Poll: Do ppl here consider Roman Catholics as Christian?

[Logan]

Then no. Rome is an apostate church and I would not consider it Christian, despite some genuine Christians belonging to it.

 

[Recipient of Grace]

Neither, but more leaning towards the latter. Can Roman Catholics, as a whole, be considered Christian in the same way that Baptists or Presbyterians, as a whole, may be considered Christians regardless of the exceptional members within those denominations that do not profess true faith?

For example, when a person tells me they are a Baptist, my first thought is that they are Christian. It is only if I receive evidence to the contrary that I doubt that thought.

In that case, my answer would definitively be no.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Can Roman Catholics, as a whole, be considered Christian in the same way that Baptists or Presbyterians, as a whole, may be considered Christians regardless of the exceptional members within those denominations that do not profess true faith?

I tend to say yes. Yes in the sense that even the children of believers are considered holy. (Paul's words, not mine) Not yet saved. Maybe never going to be saved. But still members of the Church in the sense that all Israelites in the Old Testament were members of the Church in the wilderness.

PS - I speak from the Reformed Presbyterian Westminster Confession tradition, not at all challenging Baptists, many of whom might disagree with my statement.

 

[alexanderjames]

WCF 24.3: Yet is it the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord: and therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters:

Curious on this. Do we think most people who attend Roman Catholic churches today would be deemed "papists"? I suspect there is a large proportion of nominal Roman Catholics (not that we should be seeking to marry nominal believers either!)..

 

[MarrowMan]

Neither, but more leaning towards the latter. Can Roman Catholics, as a whole, be considered Christian in the same way that Baptists or Presbyterians, as a whole, may be considered Christians regardless of the exceptional members within those denominations that do not profess true faith?

For example, when a person tells me they are a Baptist, my first thought is that they are Christian. It is only if I receive evidence to the contrary that I doubt that thought.

Define Christian.

 

[retroGRAD3]

A better poll would be whether the people on that forum are Christians. Is "maybe, but they need some help" an option?

Most aren't. Once in a while one surprises me.

Maybe change the question to "consistent Roman Catholics" or "devoutly committed to Rome Roman Catholics." Because then the answer is clearly 'no.'

I would take the position of the above quotes. I think we probably all do more or less.

However, we do need to recognize that at Trent, the leadership of the Roman church did anathematize the gospel. If someone holds to the official doctrine of the Roman church, I would have a very hard time saying they are Christian.

I tend to say yes. Yes in the sense that even the children of believers are considered holy. (Paul's words, not mine) Not yet saved. Maybe never going to be saved. But still members of the Church in the sense that all Israelites in the Old Testament were members of the Church in the wilderness.

PS - I speak from the Reformed Presbyterian Westminster Confession tradition, not at all challenging Baptists, many of whom might disagree with my statement.

I would disagree with you as a Westminster confession person as well. I think you are throwing the blanket way too wide on this interpretation. Children of believers actually need parents that are believers. Rome has been apostate for generations.

 

[cthorn14]

Curious on this. Do we think most people who attend Roman Catholic churches today would be deemed "papists"? I suspect there is a large proportion of nominal Roman Catholics (not that we should be seeking to marry nominal believers either!)..

Given that they are members of an assembly that professes the authority of the pope, I think it's a trivial application. Even those who know nothing else about the Romish church should know that the pope claims supremacy. Moreover, we are taught in scripture that 'good intentions' and/or ignorance do not excuse idolatry, see 1 Chronicles 13:9-14 and Romans 1:21-23.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I talked to a girl last week from a devout Roman Catholic family who strongly insisted that one cannot prayer to anyone but God, that protestants are genuine Christians, who reads the Bible, and who insists that statues cannot be worshipped. She had never read the decrees of Trent or Vatican II and was completely ignorant of them. That gave me some hope. But more than 99 times out of 100 Roman Catholics do not read the Bible, do pray to saints and statues, and do not understand the gospel on even the most basic level.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I saw a similar poll on an Anglican forum where the results were
Yes: 100%
No: 0%

Was curious what the attitudes are of the kind of Puritanism the members of this board represents with all the changes Roman Catholicism has had since Vatican II.

The question doesn't allow for sufficient nuance.

Rome is a Christian Church that has degenerated into a synagogue of Satan. Her people are Christians outwardly and by profession, but their church teaches doctrines of devils and is headed by Antichrist.

They are Christians in the same sense that the apostate Jews practicing Ba'al worship in the Northern Kingdom were Israelites.

 

[Edward]

Some are, some aren't.

Are Presbyterians Christian?

Some are, some aren't.

 

[Reformed Catholic]

Define Christian.

Genuine follower of Christ. We would all agree that Mormons, Muslims, etc... are not, since they profess a false Christ and false gospel.

Some are, some aren't.

Are Presbyterians Christian?

Some are, some aren't.

I agree but that is not what I'm asking. If we had to consider every single member of group with no exception, then we can't make claims about anything. In general, people on this board would consider a Presbyterian a Christian unless given evidence that they are not one. If a person says they're Mormon, we assume they are not Christian, unless we then receive evidence to the contrary and find out they're really confused about labels. When a person tells you they are a devout Roman Catholic, what is your first thought? Is it an exception for that person to be a Christian, or is it an exception if they end up not being one?

 

[davejonescue]

But this is kind of the gist of it isnt it?

You start at top and say the RCC and EOC are out.
Then we move to PCUSA, Episcopalians, ELCA, UMC. (based on same-sex affirmation.)
Then we move to Arminians which would take out many Baptists, CoC, Pentecostals, Methodists, Calvary, and most Non-Denoms. Etc. Etc.
Until we are left with a handful of denominations and adherents we consider Christians.
I dunno. It seems pretty bold.

I'm not promoting unhinged Ecumenicism, but it seems very quickly the numbers dwindle.

 

[MarrowMan]

Genuine follower of Christ. We would all agree that Mormons, Muslims, etc... are not, since they profess a false Christ and false gospel.


I agree but that is not what I'm asking. If we had to consider every single member of group with no exception, then we can't make claims about anything. In general, people on this board would consider a Presbyterian a Christian unless given evidence that they are not one. If a person says they're Mormon, we assume they are not Christian, unless we then receive evidence to the contrary and find out they're really confused about labels. When a person tells you they are a devout Roman Catholic, what is your first thought? Is it an exception for that person to be a Christian, or is it an exception if they end up not being one?

So, then, to answer your question affirmatively, one would be viewing Catholics as a whole as genuine followers of Christ who hold to the true Gospel?

 

[MyCrows]

We would all agree that Mormons, Muslims, etc... are not, since they profess a false Christ and false gospel.

So do Roman Catholics profess the true gospel?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

So do Roman Catholics profess the true gospel?

The nail has been struck firmly on the head. This is the salient point.

 

[MarrowMan]

The nail has been struck firmly on the head. This is the salient point.

Even more pointedly, does Rome hold to the true gospel?

 

[Reformed Catholic]

So, then, to answer your question affirmatively, one would be viewing Catholics as a whole as genuine followers of Christ who hold to the true Gospel?

Yes. This view is not uncommon as well. Many Reformed voices have argued for this view: a Roman Catholic is a genuine Christian unless they profess falsely, just like a Presbyterian.

So do Roman Catholics profess the true gospel?

That's the question then isn't it? They certainly have the true Christ. The true triune God. How different is their gospel, really? Would a Roman Catholic scholar agree that they are "saved by their own merits"? Of course not.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

But this is kind of the gist of it isnt it?

You start at top and say the RCC and EOC are out.
Then we move to PCUSA, Episcopalians, ELCA, UMC. (based on same-sex affirmation.)
Then we move to Arminians which would take out many Baptists, CoC, Pentecostals, Methodists, Calvary, and most Non-Denoms. Etc. Etc.
Until we are left with a handful of denominations and adherents we consider Christians.
I dunno. It seems pretty bold.

I'm not promoting unhinged Ecumenicism, but it seems very quickly the numbers dwindle.

The problems with the PCUSA, Episcopalians, ELCA, and UMC are deeper than just the same-sex stuff.

In the PCUSA, for example, it's apparently not even necessary to believe in the existence of God in order to be a Minister in good standing. LINK

And let's not forget that John Shelby Spong was a Bishop in good standing in The Episcopal Church despite his many outright heresies.

 

[retroGRAD3]

That's the question then isn't it? They certainly have the true Christ. The true triune God. How different is their gospel, really? Would a Roman Catholic scholar agree that they are "saved by their own merits"? Of course not.

They think Christ is too harsh which is why they pray to Mary and saints. I don't think they do know the true Christ or the true triune God because they also don't understand the gospel. I don't think you are being critical enough of an apostate organization. We are not talking about individuals within the organization but the organization itself.

 

[MarrowMan]

Yes. This view is not uncommon as well. Many Reformed voices have argued for this view: a Roman Catholic is a genuine Christian unless they profess falsely, just like a Presbyterian.


That's the question then isn't it? They certainly have the true Christ. The true triune God. How different is their gospel, really? Would a Roman Catholic scholar agree that they are "saved by their own merits"? Of course not.

So, then, do you think that Rome's gospel is not substantively different from the Protestant gospel and is, indeed, the true gospel?

 

[Reformed Catholic]

They think Christ is too harsh which is why they pray to Mary and saints. I don't think they do know the true Christ or the true triune God because they also don't understand the gospel. I don't think you are being critical enough of an apostate organization. We are not talking about individuals within the organization but the organization itself.

They have the true Christ doctrinally. Unlike Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Muslims, who believe that Jesus is Satan's brother, merely a prophet, not God, not eternal, etc...

In terms of how individual Roman Catholics conceive of Christ's harshness, are we Protestants much better off? Many times our Pastor has had to assure folks in our congregation who think Christ hates them and is out to inflict wrath on them. Dane Ortlund had to write a whole book because a view of God as wrathful tyrant had become so prevalent in Evangelical circles.

So, then, do you think that Rome's gospel is not substantively different from the Protestant gospel and is, indeed, the true gospel?

Not at all. Rome's gospel is full of errors and clouds the simple, pure message. But then, so does the Arminian gospel. So does the Methodist gospel. So does the Pentecostal gospel.

There is a difference between having an imperfect gospel, which is damaging to the soul, and an entirely false gospel, which is damning to the soul. I don't believe Rome's gospel falls under the latter category. They are required to submit to the Triune God and have faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

 

[retroGRAD3]

They have the true Christ doctrinally. Unlike Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Muslims, who believe that Jesus is Satan's brother, merely a prophet, not God, not eternal, etc...

In terms of how individual Roman Catholics conceive of Christ's harshness, are we Protestants much better off? Many times our Pastor has had to assure folks in our congregation who think Christ hates them and is out to inflict wrath on them. Dane Ortlund had to write a whole book because a view of God as wrathful tyrant had become so prevalent in Evangelical circles.

Yes, Protestants are better off, because our churches teach the true gospel. There is also a difference between the harshness some protestants may feel Jesus has toward them versus thinking Mary is going to be a mediator between Jesus and them. One is error that individual lay people hold to that their pastors and elders need to help shepherd them through and the other is actively being taught by the leadership to their congregation.

Also, as others have stated, the bottom line is this, what is the gospel? That is what makes a Christian a Christian. If you don't get that right, then you are not a Christian or a Christian organization, full stop. You cannot compromise or equivocate on this point.

 

[MarrowMan]

They have the true Christ doctrinally. Unlike Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Muslims, who believe that Jesus is Satan's brother, merely a prophet, not God, not eternal, etc...

In terms of how individual Roman Catholics conceive of Christ's harshness, are we Protestants much better off? Many times our Pastor has had to assure folks in our congregation who think Christ hates them and is out to inflict wrath on them. Dane Ortlund had to write a whole book because a view of God as wrathful tyrant had become so prevalent in Evangelical circles.


Not at all. Rome's gospel is full of errors and clouds the simple, pure message. But then, so does the Arminian gospel. So does the Methodist gospel. So does the Pentecostal gospel.

There is a difference between having an imperfect gospel, which is damaging to the soul, and an entirely false gospel, which is damning to the soul. I don't believe Rome's gospel falls under the latter category. They are required to submit to the Triune God and have faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

Granting your distinction for the sake of argument, in your view the Roman gospel is damaging to the soul, but not damning to the soul?

ETA: I see you edited your answer to include the answer to this question. Disregard.

Suffice it to say that I vehemently disagree with your understanding.

 

[Recipient of Grace]

When a person tells you they are a devout Roman Catholic, what is your first thought? Is it an exception for that person to be a Christian, or is it an exception if they end up not being one?

When anyone tells me they’re a Christian it is an exception for them to be a true Christian, whether they’re Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox.

 

[MyCrows]

The Galatians had the true gospel. They then were convinced to add a few OT rites to it.

What were they told as a result?

 

[Reformed Catholic]

When anyone tells me they’re a Christian it is an exception for them to be a true Christian, whether they’re Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox.

Sadly, that's a fair point. Especially today.

Granting your distinction for the sake of argument, in your view the Roman gospel is damaging to the soul, but not damning to the soul?

Yes. I am not convinced that Rome teaches an entirely different gospel. Gavin Ortlund, in his video on differences between Roman Catholic & Protestant views on justification, argues that we agree more than we think. Roman Catholics have shrouded the gospel in confusion, but it is still there, unlike in Islam, which requires you to deny Christ's Lordship, atoning sacrifice, etc...

"Under the Catholic view of salvation, you just have to repent, believe, receive, and remain. Repent of sin, believe in Christ in His church, receive Christ in baptism, and remain in communion with Christ and His church until death." -Catholic Answers

Does that sound like an "entirely false and different gospel"? Not to me. Regardless of the disagreements I would have with it.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Sadly, that's a fair point. Especially today.


Yes. I am not convinced that Rome teaches an entirely different gospel. Gavin Ortlund, in his video on differences between Roman Catholic & Protestant views on justification, argues that we agree more than we think. Roman Catholics have shrouded the gospel in confusion, but it is still there, unlike in Islam, which requires you to deny Christ's Lordship, atoning sacrifice, etc...

"Under the Catholic view of salvation, you just have to repent, believe, receive, and remain. Repent of sin, believe in Christ in His church, receive Christ in baptism, and remain in communion with Christ and His church until death." -Catholic Answers

Does that sound like an "entirely false and different gospel"? Not to me. Regardless of the disagreements I would have with it.

What do Roman Catholics mean when they say, "believe in Christ in His church"?

What do Roman Catholics mean when they say, "You have to... receive Christ in baptism"?

What do Roman Catholics mean when they say, "remain in communion with Christ and His church"?

The fact is that they say a bunch of words that might not sound too bad if you hear them with Protestant ears, but the Roman Catholic means something very different than what a Protestant would mean.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Would a Roman Catholic scholar agree that they are "saved by their own merits"? Of course not.

Right. He would say that they are saved by God's gracious acceptance of the deceased Saints merits (since they supererogated, having done more than God requires) on their behalf. Different gospel.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Yes. I am not convinced that Rome teaches an entirely different gospel. Gavin Ortlund, in his video on differences between Roman Catholic & Protestant views on justification, argues that we agree more than we think. Roman Catholics have shrouded the gospel in confusion, but it is still there, unlike in Islam, which requires you to deny Christ's Lordship, atoning sacrifice, etc...

It's not there. As mentioned, they anathematized the gospel at Trent. Gavin Ortlund is wrong (as he is about many topics in my opinion).

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

Rome does not have the true gospel. They do teach an entirely different gospel. If someone believes in the gospel they teach, that person will almost certainly go to hell. If not, then there was no reason for Paul to write Galatians.

 

[Reformed Catholic]

Rome does not have the true gospel. They do teach an entirely different gospel. If someone believes in the gospel they teach, that person will almost certainly go to hell. If not, then there was no reason for Paul to write Galatians.

Would you say the same of the Arminian gospel? They think that we must cooperate with God through our own free will.
Methodist gospel? They preach that perfection is promised in the gospel in this life.
Pentecostal gospel? Those who have not had the "baptism of the Spirit" are not saved, or if they are, they are a lower rank Christian.
Lutheran gospel? Where baptismal regeneration is preached and heavily defended.

Where do you draw the line? Has anyone ever been justified then before the Reformation?