Catholic Fundy?

[e=mv^2]

Is it possible to be a Fundamentalist and a Roman Catholic?

If not - should Catholics be restricted from debate here?

If so can we have a section where Catholics can come and have interesting debates with us?

[PassthePeace1]

Is it possible to be a Fundamentalist and a Roman Catholic?

If not - should Catholics be restricted from debate here?

If so can we have a section where Catholics can come and have interesting debates with us?

Oh boy! I'm the first one here...:clap: and I am Catholic...:clap: I think it is a great ideal...but there would have to be ground rules, because both sides can get carried away sometimes...But we are members of the body of Christ..so seems like focusing on what we have in common, would be a great place to build respect for each others beliefs...bye and God Bless Pam..:crossrc:

[twistedsketch]

It depends. Is Scripture your trump card over tradition? That is one of the tenets of fundamentalism. At least Protestant fundamentalism. I suppose one could be a Catholic fundamentalist who is hardcore like Mel Gibson, but then the definition of fundamentalist changes, because Mel Gibson does not hold to Sola Scriptura.

I fear debates between Protestant and Catholic fundamentalists would get very ugly very quick.

[Cary.Melvin]

Well I imagine that Catholics would have a different idea of what constitutes "fundamental" than that of Protestants.

I suppose a Catholic "fundamentalist" would be one that adhears to the teachings of the Catholic Church which contain all divine revelation in sacred scripture and sacred traditions as interpreted by the magesterium of the Church.

[twistedsketch]

Yeah. That's what I've been trying to say.

[thereselittleflower]

I am changing my opinion - please see my post below



Peace

[StPaul]

It depends. Is Scripture your trump card over tradition? That is one of the tenets of fundamentalism. At least Protestant fundamentalism. I suppose one could be a Catholic fundamentalist who is hardcore like Mel Gibson, but then the definition of fundamentalist changes, because Mel Gibson does not hold to Sola Scriptura.

I fear debates between Protestant and Catholic fundamentalists would get very ugly very quick.

Hello, twisted,... :wave:

I hope it doesn't seem like I am "barging in", if it does, I apologize. :blush:

The bolded emphasis was mine, because it generated a question that I had...

Does fundamentalism necessarily imply Sola Scriptura- or even conversely,… does Sola Scriptura necessarily imply fundamentalism? (I think this would be an interesting debate in and of itself if the proposed discussion were to take place.

Again, I apologize if it is not my place to speak in here.

God Bless

[U R my Sonshine]

It would be nice to have a place to dialogue . .

We could go to the subforum in GT, and make whatever discussions we have just for our groups, but it would be nice to have a place to dialogue :)


Peace

It really would be. Can we put down the old cliches and just do it? No "One True Church" "Fullness of the Truth" "Seperated Bretheren/Heretic" and no "You Pagans Worship Mary" "Your Popes Adorn themselves", Blah blah blah....

I'd love to talk with Catholics here without all of the....well....FIGHTING.;) (...I think it makes Jesus sad.)

[e=mv^2]

Hiya!:wave:

Does fundamentalism necessarily imply Sola Scriptura-

Whithout question.

or even conversely,… does Sola Scriptura necessarily imply fundamentalism?

No. There are Many people that are sola scriptura but not fundy.

[ksen]

Please read the following:

http://www.christianforums.com/t672730-rules-for-this-forum-read-before-posting.html

Fundamentalist: (Defined by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976)

A born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who

Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible;
Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
The doctrine of the Trinity
The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
The resurrection of saints to life eternal
The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;

Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.
Therefore, Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soulwinning zeal. While Fundamentalists may differ on certain interpretations of Scripture, we join in unity of heart and common purpose for the defense of the Faith and the preaching of the Gospel, without compromise or division.


Therefore according to number 3 Catholics can NOT be considered Fundamentalists. They may be Traditionalists, but are not Fundamentalists.

The subforum idea sounds good. Let's add a poll here and then I'll bring the results to the other staff members.

The only thing that gives me pause is the level debate between us gets at times. Any rule infractions in that subforum would be dealt with pretty inflexibly in order to keep some sort of order.

[CrystalBrooke]

well duh...what do you think?! ive had 2 posts and a thread deleted...you bet i want a forum where we can debate:D and be nice to one another at the same time:)

[Sevryn45]

You can't be both Catholic and Fundamentalist, that just does not make any sense. I am an ex Catholic, now fundamentalist believe me I tried to be both but it's just does not work and it leads to the denial of Scriptural truth.

But I think it would be a great idea if we had forum where hardcore scriptural fundamentalists could debate with hardcore traditionalists.

Some ground rules would have to be established, i.e no opinions only debates that center around what Catholics teach and what we teach.

Topics need to be Key, not i.e is "Pope the Antichrist" lol.

Good Topics......

"Was Peter the Pope" "Did Jesus start Roman Catholicism" "Is Transubstiation Biblical" etc. there are a ton of good topics we can choose and provide a defense for biblical Christianity without getting nasty.

They need to be focused on teachings and doctarines rather then on prophetic opinions, as long as we stick to that we won't have a blood bath.

We Fundamentalists get a bad rap sometimes, people tend to think we are Anti-Catholic and AntiChrist just because we do not support or believe in their traditions.

[ksen]

You can't be both Catholic and Fundamentalist, that just does not make any sense. I am an ex Catholic, now fundamentalist believe me I tried to be both but it's just does not work and it leads to the denial of Scriptural truth.

But I think it would be a great idea if we had forum where hardcore scriptural fundamentalists could debate with hardcore traditionalists.

Some ground rules would have to be established, i.e no opinions only debates that center around what Catholics teach and what we teach.

Topics need to be Key, not i.e is "Pope the Antichrist" lol.

Good Topics......

"Was Peter the Pope" "Did Jesus start Roman Catholicism" "Is Transubstiation Biblical" etc. there are a ton of good topics we can choose and provide a defense for biblical Christianity without getting nasty.

They need to be focused on teachings and doctarines rather then on prophetic opinions, as long as we stick to that we won't have a blood bath.

We Fundamentalists get a bad rap sometimes, people tend to think we are Anti-Catholic and AntiChrist just because we do not support or believe in their traditions.

We could have a forum-specific rule requiring some sort of documentation when a point is made.

[Sevryn45]

We could have a forum-specific rule requiring some sort of documentation when a point is made.

Yes things that would be allowed, "Proof"

1. Scripture
2. ECF quotes
3. Recognized History, not revisionist History
4. Catehism of the Roman Catholic Church


So on and so forth.

It all has to be backed up by sources, and people could also debate the validity of these sources with other sources.

Let's not venture into opinionated debates that have no sources, that is pointless. If you're going to say that Jesus started Roman Catholicism you better prove it, if you're going to say that Transubstiation is biblical you better prove it, sources need to be the key in these debates.

Posts should be deleted every time they are either off topic, and or have no sources to back up their claims. It has to be orderly debating with sources, not opinions and ignorant bashing just because you disagree with what the other person is saying.

[twistedsketch]

What do you mean by ECF quotes?
And what would be defined as recognized history, rather than revisionist history?

With my past in online debating, you people can have the forum if you want - I don't think I'll go in it. I avoid debate forums because I know how they can spin out of control into quarrels and bitterness. I'd rather build bridges and come to a common ground.

[StPaul]

Hiya!:wave:



Whithout question.



And I think this is a question that would be worthy of such debate. I do have more questions along this line of topic, but I will refrain. Please forgive me, I do not want to appear rude, or look like I am debating. (Maybe a PM?)

God Bless!

(Wow, they added a poll!... would I be allowed to vote in it?)

[StPaul]

[/font]

Yes things that would be allowed, "Proof"

1. Scripture
2. ECF quotes
3. Recognized History, not revisionist History
4. Catehism of the Roman Catholic Church


So on and so forth.

It all has to be backed up by sources, and people could also debate the validity of these sources with other sources.

Let's not venture into opinionated debates that have no sources, that is pointless. If you're going to say that Jesus started Roman Catholicism you better prove it, if you're going to say that Transubstiation is biblical you better prove it, sources need to be the key in these debates.

Posts should be deleted every time they are either off topic, and or have no sources to back up their claims. It has to be orderly debating with sources, not opinions and ignorant bashing just because you disagree with what the other person is saying.

I like this idea,.. could the proposed forum also include documentations from Synods (or councils), etc? For instance, documentations coming from the Council of Trent, Vatican, Vatican II, etc. etc.?

God Bless

[ksen]

(Wow, they added a poll!... would I be allowed to vote in it?)

Yes! Please do! :thumbsup: :)

[Sevryn45]

What do you mean by ECF quotes?

ECF's is just short for Early Church Fathers.

And what would be defined as recognized history, rather than revisionist history?

Example:
Recognized History: RCC and Catholics persecuting Biblical Christianity and burning Bibles and Heretics or those who did not agree with their version of Christianity.

Revisionist History: We never did that, it did not happened.

If you bring forth Revisionist History that has no Historical sources to back it up, you cannot use that argument especially when you are refuted.

I like this idea,.. could the proposed forum also include documentations from Synods (or councils), etc? For instance, documentations coming from the Council of Trent, Vatican, Vatican II, etc. etc.?

Yes of course these are proof sources.

[ksen]

The Roman Catholic Religion stumbles in their Theology, it's not sound doctarine; sure to a person lacking in Knowledge you can make the case for the RCC but to a person who knows History of Christianity and knows Scripture RCC looks nothing more then Revisionist propaganda. Plus RCC uses the ECF's and Scripture only when it suites, their theology is based on proving the validity of their unbiblical doctarines.

If you ask a Catholic if they worship a piece of bread they think is Jesus they will lie to you to appease you, it's an old trick Muslims use it the same way to appease Billions of people and get them to think that they are peacefull. Now for them this is ok because they have gotten used to their theology, they tend to go off on people when you put their heretical beliefs in ligt of sound doctarine.

By the way if any Catholic wants to deny the fact that the Catholic Jesus is a piece of Bread and Wine I will be more then happy to debate you, I dont even need the bible I will use your own theology against you.

MOD HAT:

Let's hold off on this kind of posting if/until we can get a forum set up for it.

[Sevryn45]

Sorry I was just making a point about the use of sources. Some people don't understand debates so they come into a debate without any sources and try winning a debate by providing their own opinions.

[thereselittleflower]

ECF's is just short for Early Church Fathers.



Example:
Recognized History: RCC and Catholics persecuting Biblical Christianity and burning Bibles and Heretics or those who did not agree with their version of Christianity.

Revisionist History: We never did that, it did not happened.

If you bring forth Revisionist History that has no Historical sources to back it up, you cannot use that argument especially when you are refuted.



Yes of course these are proof sources,

*edited quote per request




I said before, I favored a subforum, but since then I have come to the conclusion that until the rules that are currently in existance for this forum can be applied correctly and evenly, I think it would be a big mistake.

Right now we have GT where these kinds of attacks against Catholicism surface regularily . . I don't see the point in making two places like GT where fundamentalists attack our faith already. It is hard to have real diaologue with people who call us liars and our doctrines heretical. Until we can be treated respectfully by those who do not agree with us and our point of view, I do not see the value of opening up yet another avenue for such members to bash and attack our faith.

As long as our rights under the existing rules of this forum are not being recognized, I think to open a subforum specifically for fundamentalist, Catholic exchange would be disaterous, it would be opening pandora's box.

So I am changing my opinion expressed in my previous post and voting no.


Peace

[Debi1967]

recinding prior yes vote cast and I am now voting NO with resounding resolution .....

[Xpycoctomos]

My opinion is expressed in the the "Suggest New Forums" thread.

[U R my Sonshine]

You can't be both Catholic and Fundamentalist, that just does not make any sense. I am an ex Catholic, now fundamentalist believe me I tried to be both but it's just does not work and it leads to the denial of Scriptural truth.

But I think it would be a great idea if we had forum where hardcore scriptural fundamentalists could debate with hardcore traditionalists.

Some ground rules would have to be established, i.e no opinions only debates that center around what Catholics teach and what we teach.

Topics need to be Key, not i.e is "Pope the Antichrist" lol.

Good Topics......

"Was Peter the Pope" "Did Jesus start Roman Catholicism" "Is Transubstiation Biblical" etc. there are a ton of good topics we can choose and provide a defense for biblical Christianity without getting nasty.

They need to be focused on teachings and doctarines rather then on prophetic opinions, as long as we stick to that we won't have a blood bath.

We Fundamentalists get a bad rap sometimes, people tend to think we are Anti-Catholic and AntiChrist just because we do not support or believe in their traditions.

I would like to hear both sides....I think I am definately for it now. If there is the proof provided Sevryn speaks of here....:thumbsup: If I have asked questions on the cathoic forum I am usually shot down without any facts and it is taken as an insult to them just that I questioned something.
Some are wonderful and patient though and are very helpful (Carrye and Lonnienord for example)

[Sevryn45]

As long as our rights under the existing rules of this forum are not being recognized, I think to open a subforum specifically for fundamentalist, Catholic exchange would be disaterous, it would be opening pandora's box.

Rights? You voice your pov as do we, the only reason Catholics are afraid of dialogue is because in an open debate you will not be able to control your pov as you do on your own forums.

I have been to OBOB, You believe whatever you want to believe but dont come here and tell a Scriptural Fundamentalist that the Bible is wrong and the Catholic CHurch is right.

I have had Catholic Mods spy on me and constantly send me tells about what I should believe as a FUndamentalist and an ex Catholic. We see Fundamentalism as going back to Biblical Christianity, we deny your pov and we will continue to do so.

If you don't want to debate with us don't tell us what Fundamentalists believe about Roman Catholics. This is our forum, our turf; just 2 days ago I seen a thread on OBOB calling Fundamentalists stupid idiot bigots, then one of you went out and called me an Antichrist just because I don't believe in the Catholic definition of the Antichrist. Did anyone do anything about that thread heck no.

I would like to hear both sides....I think I am definately for it now. If there is the proof provided Sevryn speaks of here....:thumbsup: If I have asked questions on the cathoic forum I am usually shot down without any facts and it is taken as an insult to them just that I questioned something.
Some are wonderful and patient though and are very helpful (Carrye and Lonnienord for example)

I am more then willing to debate any catholic, as an ex-catholic I will have no problem with providing sources because I have been in debates with Catholics before on www.freejesus.net (http://www.freejesus.net) (Fundamentalist Forums).

As a Fundamentalist I believe I have been as respectfull as I can be, i have been called a lier by Catholics before and I never resulted to personal insults. After we as Biblical Christians show them our side they get edgy and insult us just because they dont agree with us. Instead of using insults why not debate, let's put both Fundamentalism and RCC under close scruitiny and see who's right and who's wrong.

It's easy come to our forums to silance us, if you can use your forum to spread your version of Christianity why can't we use it to spread our Beliefs?
Why the double standard, why do Catholic mods come here, why do you people send me tells telling me what to believe. You may be the dominant force on these boards, but I still have the right to speak and to share my beliefs on these boards.

I see now clearly how things operate, I will never come to OBOB again.

[Rev. Smith]

I voted yes, and would even agree to be a sort of mediator of disputes - since my Church falls in between the two. The Catholics don't consider us to be "Catholic" because we havn't been under the authority of the Pontiff since 1871, and the Protestants don't consider us Protestant because we adhere to the Anglican formualtion of Scripture, Tradition and Reason as the guide for the faithfull.

I think the discussions, held in a respectful manner could help a lot of us come to understand each other, and the bring that understanding back to our churches.

[ksen]

I think the discussions, held in a respectful manner could help a lot of us come to understand each other, and the bring that understanding back to our churches.

That's what my vision is for a forum like that. We don't have to convert one another, but we can come to a better understanding of what the other actually believes. And in understanding the other better our own beliefs will become sharper as well.

Good post Rev. Smith!:amen:

[ksen]

Ok, I'm about to leave for the weekend so I'll leave the poll open until Monday and take whatever results there are and ask Erwin to make us a new sub-forum if the votes are there.

:idea: One thing I just thought of. If we do get this created I'd like to see the same number of Catholic mods responsible for modding the forum as Fundamentalist mods.

[Sevryn45]

One thing I just thought of. If we do get this created I'd like to see the same number of Catholic mods responsible for modding the forum as Fundamentalist mods.

I dunno Having MOds from both sides of the fence can be a problem because Fundie Mods will favor Fundies and Catholic Mods will Favor Catholics.
But if were gona do that we need to stick to the rules, we should create a thread or something so both Catholics and Fundies can agree to these rules and Abide by it.

I like to Add my view on rules, you guys can use those or consider them.

1. Debating with Sources.
2. Debating the Validity of these Sources.
3. No prophetic debates, i.e A fundie tries to prove RCC is the Whore of babylon, or Pope is Antichrist. One problem I got is that I don't agree with these type of topics, no one knows if this is true or untrue and not all Fundies hold to this belief (Me Included). Plus we already got a forum where these topics can be discussed.
4. Science of Textual Criticism

I think if we follow the rules and we stick with sources it would turn out to be a lively and interesting debate.

[Victorian Rose]

The Mods on Christian Forums are fair and fight for both sides equally so I don't have a problem with ksen's idea. I think it is a great idea. Then the Catholics will feel more comfortable debating in the forum knowing they have Catholics helping to moderate.

Sevryn45 has some good ideas on rules. The staff will have to dicuss them.

[jlujan69]

Is it possible to be a Fundamentalist and a Roman Catholic?

If not - should Catholics be restricted from debate here?

If so can we have a section where Catholics can come and have interesting debates with us?

The closest possibility would be a "traditional" Catholic of the Mel Gibson persuasion--pre-Vatican II beliefs.

[jangnim]

The closest possibility would be a "traditional" Catholic of the Mel Gibson persuasion--pre-Vatican II beliefs.Agreed.:)

[StPaul]

The closest possibility would be a "traditional" Catholic of the Mel Gibson persuasion--pre-Vatican II beliefs.


I am sorry to say,... but the Catholic Church post-Vatican II is the exact same Church pre-Vatican II.

While there may be varying degrees of "traditionalism" in Catholicism (I consider myself more of the traditional side), they are not similar to, and should not be confused with, what we see as varying degrees of Political arguments. To be a Catholic, you accept the deposit of faith- every bit of it- (which has been the same since the "establishment" of Catholicism).

Minor traditions (like languages of services, music in mass, use of candles, incense, etc. etc. etc.) are free to come and go and change... OTOH, matters of Dogma (Trinity, Dual Nature of Christ, etc. etc.) are not matters to be changed.

This is a correction to an error in a post (which is allowed per forum rules (http://www.christianforums.com/t672730-rules-for-this-forum-read-before-posting.html)-with particular attention to Rule 3).

God Bless

[Xpycoctomos]

I voted yes, and would even agree to be a sort of mediator of disputes - since my Church falls in between the two. The Catholics don't consider us to be "Catholic" because we havn't been under the authority of the Pontiff since 1871, and the Protestants don't consider us Protestant because we adhere to the Anglican formualtion of Scripture, Tradition and Reason as the guide for the faithfull.

I think the discussions, held in a respectful manner could help a lot of us come to understand each other, and the bring that understanding back to our churches.

But I suppose I would ask... what do you have in common with Fundamentalists that Vatican Catholics do not? Catholics don't consider me Catholic Either... nor do the Fundamentalist consider me Fundamentalist... or even protestant for that matter... but I could hardly consider myself unbiased. I think it is obvious where I would heavily tend to lean. I suppose I assumed the same for Old Catholics... and perhaps even moreso since you never had Vatican II. :scratch:

[jangnim]

The Mods on Christian Forums are fair and fight for both sides equally so I don't have a problem with ksen's idea.

For the most part I have found this to be true, but not always. I've had mods get relly ugly about things simply because I or another poster don't agree with them.

This particular forum has been very good about fairness, however several others have not been.

Just my opinion.

[ksen]

Ok I'm going to approach Erwin about this idea.

Here is the basic outline for how the forum would operate:

1) The forum would have an even number of moderators so that we could have the same number of non-Catholic and Catholic mods. I'd like to see at least two each.

2) The forum would be open to debate for anyone who wished to participate that had been cleared first by the moderator staff. (I thought of this one this weekend)

3) Arguments made in the forum MUST be backed with documentation. Acceptable documentation can be decided upon by the Mods as time goes on.

4) Rules of civility will be STRICTLY enforced.

5) Rules 1 and 2 of cf will be STRICTLY enforced.

That's all I have for now.

[ksen]

Link to thread in the New Forum Suggestion forum:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16218758#post16218758

[Xpycoctomos]

It seems that this idea is not too popular in the voting thread that was started over in OBOB. Just something to consider before suggesting it.

[ksen]

It seems that this idea is not too popular in the voting thread that was started over in OBOB. Just something to consider before suggesting it.

I saw that. I was sorry to read that. I think it could be extremely beneficial to correct misunderstandings on both sides.

I've already put up the suggestion in the Suggest New Forums forum. There's been some feedback. I think they are mostly concerned that the forum will be a huge flame-pit for them. I understand their concern, but I would work very hard to keep that from happening.

[Xpycoctomos]

I will debate this in "Suggest new forums"

[thereselittleflower]

I saw that. I was sorry to read that. I think it could be extremely beneficial to correct misunderstandings on both sides.

I've already put up the suggestion in the Suggest New Forums forum. There's been some feedback. I think they are mostly concerned that the forum will be a huge flame-pit for them. I understand their concern, but I would work very hard to keep that from happening.

Hi ksen

While I appreciate your understanding of our concern and your desire to work very hard to keep such things from happening, unfortunately, this does not allay our concerns and fears regarding such a forum.



Peace

[jlujan69]

I am sorry to say,... but the Catholic Church post-Vatican II is the exact same Church pre-Vatican II.

While there may be varying degrees of "traditionalism" in Catholicism (I consider myself more of the traditional side), they are not similar to, and should not be confused with, what we see as varying degrees of Political arguments. To be a Catholic, you accept the deposit of faith- every bit of it- (which has been the same since the "establishment" of Catholicism).

Minor traditions (like languages of services, music in mass, use of candles, incense, etc. etc. etc.) are free to come and go and change... OTOH, matters of Dogma (Trinity, Dual Nature of Christ, etc. etc.) are not matters to be changed.

This is a correction to an error in a post (which is allowed per forum rules (http://www.christianforums.com/t672730-rules-for-this-forum-read-before-posting.html)-with particular attention to Rule 3).

God Bless

What I had in mind when I said "pre-Vatican II of the Mel Gibson persuasion" was since V II, the Jews are no longer blamed for Christ's crucifixion and the Protestants are to as embraced as brethren in the faith. Gibson's initial comments about his belief that his wife, who's a Methodist and a "better Christian than he" (his words, not mine), is nonetheless a non-Catholic and will not be in Heaven as long as she remains one, seemed to me more reflective of a pre-VII worldview than since that time. I wasn't suggesting that the core teachings of the R. Catholic faith were changed. Anyhow, thanks for providing some clarity.

[StPaul]

What I had in mind when I said "pre-Vatican II of the Mel Gibson persuasion" was since V II, the Jews are no longer blamed for Christ's crucifixion and the Protestants are to as embraced as brethren in the faith. Gibson's initial comments about his belief that his wife, who's a Methodist and a "better Christian than he" (his words, not mine), is nonetheless a non-Catholic and will not be in Heaven as long as she remains one, seemed to me more reflective of a pre-VII worldview than since that time. I wasn't suggesting that the core teachings of the R. Catholic faith were changed. Anyhow, thanks for providing some clarity.


I will refrain from posting further, as I understand that the forum rules are currently being worked on (to not allow debate)... so I must strongly suggest that you do more research,... Or to ask about this (in OBOB) to clarify the errors that you have.

God Bless

[e=mv^2]

Well that was a can of worms wasn't it?

Here are the facts.

The rules of this forum state that :

If you do not fit the above definition you are not debate here. Faiths who do not fit the above definition according to #3 above include but are not limited to "RC/EO/OO"


This rule has been broken over and over and over and is not being enforced.

There are people that want to debate with us.

Those debates can be fruitful.

Lets change gears for moment? How about we have a "Any christians can come into this area and debate with a fundy" forum?

[StPaul]

Well that was a can of worms wasn't it?

Here are the facts.

The rules of this forum state that :



This rule has been broken over and over and over and is not being enforced.

There are people that want to debate with us.

Those debates can be fruitful.

Lets change gears for moment? How about we have a "Any christians can come into this area and debate with a fundy" forum?


So far, as your rules allow for, we can, and will be given permission to debate to make corrections of errors posted.

Please do look at rule 3 of the actual rules (http://www.christianforums.com/t672730-rules-for-this-forum-read-before-posting.html) (and not the definition).

God Bless

[Debi1967]

All board rules apply, they are located here: http://www.christianforums.com/rules
If you do not fit the above definition you are not debate here. Faiths who do not fit the above definition according to #3 above include but are not limited to "RC/EO/OO"
We will not, out of respect for our brothers and sisters in Christ, debate their doctrine. Any post concerning the doctrine of any denomination not allowed to debate here will be moved to their forum so that you can get a real idea of what they believe, or permission will be given for those of that denomination to debate and correct fallacies and misrepresentation of their doctrines.
We will not debate threads from other forums. If you want to link to a post you made in another forum then that is fine, but you will not link a thread and suggest we debate it.
We will be mindful of other's feelings. Our words can cause hurt and we need to show the love of Christ, the love that as fundamentalists we know we are called to show.
Regarding members of the Catholic faith (in various forms); CPR and the moderators of this forum have discussed whether or not Catholic members fit the definition of fundamentalism above. It has been unanimously agreed that rule 3 from the above list excludes Catholic members from the fundamentalist definition. Therefore Catholic members are not permitted to debate in this forum. However, we still adhere to portion 3 of this subsection and will not allow fallacies and misrepresentations of other faiths, including Catholicism in any form - RC/EO/OO.
I am just clarifying that I think my brother was merely trying to point out that all he was doing was correcting a misconception and that is all I am now doing. If this post in anyway, goes against the rules of the forum, then can one of the mods let me know and I will voluntarily remove it with no problem. :)

[Diane_Windsor]

Is it possible to be a Fundamentalist and a Roman Catholic?

If not - should Catholics be restricted from debate here?

If so can we have a section where Catholics can come and have interesting debates with us?

The poll is now skewed (thanks to me). I thought he poll question was the title of the thread, and voted accordingly. A Roman Catholic cannot be a Fundamentalist.

As for the poll question: Would you like to see a subforum where Catholics and Fundamentalists can debate?

I think that's a good idea.

Diane

[Debi1967]

The poll is now skewed (thanks to me). I thought he poll question was the title of the thread, and voted accordingly. A Roman Catholic cannot be a Fundamentalist.

As for the poll question: Would you like to see a subforum where Catholics and Fundamentalists can debate?

I think that's a good idea.

Diane
Lol that is the same question I thought I was answering and I thought that I should have answered the otherway too... and it is not skewed now that you have told me I will adjust itin the adjust ed totals in the other thread of ksen's ....

[e=mv^2]

I am just clarifying that I think my brother was merely trying to point out that all he was doing was correcting a misconception and that is all I am now doing. If this post in anyway, goes against the rules of the forum, then can one of the mods let me know and I will voluntarily remove it with no problem.

Thread (http://www.christianforums.com/t1709061-biblical-law-for-non-christians-.html) started by a catholic with the express purpose of starting a debate/discussion

Another (http://www.christianforums.com/t1163238-i-am-a-reconstructionist-christian-are-you-.html) thread started by a catholic with the express purpose of starting debate/discussion

Again (http://www.christianforums.com/t1725050-a-thread-for-fundamentalistsand-conservatives.html)

Mind you these are just some of the threads started by catholics and by no means fully representative of the number of debate oriented posts.

Let me make it clear that I do not have a problem with these threads per se. These threads were fine - it is the location of those threads that is the problem. I simply wanted these people to have an option to debate these things with us as some of the catholic posts have been pretty good.

There is a need for discussion and the rules are in the way right now. I do NOT want the rules to be changed here as I think we need an area just for us. I personally want and need the support of the fundamentalists here without having someone come in and posting counter arguments.

That is why I think we should have a debate area.

[ksen]

There is a need for discussion and the rules are in the way right now. I do NOT want the rules to be changed here as I think we need an area just for us. I personally want and need the support of the fundamentalists here without having someone come in and posting counter arguments.

That is why I think we should have a debate area.

If you look again at our forum specific rules you'll see that currently the Fundamentalists have no "safe-haven." If another's doctrine is mentioned they are free to come in and debate all they want about it.

I'm currently in discussion with the other two mods in here about changing the rules so that no one else is allowed to debate in here.

[e=mv^2]

I understand the part about people being able to defend their doctrine. In your opinion ksen, were the threads that I posted about in line with the rules?

[thereselittleflower]

I understand the part about people being able to defend their doctrine. In your opinion ksen, were the threads that I posted about in line with the rules?

Hi e=mv^2 (by the way, may I ask what is the significance of your user name? :) )


There have been Catholics who have started threads in GT . . . that has been a response to SO many threads started by others attacking our faith . . after a while, some people decided to be more "pro-active" in their involvement in GT.

So I am not sure what your point is or what you are trying to say?



Any way . . I started this post to point out something since you are the OP of this thread and the poll starter/designer.



This poll asks THREE SEPARATE QUESTIONS


1) Is it possible to be a Fundamentalist and a Roman Catholic?
2) If not - should Catholics be restricted from debate here?

3) If so can we have a section where Catholics can come and have interesting debates with us?



How does anyone know WHICH question a vote in the poll answers?




I could, under the rules that existed previously (to which "sola scriptura" has been recently added as a defining point) when you started this poll answer in these ways1) yes
2) yes (the rules already provide that we can debate here)

3) no





It can't be really said that this poll tells any of us how many want a separate subforum for debate between Catholics and Fundamentalists.

For examples of this confusion, please see posts #48 and #49


I know of 3 of the "yes" votes that have to be changed to "no" votes if the results are used to answer question #3


May I suggest you start a separate poll for each question so that the true answers to each question can be accurately determined.


Just a suggestion. :)


Peace

[e=mv^2]

The user name is the equation for potential energy. The very first post That I made here was one on predestination and free will. I was making the point that God is not limited by time and can see outcomes without dictating what the outcome would be.

While I did start the thread, I actually did not start the poll. I am unsure as to who did.
This poll asks THREE SEPARATE QUESTIONS

1) Is it possible to be a Fundamentalist and a Roman Catholic?
2) If not - should Catholics be restricted from debate here?

3) If so can we have a section where Catholics can come and have interesting debates with us?


While I do understand the confusion, the poll actually asks only one question:
Would you like to see a subforum where Catholics and Fundamentalists can debate?


A note about the rules: The rules were changed the very day after this thread was started.
Last edited by BT : 10th June 2005 at 12:36 PM.

As far as my 3 questions:
The first question is almost rhetorical. Catholics can not by definition be fundamentalists.
The second question was a reference to the pre June 10 rules which, in my memory, forbade non fundies from debate here.
The third - I thought - was a possible solution to having catholics break the rules and post topics that were obviously intended for debate.

I did - and still do - think that catholics and fundamentalists can have excellent discussions but not under the ruleset that was in place.

I think that we fundies need our own place to discuss topics and I believe that we need an area where catholics and all other christians can come together for discussion and debate.

[Debi1967]

The first question is almost rhetorical. Catholics can not by definition be fundamentalists

Can I ask why you think that? I am asking just out of curiosty because I have now seen it stated several times, and yet several of my contemporaries do believe ourselves to be exactly that.... so this is a little bit confusing as to why so many people would think it impossible .....

Maybe if we had your thoughts as to why we would better be able to understand where you are coming from..... BTW, I am not trying to debate I am asking this question with all sincerity here, I really want to know....

Pax Christi
Debi

[ksen]

The user name is the equation for potential energy. The very first post That I made here was one on predestination and free will. I was making the point that God is not limited by time and can see outcomes without dictating what the outcome would be.

While I did start the thread, I actually did not start the poll. I am unsure as to who did.

While I do understand the confusion, the poll actually asks only one question:


A note about the rules: The rules were changed the very day after this thread was started.


As far as my 3 questions:
The first question is almost rhetorical. Catholics can not by definition be fundamentalists.
The second question was a reference to the pre June 10 rules which, in my memory, forbade non fundies from debate here.
The third - I thought - was a possible solution to having catholics break the rules and post topics that were obviously intended for debate.

I did - and still do - think that catholics and fundamentalists can have excellent discussions but not under the ruleset that was in place.

I think that we fundies need our own place to discuss topics and I believe that we need an area where catholics and all other christians can come together for discussion and debate.

The only thing that changed on June 10th was a clarification of the definition for "Fundamentalist." It was decided after talking it over with some Senior Catholic mods that for the purposes of this forum Fundamentalist meant those who hold to Sola Scriptura, so that was added to the definition of Fundamentalist.

The rest of the forum rules have not changed......yet.

The current rule in place: We will not, out of respect for our brothers and sisters in Christ, debate their doctrine. Any post concerning the doctrine of any denomination not allowed to debate here will be moved to their forum so that you can get a real idea of what they believe, or permission will be given for those of that denomination to debate and correct fallacies and misrepresentation of their doctrines.

So currently if a portion of Catholic doctrine is discussed here then Catholics are allowed to correct and even debate in here without hindrance by the rules.

[e=mv^2]

Remember that you asked.

From "The Fundamentals"

IS ROMANISM (ROMAN CATHOLICISM) CHRISTIANITY?

BY

T. W. MEDHURST,

Glasgow, Scotland

I am aware that, if I undertake, to prove that Romanism is not Christianity, I must expect to be called "bigoted, harsh, uncharitable." Nevertheless I am not daunted; for I believe that on a right understanding of this subject depends the salvation of millions.

One reason why Popery has of late gained so much power in Great Britain and Ireland, and is gaining, power still, is that many Protestants look on it now as a form of true Christianity; and think that, on that account, notwithstanding great errors, it ought to be treated very tenderly. Many suppose that at the time of the Reformation, it was reformed, and that it is now much nearer the truth than it was before that time. It is still, however, the same; and, if examined, will be found to be so different from, and so hostile to, real Christianity, that it is not, in fact, Christianity at all. Christianity, as revealed in the Sacred Writings, is salvation by Christ. It sets Him before us as at once a perfect man, the everlasting God, the Godman Mediator; who, by appointment of the Father, became a Substitute for all who were given Him. It teaches that by Him God’s justice was magnified, and His mercy made manifest; that, for all who trust in Him, He fulfilled the law, and brought in a complete righteousness; and that by this alone they can be justified before God. It teaches that His death was a perfect sacrifice, and made full satisfaction and atonement for their sins, so that God lays no sin to their charge, but gives them a free and full pardon; that He has ascended to the right hand of God, and has sent down the Holy Spirit to be His only Vicar and Representative on earth; that He is the only Mediator between the righteous God and sinful man; that it is by the Holy Spirit alone that we are convinced of sin, and led to trust in Jesus that all who trust in Him, and obey Him with the obedience of faith and love, are saved, and, being saved, are made "kings and priests unto God," and have "eternal life" in Him.

This is Christianity, the Christianity which the Apostles preached. But side by side with the Apostles, Satan went forth also, and preached what Paul calls "another gospel." Paul did not mean that it was called "another gospel;" but that as Satan "beguiled Eve through his subtlety" (2 Corinthians 11:3), so some, while professing to teach the Gospel, were turning men away "from the simplicity that is in Christ;" and by doing so, did, in fact, teach "another gospel." Paul, speaking of those who were thus deceived, said, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ."

He means, that there can be but one Gospel, though something else may be called the gospel; and he says of those who had thus perverted "the Gospel of Christ": "If any one preach any other gospel unto you... let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:6-9). He calls those who did so "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ;" and he adds, "no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

Let us consider well the meaning of these passages of Scripture. Paul says that there cannot be another Gospel; the conclusion, therefore, is evident, that these teachers were not teachers of Christianity, but of a Satanic delusion.

I submit that the teaching of Rome is at least as different from that of the Sacred Writings as that which Paul calls "another gospel;" and that, therefore, his words authorize us to say that Romanism is not Christianity.

First, Christianity consists of what Christ has taught, and commanded in Scripture. But Romanism does not even profess to be founded on Scripture only: it claims a right to depart from what is contained in it — a right to add to Scripture what is handed down by tradition; and both to depart from and add to Scripture by making new decrees. It forbids the cup to the people, for instance, in what it calls "the mass," and yet admits that it was not forbidden to them at "the beginning of the Christian religion" (Council of Trent, Session 21, chap. 2). It says that councils and the pope have been empowered by the Holy Spirit to make decrees by which, in reality, the doctrines delivered by Christ are entirely annulled. To show how extensively this has been done, let the reader endeavor to trace the full effect of what Rome teaches as to baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, justification by means of sacraments and deeds done by us, the invocation of saints — things which are entirely opposed to the teaching of Christ.

The canons of the Council of Trent, which sat at intervals from 1545 to 1563, may be called the Bible of Romanism. They were translated into English, as late as 1848, by a Roman Catholic priest, under the sanction of Dr. Wiseman. The Council tells us that one end for which it was called was "the extirpation of heresies." What, then, according to it, is the standard of truth? It tells us that Rome receives The Sacred Scriptures and "The Unwritten Traditions... preserved in continuous succession in the Catholic Church, with equal affection of piety and reverence" (Session 4); also that "no one may dare to interpret the Sacred Scriptures" in a manner contrary to that "Church; whose it is to judge respecting the true sense and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures;" nor may any one interpret them "in a manner contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers" (Session 4).

Christ commands us to "prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21); to "search the Scriptures" (John 5:39); to ascertain for ourselves, as the Bereans did, whether what we hear agrees with what we read in Scripture (Acts 17:11). He commands us to "hold fast the form of sound words," uttered by Himself and His Apostles (2 Timothy 1:13); to "contend earnestly for the faith delivered once for all to the saints" (Jude 3). But Rome says, "Let no one dare to do so" — let all "Christian princes... cause [men] to observe" our decrees (Session 16), nor "permit" them to be "violated by heretics" (Session 25). The Romanist must not dare to have an opinion of his own; his mind must exist in the state of utter prostration and bondage; he must not attempt to understand the Scripture himself. And if others attempt it — if they dare to receive the teaching and do the will of Christ, instead of receiving fictions and obeying commands of men, which wholly subvert and destroy the truth and will of Jesus, Rome commands the civil ruler to restrain them; and, by the use of fines, imprisonment, and death, to compel them, if possible, to renounce what God requires them to maintain and follow, even unto death.

The Bible, the whole Bible, nothing but the Bible, is the standard and the rule of Christianity. To know its meaning for ourselves, to receive its teaching, to rely on its promises, to trust in its Redeemer, to obey Him from delight of love, and to refuse to follow other teaching, is Christianity itself. But Romanism denies all this; and therefore, Romanism is not Christianity.

Secondly: Christ commanded us to show. "meekness" towards those who oppose us (2 Timothy 2:25). He says, "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who use you despitefully and persecute you" (Matthew 5:44).

But Romanism teaches men to hate, and, if they are able, to persecute to the death all those who will not receive it. Its deeds have been diabolical and murderous. It is "drunken with the blood of the saints." It has inscribed on the page of history warnings which appeal to the reason and the feelings of all generations. Such a warning is what is told of the 24th of August, 1572. On that day the Protestants of Paris were devoted to slaughter by members of the Papal Church. For the one offence of being Protestants, thousands were slain. The streets of Paris ran with blood; everywhere cries and groans, were mingled with the clangor of bells, the clash of arms, and the oaths of murderers. The king, Charles IX; stood, it is said, at a window, and, every now and then, fired on the fugitives. Every form of guilt, cruelty, and suffering, made that fearful night hideous and appalling.

Never, in any city, which has professedly been brought under the influence of Christianity, was there such a reveling in blood and crime. You may say, "Why do you recall the atrocities of a time so remote?" I answer, Because this deed received the sanction of the Church of Rome as a meritorious demonstration of fidelity to Romish precepts and doctrines.

When the tidings of this wholesale murder were received in Rome, the cannon of St. Angelo were fired, the city was illuminated and Pope Gregory XIII and his cardinals went in procession to all the churches, and offered thanksgivings at the shrine of every saint. The Cardinal of Lorraine, in a letter to Charles IX, full of admiration and applause of the bloody deed, said, "That which you have achieved was so infinitely above my hopes, that I should have never dared to contemplate it; nevertheless, I have always believed that the deeds of your Majesty would augment the glory of God, and tend to immortalize your name."

[e=mv^2]

more..

Some say that Rome has ceased to persecute. But this is not the fact; either as to her acts, or rules of action. She asserts that she is unchanged, unchangeable; that she is infallible, and cannot alter, except so far as necessity, or plans for the future, may require; and facts are often occurring which prove that persecution is still approved by her. Rome has little power now; her persecuting spirit is kept in abeyance for a time; but it is still there. When it is free from restraint, it knows no way of dealing with difference of opinion but by the rack, the stake, the thumbscrew, the iron boot, the assassin’s dagger, or a wholesale massacre. Let all who value their liberty, all who love the truth as it is in Jesus have no fellowship with such deeds of darkness, nor with those who work them. Let us show that we have no sympathy with such a cruel spirit; and that we love the names and memory of the noble army of martyrs of the Reformation; of those who sealed their faith with their blood; of those who died to release their country and their posterity from the bondage of Rome.

I agree with Dr. Samuel Waldegrave, when he says that, "The Convocation of the English clergy did wisely, when, in the days of Elizabeth, they enacted that every parish church in the land should be furnished with a copy of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs;" and that it would be well if a copy of it were "in every house, yea, in every hand;" for "Rome is laboring, with redoubled effort, for the subjugation of Britain," and "the people have forgotten that she is a siren who enchants but to destroy."
Thirdly: As to the sacrifice of Christ, Christianity teaches that He was "offered once for all, to bear the sins of many" (Hebrews 9:28); that those who are sanctified by His sacrifice are so "by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:10); that "by one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified," or made holy (Hebrews 10:14): these passages declare that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once for all, never to be repeated. But Rome declares that Christ is sacrificed anew, every time that the Lord’s supper, which she calls "the mass," is celebrated; and that those who administer it are sacrificing priests.

The Council of Trent (Session 22) says, "Forasmuch as in this Divine sacrifice, which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained, and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner, on the altar of the cross, the holy synod teaches that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, and that, by means thereof, this is effected that we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different."

The synod commands the use of lights, incense, and the traditional vestments; also that the priests "mix water with the wine."

In chapter 9, canon 1, the synod says, "If any one say that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered, is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema."

In canon 3, it decreed that, "If any one say that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins; pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema."

The Christ of Romanism is one who is sacrificed again and again for the remission of the sins both of the living and the dead; for those alive, and for those in purgatory. Is this the Christ of Christianity?

In canon 1 of its 13th Session, the synod says, "If any one deny that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but say that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema."

The Christ of the Bible, and of Christianity, is in heaven "at the right hand of God," where "He ever lives to make intercession for those who come to God through Him" (Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 7:25); nor will He come in bodily form to earth again until He comes the second time, without sin, unto salvation, to be admired in all those who believe (Hebrews 9:28; 2 Thessalonians 1:10). But the Christ of Romanism is upon the altars of Rome; He is said to be brought there by the magic spell of her priests, and to be there in the form and shape of a wafer.

What a fearful blasphemy! The priest pronounces certain words, gives the solemn consecration, and then elevates the wafer. Taste it — it is wafer; touch it is wafer; look at it — it is wafer; smell it — it is wafer; analyze it — it is wafer; but the priest affirms, the Council of Trent affirms, Romanism affirms, the poor victims of delusion affirm, as they bow down before it, "This is our Christ — our God!" Here is the climax of this superstition — it exhibits for the person of Christ a morsel of bread: Is that morsel of bread the Christ of the Bible? Is that system which declares it to be so, Christianity?

Fourthly: Christianity is in direct opposition to Romanism as to the mode of a sinner’s justification before God.

What say the Scriptures? "By deeds of law shall no flesh living be justified before God" (Romans 3:20).

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without deeds of law" (Romans 3:28).

"Even David describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness without works" (Romans 4:6).

Israel, "being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one who believes," or has faith (Romans 10:3,4).

"God was in Christ, ... not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Corinthians 5:19).

"God has made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

"Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1).

[e=mv^2]

finally..

The doctrine thus taught by Christianity is that all men are sinners; that without justification there is no hope for any sinner; that we are justified by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone; and that His righteousness is received through faith.

Now, what says Romanism? It says that the righteousness by which men are justified is that which the Holy Spirit, by the grace of God, through Christ, makes them work out for themselves; that it is received by means of "the sacrament of baptism... without which no one was ever justified;" that it is received "in ourselves," when we are renewed by the Holy Spirit; that it is a righteousness "imparted," "infused," "implanted," and not imputed (Session 6, chapter 7). Among the declarations of the Council are these: "If any one say that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the Divine mercy which remits sin for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema" (Session 6, canon 12). "If any one say that... good works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema" (canon 24). "If any one say that he who is justified by good works, which are done by him through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly deserve increase of grace, eternal life," etc. ... "let him be anathema" (canon 32).

Thus Romanism anathematizes the preaching of true Christianity! I will mention but one more proof that Romanism is not Christianity, though there are many others which might be given.

Fifthly: Christianity says "there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5),

who is at the right hand of the Father (Ephesians 1:20), where He "ever lives to make intercession" for us (Hebrews 7:25). Christianity says that there is but one Mediator; that we cannot draw near to God except through Jesus.

What says Romanism? I quote from "a book of devotion for every day in the month of May," published by Papal authority. "Great is the need you have of Mary in order to be saved! Are you innocent? Still your innocence is, however, under great danger. How many, more innocent than You, have fallen into sin, and been damned? Are you penitent? Still your perseverance is very uncertain. Are you sinners? Oh, what need you have of Mary to convert you! Ah, if there were no Mary, perhaps you would be lost! However, by the devotion of this month, you may obtain her patronage, and your own salvation. Is it possible that a mother so tender can help hearing a Son so devout? For a rosary, for a fast, she has sometimes conferred signal graces upon the greatest of sinners. Think, then, what she will do for you for a whole month dedicated to her service!" Here you see that Mary is everything; that Jesus Christ is nothing.

Romanism teaches also that it is right to ask the intercession of all departed saints (Session 25). How dreadful is it that sinners are thus kept back from Jesus, and are prevented from reaching God through Him. Popery is emphatically anti-Christian: it is the adversary of Christ in all the offices which He sustains. It is the enemy of His prophetic office; for it chains up that Bible which He inspired. It is the enemy of His priestly office; for, by the mass it denies the efficacy of that sacrifice which He offered once for all on Calvary. It is the enemy of His kingly office; for it tears the crown from His head to set it on that of the Pope.

Can that be truly called Christianity, then, which is the reverse of it? Can that be fitly treated as Christianity which hates it, denounces it, and tries to destroy it? Can that be Christianity which forbids liberty of conscience, and the right of private judgment? Which commands the Bible to be burned? Which teaches the worship of saints and angels? Which makes the Virgin Mary command God? Which calls her the Mother of God, and the Queen of Heaven? Which sets aside the mediation of Christ, and puts others in His place? Which makes salvation depend on confession to man, and this is a confessional so filthy that Satan himself might well be ashamed of it? Can that be Christianity which condemns the way of salvation through faith, as a damnable heresy? Can that be Christianity which, by the bulls of its Popes, and decrees of its councils, requires both princes and people to persecute Christians? Which actually swears its bishops and archbishops to persecute them with all their might? Can that be Christianity which has set tip, and still maintains, the Inquisition? That which has been so cruel, so bloodthirsty, that the number slain by it of the servants of Christ, in about 1,200 years, is estimated at fifty millions, giving an average of 40,000 a year for that long period? No, it cannot be! With a voice of thunder, let Protestants answer, "No!"

To aid such a system is to fight against God. He demands that we "resist the devil" (James 4:7), and have no fellowship with "works of darkness" (Ephesians 5:11). "No peace with Rome," must be on our lips, and be in our lives. "No peace with Rome," whether wearing her scarlet undisguised, or using the cloak of a Protestant name. The voice from heaven (Revelation 18:4): "Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues," is proof that there may be true Christians in the Roman body; but it is proof also that even while in it, they are not of it; and that they will strive to escape from it, so as not to share in its sins.

We are informed by God that this system is the work of Satan; that his ministers are "transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works" (2 Corinthians 11:15); that it is he who turns men away "from the simplicity which is in Christ" (11:3); that it is he who is the author of that "mystery of iniquity" which was at work even while the Apostles were still living, and which was to be further revealed, and to remain, till it should be consumed by Christ, and "destroyed by the brightness of His coming;" a system which is according to the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved" (2 Thessalonians 2:7-10).

May those who love God, and yet have some connection with this system, listen to the command, "Come out of her, My people." May we in no degree partake of her sins: may we renounce, with a holy loathing, all her symbols; throw off, with righteous indignation, all allegiance to her corruptions. May we have nothing of Romanism in our doctrines, but contend earnestly for the pure faith of the Gospel of Jesus. May we have nothing of Romanism in our discipline. May we be subject, in all matters of religious faith and practice, to the Word of God, and to that alone. May we have nothing of Romanism in our services, in our buildings, in our forms, in our attire. Because Israel burned incense to the brazen serpent which Moses had made, Hezekiah broke it in pieces. (2 Kings 18:4). For the like reason, let us cease to use, on person or building, that form of the cross which the Romanist treats with superstitious regard. "Come out of her."

Ye who seek salvation, go to Jesus. Him has God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour. He is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God by Him. The Father is ready with out-stretched arms to clasp the penitent prodigal in His embrace. The Son is ready to give a free, full, complete forgiveness to: every redeemed sinner, and to justify all who come unto God by Him. The Holy Spirit is ready to sanctify, renew, instruct, and help all who call upon Him. The assembly of saved sinners on earth is ready to welcome you to partake of its fellowship and of its joys. Angels are ready with harps attuned, and fingers upon the chords, to give you a triumphant welcome, and to rejoice over you with joy. Come just as you are; come at once. "Him that cometh to Me," says Christ, "I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37).

[e=mv^2]

So currently if a portion of Catholic doctrine is discussed here then Catholics are allowed to correct and even debate in here without hindrance by the rules.
Great. What about the posts that I made reference to? Were those posts made within the rules?

[ksen]

Thread closed for review. Should reopen in the next day or two, please be patient.