Poll: Do ppl here consider Roman Catholics as Christian?

Are Roman Catholics Christian?


  • Total voters
    55
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sproul's book "Justification by Faith Alone" is an excellent read - one of the few books I've read cover to cover more than 3 times. It provides a fair view of Roman theogy, starting by debunking the trope that Rome believes we are saved by works.
I think another good book by Sproul on the subject is: (Are We Together)

 
It provides a fair view of Roman theogy, starting by debunking the trope that Rome believes we are saved by works.
True, however, they believe in a wicked and blasphemous amalgamation of faith plus works for salvation, which is a heinous crime, for it frustrates the grace of God and makes Christ to have died in vain, Gal. 2:21. Not only this, but one could say that they technically do, in fact, believe that we are saved by works, because of Rom. 11:6. Either grace alone or works alone, you cannot have both, and if by works alone, then you will be damned, Rom. 3:20.
 
True, however, they believe in a wicked and blasphemous amalgamation of faith plus works for salvation, which is a heinous crime, for it frustrates the grace of God and makes Christ to have died in vain, Gal. 2:21. Not only this, but one could say that they technically do, in fact, believe that we are saved by works, because of Rom. 11:6. Either grace alone or works alone, you cannot have both, and if by works alone, then you will be damned, Rom. 3:20.
I take as a starting point that we should give a fair portrayal of a system on its own terms. No Roman theologian anywhere has ever said that they believe we are saved by works and that is a trope which has gained currency among less informed Protestants. The Roman system when described on its own terms is very visibly problematic to those who have ears to hear. It doesn't need to be misrepresented to be debunked.
 
I take as a starting point that we should give a fair portrayal of a system on its own terms. No Roman theologian anywhere has ever said that they believe we are saved by works and that is a trope which has gained currency among less informed Protestants. The Roman system when described on its own terms is very visibly problematic to those who have ears to hear. It doesn't need to be misrepresented to be debunked.

I wouldn't regard that as a misrepresentation. They are describing Roman theology in terms of its results. Romanists have clever distinctions to avoid sounding like they teach salvation by works, but we do not grant their sophistry. Upon rejecting their distinctions their teaching amounts to salvation by works.
 
I take as a starting point that we should give a fair portrayal of a system on its own terms. No Roman theologian anywhere has ever said that they believe we are saved by works and that is a trope which has gained currency among less informed Protestants. The Roman system when described on its own terms is very visibly problematic to those who have ears to hear. It doesn't need to be misrepresented to be debunked.
They say "by our merits" and "by our virtues" and "by our love."
Are we wrong for saying those are works?
 
Another example - Rome claims that their conception of the Mass as an unbloody sacrifice does not negate the sufficiency of Christ's once for all sacrifice. It does no good to say that Rome crucifies Christ at every Mass and claims that his work was insufficient. Roman Catholics are intelligent and it's not as if serious Catholic scholars haven't heard these arguments and come up with answers to them. Instead, discuss with them what a Biblical conception of Christ's work looks like - Hebrews is great for this - and challenge them to see how their system doesn't line up with it and how in fact they do end up undermining that while claiming that they don't. You do have to start, though, by giving acknowledgment to the fact that they specifically claim not to be saying such thing as that we are saved by works. And during all this, pray that the Holy Spirit will be the third partner in such conversations.

But don't just get into a "we don't say that" "yes you do" argument with a Catholic on issues like grace or sacrifice. Catholicism is a system and one that works for over a billion people. From an earthly perspective, it's clearly doing something right in providing a compelling religion or sense of identity or tradition for all the people who adhere to it for divergent reasons. It provides some level of meaning and a degree of internal consistency that has a broad appeal. It deserves to be approached and challenged with respect and trepidation, just as the people who follow it deserve to be treated with love and kindness, for most of them are perishing and don't know it.
 
I wouldn't regard that as a misrepresentation. They are describing Roman theology in terms of its results. Romanists have clever distinctions to avoid sounding like they teach salvation by works, but we do not grant their sophistry. Upon rejecting their distinctions their teaching amounts to salvation by works.
Yes, this is what I was getting at.
 
It does no good to say that Rome crucifies Christ at every Mass and claims that his work was insufficient.

This is what it amounts to. It is all well and good to enter into a debate with RCs so as to refute their arguments. There is no point being ignorant about what they teach. But once their arguments are refuted the outcome is that they teach a man offers Christ to God to atone for their sins, thus rendering the sacrifice of Christ insufficient.
 
If they believe whole heartedly the doctrine of Roman Catholic church, especially the teachings of the Council of Trent, and put their confidence in faith plus doing the works of the Catholic sacraments and reject the true gospel of justification by faith in the person and work of Christ alone, then absolutely not.

As for me, I became a born again Christian while still identifying as a Catholic but left the church 9 months later as I realized I didn’t believe Catholic distinctives.
 
Last edited:
This is what it amounts to. It is all well and good to enter into a debate with RCs so as to refute their arguments. There is no point being ignorant about what they teach. But once their arguments are refuted the outcome is that they teach a man offers Christ to God to atone for their sins, thus rendering the sacrifice of Christ insufficient.
It is more helpful to view Roman Catholicism as a "mediated" system of religion. At every step, Rome places its institutions, people, and regulations between the professing believer and God.

True faith teaches that God imparts grace directly to believers. Rome teaches that this grace is mediated through the church and through its sacraments.

True faith teaches that we pray to God and God alone. Rome teaches that we pray to the saints and the saints deliver our prayers to God.

True faith teaches that we are the body of Christ. Rome teaches that it is the body of Christ and that it dispenses Christ's blessings on his behalf to those who follow it.

True faith teaches that God works how, when, and where he wills, ordinarily using means. Rome teaches that by the means it has ordained, the fountain of God's grace is turned on and off at the beck and call of men through the intrinsic efficacy of sacramental acts.

True faith teaches that it is God who sustains us in our Christian walk. Rome teaches that as long as our actions remain in faithful accord with church teaching, the church will sustain us in our Christian walk.

Rome is a kidnapper of souls - a guardian entrusted with their guidance who steps into and usurps the parental role.

If you view Roman Catholicism through this lens - that it is a mediated system of religion - the whole thing makes a great deal of sense. You can read the Catholic Catechism and various papal encyclicals and see the internal consistency and logic of it all - a consistency that extends even over the seeming contradictions of Trent/Vatican I/Vatican II. Rome places itself squarely between you and God, in the process usurping the place of both - denying you your place in the priesthood of all believers by arrogating to itself and its institutions those prerogatives which God has granted to all believers, and denying God his place in the life of all believers by arrogating to itself and its institutions those prerogatives which God has claimed as his own. It is impressively thorough and comprehensive in the consistency with which it takes every available opportunity, leaving no stone unturned, to insert steps between the believer and God, and countless hours and bottles of ink have been expended by some of the greatest minds in the history of the west to the end of exhaustively fleshing out this system of mediation to the very last degree. The stated goal is to "help" the believer, but given the nature of true faith, this help is actually a disastrous hindrance.

It is this mediated aspect of Roman Catholicism that explains why it is qualitatively different from Mormonism or Hinduism. In the Catholic system, it is the true God that is on the other side of all that... stuff. The goal of Rome is to keep you from God, but in spite of its best efforts, he can sometimes be glimpsed through the smoke, if much of the time by accident. But because it is the true God on the other side, some in this system can be saved. That's not something that can be said about Mormonism, Hinduism, Islam, or any overtly non-Christian religion.

Another helpful way to view the Roman system (though not nearly as significant as what I stated above) is that it is a system with an underdeveloped theology of the Holy Spirit. Rome got off the train, so to speak, before the great developments made by Protestantism (and particularly the Reformed) in parsing out the work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life. As a result, the only thing that Rome can envision standing in the place that should be occupied by the Holy Spirit is... Rome. Everything that Rome attempts to do in the life of the believer is something that ought properly to be the role of the Spirit. This incidentally explains why Roman Catholicism can have such a pronounced charismatic strain and why some of their "miracle stories" are so strange (like the ability of Thomas Aquinas to levitate).

It is the immediate nature of Reformed theology that to me is one of its most appealing aspects and one of the best indicators that it is in accord with Scripture; and conversely the mediated nature of Roman theology that makes it so appalling and utterly unbiblical. When I ponder that I have direct access by the Spirit through the Son to our heavenly father himself - with the helps of fellowship, ministry, the sacraments not as standing between me and God but as gifts also given directly by God to prop me up and sustain me on the long and wearying journey toward my heavenly home - and when I ponder that Christ himself is sitting in heavenly session at God's right hand, pleading for me day in and day out - and when I ponder that the Holy Spirit himself groans with my every cry: there is really no clear choice. Roman Catholicism has absolutely nothing comparable to offer. In place of a direct word of forgiveness from Christ they put the cheap substitute of a priest's absolution; no wonder there can be no real assurance of salvation. In place of the mysterious way in which the Holy Spirit works through baptism and communion they have their horrid mechanical reductions of these acts to.a man-directed system. In place of the reassurance which the Spirit grants to wounded souls, they have the confessional booth and a dictum to go say 10 Hail Marys or whatever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top