Are Catholics Christians? (Jesus, hell, doctrine, church, agnostic)

[athanasius]

Originally Posted by wizanda

Yes they are more Christian is what that was saying...yet not more inline with being a disciple, as a disciple should only drink water.

What???????? OOOOKay???????????? Guess the Apostles really disqualified themselves when drinking wine(And the blood of Christ) at the last supper? Or drinking wine at the wedding at cana???????

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by bible truth

The Doctrine of Justification divides Historical Biblical Christianity with Roman Catholicism.

Historical Biblical Christianity has a different gospel than the Roman Catholic gospel. I believe the book of Romans is the best epistle to discuss the Gospel of God. The doctrine of justification divided Christendom at the Protestant Reformation. The doctrine of justification is still what divides us in the 21st century. Protestant was a nickname given to those who protested the Roman Catholic way of salvation through the sacraments. I am a true protestant, protesting Rome’s way of salvation, because it cannot be supported in Scripture. Galatians Chapter 1 proclaims that there is only one gospel that saves sinners. Therefore, the terminology of “fullness of the gospel” used by the Roman Catholic Church and the LDS Church is meaningless according to the Scriptures.

The official Roman Catholic gospel defined by the Catholic magestrium and the gospel defined by Scripture are mutually exclusive of each other. Both versions of the gospel can be wrong. One version of the gospel can be right and the other wrong. However, both versions of the gospels cannot both be right. Let’s discuss our understanding of the gospel of God, focusing on the doctrine of justification and the Book of Romans. - BT

Historical Biblical Christianity...

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Historical Biblical Christianity...

Indeed. It seems like it must be what, about 500 years old? Given the Church is about 4 times that age, doesn't seem like a terribly historical concept to me. I also find it intriguing that, judging by another post of his, he's so anti-RC whilst simultaneously holding to the decidedly Roman Catholic doctrine of the filioque - makes me wonder just what the adjective historical actually means to him.

James

[bible truth]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Indeed. It seems like it must be what, about 500 years old? Given the Church is about 4 times that age, doesn't seem like a terribly historical concept to me. I also find it intriguing that, judging by another post of his, he's so anti-RC whilst simultaneously holding to the decidedly Roman Catholic doctrine of the filioque - makes me wonder just what the adjective historical actually means to him.

James

Hi James,

I believe God has united sinners from all of Christendom. I do make the distinction of the visible church and the invisible church. The converted invisible church consists of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. They make up the body of Christ. Therefore, Historical Biblical Christianity includes all saints (converted Christians) throughout redemptive history, including the Old Testament church saints (converted - not insitutional declared as a saint). All converted sinners are saints (priesthood of believers).

How do you personally see this issue? How do you determine who the mission field is and who you personally embrace as Christian Brother and sisters?

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by bible truth

Hi James,

I believe God has united sinners from all of Christendom. I do make the distinction of the visible church and the invisible church. The converted invisible church consists of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. They make up the body of Christ. Therefore, Historical Biblical Christianity includes all saints (converted Christians) throughout redemptive history, including the Old Testament church saints (converted - not insitutional declared as a saint). All converted sinners are saints (priesthood of believers).

How do you personally see this issue? How do you determine who the mission field is and who you personally embrace as Christian Brother and sisters?

So, to you there's a fundamental difference between the "visible Church" and the "invisible Church?" What is that difference?

I encounter people all the time who are obviously spiritually whole believers. And they are visible. I can see them, and I can see what they do, as well. Their actions, as well as the results of their actions, are visible. Many, many, many (most of them, in fact, that I've met) belong to an organizational church of some description. What is the difference that you perceive?

Also, what is it about these particular people that make them any more "historical" than, say, Pius X, or John XXIII?

[*Paul*]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

This is a statement on the extra-biblical creeds, which we as Latter-day Saints do not believe to have been inspired; it is not intended as a definition of who is or is not a Christian. We believe that anyone who sincerely professes to worship Jesus Christ, who looks to Him for salvation and who strives to follow Christ's example is, in fact, a Christian. We believe God told Joseph Smith that there were doctrinal errors in all of the Christian Churches of his day. We do not believe He told him that Catholics aren't Christians. If you believe that the Catholic Church's doctrine is 100% true, why are you not a Catholic? It is entirely possible to believe that a Church does not contain the fullness of the truth and to still believe it to be a Christian Church.

I'll try again.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.”

You may notice a word is missing here that you used - "Unbiblical".
Again he asks which of the SECTS was right not which of the creeds they hold.
1

8 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. #

There is no escaping that the personage is saying that all the sects are wrong, all their creeds are an abomination, they all teach for doctrines the commandments of men, they all deny the power of godliness.

[bible truth]

Originally Posted by sojourner

So, to you there's a fundamental difference between the "visible Church" and the "invisible Church?" What is that difference?

I encounter people all the time who are obviously spiritually whole believers. And they are visible. I can see them, and I can see what they do, as well. Their actions, as well as the results of their actions, are visible. Many, many, many (most of them, in fact, that I've met) belong to an organizational church of some description. What is the difference that you perceive?

Also, what is it about these particular people that make them any more "historical" than, say, Pius X, or John XXIII?

The Bible has always distinguished between converted believers and unconverted believers, even within the nation of Israel (Old Testament saints - Romans 2, Romans 9 - 11). Jesus spoke of wheat and tears (weeds), and sheep in goats within the context of the professing visible church. Jesus also declared that all who say Lord Lord will not enter the kingdom of God...them He cast them into Hell. Hey, I'm just trying to give you biblical revelation. You can try to interpret it or gloss over it. Only God knows who are His. The Bible clearly teaches of a remnant saved by grace throughout redemptive history.

- BT

[Bishka]

Originally Posted by bible truth

. Only God knows who are His.

Then why do you try to tell others that they aren't His?