Rome's Christology

[Scott Bushey]

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

Just curious. [/quote:6dd7c70306]

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Scott,

A quick opinion here. Romanists (please don't cede to the Papists the good term "catholic" ) 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]

[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]

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 "free will" without being an Arminian. Just not libertarian free will.

 

[Scott Bushey]

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]

[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]

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 "right" Jesus with the "wrong" gospel.

Phillip

[Edited on 3-1-04 by pastorway]

 

[Gregg]

[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]

[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]

[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]

[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 "faith", or a more accurately defined understanding of faith ? ?



[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Visigoth]

 

[raderag]

[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 "faith", 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]

[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]

[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, "that is orthodox", hence, the theology, singularly MUST be orthodox, making their whole system acceptable.

 

[fredtgreco]

[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 "passion play."

 

[JohnV]

[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, "that is orthodox", 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, "poison in the milk", 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]

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]

[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]

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]

These issues are huge! Especially in conjunction with the recent movie "Passion." 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 "process" and that we must "prepare" 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 "prepare" 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, "Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues