretation of the Creed be considered Christian?

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:8b96464d7e]Could you provide a reference for this please? I think this is a serious charge which some here would like to see verified.[/quote:8b96464d7e]

Look above. I think the references were posted while you were typing.

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:089ca8cdbd]Is this how Rome understands this phrase? Obviously not. Forgiveness is acheived through a semi-pelagian scheme of grace+works, no different than any other false religion.[/quote:089ca8cdbd]

Was Rome semi-pelagian when they wrote this creed?

[quote:089ca8cdbd](i.e. like the liberals)?[/quote:089ca8cdbd]
I do NOT think liberals qualify. Because with them it is not a matter of interpretation, but a [i:089ca8cdbd]complete disregard[/i:089ca8cdbd] for the authority of the Bible. So they are of no threat to our discussion at hand.

Paul

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:86d1ca0248][i:86d1ca0248]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:86d1ca0248]
[quote:86d1ca0248]Is this how Rome understands this phrase? Obviously not. Forgiveness is acheived through a semi-pelagian scheme of grace+works, no different than any other false religion.[/quote:86d1ca0248]

Was Rome semi-pelagian when they wrote this creed?
[/quote:86d1ca0248]
No they were not.
[quote:86d1ca0248]
[quote:86d1ca0248](i.e. like the liberals)?[/quote:86d1ca0248]
I do NOT think liberals qualify. Because with them it is not a matter of interpretation, but a [i:86d1ca0248]complete disregard[/i:86d1ca0248] for the authority of the Bible. So they are of no threat to our discussion at hand.
[/quote:86d1ca0248]
I think it applies perfectly. You say the liberals disregard the Bible but so does Rome. And the liberals as well have no problem claiming to believe in the Apostle's Creed. That was in fact one of their war-crys against Machen, "Give us the simple religion of the Apostle's Creed." They held to it tenaciously, but they also redefined it so they could say they hold to it, just like Rome.

And it still doesn't answer the question.
Does Rome really hold to the Apostle's Creed?

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by puritansailor]

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:8bb32d0e1c]I think it applies perfectly. You say the liberals disregard the Bible but so does Rome. And the liberals as well have no problem claiming to believe in the Apostle's Creed.[/quote:8bb32d0e1c]

No, my point was that they disregard the authority of the Bible. Rome upholds the authority of the Bible (as their canons clearly say). Rome has not fallen into liberalism, and this is perhaps one of the great aspects about her.

[quote:8bb32d0e1c]And it still doesn't answer the question.
Does Rome really hold to the Apostle's Creed?[/quote:8bb32d0e1c]

I would say "without a doubt."

Paul

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:34858e1b13]No they were not.[/quote:34858e1b13]

How do you figure? When do you date the apostles creed? Do you think that Rome had some other understanding than semipelagianism (as we know it today- they didn't call themselves that- the term was invented early 400s) during that time? If it was before Augustine, can you prove they did not hold to a semi position in their writings?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:2a56714006][i:2a56714006]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:2a56714006]
[quote:2a56714006]No they were not.[/quote:2a56714006]

How do you figure? When do you date the apostles creed? Do you think that Rome had some other understanding than semipelagianism (as we know it today- they didn't call themselves that- the term was invented early 400s) during that time? If it was before Augustine, can you prove they did not hold to a semi position in their writings? [/quote:2a56714006]
I assume the church remained faithful to the Word of God until the hersies erupted. So I believe the early church held to the apostolic teaching regarding salvation until some heresy erupted which required clarification of the doctrines of salvation. There are very few if any writings I know of to prove either way that the church was semi-pelagian at the time the Apostle's Creed was written (somewhere in the 1st-2nd century). The papacy as I understand did not rise to great power until later, probably excellerated under Constantine.

And all of this is irrelevent anyway. If the Apostle's Creed was in fact written by semi-pelagians, with the semi-pelagian scheme of forgiveness taught, then we would be obligated to reject it.

[quote:2a56714006]No, my point was that they disregard the authority of the Bible. Rome upholds the authority of the Bible (as their canons clearly say). Rome has not fallen into liberalism, and this is perhaps one of the great aspects about her. [/quote:2a56714006]
I don't know which Rome you are refering to here. Liberalism is alive and well in Rome, though they have not officially recognized it. Just go to a Jesuit college as I did and take a Bible class. And you still cannot shake off the liberals, for they to claim to hold to the authority of Scripture in their own sense just as Rome does. They pick and choose which parts of Scripture they will apply just as Rome does, and thus both redefine what it means to hold to the "authority of Scripture."

And likewise both liberals and Rome claim to believe in "the forgiveness of sins" yet they do not hold to the biblical teaching of that term. So can we really say they hold to it? I say no. Thus the claim that are a true church because they hold to the Creeds is incorrect, because they do not in fact hold to them, or at least not the Apostle's Creed.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:0490a34bd1][i:0490a34bd1]Originally posted by BrianLanier[/i:0490a34bd1]
Here are some other quotes from Frame on the subject:

"In my Protestant bliss, I can say fairly complacently that the 1054 split between east and west was due to papal arrogance. My Roman Catholic friends are welcome to try to set me straight. But as for the doctrinal issue, whether the Spirit proceeds only from the Father or from the Son as well, it is hard to imagine why that should be the cause of so momentous a division. It is a very difficult question, one hard to resolve from Scripture. And the concept of "procession" is mysterious indeed, part of the mystery of the Trinity itself. The meaning of it is not at all obvious. I think I can defend the western position, but I cannot see why it should be made a test of orthodoxy. Certainly one can be a knowledgeable and effective minister of God's Word whichever position he takes - or without taking any position at all."

and

"Granting that Luther was right in his doctrinal dispute with Rome, was he also right to start a new denomination? "Well, he was excommunicated," someone will say. "What else could he do?" Well, he could have continued to teach as an excommunicate Catholic (while rejecting the grounds of the excommunication), praying that God would one day establish his theology in the whole church. [b:0490a34bd1]Was Luther required to start afresh because the Roman Catholic Church was no longer a true church? But the Reformers did not believe that the Roman Catholic Church had totally lost all the characteristics of a true church. They did not, for example, rebaptize people who had been baptized as Roman Catholics[/b:0490a34bd1].3"

and

"4. Of course, formal judgments by one church that another church is totally apostate have been exceedingly rare in church history. Augustine did not make such a judgment against the schismatics and heretics of his day; [b:0490a34bd1]the Protestant reformers did not make it against the Roman Catholic Church[/b:0490a34bd1]; the Puritans did not so judge the Anglican Church; nor did J. Gresham Machen so condemn the Presbyterian Church U. S. A"

and finally

"[b:0490a34bd1]Very much the same is true with the Lord's Supper. I agree with the Protestant reformers that the Roman mass is blasphemous because in it there is idolatrous worship of the host (thought to be the literal body of Christ) and because the mass is regarded as some sort of continuing sacrifice for sin[/b:0490a34bd1]. These are serious errors, and they would prevent me from participating in Roman Catholic communion unless I could get assurance that those doctrines were not held by the particular congregation in question. [b:0490a34bd1]Yet I do not deny that in such circumstances the Lord's Supper is being received[/b:0490a34bd1]. Think of a parallel with preaching (for the Reformers usefully regarded the sacraments as "visible words"): A sermon may contain a mixture of error and truth. Yet the presence of error does not prove that the truth has not also been present."

I must say that I am definately NOT in agreement with Mr. Frame here. I think that I am more and more have a bad taste in my mouth for Mr. Frames work.

I know how you feel Fred. [/quote:0490a34bd1]

Yes. And my point continues to be proven. Now I understand why Paul continues to express an unbiblical and unreformed view of Rome. He has been taught to do so by Rev. Frame. And so now you see why I am so concerned, not to win a debate, but as Richard Weaver wrote, "Ideas Have Consequences."

 

[Scott]

[quote:1b34752d7d]
Rome has not fallen into liberalism
[/quote:1b34752d7d]

I would suggest that many if not most Romish congergations in America are for substantive matters indistinguishable from mainline liberal churches. You may want to see the Ratzinger Report from a Catholic perspective. Frank Schaeffer (now orthodox) has some scathing criticisms of post-Vaitcan II Roman Catholicism too.

Scott

 

[Scott]

Luther was a virulent anti-Catholic with a firebreath. Yet he said:

[quote:a2a49c6070]
We confess that under the papacy there is much Christianity, yea, the whole Christianity, and has from thence come to us. We confess that the papacy possesses the genuine Scriptures, genuine baptism, the genuine sacrament of the altar, the genuine keys for the remission of sins, the true ministry, the true catechism, the Ten Commandments, the articles of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer. . . . I say that under the Pope is the true Christendom, yea, the very elite of Christendom, and many pious and great saints.
Martin Luther (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VII.530)
[/quote:a2a49c6070]

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by Scott]

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:739677cb48][i:739677cb48]Originally posted by Scott[/i:739677cb48]
Luther was a virulent anti-Catholic with a firebreath. Yet he said:

[quote:739677cb48]
We confess that under the papacy there is much Christianity, yea, the whole Christianity, and [b:739677cb48]has from thence come to us[/b:739677cb48]. We confess that the papacy possesses the genuine Scriptures, genuine baptism, the genuine sacrament of the altar, the genuine keys for the remission of sins, the true ministry, the true catechism, the Ten Commandments, the articles of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer. . . . I say that under the Pope is the true Christendom, yea, the very elite of Christendom, and many pious and great saints.
Martin Luther (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VII.530)
[/quote:739677cb48]

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by Scott] [/quote:739677cb48]

Scott,

The key here is two things: (1) timing (pre-Trent) and (2) the portion I have bolded above.

The point remains that under the Reformers doctrine of the Church, if they viewed Rome as a legitimate church, they had no right in leaving it. See my quote from Calvin above.

 

[Scott]

They had mixed views. They did see the Roman church as a true church in a sense, as their eschatology demanded it. The Antichrist sitting in the temple was the Pope sitting in the temple of the church. If it were no church at all, it could not fulfill this prophecy. Calvin also recognized that individual congregations under papal dominion could be true churches (in a congregational sense).

Also, their views of churches cut in different directions. I don't think that Calvin would have recognized Baptist churches as churches (although I could be wrong - I have not read as much of this as of RC). Whatever the answer, he and other magisterial reformers considered the anabaptists as enemies equal to Catholics. Reformed today seem to have abondoned that idea largely. This is from Calvin's reply to Sadelto:

[quote:d4de41709b]
Well, then, does Chrysostom admonish us to reject all who under the pretense of the Spirit, lead us away from the simple doctrine of the gospel the Spirit having been promised not to reveal a new doctrine, but to impress the truth of the gospel on our minds. And we, in fact, experience in the present day how necessary the admonition was. We are assailed by two sects, which seem to differ most widely from each other. For what similitude is there in appearance between the Pope and the Anabaptists? And yet, that you may see that Satan never transforms himself so cunningly, as not in some measure to betray himself, the principal weapon with which they both assail us is the same. For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit, the tendency certainly is to sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room for their own falsehoods."
[/quote:d4de41709b]

Anyway, this is the direction the other thread on true or false churches was taking. Adopting the the Reformers' ecclesiology could eem to entail dimissing congregational (Baptist) churches as much as Roman churches. Although, I would like to read more on the Reformers' views of independency and look forward to Matthew's paper on it. Their comments on baptists were as harsh as the comments on papists. Knox, for example, wrote:

[quote:d4de41709b]
"...the Papists are busy to espy our offences, faults and infirmities..., they are not the enemies most to be feared. For...of the other [Anabaptist] sort of whom before we have somewhat spoken, the craft and malice of the devil fighting against Christ is more covert and therefore more to be feared."
[/quote:d4de41709b]

BTW, I am not endorsing an anti-Baptist view and do recognize their orthodox churches as true churches, albeit ones with error. For what it's worth, I also recognize that denominations by their nature are error, including my own. As the PCA BCO rightly says, the existence of denomination obscures the unity of Christ.

Scott

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by Scott]