Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 670211 comments on the CBC News story from Jul 10, 2007, titled Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican. In it, CBC News reports that:

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBC News.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#465181 Jul 23, 2013
...taught UN BAPTIZED babies go to Limbo
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#465182 Jul 23, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, contrary to your personal opinion and experience, there are Orthodox Christians who believe in the IC. And they aren't considered heretical. And the majority support reunification according to Nicks own poll. You two apparently are in the minority.
The conclusions of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Theological Commission as well as its Bishop’s Synod, both of which contain members of pro- and anti-ecumenical leanings, were in favor for the time being of remaining full members of the WCC and the CEC. Significantly, both the Commission and the Synod made a specific point of saying that decisions of how and whether to take part in ecumenical organizations must be taken on a pan-Orthodox level. A similar resolution has just been taken by the Serbian Orthodox Church: to remain for now, and to take the final decision together with the other Orthodox Churches. This is of course immensely appropriate in that (a) relations between Orthodox and non-Orthodox are clearly a matter of reflection for the whole Orthodox Church,(b) all canonical Orthodox Churches, with the recent exception of Georgia, are in fact full members of the WCC, and (c) ecumenical involvement has been explicitly affirmed in the Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conferences as well as other high-level pan-Orthodox fora. As all the Orthodox Churches necessarily come to reflect upon questions of ecumenical involvement, it is useful to gain some perspective on the literature and views of those who oppose it.

http://www.incommunion.org/2004/10/24/boutene...

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#465183 Jul 23, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus said "If ye abide in me and I abide in you, then you can ask anything ".Jesus wants us to have fellowship with Him but as GIF/Kay just said, Jesus is NOT going into a honky tonk and set down with a bunch of drunks doing what ever drunks do.
another Scripture says our body is the temple(Saved) of God, and God will not reside in an unclean(sinful) Temple.
if you et al cant understand that, I feel sorry for you on Judgement Day.
First of all, the Judgement for believers is not the same Judgement for unbelievers.
Until the two of you grasp the difference between justification and sanctification, salvation passages and rewards passages, etc., you will constantly contradict yourselves, and embrace that which is not sturdy and true.

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#465184 Jul 23, 2013
The Biblical Distinction Between Eternal Salvation And Eternal Rewards:
A Key to Proper Exegesis

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1996i/Wilki...

I encourage all to read this.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#465185 Jul 23, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
who="RoSesz"
Yes ..are you a Catholic..if so the question STILL is DO babies..born and unborn go to be with JESUS or some other place ..as I was taught.
Limbo.
There are sights about GODS mercy ..We hope this...
But not one Catholic Cathplicwill answer.
And I think you are just instigating IMO..
BUT if you a 're a Catholic ..where do they go.
**********
The Catholic teaching on 'limbo' was discontinued/refuted in the recent past. I don't recall just when. There was never any scriptural foundation for that teaching anyway.
KayMarie
Well he could have just said that ..I personally from WhAT I have read about Jesus wanting the children WITH HIM..That those babies ARE with Jesus.

Well evidently some still believe it exists ..which is confusing as ing IMO.

As they believe you need baptism to go to heaven
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/e0...

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#465186 Jul 23, 2013
Difficulties Which Arise from
Failing to Recognize this Distinction

A. Distorting the Gospel Message

If passages like 1 Cor 9:24-27 and Phil 3:11-14 refer to obtaining eternal salvation, then believers must work to obtain it:

"Run in such a way that you may obtain it."
1 Cor 9:24

"I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified."
1 Cor 9:27

"I press toward the goal of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus."
Phil 3:14

However, we know from many NT passages that this is not the case. Eternal salvation is absolutely free to the recipient (John 4:10; Rom 3:24; 4: 3-8; Eph 2:9; Rev 22:17). Jesus paid the whole price. We pay nothing. We are saved the moment we believe Jesus’ promise to give eternal life to all who trust Him for it (John 5:24; 6:47).

Unlike eternal salvation, eternal rewards are not free. They are earned by work done. Paul said in 2 Cor 5:10 that "all [believers] must appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." Similarly, the Lord Jesus said the He will "reward each according to his works" (Matt 16:27, emphasis added). Eternal salvation is not "according to what [one] has done" and is not "according to [one’s] works."

In some places eternal salvation and eternal rewards are contrasted in the same paragraph. For example, in 1 Cor 3:14-15 Paul said: "If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." The unproductive believer is saved even though his works are burned up. However, if a believer’s works endure the test of fire, then in addition he will be rewarded. Compare also Rom 14:8-12; 2 Tim 2:11-13; Rev 22:14-17.

Since eternal rewards are not the same as eternal salvation, there is no contradiction of the Gospel in passages conditioning eternal rewards on perseverance in good works.

To understand passages like 1 Cor 9:24-27 and Phil 3:11-14 as being Gospel passages is to distort the Gospel by suggesting that ongoing good works are a requirement for obtaining eternal salvation.

More here:
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1996i/Wilki...

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#465187 Jul 23, 2013
Mark 16:16 Isn't Teaching That You Must
Be Water Baptized to Go to Heaven

There are a number of clear and compelling reasons why we can be sure that Mark 16:16 isn't teaching that water baptism is a condition of eternal salvation:

The basis of condemnation is unbelief only.
The apostles did not preach that you must be baptized to go to heaven.
The Gospel never changes.
There are NT examples of people who were saved before they were baptized.
Let's briefly consider each of those points in more detail.

Condemnation Is for Unbelief Only
Jesus didn't say, "He who is not baptized will be condemned." Neither did He say, "He who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned." Rather, He said, "He who does not believe will be condemned." By this our Lord made it clear that faith alone was necessary to a void eternal condemnation. He said the same thing in John 3:18: "He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God;" (see also John 5:24; 6:47).

The Apostles Preached Salvation by Faith Alone
Two of the disciples in the inner circle were Peter and John. Both of them heard Jesus say the words recorded in Mark 16. Yet both of them taught that the only condition of eternal salvation was trusting in Christ and Him alone.

Peter proclaimed the Gospel to Cornelius and his family. He led them to faith in Christ before he even mentioned baptism (cf. Acts 10:34-44). Only after they were saved and baptized by the Holy Spirit did Peter mention Christian baptism and give them the opportunity to be baptized (Acts 10:45-48).

The apostle John wrote an evangelistic book that we call the Gospel of John. He repeatedly indicated that faith is the only condition of eternal salvation. Yet not once in all of John's Gospel, written after the event recorded in Mark 16:16 occurred, did John condition eternal salvation upon water baptism.(In fact, Christian water baptism is not even mentioned in John's Gospel.)

The Gospel Never Changes
"What about the thief on the cross?" I would say. "Jesus said he would be with Him that day in Paradise, yet he was never baptized."

The response I would get was inevitably this: That was before Pentecost. After Pentecost, you have to be baptized in order to be saved.

What these students were telling me was that the Gospel had changed Before Jesus' resurrection and the coming of the Spirit a person was saved without water baptism. After that water baptism is required.

That is an impossible position to defend since the apostle Paul clearly indicates that we are saved in this age the same way Abraham and David were saved in their age (cf. Rom 4:1-8; Gal 3:6-14). The Gospel has always been, and always will be, by grace through faith plus nothing. We find this in the first book in the Bible (Gen 3:15; 15:6) and in the last book in the Bible (Rev 22:17).

The NT Gives Examples of Salvation Before Baptism
In addition to the thief on the cross, there are other NT examples of people who were saved without being baptized. Martha (John 11:25-27) is one. Another is Cornelius and his household. According to Acts 10:43-48, they were saved the moment they heard Peter tell them that all who believe in the Lord Jesus receive remission of sins. At that very moment, before they were baptized with water, they were baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ.

These four points prove that Mark 16:16 is not teaching that you must be water baptized to go to heaven. However, the question still remains as to what Mark 16:16 does mean. More here:
http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y1995/95C2...

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#465188 Jul 23, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>I was hoping that this foolishness of OSAS would be hinderd if not stopped since it divides, but DOM comes back and they pick up again with a renewed vengeance.
I just don't understand why they cant see it that if you sin, after you are Saved, and don't confess that sin, you are not going to Heaven.
and we explain it to them and make it so simple that even a 3 y/o child could understand.
Satan has blinded them just as he did those in the day of Peter
Cowboy

When this came up a few,days ago..both Marge and I also were questioning the posts concerning Hebrews about there being no sacrifice left

BUT I am sure both of us..I KNOW I DID ..specify that we were talking About a falling away or sinning THAT WAS SINCERELY REPENTED OF.

That the Spirit calls one to REPENT when you stray.

This This was before Dom came back

I believe I also could not understand any believer who could continually ignore the Spirit as He can be very persistent
And unyielding if He calls..one to repent

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#465189 Jul 23, 2013
Romans 2:13

This verse is a famous crux text in Romans: "For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified."

This verse appears to teach justification by works. Faith isn’t even mentioned here. This verse doesn’t teach justification by faith plus works, but merely justification by works. And, it should be noted that this verse is talking about justification "in the sight of God." It is not talking about justification before men.

This verse has long perplexed commentators, since it appears to contradict Paul’s point in the very next chapter of Romans! There he writes: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" (Rom 3:28). And again in chapter 4, as already noted, he writes, "To him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Rom 4:5).

What is going on here?

The solution is easily seen if we examine the context. We realize then whom Paul was addressing and what his subject was in Romans 2. He was talking to self-righteous Jewish legalists who thought that they could be justified before God by keeping the Law of Moses. In chapter 2 he showed them that this is impossible. Verse 13 asserts that it isn’t enough to simply be a hearer of the law. To be saved by works one would have to be a doer of the law. This, of course, no one can do—as Paul directly asserts in chapters 3 and 4!

C. E. B. Cranfield concurs: "In its context in Romans this sentence can hardly be intended to imply that there are some who are doers of the law in the sense that they so fulfill it as to earn God’s justification."10 So, too, does Anders Nygren:

Far from being safe because he knows the law, the Jew will stand under the judgment of the law. It is the law, in which he reposes his confidence, which is the power which condemns him and turns him over to the wrath of God. His knowledge of the law takes away from him all excuse for his sin. The law cannot save him from his doom. "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified" (vs. 13).11

Paul is speaking hypothetically in v 13, just as the Lord Jesus did with the rich young ruler. Jesus used the Law to show him that he was a sinner in need of the Savior (see Luke 18:18-27). Mark notes in his account of this exchange that Jesus told the disciples, "How hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:24b). The rich young ruler thought his works were good enough to justify him before God. He felt that his riches proved that he was good. Many Jewish people of that day felt that riches were a sign that one had right standing before God.12

When this man asked Jesus what he needed to do to inherit eternal life, Jesus pointed him to the Law, not because he could be saved by keeping it, but because he needed to realize that no one could be justified by keeping that Law, himself included.

Thus Rom 2:13 actually shows the impossibility of justification by works before God since no one is a doer of the Law (except the Law-giver Himself, the Lord Jesus).
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1996ii/Wilk...

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#465190 Jul 23, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think that John made it. Christians don't cry "in sorrow" when a person passes away.
John NEVER LEFT a testimony that he was Born Again or that he was Saved, only that he had Salvation because of his church status, and none of us were Saved because we didn't attend his church.
a belief and attitude much different than we read from Hermi and Sera
Well I pray he did ..And leave it to the Lord as we all.must .

who knows,his heart before he left the earth ..

I BELUEVE the Spirit comes to us where we are at..where we live ..even up to the moment of death..

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#465191 Jul 23, 2013
Apostasy is clearly seen in the Bible.
It is easy to demonstrate that apostasy is taught or seen in the Bible. Consider these passages:

Peter denied the Lord. Luke 22:34, 54-62
God’s chosen nation, Israel, stopped believing. Rom. 3:1-3; 10:16-21.
The apostle Paul predicts apostasy in later times. 1 Tim. 4:1-3
The warning of First Timothy 4:16 implies a Christian can depart from the faith.
There were widows in the church who “turned aside to follow Satan.” 1 Tim. 5:14-15
The apostle Paul describes false teachers who strayed from the faith. 1 Tim. 6:20-21
Those who deserted the apostle Paul and opposed him (2 Tim. 1:15; 4:9-10, 14-16) are to be gently instructed so that they can escape the snares of Satan. 2 Tim. 2:24-26.
Hymenaeus and Philetus strayed from the truth. 2 Tim. 2:17-18 -Those in error can overthrow the faith of others. 2 Tim. 2:18
The book of Hebrews addresses those who were in danger of leaving the faith. Heb. 2:1-3; 3:12; 6:4-6; 10:26-39; 12:25

More here:
http://gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes.asp...

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#465192 Jul 23, 2013
Philippians 4:3 is an amazing verse. It says:

And I urge you also, true companion, help these women [Euodia and Syntyche] who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names ARE IN the Book of Life.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#465193 Jul 23, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
The conclusions of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Theological Commission as well as its Bishop’s Synod, both of which contain members of pro- and anti-ecumenical leanings, were in favor for the time being of remaining full members of the WCC and the CEC. Significantly, both the Commission and the Synod made a specific point of saying that decisions of how and whether to take part in ecumenical organizations must be taken on a pan-Orthodox level. A similar resolution has just been taken by the Serbian Orthodox Church: to remain for now, and to take the final decision together with the other Orthodox Churches. This is of course immensely appropriate in that (a) relations between Orthodox and non-Orthodox are clearly a matter of reflection for the whole Orthodox Church,(b) all canonical Orthodox Churches, with the recent exception of Georgia, are in fact full members of the WCC, and (c) ecumenical involvement has been explicitly affirmed in the Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conferences as well as other high-level pan-Orthodox fora. As all the Orthodox Churches necessarily come to reflect upon questions of ecumenical involvement, it is useful to gain some perspective on the literature and views of those who oppose it.
http://www.incommunion.org/2004/10/24/boutene...
==========

Below is the Church Position (not the hierarcsh sitting on these
Committes) as expressed in previous ecumenal efforts:
Catholics cant seem to wrap their mind around the history that it is on the local not on the hierarchal level that the hierarchs will follow.

I know that this is not the way with the Catholics but they must have this concept of the rulers being the hierarchs drilled into them.

The people now are worshiping in Liturgy. They dont have time for politics and public relations. If they ever got hit with "the Patriarchs decided we are joining the Catholic Church" I want to be there. LOLOL

“The Orthodox ecclesiastical conscience is scandalized
because the agreements that have been
reached in inter-Christian dialogues up until now do
not carry the seal of conciliarity; information on
them is not widely disseminated among the venerable

Hierarchies of the local Orthodox Churches, and, in
general, the Faithful are unaware of the content of
these agreements.”

Epilogue (pp. 49–51): Proposals: Measures That
Should Be Taken.

“The self-understanding of the Orthodox Church
(ecclesiological exclusivity) should be affirmed”;

“the progress of the dialogues should be
discussed more widely, and decisions on such matters
should be made by the Hierarchies of the local
Churches...”;

“participation in the WCC,”“if it is
judged indispensable,”“should presuppose the possibility
of the Orthodox issuing special statements, as
representatives of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church.”

Archimandrite Cyprian, The Dramatic Crisis in the
Ecumenical Movement and the Awakening of Orthodox Anti-Ecumenism

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

#465194 Jul 23, 2013
All we need to disprove the Lordship Salvation view of "assurance" (I put assurance in quotes since their view is not assurance at all) is one biblical example of someone who had assurance solely on the basis of God's promise. There are many. The apostles knew with 100% certainty (Luke 10:20; John 13:10). so did Timothy (1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:5), Titus (Titus 1:4), Martha (John 11:25-27), the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:30-34), Cornelius (Acts 10:43-48), and at least 120 people on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:15; 2:1-21; 11: 15). All of these had 100% certainty of their salvation. The promises of the Word of God were enough for them.
http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y1993/93ju...

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#465195 Jul 23, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
...taught UN BAPTIZED babies go to Limbo
Can the teaching be supported?

No? Then it isn't valid.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#465196 Jul 23, 2013
The Orthodox are not robots. The Orthodox have soul.This is the fate of anyone, ANYONE, who betrays the True Faith.

In a number of specific confessions of the Fathers, there exists the saying, "Bad Obedience and Holy Disobedience". We are simply reminded of the indicative opinion of the great fighter of Orthodoxy, Great Athanasius against the Arian heresies.

He writes that in situations where the bishop or presbyter, the eyes of the Church, behave badly and causes the people to become scandalized, they must be expelled, even if it risks for the faithful to be without a shepherd.

It is better and advantageous to meet in the churches without bishops and priests, rather than the faithful be cast in hell together with the bishops and priests.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#465197 Jul 23, 2013
Osas7 wrote:
Difficulties Which Arise from
Failing to Recognize this Distinction
A. Distorting the Gospel Message
If passages like 1 Cor 9:24-27 and Phil 3:11-14 refer to obtaining eternal salvation, then believers must work to obtain it:
"Run in such a way that you may obtain it."
1 Cor 9:24
"I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified."
1 Cor 9:27
"I press toward the goal of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus."
Phil 3:14
However, we know from many NT passages that this is not the case. Eternal salvation is absolutely free to the recipient (John 4:10; Rom 3:24; 4: 3-8; Eph 2:9; Rev 22:17). Jesus paid the whole price. We pay nothing. We are saved the moment we believe Jesus’ promise to give eternal life to all who trust Him for it (John 5:24; 6:47).
Unlike eternal salvation, eternal rewards are not free. They are earned by work done. Paul said in 2 Cor 5:10 that "all [believers] must appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." Similarly, the Lord Jesus said the He will "reward each according to his works" (Matt 16:27, emphasis added). Eternal salvation is not "according to what [one] has done" and is not "according to [one’s] works."
In some places eternal salvation and eternal rewards are contrasted in the same paragraph. For example, in 1 Cor 3:14-15 Paul said: "If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." The unproductive believer is saved even though his works are burned up. However, if a believer’s works endure the test of fire, then in addition he will be rewarded. Compare also Rom 14:8-12; 2 Tim 2:11-13; Rev 22:14-17.
Since eternal rewards are not the same as eternal salvation, there is no contradiction of the Gospel in passages conditioning eternal rewards on perseverance in good works.
To understand passages like 1 Cor 9:24-27 and Phil 3:11-14 as being Gospel passages is to distort the Gospel by suggesting that ongoing good works are a requirement for obtaining eternal salvation.
More here:
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1996i/Wilki...
Self.

You'll promote it, yet you refute it in the same post.

Why?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#465198 Jul 23, 2013
The head of the Orthodox Church is Christ, not a Patriarch, a Bishop, etc. If a Patriarch violates Christ's teachings, the self corrective mechanism of the Church, the agreement of the people, will issue the corrective.

“The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path.John Chysostom
Tiger Lily

Auckland, New Zealand

#465199 Jul 23, 2013
Ten Roman Catholic False Doctrines.
Must see...

Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#465200 Jul 23, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
There was no gentile/heathen Roman Catholic church at that time either...
was there?
No there wasn't. There was the Catholic Church at Rome. St. Paul mentions us in his letter to us. Thanks for asking though.

And thanks so much for not screaming in capital letters.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min Rider on the Storm 99,850
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 9 min bad bob 184,265
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 56 min Rider on the Storm 980,047
the new gay skype 1 hr thedarkone40 3
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 1 hr ChromiuMan 6,135
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Evanka Dump 286,442
Wife is gonna experience another man Sunday. 11 hr The Guy 1
More from around the web