Warning! Catholic church is a FALSE religion

[christkid777]

There are several reasons to be careful when looking over someone else's life. First is that Christ died for the ungodly. And He expects us to do the same. If you allow yourself to become to self righteous you will miss this. It is possible to be right and not be righteous. The more sure we are of our understanding the greater the likely hood of this. If you recall when Jesus had the stewards before His throne for judgment one of them accused him and said he was a hard man who harvested what he had not sown and gathered in what he had not stored away. Jesus did not deny this. Why? Because harvesting what he had not sown and gathering in what he had not stored away represents God's willingness to accept Godly fruit when He finds it. Perhaps there are many plantings who's beginnings are suspect but God reserves the right to gather in all Godly fruit when it is ready. Are the Catholics "of God'? The only way we can tell is by the same judgment that Christ will use. Is the fruit an individual bears acceptable to God. There is probably no one group in the world who who will receive blanket ****ation of justification. God wants fruit.

 

[Charles]

That may be the case, but you won't win any catholics over to your side if you spread lies and mis-information eg that the upside down cross is satanic.
I don't know what occult parts or satanic imagery you see in Catholism, what are you referring to?

About Catholicsm being created by satan himself , wrong, actually the Roman Church was started by one of the Apostles, Paul or Peter can't remember which. And the church was THE church for 1500 years.
But not to worry, just as well we have you, Truth2010, to tell us what truth is. How would we get by without you I don't know .

They said it was Peter, but no biblical proof that Peter was in Rome. About 1998-2000, a grave in Jerusalem was discovered and they stated it was Peter's bones, but that was hushed up in a couple of days by the Catolic Church.

 

[MahogonySnail]

that's true Charles.. but I think some Catholics would say that Peter didn't have to be in Rome or ever go there to still be the first Pope. Anyway I think the evidence points to the Roman church being a small community existing before even Paul ever got there, started by someone else who knows.

 

[christiancanadian]

Naz....I've researched church history......But Im not going to base my beliefs on what "history of man" says.....Sure I do look at history from time to time, but I do not use it as a measure for my beliefs...eternal security is not a separate doctrine apart from salvation. I hope you are placing your faith in Christ alone for salvation......No works of ANY KIND will be justified before God! Only by faith in Christ can man be saved.....I've layed dozens and dozens of Scriptures to support eternal security. I live for the Lord harder knowing I'm secured in Christ. Not because Im fearful that I can lose salvation.

I will rebuke in love those that teach a works gospel.

I agree with you roaringkitten. There are some very confused Christians or false teachers on this website unfortunately in my opinion. But false teachers are everywhere. They don't believe the simple message that by faith alone we are justified. They don't realize that once a person is born again that person cannot be un-born again. But they twist scripture anyways. I've found a couple of really good websites for anyone looking for answers (I'm not affiliated with any of them)..

www.gotquestions.org

www.ariel.org read their doctrine and also check out their Messanic studies section. It's really great.

I've also found Charles Stanley to be a great teacher and Billy Crone is pretty good too.

In Christ,
glenn

 

[Lil_warrior]

I agree with you roaringkitten. There are some very confused Christians or false teachers on this website unfortunately in my opinion. But false teachers are everywhere. They don't believe the simple message that by faith alone we are justified. They don't realize that once a person is born again that person cannot be un-born again. But they twist scripture anyways. I've found a couple of really good websites for anyone looking for answers (I'm not affiliated with any of them)..

www.gotquestions.org

www.ariel.org read their doctrine and also check out their Messanic studies section. It's really great.

I've also found Charles Stanley to be a great teacher and Billy Crone is pretty good too.

In Christ,
glenn

now i AGREE with THAT too

 

[KingDavid]

This is a very touchy topic. I have known praticing Catholics in my past, but yet I have never studied or gone to a Catholic church. I have nothing to add in defense or support. I do know that all Catholic teachings are not the same. I know that the Apostle Peter is suspected to have been the first leader of the Church which was in Rome if I am mistaken please forgive me. I am sure there are people who have researched this. Now if what I have been told is true then it would be very likely that Peter was the first Roman Catholic leader. I know people have put into consideration that religion first came to the united states was Catholic? Not that this would take away from the argument of the church being satanic now. I think I will not judge the Church that is Gods job not mine. I am not saying this is true I really do not know! If it is true that was many years ago and the Catholic Church has im sure gone threw many changes since then. I guess I am asking what do we really know about Peter and the Catholic Church and the early church of the united states which most of our churches branched off of?

 

[MahogonySnail]

Peter could be considered the first apostle of Christianity, period. Although I don't believe Christ set up an episcopal style system like the Roman Catholic church adopted , Peter was a chief apostle, and held more authority in the Church than the others. Although there is no evidence that Peter was ever a Pope. In fact there is no evidence that the first three or so people believed to be popes by the roman catholics held much authority over the church at all. At those times Rome was not a major centre of christianity until the Roman Empire adopted christianity.

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

First off, I want to make it clear that I am NOT Roman Catholic.

That established, whether or not a word or phrase exists in the Scriptures is not the sole requirement to establish a belief's authenticity and Biblical support.

Where in the Scriptures do we see the word "trinity"? Where in the Scriptures do we see the word "alter call"? Where in the Scriptures do we see the words "personal relationship with Jesus Christ"? Where in the Scriptures do we see "age of accountability"?

No evangelical protestant would deny these concepts exist in the Scriptures, but the words I've used sure aren't there.

In the same way, Roman Catholics put names and phrases to the theology they believe exists because of how they interpret the Scriptures.

To understand the definitions of Pope & archbishop look at the Catholic Encyclopedia and see how the English words are derived from Greek words that are found in the Scriptures. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html

Who cares about vestments? Ministers wear suits and ties. Back that up with Scripture.

A good RC won't venerate an angel. A good RC won't worship an angel or deceased human. None of that is RC teachings. It is a RC teaching, though, that the departed saints can be spoken with, and the means of speaking with them is through prayer.

Transubstantiation is a term for the process of communion being turned into the body/blood of Christ. Eucharist is about the same as the protestant "communion". Look up the word Eucharist and see what it's meaning is in Greek. RCs aren't the only ones that believe in Transubstantiation. Luther believed in Consubstantiation. Where do we find that in the Scriptures?

One final one I will mention for now is the Apocrypha. That's actually a protestant word. Roman Catholics refer to the Apocrypha as the Deuterocanon. Again, RCs aren't the only ones who have that in their Bibles.

I certainly don't agree with all the RC teachings/theology, but to say all the things you've noted aren't found in any way/shape/form in the Scriptures is just not true.

chris a

Words, ideas, roles, etc.... NOT found in the Bible:

Pope
Archbishop
Extreme Unction
Vestments
Veneration of Angels
The immaculate conception
transubstantiation
cardinals
diocese
auricular confession
eucharist
holy orders
nuns
perpetual virginity of Mary
purgatory
limbo
apocrypha
etc....

 

[especiallyfondofYou]

I believe all religion is FALSE.....followers of Christ is what we should be....not followers of institutions...rules...regulations...obligations...expectations....none of which are in the bible either....

 

[DaveScotland]

I think that the article you have written is incredibly short sighted. You attack the catholic church though you seem to forget without it. we would all be living in darkness and the word of God would have dissapeared centuries ago. As christian all the Churches represent the same body and your hate filled and completely flawed statements.

You need to open your eyes

 

[MahogonySnail]

I believe all religion is FALSE.....followers of Christ is what we should be....not followers of institutions...rules...regulations...obligations.. .expectations....none of which are in the bible either....

Couldn't agree more. In fact the bible says anyone who follows a particular denomination over another is carnal not spiritual (1 Co 3:4).

 

[phil36]

Hi all,

I have just been reeding this post and although it is interesting, it seems to be more about point scoring than anything else. I have seen secular boards showing more understanding and love than on this thread.

Yes, I agree, that most of the Roman Catholic doctrines are either wrong or twisted to suit. I believe we should be more humble and more concerned about peoples spiritual well being and showing the truth in love. we shouldnt stand back and let what is wrong carry on without voicing the truth.

Lets show the truth more peacefully and with compassion and love, not with angry attacking statements.

as a side point, tradition has it that Peter started the Roman Catholic church. But please note, that this is just a traditional statement to back up the position of the papacy and has no merit in Historical fact. (as far as I am aware).

in Love to all

Phil

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

What Bible are you reading?

I would appear to me that James 1:27 contradicts your entire statement.

First, it uses the word "religion". Second, it declares that there is a type that is "pure" and "undefiled". Third, it gives examples of this type of religion. The verse tells us that pure religion includes visiting orphans and widows & keeping oneself undefiled by the world.

If we do what the verse indicates, it seems to me we are followers of rules, regulations, obligations, and expectations.

Words like "always", "all"(as in all religion is false), and "never" are absolute words; they leave no room for exceptions. I recommend that, like myself, you use them with care.

chris a

I believe all religion is FALSE.....followers of Christ is what we should be....not followers of institutions...rules...regulations...obligations...expectations....none of which are in the bible either....

 

[Baptistrw]

I think that the article you have written is incredibly short sighted. You attack the catholic church though you seem to forget without it. we would all be living in darkness and the word of God would have dissapeared centuries ago. As christian all the Churches represent the same body and your hate filled and completely flawed statements.

You need to open your eyes

The Catholic church does not represent the same body as Christians, that's for sure.

 

[christkid777]

It would be great if someone could make a definitive statement which would end all debate but I think most realize that is unlikely. If the debate goes on after reading the words of Christ it is probably with us till the end. I don't think debate is un healthy. Quite the contrary. If an individual is mature enough to be honest with them self this type of debate can be something like a mirror. When I read the words I have written I see how they stack up against the words of Christ. Do I have the same grace as He? Are the same doors open behind me as were open when I went through? Or have I closed off to others the very door I used to escape the flames? Have I set myself up to be judged by a law of my own creation or have I made way for the grace of God? One thing I have learned is that God will not let me have anything I won't allow another to have. I know something about the doctrine of many denominations and I think it is safe to say none of them mirror the Word perfectly. At least not as I read it to be. I like the point made from James about pure religion. The question I would ask the critics is "What does your religion move you to DO?". If you are such a bright light go shine on those in darkness and bring them out into the light.

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

Be more specific. If you're going to boot Roman Catholics from Christianity, how do you keep Eastern Orthodox in the category of Christians? If you exclude both of those demoninations, what about Anglicans? If you exclude all 3 of those denominations, when did the first Christian appear on the planet? Lutherans didn't come around until 1500+ A.D.

I have a Christian friend that was lead to Jesus Christ by a Roman Catholic.

I argue by email with a Roman Catholic that has been following her church's teachings actively for the last 20+ years. We disagree on lots of stuff, but we both have both surrendered our lives to Jesus Christ.

So, again, be more specific.

The Catholic church does not represent the same body as Christians, that's for sure.

 

[Baptistrw]

Be more specific. If you're going to boot Roman Catholics from Christianity, how do you keep Eastern Orthodox in the category of Christians? If you exclude both of those demoninations, what about Anglicans? If you exclude all 3 of those denominations, when did the first Christian appear on the planet? Lutherans didn't come around until 1500+ A.D.

I have a Christian friend that was lead to Jesus Christ by a Roman Catholic.

I argue by email with a Roman Catholic that has been following her church's teachings actively for the last 20+ years. We disagree on lots of stuff, but we both have both surrendered our lives to Jesus Christ.

So, again, be more specific.

See my previous posts on this thread about the different works required for salvation, including infant baptism, penance, taking the eucharist, etc.

 

[Slepsog4]

Roman Catholicism clearly teaches a works of merit approach to salvation. They long ago pronounced an anathema on all non-catholics which has never been rescinded. The papacy supports evolution.

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

Baptism - So Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans - all who insist on infant baptism - aren't Christians? Infant baptism and adult baptisms are both mentioned in the Scriptures. While I am not a proponent of infant baptism myself, the issue can be argued either way. Some protestants demand baptism after conversion. Is that not a form of "works"?

Penance - Similar to what we protestants refer to as repentance. Our confession of sins is not supposed to be just a one time thing. People like to quote 1 John 1:9, but they don't seem to realize the verb tense indicates an ongoing confession. If we don't continue to repent, is our faith true? If we do continue to repent, is that not a type of work?

Eucharist - Somewhat similar to our protestant communion, with a major difference being that we treat it as symbolic rather than believing we are literally eating Christ. This is an issue where I am also very critical of the RCC. Despite my critical viewpoint on the Eucharist, I'm far from convinced that all RCs are non-Christian.

If a person is born-again, but lives his/her life without reading or meditating on the Scriptures, praying, fellowshipping with believers, or proclaiming the gospel, is he/she a Christian? If he/she does do all of this, don't they qualify as works?

Faith without works is dead. Works without faith is worthless.

See my previous posts on this thread about the different works required for salvation, including infant baptism, penance, taking the eucharist, etc.

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

Catholics have a sacramental system which is designed to draw them closer to God. Righteousness is infused by cooperating with grace.

We protestants have a list of "do's" that we expect to see in believers. These "do's" are similar to a RCs sacraments in that they are designed to draw one closer to God. We read our Bibles, pray & meditate on the Scriptures, go to church/bible studies/other fellowships meetings, share the Gospel with others, etc. When a born-again believer doesn't demonstrate any of these things, others question whether that person is in good standing before God, if s/he is really a Christian. "Is s/he saved...s/he doesn't act like it".

My position is that we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.

On evolution, the RCC concludes:

1. The origin of life is unknown to science.
2. The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
3. There is no evidence in favour of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
4. There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favour of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.
5. Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
6. There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of "new" characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin's "natural selection" is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired characters" is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by "mutation". In our opinion the principle of "Mendelian segregation", together with Darwin's natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories.

source: bottom of page at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm

Roman Catholicism clearly teaches a works of merit approach to salvation. They long ago pronounced an anathema on all non-catholics which has never been rescinded. The papacy supports evolution.