The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Roman Catholic Archive

Robin,

That's an easy proposition. Declare yourself right and condemn everyone else's opinion as a "false gospel." Never mind that Paul was addressing a completely different issue at the time.

As far as "hatred" goes, my characterization is spot on and you would have no moral right to say otherwise. To give you an example, if a black person were to view something you said as racist, you could not tell that person that what you said is not racist if you're not black. It may not seem racist to you, but it was to him, and he has the greater moral authority to make that distinction. The same with anti-semitism, or sexism, etc.

I'm Catholic. I have known much hatred and bigotry because of my faith. And I call it hatred and bigotry with greater authority than your insistance that it's not. A KKK member will never admit to being hateful and will claim that what others call hatred, they call love, and they simply hate what's happening to society. But even as love is a universal language understood by all, so is hatred. This is why most Protestants, even with their disagreements, cannot stomach anti-catholicism. They are naturally inclined toward the love of God and will not allow their souls to be poisoned by hatred no matter how it disguises itself.

Paul was referring to the false gospel of the Judaizers, of course. But he wrote, "if anyone a gospel contrary to what we preached to you, he is to be accursed (Galatians 1:8 and 9)!"

That is exactly what Roman catholicism is. While it isn't the same false gospel that the Judaizers preached, it is nonetheless contrary to the Lord's and the Apostles' teaching.

You wrote:


Racism has a straightforward definition: It is the belief that one race is innately superior to another. If a statement makes no assertion that one race is superior to another, then it is not racist no matter what color skin the person who stated it is wearing.

You are a newcomer to this forum, so let me just offer a couple of points you need to consider:

1. - You characterized Covenant in Blood's remarks as "hate" without any knowledge of the man. You cannot and obviously do not know what was in his heart, therefore you cannot judge it as motivated by hatred of any person or group of people.

2. - As I have recently reminded others here, the-Highway is a Reformed site. Its purpose is to promote and defend the doctrines recovered from under the deep piles of Roman corruption and superstition that nearly obscured the truth. For you to appear in a Reformation forum with a purpose counter to that of the forum, you should expect a negative response. If you perceive it as hatred, all I can say is that this was your idea, pal. You literally asked for opposition by advocating a theology and religious system which wrongfully took the lives of many of our forefathers. It seems to me that you came here to pick a fight. So don't complain about "hatred" when you get what you asked for.

Covenant in Blood is not even capable of the sort of hatred you have assigned to him. But he - like most of the rest of us in this forum - vehemently opposes every lofty thing that lifts itself up against the knowledge of God. And that includes damnable Roman Catholic heresy.

-Robin

Let's set the record straight. I never accused covenantinblood of hatred...that application was purely your fabrication. It's also clear that you have no idea what racism is since you deny the subjective aspect of it. It's pure folly to assume that how something is received does not need to be considered as long as the intent of the delivery is pure. That kind of thinking is why religion (including yours) is blamed for the raging of the nations. The inability to place ourselves in the moccasins of another has been the cause of much bloodshed throughout history.

As far as my presence on this forum, I disagree that it gives blanket permission for people to abuse me. I will not personally attack your faith or accuse you of promoting a false gospel as you did to me. I believe Christianity is defined primarily by virtues, and secondarily by doctrines. If I claim to love God but hate my brother, I am a liar and the truth is not in me. Therein lies the perogative. And since you've made it clear that I am a guest in this forum, then I insist on the civil treatment afforded to a guest. Anything short of that is simply uncouth.

That ain't my fabrication. Your own words, dude.


The dictionary defines racism. Not you nor I. The fact that someone perceives racism in another's words does not make it so. And simply urging someone to take another at his word rather than taking offense where none was intended is not a cause for "nations raging" and religious bloodshed. Just the opposite.

I can put myself in anothers' shoes to understand how they might feel, but when a brother is accused of bigotry (waitaminute - I mean "effigy" leading to war), I tend to defend my falsely accused brother. And if you took your own advice and put yourself in the other man's moccasins, you wouldn't have posted your railing accusations against him.


Did I even suggest any such thing? No sir. Not abuse of any person. But I did warn you that we defend the true faith here, so that if you advocate a different faith here, you can and should expect opposition. Opposition is not abuse.

Opposition to everything this site stands for in it's own forum is abuse, however. Read the Terms again. By creating an account here, you agreed to them. Those Terms also clearly spell out what to expect when you violate them.

-Robin

via_dolorosa do me a favor if you will, post for me the Roman Catholic Church's definition of the gospel. I'd prefer something from the Magisterium rather than from some Catholic apologist site if you please. Then we can share what Protestants definition is and discuss. However keep in mind what Robin said the forum rules are very clear.

Please, feel free to demonstrate how is it an "effigy." Tell us, what does the Roman Magisterium teach is necessary to be justified before God?

You have not been abused by anyone. And as a guest, you need to keep in mind what the purpose of this forum is:


We have no problem with your presence here, nor do we mind discussing the views of the Roman Catholic Church. But Rome's gospel is false. This is a statement of fact, relative (at the very least) to the beliefs held by The Highway ministry, not an "effigy." You need to respect that this is our position.


The belief that Christianity is defined primarily by our virtues is part of Roman teaching. In short, Rome teaches that one's justification is partly dependent upon his virtuous deeds.

The funny thing that comes to mind when I think about your argument, is the fact that people accuse others of hate all the time, yet a lot of the time it isn't hate at all.
For instance, I have heard people say that anyone who is against abortion hates women, who may have been raped or can not support a child.
I doubt you would agree with these people, am I correct?
Yet, by your argument you are advocating a similar position they are.
The Roman Catholic Church has declared Protestants athema (sp?) and for good reason, both Protestants and Roman Catholics believe in a different gospel. This is also something similar to what your own Pope recently said.
Obviously this being a Reformed board, we should be saying those things about Roman Catholicism. We are attacking the theology not the people themselves.

Let Scripture show who is correct.

Tom

ps- I have had friends over the years who are RCs, so I don't hate them. But, I will not hesitate to tell them what I think of Roman Catholicism, if they ask.

Boanerges, I would gladly oblige. I want to make it clear though that I'm doing this by request and that the posting of items from the Catechism is in now way an attempt on my part to proselytize or seek anyone's conversion in respect with this forum's rules. With that said:


Here are a few passages that can give you a feel for what we believe. Asking, "what is the RCC's position on the gospels?" is much like asking our position on salvation...complicated topic no matter how it's explained, and yet so simple. We believe we are first and foremost saved by grace according to Eph 2:8. Many arguments floated by Protestants suggesting that we don't believe this are strawman arguments. For it is by the merits of Christ that one is saved:


We obviously have differences in regards to items such as imputed righteousness and the role of good works in which we differ, but there are some important areas where our agreement is critical. Such areas are the person of Christ and His unique qualifications which would make the Mormon "Christ" unfit, and the understanding of what it is we are saved from, an understanding that eludes Universalists. There are many areas in which our definition of the gospel agree. We can discuss the disagreements civilly I hope.

Covenantinblood said:

A point I'm sure you will demonstrate in time. So far I've seen this statement floated twice with the expectation it will be received by fiat.


Not quite what I was saying. I was saying that doctrine takes 2nd place to the work of the Holy Spirit in one's life. Doctrinal prowess is not listed as one of the fruit of the Spirit. Having love is the greatest defining virtue of a Christian, or as Paul says:

1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. (1Corin 13:1-3)

I see that this board has formed an impressive and formidable body of doctrine. I just hope the Biblical perrogative is understood as well.

via_dolorosa,

1. Yes, without question there are major differences in regard to "imputed righteousness" and "the role of good works" which exist between us. And thus the justified critical remark that Rome holds to and teaches another gospel. For, these two elements are at the very foundation of what defines the salvation presented in the Gospel.

2. Undeniably, there are some areas of doctrine, e.g., the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the person of the Holy Spirit, and some others to which we would agree. However, those similarities do not equate to being one with God nor fellowship in Christ since that fellowship is dependent upon how one is united to Him by grace through faith. On this matter, again we are poles apart. The picture you want to paint is with a very broad brush and perhaps from a distance that picture appears to be a good one. However, upon closer examination, one can see that the picture is fatally flawed; lacks precision and is a false representation of the truth as revealed in God's inspired infallible and inerrant Word.

3. The ongoing differences between the Roman State Church and historic Protestants (I must emphasize "historic", i.e., those that still adhere to the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation) which are known as Reformed and/or Calvinist are not to be found in virtue but in those doctrines which define the truth as it is in Christ and also those which determine what "good works" are and their place in salvation.

4. We have no qualms about discussing such doctrines, especially soteriology; the doctrine of salvation, aka: Sola Fide. They have been debated for centuries by far better and able men than any of us here without resolve. Nevertheless, the defense of this biblical doctrine can be done and has been done by lesser men and quite effectively. Should you desire to do so, then you are more than welcome to begin a new thread with whatever subject you choose. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

You are of course free to avail yourself of the Roman Catholicism Archive. If you have a specific subject you wish to address, please begin a new thread.