A Question For Protestants regarding the Catholic Church...

[phummel]

Seriously? Like the Bible is a dangerous thing? It seems like that if you’re so sure that your faith is biblical, you wouldn’t be afraid of the Bible proving you wrong!

Hi laurenharper,
My reply was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Of course the Bible is my primary source and I read it daily. I am not afraid of the Bible proving me wrong - in fact, I invite the Holy Spirit to give me new wisdom everyday that it might change me. I do this regardless of what any church organization says on a matter. I don’t blindly accept church doctrine, but I may use the wisdom of previous church fathers to help me understand and interpret the scriptures I read.

God Bless You,
paul

 

[Saintlucy]

I am the one who said laypeople have no business interpreting Scripture.

Having said that, it is arrogant for people to believe that one is wiser than all his predecessors. It is equally foolish to accept, with no evidence at all, that the Church somehow corrupted itself, and only through individual resource and the conference of liked-minded men can the truth be found, as if the Catholic Church didn’t do that in it’s first 1000 years.

Especially since Jesus Himself promised that would never happen. After giving Peter the Keys, the very next thing He said was, “The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” And this was not a device left to men, either. He also said after the Resurrection, "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."

My question to you is, “When did this corruption occur?” What is it that the Catholic Church teaches that is evil, wrong, presumptuous, misguided, incomplete, incorrect, or whatever, and when did this teaching begin? When did what we teach now become different from what was taught by the Early Church Fathers?

The truth is that most Protestants’ problem is the idea of submitting to Rome. Pride is a deadly sin, and we know this. Catholic submission is an act of humility. Every Catholic on this website submits to Rome specifically because we fully admit that we do not know everything, and we never will. On the other hand, for years now, I’ve read Protestant after Protestant admit that they reached their conclusions studying on their own, and that this was proof of the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

The Keys to the Kingdom are absolute:

"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Scripture is not open to interpretation. The belief that it can be is the reason for all these denominations in the first place. Understanding is not open, either. It is fixed, with one standard that will judge us all. Truth does not change for any reason. Scripture itself says that, “the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.” ~1 Timothy 3:15~

It that makes us Catholics look like blind sheep, well then, so be it. I gladly accept that label. At least I can trust my shepherd. Any herder can tell you that sheep on their own never do well, especially young, inexperienced sheep in small numbers. Remember Luke 15.

And that, my friends, is what it means to be Catholic.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!!

I’m so glad I’m a sheep. Baa! Baa!

 

[Jeeda555]

I was once a protestant who went to school to become a pastor and instead came out Catholic! I believe the Catholic church is Christ authentic church, however there are truths in protestant beliefs that make them brothers and sister in Christ. Interpretaions are misconstrude out of personal beleifs when it comes to protestant Bibles however God loves them the same as us. It is our responability as Catholics not to argue but love those of denominations and to pray that they will find there way to the mother church, not for the sake of there salvation but for the sake of there spiritual maturity. All should have there own personal journey to find Gods church without oustide influince, it is then that one can authenticly become part of the holy church. Instead of questioning protestants lets pray for them and show them unconditional love for it is only then that they might find there way home! God Bless!

That’s really nice Jake, and very powerful. Much more powerful than a lot of this back-and-forth hoopla!

 

[Jeeda555]

Absolutely. And, I might add, take an approach of humility and ask ourselves what strengths prostestants have that might enhance our own Christian life. There is definately a passion for Christ in many Protestant Churches that is inspiring to me. Can’t argue with that!

Too true! I think that’s what we have to start looking at…the fruit. After all, that’s how Christians are truly known, is it not?

Even though I come from a Protestant background, I know a lot of Catholics with amazing faith as well, which I also find very inspiring; I think there’s a lot the Catholic church can teach the Protestants as well.

And don’t we all know, or haven’t we all seen a few people at our own churches with a sluggish faith? Protestants and Catholics alike. I really think we need to stop looking at this issue as a football game. We’re not in battle with one another. We just need to talk and discuss and LISTEN to each other and not jump down each other’s throats.

I don’t know what all the fuss is about; no amount of scriptural proof, no amount of logic, and no amount of POSTINGS on this forum is going to change hearts. Only God can do that. And letting God display love can certaintly make a difference.

 

[Jeeda555]

2)The ‘Apocrypha’, better known as the Deuterocanonicals, were all included in the original Jewish Septuigant (Old Testament). So the question was if they should be taken away, not if they should be added. Martin Luther wanted to strike them from the record because they created a kink in his new ‘sola fide’ and ‘sola scriptura’ arguments, just to name a few. Oh, and did you know that in the N.T., Jesus refered to the book of Tobit (one of the Deuterocanonicals)? I can’t quote you the passage off-hand, but will do the research and get back with you if you’re interested.

I’m very interested. Could you please send me your source?

 

[ParkerD]

Hi laurenharper,
My reply was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Of course the Bible is my primary source and I read it daily. I am not afraid of the Bible proving me wrong - in fact, I invite the Holy Spirit to give me new wisdom everyday that it might change me. I do this regardless of what any church organization says on a matter. I don’t blindly accept church doctrine, but I may use the wisdom of previous church fathers to help me understand and interpret the scriptures I read.

God Bless You,
paul

Paul Hummel,
I have enjoyed reading some of your posts on this topic, and wanted to thank you for your kind demeanor and the wisdom you conveyed in your posts.

 

[phummel]

Hello ParkerD,

I think the Holy Spirit is running through this thread now. Jeeda555 and laurenharper are having a wonderful conversation.

Sometimes I think we are like a big family. We quibble and bicker because we care. I’m happy to have so many Christian brothers and sisters.

I see you are from the church of LDS. I always had a fondness for those family first commercials. If this is the fruit your church bears, you are truly blessed.

I am currently attending a Seventh-Day Adventist church. We probably have a lot in common - strange history and doctrines but a strong sense of mission and temperance. We’re both a bit on the fringe, eh?

God Bless You,
paul

 

[Jeeda555]

Sometimes I think we are like a big family. We quibble and bicker because we care.

LOL!!! I’ve often thought of that myself. I mean…if Christians are suppose to be one big family…of COURSE we’re going to bicker! Doesn’t *everyone’s *family bicker? And doesn’t every family have those “other family members” who are just a little bit off? Lol!!!

Sometimes I think that’s all we really are to each other. But hey, so long as we can sit down to Thanksgiving dinner in a civilized manner, Father is happy. After all, God is Love!

 

[TheWhoFreak]

Hello.

This is a subject that really bothers me. First I don’t agree with the above statement. James 5:14 says “Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.” (NIV, but pick your translation) How is this proof that the Church isn’t a spiritual fellowship of believers? Of course it is. That’s what God cares about: people.

I’m not trying to say that the True Church isn’t a spiritual fellowship of believers. The True Church has 2 parts: the Spiritual and the Physical. The Spiritual is the invisible connection between all Christians. Thus, all Christians are PARTIALLY in communion with the True Church, because we all have that spiritual connection.
The Physical part is the actual Church mentioned in James 5:14 and Matthew 16:18. James proves that the Church was an actual assembly of people. Matthew associates the word church with the word build. The spiritual connection of all believers was already established at this point. So Jesus can’t be referring to a spiritual fellowship. No, he was speaking about a physical Church.

The true Church? Isn’t anyone who believes in who Jesus is, what he did for us, who lives their lives modeled after him, repents of their sins, helps others, and acts in love a part of the Church?

Yes and No. See, all Christians are a part of the Body of Christ, but only some of them are a part of the True Church. So all Christians are a part of the Body of Christ, but only some are part of Christ’s True Church. (aka the Catholic Church)

Is the question “which is the true Church?” or “which is the true denomination?”

The True Church would have no denomination. It would be independent. The only Christian church with no denominations was, is, and will always be the Holy Catholic Church.

The true church is Christianity (AKA those who follow Christ),

The Body of Christ is Christianity

But the true denomination? I honestly don’t believe there is one. They all have it right and they all have it wrong, depending on what doctrine/theology we’re talking about. Protestant denominations are more worship styles really. Oh sure, there are differences on things like Baptism or when to take communion, but do these things matter as much in the grand sceme of things?

This post made me laugh and horrified me at the same time. Wow. I hope you realize that some Protestant denominations don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God. Others believe that their denomination alone is the True Church and that all other denominations are of Satan and Hell-bound. Surely the 30,000+ Protestant denominations CAN’T have it all right can they?
And yes, these things do matter a great deal in the grand scheme of things. If Jesus commissioned His Apostles to baptise all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then you bet Baptism is important! How do we know who interprets Baptism doctrine correctly?

How can we be sure ANY Of us has it right? Because this sounds a lot like the whole story of Jesus and his disciples eating grain on the Sabbath and the Pharisees screaming “You’re working on the Sabbath! You’re working on the Sabbath! I’m telling on you!”, with Jesus like “Dude, you missed the point.”

Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of Hades will never overcome the Church. So, if we find a Church that has taught the exact same doctrine from the time Jesus established it (aka the Catholic Church), I would be sure that it would be the True Church.

Also people keep saying “When protestants really study Church history, most convert”, but the same can be said for Catholics to Protestantism.

Excuse me? How can the Protestant church have any convincing history at all? It has over 30,000+ denominations, and was founded 500 years ago by a German heretic and anti-semetic named Martin Luther. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. Somehow I think the Catholic Church has more historical credibility than your Protestant church.

My little church is made up of a lot of hurting former Catholics who were burned, abused, or just questioned the church’s teaching and/or tradition. Does that mean “Protestants are winning?” because they have all these new “converts”? No, of course not! No more than “Catholics are winning” because protestants are converting to Catholism.

It’s a sad thing, because I except my Catholic brothers and sisters with open arms. I may not understand all of the Catholic Church’s traditions or agree with every doctrine I hear, but I certaintly don’t know everything, and I don’t judge. God will deal with all of our misunderstandings of his Word (and we *all *have them). And some Catholics except me as a fellow sister. Others don’t. That’s their choice and they will have to face God about it (just like I will have to face God about my choices, the good and the poor).

Bottom line: Where is the love? Where’s the love, on *either *side? Protestants are certaintly to blame for fueling the fire of this gap between Catholics and Protestants, but Catholics are as well. Anything said on this thread and this forum NOT stated in love (AKA “A good heart motive and said in love”) is a poor example of Christ, whatever “side” you happen to be defending. Why can’t we just love each other where the other is at?

It’s time we stopped treating our relationship with our Lord and Savior as a special club with an “us” or “them” mentality. And anyone who thinks this sort of thing pleases God needs to get on their knees and find some answers. Because this doesn’t please God. We’re hurting one another and we need to stop.

 

[O.S.Luke]

The “30,000” different denominations malarky pretty much undermines your post, WhoFreak, and gives merit to the early poster who said this was a baiting thread.

Be above that. Please.

 

[DLClark]

Church father’s and water baptism. Here is an answer to the idea that the Church Fahters taught that water bpatism is needed for salvation.
Water baptism was a tricky issue in the early church. As usual, I will give my short, concise answer, then follow that with a bit more historical context which will illustrate why there is not an easy answer.

The short answer is that ALL the early fathers believed that part of the conversion experience was going under the water in baptism. At the same time NONE of the early fathers said faith without baptism was impossible - **in other words, NO church father argued that water baptism was required for salvation. ** It was simply assumed that a believer would be baptized.

Now the longer answer:
Without knowing the historical context (especially of the second century) you could read the early fathers and come away thinking that most of them believed water baptism was essential in salvation. The danger with reading the early fathers is taking them literally without knowing the historical context.

1. The early church was not “monolithic.” Though the church claimed to be “catholic” (universal), sects, or “schools” of thought always existed within the church that disagreed on many, many things. “Denominations,” to use a contemporary term, have always existed. What does this mean in this discussion? Church fathers were rarely in 100% agreement on many things when it came to details, thus you find different slants and views when it comes to water baptism.
2. The record in the book of Acts seems to indicate that water baptism was done fairly quickly (even immediately) after conversion. Though universally seen as something the Christian must do upo! n conver sion, by the second century baptism was typically not done immediately after conversion. This delay is probably due to the changing nature of the church, moving from a Jewish orientation to mainly a Gentile church. Jews practiced various forms of water baptism - Gentile converts needed some explanation. What you find in the records of the second century and following is a training period for a new convert to follow before he/she is allowed to celebrate the Lord’s Supper or be baptized in water.
   [It is called “catechesis,” the Greek word that means “to sound” something. It carries the idea that “catechumens” (students) would be taught by “repeat after me,” or “sound this out: ‘I believe in God the Father Almighty…’.”]

This training period might last a few months, but most records from the few first centuries indicate it to be more than a year of training and learning. This is evidence that these early Christians did NOT think baptism was “required” to be saved. In fact, there is mention in Origen and in the Didascalia (both early third century) that should a catechumen meet a martyr’s death prior to being baptized, he/she would be saved through a “baptism of blood.” This mention is made in defense of the necessity of baptism, yet is given to show that there is an exception - kind of like the thief on the cross for those who insist that water baptism is a necessity for salvation.

1. Another difficulty in reading statements by early fathers regarding water baptism is contention with heretical groups. The Marcionites, Gnostics, Montanists, and many others - all practiced their own form of baptism and all considered themselves to be “Christian.” There is a great amount of difference among church fathers as to whether “converts” from these unorthodox groups should be baptized again! OR coul d their unorthodox baptism be considered sufficient. While some of these groups were certainly outside the boundaries (Gnostics and Marcionites for example), others should be seen more like a modern-day denomination (Montanists and Novatians for example) because their basic theology was not the problem. Whatever the case, dealing with unorthodox baptism muddies the water (pun intended) in this discussion.
2. Finally, due to other issues in the early church, many people would postpone their baptism until they were near death. It was commonly believed in the early church that a Christian could not commit a “mortal” sin after being baptized and have assurance of salvation. This became known as the “Second Repentance” issue. It is never insisted that these people were not Christian because they had not been baptized - they were just never considered fully installed in the Church…which was considered the only vehicle for obtaining the grace of Christ. You can see that this statement is kind of fuzzy - so was the position of the early church on this matter. Many people were afraid that they MIGHT commit a “mortal” sin [apostacy, adultery, fornication, and murder were the main mortal sins] and they wanted the assurance that they could repent, be forgiven, and then get baptized. Even this was a murky issue with some bishops saying that you could receive a “second” forgiveness after baptism and others (like Tertullian) saying that only God would know if you could obtain forgiveness for a mortal sin after having been baptized.

So you see, there is just not an easy answer. But if you insist, my easy answer is that NO, the early fathers did not believe water baptism was a requirement for salvation - they just assumed you would be baptized and if you were n! ot they questioned your salvation.

 

[DLClark]

What it says in the bible is that there is only One Church. Those who depart from her to start their own ecclesial communities have departed from the Apostolic faith.

Where in the Bible does it say that it is wrong to start a church on your own. Many missionaries as church planters and start Bible churches all over the world. Where does the Bible teach that we must one start one type of church?

 

[TheWhoFreak]

The “30,000” different denominations malarky pretty much undermines your post, WhoFreak, and gives merit to the early poster who said this was a baiting thread.

Be above that. Please.

I’m not trying to insult you, if that’s what you mean. I was just using that fact to illustrate the disunity of the non-Catholic churches. Btw, do you not believe in the 30,000 denominations “malarky”?

 

[Matariel]

Where in the Bible does it say that it is wrong to start a church on your own.

Because there is one Faith, one Lord, one Baptism, and one Body (which is the Catholic Church, of course, the original 2,000-year-old community of Christ).

It’s biblical, there are not to be bunches of rival “churches” competing with the true Church. Unfortunately, the man-made Protestant sects do not see a problem with division and schism, even though St. Paul condemns it in the Bible…

 

[TheWhoFreak]

Because there is one Faith, one Lord, one Baptism, and one Body (which is the Catholic Church, of course, the original 2,000-year-old community of Christ).

It’s biblical, there are not to be bunches of rival “churches” competing with the true Church. Unfortunately, the man-made Protestant sects do not see a problem with division and schism, even though St. Paul condemns it in the Bible…

Though…why would you try to compete with the pillar and bulwark of Truth that is the Holy Catholic Church?

 

[Tanner9188]

When has anyone on this forum read me calling the church invisible? I think that instead of assuming what people believe, it would probably be better to ask them.

My answer to this, not necessarily for you, but Catholics. The church is invisible only in the spiritual and unity sense. Anyone can see a “church” building, can see people who call themselves Christian, but the tares are always among the wheat; 4 types of soils and only one that is true; therefore the true body of believers will be revealed in heaven because that is where our citizenship is, which I believe Paul stated; we are not of this world, which stated by Jesus and other places.

The issue of the visibility of the church occurs here because Catholics often make the claims that they are “the Church” and are in “unity” and “visible”.

We can discern people true position in relation to Jesus at times, but we can also be fooled because we cannot see faith; we can observe people of faith and their works, but we cannot always know with certainty the intention of the heart. It is more easily to discern, IMO, who is not a Christian based on the way they write or speak or act in regards to Jesus and the Word of God.

Just wanted to give some clarification on this issue and “Rightly Divide” is correct when he stated you should ask the individual and in the context of the question.

 

[Tanner9188]

So here’s the real question. If (for the sake of the argument) the Catholic Church is NOT the True Church:

1. Which Protestant denomination is the True Church? Remember, the True Church is a physical church, not a spiritual fellowship of believers. James 5:14 pretty much says that the True Church is a real, physical church. The “elect” make up the true church; which will be revealed at judgment for many; unless you are able to see the “E” on them.

1. Why would God allow the Catholic Church to be in error for 1500 years before correcting it? In the OT, God only allowed the Jews to be in error for a hundred years or so before sending Babylon/Assyria/Persia/etc… to ruin them and show them the Truth of God. Why would God allow the Catholic Church to be in error for 10x that amount of time?

** When I get there; maybe I will ask that question**.

 

[jake23]

Protestant belief is the vanity of mans self opinion over Gods word. Protestant religions are creating new church’s of new beliefs everday! A house devided cannot stand! This is the intention of Satan. Ofcourse the Catholic church is strong with 1.2 Billion Christians it is still sad to see those who are in a way lost. Those of protestant belief are possibly saved but will not gain true spiritual maturity without the Catholic church which is here to do exactly that! I was taught allot of false things as a protestant in my younger years, lies and misconceptions of the Holy Catholic church! It was only when I went to school to be a pastor and recieved a real education on the matter that I realized that the Catholic church is truly the true Church of Christ and so I became Catholic. There was always somthing missing also in the protestant faith but when I joined the Holy church that hole was filled with joy from Christ! This thread is pointless! The blind that wish to stay blind will and only they can open there own eyes to Gods truth by there own choice and nothing anyone of the holy church says to them will be convencing until they truly open there hearts!

 

[TheWhoFreak]

The “elect” make up the true church; which will be revealed at judgment for many; unless you are able to see the “E” on them.

So, if I understand your meaning of “elect” correctly, the True Church has only 144,000 members (Rev. 7:1-8)? I doubt it. If you are referring to the Great Multitude (Rev. 7:9), then I fail to see how you can say that they are from the True Church, because the Bible never says what church they are from. It only says they have gone through the Tribulation, but Catholics and Protestants alike will go through the Tribulation so how can they all be from one church?

** When I get there; maybe I will ask that question**.

What makes you sure enough to use “when”?

 

[guanophore]

Where in the Bible does it say that it is wrong to start a church on your own.

Do you mean to say that it is ok to do anything you want that is not specifically prohibted in the Bible?

The One Church founded by Christ on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets does not recognize any “plantings” that are not authorized by those appointed by Christ to shepherd the church. Why would anyone want t go out and start something “on thier own” when Jesus already founded the Church He wanted?

Many missionaries as church planters and start Bible churches all over the world.

Indeed. Each one contributing further to the fracturing of the One Body.

Where does the Bible teach that we must one start one type of church?

The Bible does not “teach” DL. People teach. Teaching is a gift that God gave to persons, not books. you have been taught that there is more than one “type of church”. This is not biblical, and not part of what the Apostles believed and taught.