Roman Catholicism vs Bible

[Robert]

1 minute ago, 8thdaypriest said:

So you're using "sin" to mean "unconscious sin", and "transgression" to mean "conscious (known) sin". 

The "sin" is the SAME.  "Transgression of the Law" IS "sin" (whether known or not).  

Yes to your last statement, but you are not guilty before the law in "unconscious sins".  Keep in mind the following:

Rom 5:13 "For until the Law (until the the time of Moses) sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

Rom 4:15 states the same: "Where there is no law, there also is no violation"

Willful sin requires a knowledge of the law, otherwise it is not willful.  Willful sin is called transgression. 

This the RCC gets wrong every time. 

[Robert]

Just now, Robert said:

Yes to your last statement, but you are not guilty before the law in "unconscious sins".  Keep in mind the following:

Rom 5:13 "For until the Law (until the the time of Moses) sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

Rom 4:15 states the same: "Where there is no law, there also is no violation"

Willful sin requires a knowledge of the law, otherwise it is not willful.  Willful sin is called transgression. 

This the RCC gets wrong every time. 

So infants & the mentally handicapped are not guilty before the law, yet they need a Savior because they are sinners.  They just don't realize it.

Therefore God's own law doesn't find them guilty of sin, which is the 2nd death.  

Yes, they die, but not the 2nd death.  They die the 1st death. 

[Robert]

Just now, Robert said:

God's own law doesn't find them guilty of sin, which is the 2nd death.

Here's guilt:

Romans 3:9 What then? are we (Jews) better than they (Gentiles)? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one....

Now, drop down to verse 19:

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

[Robert]

Remember one of the definitions of an Antichrist? 

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Go to Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness.

Note, we have the Jesus "according to the flesh" and Jesus as the Son of God according to the spirit of holiness.

Now go to Luke 1:35 "...the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee (Mary, the mother of Jesus): therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Now go to Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he (Jesus, as the  son of man) said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God...

Note, we have Jesus as the Son of God - that "holy thing" - and we have Jesus as "the son of man" who didn't consider himself "good".

Now note how Ellen White puts all this together:

 "In Christ were united the divine and the human—the Creator and the creature. The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus—the Son of God, and the Son of man." [7BC 926.3]

The RCC church teaches that if Christ, as the son of man, was made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Greek: Sarx, i.e, according to fallen human nature) that Jesus would be a sinner in need of a Savior.  The ironic thing is many SDA agree!  Does that mean those who agree with Roman are antichrists?  What does 1 John 4:3 state?

 

[Robert]

17 minutes ago, Robert said:

The RCC church teaches that if Christ, as the son of man, was made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Greek: Sarx, i.e, according to fallen human nature) that Jesus would be a sinner in need of a Savior.  The ironic thing is many SDA agree!  Does that mean those who agree with Roman are antichrists?  What does 1 John 4:3 state?

So Roman doesn't have inclusive rights to "antichrists". 

If we are going to point fingers at Roman and their gospel then we better make sure we aren't preaching the same gospel. 

You see Roman, and some in SDA circles, state that if Christ as the Son of God assumed our fallen life from Mary's womb, then Christ would have been a sinner Himself in need of a Savior.

Really? Then the Holy Spirit (the 3rd person of the Trinity) is a sinner Himself because He dwells in us, that is, in our fallen humanity indwelt with the sin nature. 

We can't have it both ways, folks.

If Jesus as God did not assume our Adamic, fallen life indwelt with our bent-to-self then we did not die "in the humanity of Christ" 2000 years ago (see Rom 6:6/Rom 7:4 & 1 Cor 5:14).  IF "our old life" didn't die in Him then we are still under law.  To  be under law means death...the 2nd death. Hence the RCC and some SDA teach "another gospel".  To teach "another gospel" is the highest heresy (see Gal 1:6-9).

So, shall we conclude that some SDA teach a modified view of "the immaculate conception"? That explains why Ellen White stated the following:

"And at that time the superficial, conservative class, whose influence has steadily retarded the progress of the work, will renounce the faith and take their stand with its avowed enemies, toward whom their sympathies have long been tending. These apostates will then manifest the most bitter enmity, doing all in their power to oppress and malign their former brethren and to excite indignation against them. This day is just before us." [5T 463.2]

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

So infants & the mentally handicapped are not guilty before the law, yet they need a Savior because they are sinners.  They just don't realize it.

Therefore God's own law doesn't find them guilty of sin, which is the 2nd death.  

Yes, they die, but not the 2nd death.  They die the 1st death. 

I AGREE with this Robert.  They die the first (type of) death - physical death, NOT the second (type of) death - spirit death.

But - those covered because they sinned in ignorance CANNOT receive eternal life - not UNTIL they come to awareness, believe in Christ and CHOOSE to serve God. 

In order to be given this (first) opportunity to choose, they must be resurrected! 

[8thdaypriest]

23 minutes ago, Robert said:

Remember one of the definitions of an Antichrist? 

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Go to Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness.

Note, we have the Jesus "according to the flesh" and Jesus as the Son of God according to the spirit of holiness.

Now go to Luke 1:35 "...the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee (Mary, the mother of Jesus): therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Now go to Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he (Jesus, as the  son of man) said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God...

Note, we have Jesus as the Son of God - that "holy thing" - and we have Jesus as "the son of man" who didn't consider himself "good".

Now note how Ellen White puts all this together:

 "In Christ were united the divine and the human—the Creator and the creature. The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus—the Son of God, and the Son of man." [7BC 926.3]

The RCC church teaches that if Christ, as the son of man, was made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Greek: Sarx, i.e, according to fallen human nature) that Jesus would be a sinner in need of a Savior.  The ironic thing is many SDA agree!  Does that mean those who agree with Roman are antichrists?  What does 1 John 4:3 state?

 

I don't disagree Robert,

but I would add that Jesus "emptied Himself" of divine POWER in order to incarnate into human flesh.  Therefore the only divine POWER He used while on this earth, was that poured into Him by His Father.  That same divine POWER is available to us.  Jesus did not take advantage of any POWER that is not available to us.  It's just that Jesus was filled with the Spirit of His Father from birth (maybe from conception), but we must "open the door" to that POWER - that Spirit. 

Yes - every man is give a small "measure" - enough to hear the knocking and feel the drawing, but to enjoy greater fullness, one must "open the door" by believing with surrender.

Jesus could CHOOSE the connection before He incarnated.  We cannot CHOOSE until we come to understanding. 

Like Adam, Jesus was filled with the Spirit.  He is called "the last Adam".  Unlike Adam - Jesus never rebelled.

[Robert]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

But - those covered because they sinned in ignorance CANNOT receive eternal life - not UNTIL they come to awareness, believe in Christ and CHOOSE to serve God. 

In order to be given this (first) opportunity to choose, they must be resurrected! 

We disagree here....

[Robert]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

but I would add that Jesus "emptied Himself" of divine POWER in order to incarnate into human flesh....

Very good....

Here's the evidence that Jesus, as the son of man, handed the independent use of His Divinity over to His Father's care:

In order to save myself time, let me quote Jack on this point:

Quote

 

"When Christ became a man in the incarnation He had to give up not His divinity, but His divine prerogatives, in other words, the independent use of His divinity.  Even His God-consciousness had to be given up. Jesus discovered He was God only by revelation. He was not God-conscious as a baby. He had to grow up in knowledge. He had to grow up in everything because He had given up the independent use of His divinity and was made in all things like unto us (Heb. 2:17).

Therefore, He was totally God-dependent all through His earthly ministry. John 5:30 says, “I can do nothing of myself.” John 6:57 says, “I live by the Father.” See also John 8:28 and John 14:10. All these texts state very clearly that Christ was totally God-dependent.

 

 

[Robert]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Like Adam, Jesus was filled with the Spirit.  He is called "the last Adam".  Unlike Adam - Jesus never rebelled.

True....

[8thdaypriest]

I've read a LOT of your posts Robert.  So I would say you believe that EGW was an inspired prophet of God.  You believe she really did have visions from God.

You quoted this:

"As the little infants come forth immortal from their dusty beds, they immediately wing their way to their mothers’ arms. They meet again nevermore to part. But many of the little ones have no mother there. We listen in vain for the rapturous song of triumph from the mother. The angels receive the motherless infants and conduct them to the tree of life."  2SM 260.1

Your belief/acceptance of EGW as a prophet of God, leads you to believe that infants and young children can receive the gift of eternal life, WITHOUT ever responding to the spirit of God with BELIEF in Christ - without ever CHOOSING to serve Christ, without even believing in God.  They are saved without CHOICE. 

This belief in the salvation of infants and young children, (and mental defectives, and ignorant pagans) because of what Christ did, apart from any CHOICE on their part, leads you to your belief that Christ did it all. 

But giving eternal life to infants, who will grow up to make choices, who still have FREE WILL - that will require manipulation on God's part.  God will need to insure that young child does not rebel, as he grows to the age of responsibility.  The LORD will need to manipulate the mind to that child - WITHOUT the child's CONSENT.  I do not believe that God can LEGALLY do that. 

If God can just manipulate the mind of a created being - then He should have done it back in the garden.  The MESS we have endured is proof the LORD will never manipulate human minds without their consent. 

So - we differ.

I believe one must CHOOSE to believe, and CHOOSE to serve Christ as Savior and King.  To do that one must reach the age of understanding, AND must hear of God, His Law, and His Son.

For many that will require a physical resurrection.  Which is why I believe "the rest of the dead" will be those who died in ignorance.  Some of them will choose Christ.  Some will rebel as the army of Gog/Magog. 

 

[Robert]

53 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I've read a LOT of your posts Robert.  So I would say you believe that EGW was an inspired prophet of God.  You believe she really did have visions from God.

You quoted this:

"As the little infants come forth immortal from their dusty beds, they immediately wing their way to their mothers’ arms. They meet again nevermore to part. But many of the little ones have no mother there. We listen in vain for the rapturous song of triumph from the mother. The angels receive the motherless infants and conduct them to the tree of life."  2SM 260.1

Your belief/acceptance of EGW as a prophet of God, leads you to believe that infants and young children can receive the gift of eternal life, WITHOUT ever responding to the spirit of God with BELIEF in Christ - without ever CHOOSING to serve Christ, without even believing in God. 

Catholics sprinkle their infants to insure salvation, but this is salvation by baptism.  Here baptism, a mere symbol, purports to save instead of Christ's doing & dying.  This must be rejected.

Adventists believe what saves is the faith of the parent(s).  Like baptism, "faith" is not the Savior.  Jesus is the Savior of the world.

BTW, the  whole human race was reconciled to God "in Christ Jesus" while we were His enemies.  This unconditional act literally reversed our condemnation "in Adam".  See Romans 5:8-11,18 and Eph 2:1-6

Quote

They are saved without CHOICE. 

We were condemned "in Adam" without a choice at no fault of our own.

Quote

giving eternal life to infants, who will grow up to make choices, who still have FREE WILL - that will require manipulation on God's part.  God will need to insure that young child does not rebel, as he grows to the age of responsibility.  The LORD will need to manipulate the mind to that child - WITHOUT the child's CONSENT.  I do not believe that God can LEGALLY do that. 

That goes for other worlds too....Long after the sin problem has ended beings on other worlds will be having children.  What is to keep them from rebelling?

Answer:  

Satan's rebellion was to be a lesson to the universe through all coming ages--a perpetual testimony to the nature of sin and its terrible results. The working out of Satan's rule, its effects upon both men and angels, would show what must be the fruit of setting aside the divine authority. It would testify that with the existence of God's government is bound up the well-being of all the creatures He has made. Thus the history of this terrible experiment of rebellion was to be a perpetual safeguard to all holy beings, to prevent them from being deceived as to the nature of transgression, to save them from committing sin, and suffering its penalty. PP 42,43

[8thdaypriest]

15 hours ago, Robert said:

....Long after the sin problem has ended beings on other worlds will be having children.  What is to keep them from rebelling?

 

I believe that only the human race was created with the capacity to "create" offspring in their own "image". 

"In the resurrection there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage."  We will be "like the angels".  There will be no more conception, though I do believe that righteous women of God's Israel, who died while pregnant will give birth during the 8th millennium. 

 

[Robert]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I believe that only the human race was created with the capacity to "create" offspring in their own "image". 

There are literally trillions of habitable planets throughout the universe. Do you think that God only created human life here on earth?  

"by whom also he made the worlds” Hebrews 1:2

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord" Job 1:6

[Robert]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

"In the resurrection there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage."  We will be "like the angels".  There will be no more conception....

Sure, but this applies to our world and not other unfallen worlds. 

[8thdaypriest]

We disagree on this point Robert.  That's OK.  We are each free to study and to form our personal opinions and views. 

Let's go back to our discussion of Roman Catholic doctrine and how it differs from the Bible. 

The RC veneration of Mary is ONE OF TWO  main doctrinal differences between Catholic DOCTRINE, and protestant DOCTRINE. 

The SECOND is Papal infallibility (when speaking as the "Vicar of Christ"), and the DOCTRINE of succession from Peter, upon whom Christ supposedly built His Church.

ANSWER:  It is fairly easy to show that "the rock" upon which Christ would built His church, is what Peter said (Matthew 16:16), not Peter himself.  Peter said, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."  THIS is "the rock" upon which the Church is built - the identity of Jesus of Nazareth.   "The rock" or "cornerstone" IS Jesus Himself.   To build God's Church upon any other foundation, seems ludicrous. 

1 Corinthians 3:11 "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (NKJ)

According to RC DOCTRINE:

Mary was/is rendered "immaculate holy and without sin" immediately following her conception.  (Officially defined by Pope Pius IX, in the "Ineffabilis Deus, 1854)

Mary remained "without sin".  Catholic DOCTRINE teaches that the "merits of Christ" were applied to Mary, preemptively - prior to her birth.  She therefore did "need a savior".  God "saved" her before she was born.  He saves everyone else after. 

Mary remained a "perpetual virgin".  When Jesus was born, Mary suffered no pain, and her hymen remained intact.  She never engaged in sexual relations.

Mary was taken up body and soul, immediately up to Heaven (following her physical death).  Because she was kept free from sin, her body was kept free from corruption.  (Pope Pius XII, 1950)

Mary now sits as "Queen of Heaven and Earth".

Mary now acts as mediator between Christ and mankind.  She is the one through whom Christ bestows all graces to those on earth.

"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 stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner.  What she asks, she obtains.  Her pleas can never be unheard." (Pope Pius IX, in the "Ineffabilis Deus, 1854)

Mary is seen as merciful, whereas Jesus is portrayed as the stern judge - meting out justice. 

ANSWER:  "For there is one mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ" (I Timothy 2:5).

Catholics tell us that she has appeared to people throughout history (since her assumption to Heaven)

[Robert]

I'll get back with you....

In the meantime I would like to see others participate. 

[JoeMo]

Hi Rachel,

Your description of the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and Mary being crowned as Queen of Heaven are accurate as far as I know, being a former Catholic.  Mary is also promoted as the "co-Redemptrix" or "co-Redeemer" with Jesus.  She has indeed been reported to have appeared to many people over the centuries.  You seem to already have a pretty firm grip on many of the important aspects of RCC doctrine.

Like Adventists, the level of belief in various doctrines differs among the Catholic laity.  Some SDA's put the writings of EGW on the same authoritative level as the Bible (making her infallible in matters of doctrine?); others question much of what she says.  Does that make members of either group infidels?  Many Catholics dismiss the doctrine of Papal infallibility (which, by the way only pertains to doctrine).  Does that make them worthy of excommunication?  Catholic doctrine forbids all forms of contraception except the rhythm method - whose followers are known as "parents".  Most western Catholics dismiss this.  Should they be kicked out of the church?  SDA doctrine forbids the drinking of alcohol and eating pork. Many SDA's dismiss this.  Should they be kicked out of the church?

What I'm getting at is that a person's denominational identity doesn't necessarily tie them to every tenet of that denomination's culture and doctrine.  There will be many Catholics in heaven - not because of their denomination; but because of their personal relationship with Jesus.  There will be many SDA's who suffer the 2nd death.  Not because of their denomination; but because of their LACK of a relationship with Jesus.

One day, those who have never known the unsullied truth about Jesus and satan - whether by ignorance or by being twisted and deceived by a false religion - will get a chance to make an informed and intelligent choice between the two - whether in this age or the next (8th day).

[8thdaypriest]

Robert I agree.  There don't seem to be high numbers of "views" of this thread.  We should probably just let it go.

I wanted to help my formerly Catholic friend.  I've found some good answers in the book I previously mentioned. 

My overall feeling - concerning Catholicism, having now read the book I mentioned,

is that it prevents RELATIONSHIP with God.  It's all about keeping track of sins committed and sins absolved.  It is "salvation by sacrament".

If I complete the "sacraments" and receive "absolution" from a priest, then God will not send my soul to Hell for eternal torment. 

Instead of a relationship like that of children with a loving parent, Catholicism seems more like living with a raging despot scorekeeper, whom one must placate.   Mary is needed as a "mediator" because Jesus is "God", therefore too much like His Father (or maybe He is the Father - just in another form).  One can imagine a relationship with Mary as a sweet "mother".

Baptists (and many other Evangelical denominations) seem to live in a similar (though less threatening) posture towards God.  There are not as many "sacraments" to complete.  Their "once saved - always saved" doctrine offsets the terrible (relationship destroying) thought of eternal torment in Hell fire. 

I see the "perfection" teaching of some Adventists, in much the same light.  If I believe I must be completely "like Christ" in order to be translated when He appears, then I will constantly monitor my own progress towards that goal.  Even if I believe that any "perfection" seen in my character, is the work of Christ - in me, I will still be looking for ways that I hinder His work in me.  I'll be looking at me, and worrying about me - rather than trusting Christ and looking at Him. 

I'm not saying that self-evaluation is all bad - even if the "standard" seems unattainable.   And a "mirror" is a necessary tool.  I'm saying that self-evaluation MUST be balanced by an awareness of God's infinite, compassionate, ongoing, forgiving love.  I'm saying that one cannot view "God" was a scorekeeper - or for that matter, as going through "books" to decide whether He will save you (the SDA version) - and grow in a relationship.   

[LifeHiscost]

On 8/22/2016 at 10:10 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Robert I agree.  There don't seem to be high numbers of "views" of this thread.  We should probably just let it go.

I wanted to help my formerly Catholic friend.  I've found some good answers in the book I previously mentioned. 

My overall feeling - concerning Catholicism, having now read the book I mentioned,

is that it prevents RELATIONSHIP with God.  It's all about keeping track of sins committed and sins absolved.  It is "salvation by sacrament".

If I complete the "sacraments" and receive "absolution" from a priest, then God will not send my soul to Hell for eternal torment. 

Instead of a relationship like that of children with a loving parent, Catholicism seems more like living with a raging despot scorekeeper, whom one must placate.   Mary is needed as a "mediator" because Jesus is "God", therefore too much like His Father (or maybe He is the Father - just in another form).  One can imagine a relationship with Mary as a sweet "mother".

Baptists (and many other Evangelical denominations) seem to live in a similar (though less threatening) posture towards God.  There are not as many "sacraments" to complete.  Their "once saved - always saved" doctrine offsets the terrible (relationship destroying) thought of eternal torment in Hell fire. 

I see the "perfection" teaching of some Adventists, in much the same light.  If I believe I must be completely "like Christ" in order to be translated when He appears, then I will constantly monitor my own progress towards that goal.  Even if I believe that any "perfection" seen in my character, is the work of Christ - in me, I will still be looking for ways that I hinder His work in me.  I'll be looking at me, and worrying about me - rather than trusting Christ and looking at Him. 

I'm not saying that self-evaluation is all bad - even if the "standard" seems unattainable.   And a "mirror" is a necessary tool.  I'm saying that self-evaluation MUST be balanced by an awareness of God's infinite, compassionate, ongoing, forgiving love.  I'm saying that one cannot view "God" was a scorekeeper - or for that matter, as going through "books" to decide whether He will save you (the SDA version) - and grow in a relationship.   

  ........8But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren. 9And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters; for one is you master, Christ. 11He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted......Matthew 23 DRB

God is Love!~Jesus saves!