Now I’ll go tell my wife that she’s not a Christian, and apparently never was, because she doesn’t believe someone’s theory of the atonement.

(Not thinking of you here, Alan, btw. You have every right to defend your beliefs from this kind of denunciation.)

A pox on both your houses. Ignorance and Arrogance are great dancing partners. Do you people really believe this is the way forward? Throwing each other into hell over theological minutia? Sheesh…..where’s the sign up list for Buddhism?

You don’t own the Bible, it is not personaly yours, it wasn’t your “tradition” that put it together. The Church, Tradition and Scripture are one and cannot be separated.

This was the problem with Luther, he believed that the Church taught a false Gospel. Yet he thought something contrary to everything the historical Church in either West or East ever taught. He believed him self above the Pope, Magistarium, Councils, Bishops and Saints.

I read the Bible and I see everything the Church teaches on it. How can that be unbiblical? if I see it on the Bible when I read it.

Bill – I answered Christopher’s comment in the spirit in which he wrote it.

IF the Catholic Church has forsaken, or never had or believed, or taught, and does not now teach “the true biblical Gospel”…

THEN no one – this is logic 101 people and I made like a 100% average in that class – then NO ONE who believes what it teaches, who is a part of it, who wants to be a part of it, who purposely remains a part of it, could possibly “be saved” as the definition is being put forth. It just doesn’t follow.

THERFORE don’t say these things about “the biblical Gospel” in connection with the Catholic Church if you don’t mean what you’re saying. And if you don’t mean to say this, then perhaps be a little more careful how you say what you’re trying to say – that would be the only real point I would want to interject.

Peace and Happy Advent to all ya’ll!

If I believed Rome taught all of the Biblical gospel, I’d join the RCC. When I wrote those words, I thought Calvinism was the Biblical Gospel. I was wrong.

I thoroughly understand why others believe Catholics don’t have the Biblical Gospel. I believe the Reformation was a tragic necessity. But if you think evangelicals have the Biblical Gospel, you can count me out of that party. We have plenty of our own problems.

Now that you’ve set yourself up to use the term Biblical Gospel, I expect you ought to tell us exactly who has it and where we can hear it infallibly taught. ANd be sure that when you mention someone like Piper or Macarthur, I’m going to ask you if those guys are on target on everything, such as the relationship of faith and works.

BTW- that’s the last comment about me that I will allow unedited.

I don’t get the sense that non-RCC posters are claiming that Catholics are unsaved by default (at least, I could find no such statements.)I think you are reading that into the conversations, including the IMBs position on SA.

I think what is being said is that the RCC does not teach the true gospel.

If a church, any church, does not teach the true gospel, there is no reason to presume that it’s adherents are “reached.”

You once vehemently believed that the RCC does not teach the true gospel.

“The Catholic Church has badly mangled the Gospel. Mangled it to the point that to become Catholic would be to forsake the Biblical Gospel…As much as I admire in Catholicism, I cannot believe its Gospel of salvation is the Biblical Gospel.”

Based on the current conversation, you now seem to believe that, though the RCC teaches some error, it’s core gospel message is sound and it’s adherents “reached.”

Certainly you remember why you once held so firmly to your previous conviction? And why others still hold such conviction?

If this is going to end up saying that I’m not a Christian, let’s just cut to the chase.

The creedal language is enough. No one in the Bible is saved by believing something only theologians can understand. People get nourishment whether they understand theories of nutrition or not.