Catholicism vs. Biblical Christianity

[Clete]

Consider the following basic Christian concepts...

1. God exists.
2. God is personal, living, moral, and rational.
3. God created the world and created mankind in His image.
4. There is objective right and wrong, rooted in God's nature.
5. Humans have free will and moral responsibility.
6. Sin is a personal, moral choice that results in spiritual death.
7. We are not born guilty; guilt comes from our own sin.
8. Jesus Christ is the incarnate Logos who died and rose again to offer life.
9. Salvation is by grace and requires a free, personal response of trust and faith.
10. Believers live in ongoing relationship with God through faith, love, and obedience.

Those ten points should be accepted universally by anyone who believes in BIBLICAL Christianity. The degree to which one diverges from them is the degree to which one’s theology has been influenced by extra-biblical traditions, philosophical distortions, or human systems of thought rather than the plain reading of Scripture and sound reason.

So where are the Catholics in this regard?

Points 1-3: I'd have to say that there's no appreciable divergence at all on these points. They seem to affirm all three.

Points 4-5: Here is where their divergence begins:
Catholicism officially affirms free will and moral accountability, but it also introduces the idea of "concupiscence" (i.e. a weakened will due to inherited sin) which blurs the line between moral capacity and inherited condition, thereby undermining God's just character.

Points 6-7: There is major divergence on these two points:
Catholicism teaches original sin as inherited guilt and a state of spiritual death from birth. This is where the Augustinian (i.e. Greek philosophy: Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, et al) influence takes over. Catholicism views infants as in "need of the new birth in Baptism", which contradicts the biblical teaching that sin is not inherited but chosen (Ezekiel 18).

Points 8-9: Catastrophic divergence:
Catholicism affirms Christ's death and resurrection, but it adds sacramentalism, which is the idea that grace is dispensed through the Church’s rituals (especially infant baptism, confession, and Eucharist). This turns salvation into a mediated, institutional process rather than a direct, relational response to God.

Point 10: Totally divergent trajectory!:
Catholicism emphasizes merit, penance, indulgences, purgatory, and ultimately makes salvation something that must be maintained through Church-prescribed means. While they use biblical language (grace, faith, works), the system undermines the simplicity of biblical trust in Christ to the point that it bares little real resemblance in either belief or practice.


Let's put some numbers to it. I started to do this with the identical ten points but it gets complicated because there are various flavors of Catholicism (Augustinian, Jesuit, etc) and so I just sort of winged it here a bit and basically ignored issues like Augustinian predestination. Had I not done so, the score would be much lower.

On a scale from 1 to 10 (These are subjective, of course, and I've intentionally been generous.)....

1. God exists: Fully affirmed without caveat.
Score: 10
2. God is the Creator of all: Unreservedly affirmed in Catholic dogma.
Score: 10
3. Man is made in God’s image: Affirmed, but Catholic anthropology is marred by original-sin guilt from conception.
Score: 7
4. Man has a conscience and is morally accountable: Catholicism teaches both personal sin and concupiscence. A weakened will clouds full moral accountability until sacramental restoration.
Score: 5
5. Jesus is the sinless Son of God who died and rose again. Dogmatically identical.
Score: 10
6. Man is spiritually alive until he sins: Flatly denied. Catholicism holds all are born spiritually dead.
Score: 0
7. When one sins, they die spiritually and need salvation: They affirm need for salvation, but only on top of inherited need. The trigger (personal sin) is buried under original-sin presupposition.
Score: 2
8. Salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone: While Christ is central, grace is only conveyed through Church and sacraments, so it’s never “Christ alone” in practice.
Score: 3
9. God calls all people to repent and believe: The biblical call exists, but is administered through infant baptism, confirmation, penance, etc., making the call mediated rather than direct.
Score: 3
10. Those who trust in Christ are forgiven and have eternal life: Forgiveness and eternal life are potential but require ongoing sacramental cooperation; assurance is explicitly denied.
Score: 2

That's 52 out of 100.

That's a failing score in any school I ever attended!

 

[Nick M]

I’ll come back. I’m busy and this will prompt me.

 

[Nick M]

Where is Idolater? Or Traditio? I have a slightly different opinion because of Romans 5. Not the part about infant baptism which is ridiculous.

Points 6-7: There is major divergence on these two points:
Catholicism teaches original sin as inherited guilt and a state of spiritual death from birth. This is where the Augustinian (i.e. Greek philosophy: Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, et al) influence takes over. Catholicism views infants as in "need of the new birth in Baptism", which contradicts the biblical teaching that sin is not inherited but chosen (Ezekiel 18).

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

I always took this exactly as he stated it. The law reveals our sin. They just didn't know. So he had to let them know they did in fact sin. And regardless he says this.

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

And sprinkling a baby with water or anybody else (dunk tank for "Baptists") does not save, nor is it an outward sign. It is a sign that you do not believe you are already washed.

 

[Clete]

Where is Idolater? Or Traditio? I have a slightly different opinion because of Romans 5. Not the part about infant baptism which is ridiculous.



12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

I always took this exactly as he stated it. The law reveals our sin. They just didn't know. So he had to let them know they did in fact sin. And regardless he says this.

Who didn't know?

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

And sprinkling a baby with water or anybody else (dunk tank for "Baptists") does not save, nor is it an outward sign. It is a sign that you do not believe you are already washed.

Infant baptism is far worse than a dispensational error, it is blasphemy because it directly implies that God is unjust.

Ezekiel 18:2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.

4 “Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.

Deuteronomy 1:39 Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

The ONLY Biblical answer to The Age of Accountability

The following is an essay written several years ago by a poster here that went by the user name "Lion" (if memory serves me correctly!). He was a member of Bob Enyart's congregation at the time and may still be a member of that church. The point being that I am not the author of what follows but...

theologyonline.com

 

[Nick M]

Infant baptism is far worse than a dispensational error, it is blasphemy because it directly implies that God is unjust.

I agree.

Who didn't know?

Anyone before the introduction of the law. They know they did evil as God showed them. But they didn't know what sin is.

 

[Derf]

Reminder for me, too, to come back and look here, but it will likely be over a week.

 

[Clete]

Anyone before the introduction of the law. They know they did evil as God showed them. But they didn't know what sin is.

I don't think that's right, Nick. Where you'd get such an idea?

Genesis 4:6 So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

 

[Nick M]

Where you'd get such an idea?

When Paul answers people's fake question about primitive jungle and island people that don't hear the gospel.

 

[Nick M]

This is proof of the falsity of the claims of the church of Rome. I call it that because it is, and they claim "bishop of Rome". Like Jehova's witness, Islam, LDS, all of their claims are outside the Bible. We know Peter's church fell. Scripture states it. Peter's church is Israel. So to pass succession via a fallen church is outside the faith. Paul said "let them be accursed". Pretty harsh.

 

[Clete]

When Paul answers people's fake question about primitive jungle and island people that don't hear the gospel.

What?

 

[Nick M]

What?

Insincere people ask (not from pity) about those who never hear the gospel. They are trying to make the Lord look cruel to the uniformed.

 

[Clete]

Insincere people ask (not from pity) about those who never hear the gospel. They are trying to make the Lord look cruel to the uniformed.

And this supports your thesis, how?

Can we get away from the single sentence posts and make actual arguments that makes sense. I'm literally losing track of what we're even talking about.

 

[Nick M]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1932822635471102369

The replies have some real doozies in it.

 

[Nick M]

And this supports your thesis, how?

Posts right here on TOL. That has little to do with the church of Rome which is outside the faith. That doesn't mean all catholics are not saved.

 

[Clete]

Posts right here on TOL. That has little to do with the church of Rome which is outside the faith. That doesn't mean all catholics are not saved.

I've literally lost what it was we were talking about but in response to this specific statement...

If someone who identifies as Catholic has come to trust in Christ alone for salvation, apart from the sacraments, apart from Mary, apart from the priesthood, apart from papal authority, etc, etc, then that person is saved, but they're also not truly Catholic in any meaningful theological sense. They are saved in spite of the Roman Catholic system, not because of it. It was their stepping out of it that made their salvation possible.

I wonder if you'd agree with the following statements....

"The Church of Latter Day Saints is outside the faith. That doesn't mean all Mormons are not saved."​

​

"The Church of Scientology is outside the faith. That doesn't mean all Scientologists are not saved."​

​

"The Jehovah Witness "church" is outside the faith. That doesn't mean all Jehovah Witnesses are not saved."​

Further, what profit is there in pointing out that not every Catholic is unsaved? Perhaps it is a true statement, but apart from a desire to be technically accurate, why say it? Who benefits from stating such a thing? Every single Catholic that reads such a statement will instantly say in his head, "I'm one of the saved ones!" The Pope himself would think it.

The point here being that the gospel, the real gospel, is something quite specific and it happens to be something that the Catholic church does not teach. The gospel is the good news that Christ, God in the flesh, died for our sins and rose again, and that salvation is received by grace alone through faith alone in Him alone. That gospel is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. It adds a lot to it and thereby obscures it and even replaces it. It is another gospel. Scripture does not treat other gospels as harmless alternatives, but pronounces them "anathema" (Galatians 1:8–9).

So yes, some people who call themselves Catholics might be saved, but never by believing what the Catholic Church teaches, not by being actual Catholics. It is, I suppose possible for someone who believes the real gospel to attend Catholic Mass, pray the Rosary and participate in Catholic rituals, but if they do, it means that they either don't understand what those rituals signify or they're just compromising all over the place. It's simply not sustainable for someone who truly believes the gospel to remain in full fellowship with a system that denies it. Either their convictions will reform their actions, or their actions will erode their convictions. (II Corinthians 6:14-18)

For the record: Here is what I call the Gospel Proper - the essential truths one must believe in order to be saved....

1. God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just. (i.e. Belief in the actual God, not in an undefined "higher power" or some make believe god.)
2. We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
3. Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
4. Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
5. Jesus rose from the dead.
6. If you confess with your mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

It is point 6 that Catholicism flatly denies. Rome does not teach that this faith alone is sufficient for salvation. Instead, it requires baptism, confession, the Eucharist, penance, and continued cooperation with grace. According to the Council of Trent, anyone who says that faith alone justifies is anathema.

Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 9:

"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification... let him be anathema."​

Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 12:

"If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be anathema."​

Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 24:

"If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works... let him be anathema."​

 

[Nick M]

I wonder if you'd agree with the following statements

It is possible. If they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they shall be saved. Many do not. Just like many "Pentecostals" who think they have to contribute.

 

[Clete]

It is possible. If they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they shall be saved. Many do not. Just like many "Pentecostals" who think they have to contribute.

Of all the things I said in that post, the rhetorical questions that practically answer themselves are what you chose to respond to?

How about Hindus? Are there some saved Hindus?

Perhaps there are saved members of NAMBLA!

What about atheists? Are there any atheists that manage to get saved?

Is there ANY depth of depraved belief system a person can be associated with where you'd draw the line and say, "No! None of those people are saved."?

The point I'm making here is that when it comes to these errant belief systems, the exceptions, to the extent that they exist at all, prove the rule. That rule being that these folks have rejected the biblical gospel and are no more saved than is the average Tibetan Monk.

 

[Derf]

Consider the following basic Christian concepts...

1. God exists.
2. God is personal, living, moral, and rational.
3. God created the world and created mankind in His image.
4. There is objective right and wrong, rooted in God's nature.
5. Humans have free will and moral responsibility.
6. Sin is a personal, moral choice that results in spiritual death.
7. We are not born guilty; guilt comes from our own sin.
8. Jesus Christ is the incarnate Logos who died and rose again to offer life.
9. Salvation is by grace and requires a free, personal response of trust and faith.
10. Believers live in ongoing relationship with God through faith, love, and obedience.

Those ten points should be accepted universally by anyone who believes in BIBLICAL Christianity. The degree to which one diverges from them is the degree to which one’s theology has been influenced by extra-biblical traditions, philosophical distortions, or human systems of thought rather than the plain reading of Scripture and sound reason.

So where are the Catholics in this regard?

Points 1-3: I'd have to say that there's no appreciable divergence at all on these points. They seem to affirm all three.

Points 4-5: Here is where their divergence begins:
Catholicism officially affirms free will and moral accountability, but it also introduces the idea of "concupiscence" (i.e. a weakened will due to inherited sin) which blurs the line between moral capacity and inherited condition, thereby undermining God's just character.

Maybe, but you guys have to deal with a similar problem, since even infants die physically.

Points 6-7: There is major divergence on these two points:
Catholicism teaches original sin as inherited guilt and a state of spiritual death from birth. This is where the Augustinian (i.e. Greek philosophy: Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, et al) influence takes over. Catholicism views infants as in "need of the new birth in Baptism", which contradicts the biblical teaching that sin is not inherited but chosen (Ezekiel 18).

Not really a Catholic-unique problem.

Points 8-9: Catastrophic divergence:
Catholicism affirms Christ's death and resurrection, but it adds sacramentalism, which is the idea that grace is dispensed through the Church

If you stopped here, I think we would all be in agreement on these 2 points, including Catholics.

’s rituals (especially infant baptism

Leave out "infant", and the agreement probably continues, at least by word usage, though how baptism is applied is debated between numerous denominations. The problem with including "infant" is that it seems to contradict your #9. When they add in "confirmation", usually at some age considered to align with the age of accountability, it at least lessens the importance of infant baptism to some degree, and makes it align more with your list.

, confession,

Biblical (confess your sins one to another), but they dismiss the majority of the church by assigning the hearing of it to the clergy.

and Eucharist).

Another place they take from the church proper and assign to clergy, sometimes even the reception of it, where only clergy are allowed to have the wine.

This turns salvation into a mediated, institutional process rather than a direct, relational response to God.

I believe you are correct here. They've made it into a formula, and devoted Catholics adore the formula rather than the God it is supposed to bring us closer to (whether remembrance or something else).

Point 10: Totally divergent trajectory!:
Catholicism emphasizes merit, penance, indulgences, purgatory, and ultimately makes salvation something that must be maintained through Church-prescribed means. While they use biblical language (grace, faith, works), the system undermines the simplicity of biblical trust in Christ to the point that it bares little real resemblance in either belief or practice.

It seems like the Catholic version of grace, faith, and works is more akin to the Judaic version of following the law because you trust God will use it to bring salvation.

Let's put some numbers to it. I started to do this with the identical ten points but it gets complicated because there are various flavors of Catholicism (Augustinian, Jesuit, etc) and so I just sort of winged it here a bit and basically ignored issues like Augustinian predestination. Had I not done so, the score would be much lower.

On a scale from 1 to 10 (These are subjective, of course, and I've intentionally been generous.)....

1. God exists: Fully affirmed without caveat.
Score: 10
2. God is the Creator of all: Unreservedly affirmed in Catholic dogma.
Score: 10
3. Man is made in God’s image: Affirmed, but Catholic anthropology is marred by original-sin guilt from conception.
Score: 7

I know you and others were perturbed by my take on this point, but I think the Catholic view, which is not much different from many, if not most, Protestant and other denominations. They recognize something is different after the fall, and call it "sin nature". I prefer to think of it is "death nature", because all die, even the innocent. So I think you are lumping most Christian churches together in their disagreement with your position, which makes one question whether your position is the more Christian.

4. Man has a conscience and is morally accountable: Catholicism teaches both personal sin and concupiscence. A weakened will clouds full moral accountability until sacramental restoration.
Score: 5
5. Jesus is the sinless Son of God who died and rose again. Dogmatically identical.
Score: 10
6. Man is spiritually alive until he sins: Flatly denied. Catholicism holds all are born spiritually dead.
Score: 0

Again, the Catholic view here is predominant among Christian churches. I think it has to do with what one means by "spiritually dead" or "spiritually alive".

7. When one sins, they die spiritually and need salvation: They affirm need for salvation, but only on top of inherited need. The trigger (personal sin) is buried under original-sin presupposition.
Score: 2

Again, your view is a minority view, and as such, one can question whether Catholics are deviating from Christianity or you have. (I'm not passing judgment on your view, just speaking what I've seen in churches I've been to, none of which are Catholic.

8. Salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone: While Christ is central, grace is only conveyed through Church and sacraments, so it’s never “Christ alone” in practice.
Score: 3

Maybe it's not "grace alone" rather than not "Christ alone", if Christ really instituted the sacraments.

9. God calls all people to repent and believe: The biblical call exists, but is administered through infant baptism, confirmation, penance, etc., making the call mediated rather than direct.
Score: 3

If "repent" includes confession, which could be argued, and the call is always through the church in one form or another (apostles, missionaries, the written word, etc.), I'm not sure how you can call it direct under any circumstances except the exceptions (like Paul's call, not to belief, but to service).

10. Those who trust in Christ are forgiven and have eternal life: Forgiveness and eternal life are potential but require ongoing sacramental cooperation; assurance is explicitly denied.
Score: 2

Definitely lots of other Catholic stuff that gets in the way.

That's 52 out of 100.

That's a failing score in any school I ever attended!

Most of that failing score was the disagreement with their version of original sin. Probably worth an appeal.

 

[JudgeRightly]

even infants die physically

Because we live in a fallen world where disease and illness and genetic defects have become common.

Or what, surely you're not implying that it's their fault they die?

 

[Derf]

Because we live in a fallen world where disease and illness and genetic defects have become common.

Exactly--because of Adam's sin, ultimately.

Or what, surely you're not implying that it's their fault they die?

No, just that death is a result of sin (sin's wages). If disease and illness lead to death without sin, but they are the result of Adam's sin, then you are agreeing with at least some of those who hold to an "original sin" construct.