Are Catholicism and protestantism different religions?

[rcwitness]

We are not talking about faith as it existed in the period of the OT. That is what Hebrews is addressing. OT Jewish believers had faith in the promises that were to come through the Messiah and the promised redeemer.

This says nothing about pagans in the Amazon.

And that is relavent to a Gentile who didn’t hear the story of Jesus, and the man in the remote Amazon who only has his God given conscience. They are able to seek God in the faith that is given them.

Romans 10 defines faith as it exists in the light of the Messiah who has already come.

How am I not? Those who obey the law will receive glory, and honor. But no one obeys it. That is the entire point of Romans 3, which comes after 2.

Paul is overlaping concepts from paragraph to paragraph. This is why he is difficult to understand. For example in Romans 2:13 He explains that it is the doers of the Law who will be justified and then explains how the Gentiles can follow the Law. Paul can seem to contradict himself all the time. That’s why he is difficult to formulate doctrine and beliefs by just his writings. And why Peter warned of twisting things.

The unknown God was not a singular deity that reflected Jewish thought. The pagans in Greece erected it to cover the other umpteen gods that existed that they did not know the name of.

My point is that they only knew portions of who God was. And in this case very little. In the case of Protestantism, it is much much more!

 

[Per_Crucem]

And that is relavent to a Gentile who didn’t hear the story of Jesus, and the man in the remote Amazon who only has his God given conscience. They are able to seek God in the faith that is given them.

Outside of the examples of Gentiles in the OT who were given revelation through the faith of the Jews, there are none of Gentiles who understood that a Messiah was to come. That was the purpose of the law and the prophets given to the Jews; to give God’s word of the coming Messiah. The Gentiles did not receive this. Gentiles in the OT did not have the faith described in Hebrews 11.

Paul is overlaping concepts from paragraph to paragraph. This is why he is difficult to understand. For example in Romans 2:13 He explains that it is the doers of the Law who will be justified and then explains how the Gentiles can follow the Law. Paul can seem to contradict himself all the time. That’s why he is difficult to formulate doctrine and beliefs by just his writings. And why Peter warned of twisting things.

He doesn’t contradict himself at all. In both cases he is stating a truth. He says the doers of the law will be justified. And then states that no one will be justified by the law. That is because if someone could keep it, he would be justified. But man is a sinner, so he does not keep. Hence why the atonement is necessary. This is confirmed by Paul in Galatians, when he says that if justification were through the law, Christ’s death would be in vain.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

And that’s not a good thing, because they don’t keep it. As Paul says, “For we have previously charged that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin.”

But Paul, and Jesus, made it clear that not keeping the law is not endemic and exclusive to the Gentiles.

The question is not whether they keep the law. The question is whether, if they keep the law, be it the one written in their hearts, the Covenant, or the Gospel they are saved.

In case the answer is “yes”.

.

 

[Per_Crucem]

But Paul, and Jesus, made it clear that not keeping the law is not endemic and exclusive to the Gentiles.

The question is not whether they keep the law. The question is whether, if they keep the law, be it the one written in their hearts, the Covenant, or the Gospel they are saved.

In case the answer is “yes”.

.

It’s not exclusive to the Gentiles, no. It is, however, true that if they keep the law they will be saved. Whether the Covenant or the law written on the heart. Neither Jews nor Gentiles keep either law.

The Gospel is not a law; it is the promise of forgiveness through Christ, through His life, death on the cross for sinners and resurrection for our justification.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

But man is a sinner, so he does not keep. Hence why the atonement is necessary. This is confirmed by Paul in Galatians, when he says that if justification were through the law, Christ’s death would be in vain.

There are at least two concepts overlapping here.

The first is that Christ conquered death and opened the gates of Heaven by His one sacrifice of atonement, once for all who are saved.

The second is that keeping the law - the law written in their hearts for the Gentiles, the law of love God and love your neighbor as yourself for the Jews, and the Gospel for a Christian - is the way to salvation.

.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

The unknown God was not a singular deity that reflected Jewish thought. The pagans in Greece erected it to cover the other umpteen gods that existed that they did not know the name of.

It is not clear to whom the “Unknown God”, “Agnostos Theos”, “Ἄγνωστος Θεός” referred. In Athens, there was a temple specifically dedicated to that god and very often Athenians would swear “in the name of the Unknown God”. Some theorize the Unknown God was not a specific deity but a placeholder gods whose names were not revealed to the Greeks.

Paul fairly clearly believed (Acts 17:22-31) that the Christian God was the god the Greeks already worshiped as the Unknown God. He shows some familiarity with the Greek philosophers and would have known that many of them had, using reason alone, concluded that there must a single omnipotent God above the Greek pantheon of gods.

.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

The Gospel is not a law; it is the promise of forgiveness through Christ, through His life, death on the cross for sinners and resurrection for our justification.

The Gospel is both a proclamation of good news, and it is a law. If it is not a law, then being either Catholic or Protestant is the height of folly.

.

 

[Per_Crucem]

It is not clear to whom the “Unknown God”, “Agnostos Theos”, “Ἄγνωστος Θεός” referred. In Athens, there was a temple specifically dedicated to that god and very often Athenians would swear “in the name of the Unknown God”. Some theorize the Unknown God was not a specific deity but a placeholder gods whose names were not revealed to the Greeks.

Yes, correct.

Paul fairly clearly believed (Acts 17:22-31) that the Christian God was the god the Greeks already worshiped as the Unknown God. He shows some familiarity with the Greek philosophers and would have known that many of them had, using reason alone, concluded that there must a single omnipotent God above the Greek pantheon of gods.

And even if Paul’s point was that the Christian God was the god worshiped by the Greeks, which I wouldn’t immediately agree with you on, it still would say nothing about whether Paul thought that their worship of the unknown god was such that they could be saved through their worship.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

And even if Paul’s point was that the Christian God was the god worshiped by the Greeks, which I wouldn’t immediately agree with you on, it still would say nothing about whether Paul thought that their worship of the unknown god was such that they could be saved through their worship.

In the context, it would say something. It would say something that relates to what Paul said in Romans 2 about Gentiles following the law written in their hearts.

It is the nature of Man to seek God, Who is the Good.

Using reason alone, one can conclude that there is an uncreated Creator, a single Being, Who created the Universe, and us, for a purpose.

Americans are familiar with this concept in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

.

 

[Per_Crucem]

In the context, it would say something. It would say something that relates to what Paul said in Romans 2 about Gentiles following the law written in their hearts.

It is the nature of Man to seek God, Who is the Good.

Using reason alone, one can conclude that there is an uncreated Creator, a single Being, Who created the Universe, and us, for a purpose.

Americans are familiar with this concept in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

.

I would agree with everything you have written above. However, where I would depart, is that Paul is not saying that their acknowledgment of the unknown god is, in any way, going to lead to their salvation. His point in Romans 1, about Gentiles specifically, is that they know there is a God; yet in their sin, twist and corrupt that knowledge to their condemnation.

 

[rcwitness]

I would agree with everything you have written above. However, where I would depart, is that Paul is not saying that their acknowledgment of the unknown god is, in any way, going to lead to their salvation. His point in Romans 1, about Gentiles specifically, is that they know there is a God; yet in their sin, twist and corrupt that knowledge to their condemnation.

All of them? Every single gentile was wicked and never sought reconciliation with God? Or did some show greater faith than even the High Priests?

Was it only at hearing the Gospel of Jesus? Or did certain gentiles throughout history follow the laws written in their hearts just as the faithfull Jews who were in Abrahams boosom?

You forget that the jews who did believe in the promise were delivered because they were saved by the law of love. They knew they were condemned by the Law, so they knew they relied on God’s mercy to live righteous. This mercy was made manifest in Jesus, so He went down to them to set them free. It is not logical or from faith, to believe that Paul is not acknowledging that there were gentiles who lived by this same faith, and even greater since they did not have the fullness of the covenant.

The NT shows that many Gentiles proved a greater faith than many Jews. Do you really think that this was only in the time of Jesus?

 

[Per_Crucem]

All of them? Every single gentile was wicked and never sought reconciliation with God? Or did some show greater faith than even the High Priests?

Yes, by God illuminating their hearts with His Spirit, through the message delivered by Christ and/or His apostles.

Was it only at hearing the Gospel of Jesus? Or did certain gentiles throughout history follow the laws written in their hearts just as the faithfull Jews who were in Abrahams boosom?

The ones who received the faith declared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, yes. There are a few mentioned in Scripture, such as Ruth.

You forget that the jews who did believe in the promise were delivered because they were saved by the law of love.

All of the law is summed up by love. If we were able to keep it, then the cross and resurrection is unnecessary, as Paul states in Galatians. We are saved by His love for us, while we were sinners, not our love for Him or for our neighbor. Apart from the gracious knowledge in our minds and hearts that Christ has redeemed us through faith given to us by His Spirit, we are unable to live this love out to the perfection that is required by God’s holiness to ever enter His presence as a friend.

This is only imparted by men from the Spirit through the word of the Gospel. That is the urgency of the apostolic mission of the Church; that the Church may call sinners to repent and believe the Gospel.

The NT shows that many Gentiles proved a greater faith than many Jews. Do you really think that this was only in the time of Jesus?

No; but since many Jews were dead in sin as well, I don’t see the relevance. It just shows that many Jews did not believe and that Gentiles believed in the message of the Old Testament.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

I would agree with everything you have written above. However, where I would depart, is that Paul is not saying that their acknowledgment of the unknown god is, in any way, going to lead to their salvation. His point in Romans 1, about Gentiles specifically, is that they know there is a God; yet in their sin, twist and corrupt that knowledge to their condemnation.

The phrase “to their condemnation” is a Protestant gloss, not the content of Paul’s teaching.

Jesus said that many of the Jews - for example the Pharisees - twisted and corrupted the Law to their condemnation. He praised the faith of the Centurion, who was a pagan.

So, whether we are given the law in our hearts, like the Gentiles, in the Law and the Prophets, like the Jews, or by the Gospel, like those about whom Paul complains in a number of his epistles, we can remain in sin, twist and corrupt the knowledge to our condemnation.

The optimum path to salvation is through the Church, hearing the Gospel, holding fast the tradition, and loving God and others as ourselves.

But there are other paths known only to God.

.

 

[Per_Crucem]

The phrase “to their condemnation” is a Protestant gloss, not the content of Paul’s teaching.

If you can read Romans 1:18 and following and not come away with it being about the condemnation of pagan Gentiles, more power to you. But my finding it incredulous would be an understatement.

But there are other paths known only to God.

I will stick with there being only one name under heaven by which we must be saved.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

But my finding it incredulous would be an understatement.

Your being incredulous ceased being interesting some time ago.

I will stick with there being only one name under heaven by which we must be saved.

As would any Catholic. The difference is that the Catholic Church recognizes that while men are saved only through Jesus Christ, God’s mercy is such that the men saved may never have heard the Gospel explicitly. We base this belief on the words of the Scriptures themselves and a constant tradition honoring those, like the Holy Innocents, who never heard the Gospel.

One could say our God is a bit larger than the one you envision.

.

 

[Peter_J]

As is your right to believe. Clearly there are people on both sides who regard us as different religions rather than separated groups within one religion.

At least 19 Catholics, on this forum. Which is disturbing to me. But that’s neither here nor there.

True – well, 28 now.

However, I don’t want to lump all Catholics who say yes together. In particular, in rading the various comments from posters who voted yes, I find that many off them understood “Are Catholicism and protestantism different religions?” as meaning “Are Catholicism and protestantism different?” (which I didn’t ask because I was taking for granted that Catholicism and protestantism are different).

 

[rcwitness]

If you can read Romans 1:18 and following and not come away with it being about the condemnation of pagan Gentiles, more power to you. But my finding it incredulous would be an understatement.

Since I began this debate, I’ll try to wrap up my intentions and move on. Yes, God’s perfect justice is to condemn all unGodliness and those who are faithless. Yet just because the Law and Prophets were delivered to the Jews first does not mean the Gentiles could not excercise the natural law of faith within their hearts, because they are men made in the image of God and descended from Adam. This meant they were removed from the grace of God, but not completely forsaken. But they needed to excercise more humility in order to receive, because they were secondary in the order of grace. This was even during the ministry of Jesus! Remember Matthew 15:27?

21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

This woman needed to go further into humility in order to be heard. And you may rightly say that she heard about Jesus and His miracles, but at this point there was no mention of Gentiles being accepted. She had the hope that in her humility, a Godly man would show pity on her. She did not even know He was the Son of God, or that He could forgive sins!

Also, the faith which Paul (or whoever wrote) in Hebrews, shows was well attested of was not satisfied or perfected until The Perfector was made manifest. Even the great ones of old were not made perfect by their faithfulness, yet through their faith God was not ashamed of them…

13 These all died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

Now after the Lord appeared in His glory and satisfied God and His wrath against sinfulness, there is the mystery of the Church whom is the body of Christ to those who were changed by the Holy Spirit and became children of the Father in heaven and of Mary, which the fullness of God’s Revelation rested in them, so much so, that all who would be perfected would not be perfected apart from them!

39 And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

This was all to show that it is this way with the Church and all her seperated brothers and sisters. Protestantism will not be made perfect outside the grace given to the Holy Catholic Church. This is not to brag or flaunt by any Catholic, because it is the gift of Jesus to His Bride, and all who are perfected into the one Bride are not done so apart from those already whithin her. Because those within her are already participating in Him.

And while Protestants may be already participating in Him, they are doing so imperfectly, until they receive His One Body and Blood in a worthy manner.

 

[rcwitness]

My efforts here have been to regard Protestantism as the same, but imperfected, religion. Even though Protestantism is imperfected, out of these denominations can come individuals with greater faith than many Catholics (including myself).

MARK:9…

38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name,[g] and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward.

There is a danger in Protestantism for sure. There is a harm to the Body. Yet when the genuine Protestant is confronted with the conviction of the Spirit which saves him, he is being urged to choose a greater good, or remain in an imperfect communion. He can accept a more accurate way such as Apollos did…

ACTS 18…

24 Now a Jew named Apol′los, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wished to cross to Acha′ia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28 for he powerfully confuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

Or he can turn to pride and reject the authority given to the Church such as Diotrephes

3 JOHN…

9 I have written something to the church; but Diot′rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority. 10 So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, prating against me with evil words. And not content with that, he refuses himself to welcome the brethren, and also stops those who want to welcome them and puts them out of the church.

NOTE
This is my personal view of the relationship between Protestantism and Catholicism. I recognize the faithfullness within Protestantism and the reality that there are men of great faith within her communions. They are communions that offer a desire to be one with the Lord. And the Holy Spirit is at work in these men, for the sake of the salvation of as many who will hear the voice of the great Shepherd.

 

[Tomster]

To quote “The Apostle of Common Sense”:

“It [Lutheranism] had one theory that was the destruction of all theories; in fact it had its own theology which was the death of theology. Man could say nothing to God, nothing from God, nothing about God, except an almost inarticulate cry for mercy and for the supernatural help of Christ, in a world where all natural things were useless. Reason was useless. Will was useless. Man could not move himself an inch any more than a stone. Man could not trust what was in his head any more than a turnip. Nothing remained in earth or heaven, but the name of Christ lifted in that lonely imprecation; awful as the cry of a beast in pain.”

And -

“While he [Luther] quoted a Scripture text, inserting a word that is not in Scripture, he was content to shout back at hecklers: ’ Tell them that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so!’ That is what we now call Personality. A little later it was called Psychology. After that it was called Advertisement or Salesmanship.”

G.K. Chesterton

Additionally, I submit from J.B. Bossuet’s classical work “History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches” the following.

“When in exposition of faith, variations were seen among Christians, they were ever considered a mark of falsehood and inconsistency, if I may so speak, in the doctrine propounded. Faith speaks with simplicity: the Holy Ghost sheds pure light; and the truth which he teaches has a language always uniform. Whoever is but the least conversant in the history of the Church, must know that she opposed to each heresy appropriate and precise expositions which she never altered: and if we attend to the expressions by which she condemned heretics, it will appear that they always proceed by the shortest and most direct route to attack the error in its source. She acts thus, because all that varies, all that is overlaid with doubtful or studiously ambiguous terms, has always appeared suspicious, and not only fraudulent, but even absolutely false, because it betrays an embarrassment with which the truth is unacquainted . . . But whilst heresies, always varying, agree not with themselves, and are continually introducing new rules, that is to say, new symbols that in the Church the rule of faith is unalterable, and never to be reformed. It is so, because the Church which professes to speak , and teach nothing but what she has received, does not vary; on the contrary, heresy, which began by innovating, daily innovates, and changes not its nature.”

And, finally, once again, from GKC.

“It was the very life of the Thomist teaching that Reason can be trusted: it was the very life of the Lutheran teaching that Reason is utterly untrustworthy.”

 

[GKC]

To quote “The Apostle of Common Sense”:

“It [Lutheranism] had one theory that was the destruction of all theories; in fact it had its own theology which was the death of theology. Man could say nothing to God, nothing from God, nothing about God, except an almost inarticulate cry for mercy and for the supernatural help of Christ, in a world where all natural things were useless. Reason was useless. Will was useless. Man could not move himself an inch any more than a stone. Man could not trust what was in his head any more than a turnip. Nothing remained in earth or heaven, but the name of Christ lifted in that lonely imprecation; awful as the cry of a beast in pain.”

And -

“While he [Luther] quoted a Scripture text, inserting a word that is not in Scripture, he was content to shout back at hecklers: ’ Tell them that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so!’ That is what we now call Personality. A little later it was called Psychology. After that it was called Advertisement or Salesmanship.”

G.K. Chesterton

Additionally, I submit from J.B. Bossuet’s classical work “History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches” the following.

“When in exposition of faith, variations were seen among Christians, they were ever considered a mark of falsehood and inconsistency, if I may so speak, in the doctrine propounded. Faith speaks with simplicity: the Holy Ghost sheds pure light; and the truth which he teaches has a language always uniform. Whoever is but the least conversant in the history of the Church, must know that she opposed to each heresy appropriate and precise expositions which she never altered: and if we attend to the expressions by which she condemned heretics, it will appear that they always proceed by the shortest and most direct route to attack the error in its source. She acts thus, because all that varies, all that is overlaid with doubtful or studiously ambiguous terms, has always appeared suspicious, and not only fraudulent, but even absolutely false, because it betrays an embarrassment with which the truth is unacquainted . . . But whilst heresies, always varying, agree not with themselves, and are continually introducing new rules, that is to say, new symbols that in the Church the rule of faith is unalterable, and never to be reformed. It is so, because the Church which professes to speak , and teach nothing but what she has received, does not vary; on the contrary, heresy, which began by innovating, daily innovates, and changes not its nature.”

And, finally, once again, from GKC.

“It was the very life of the Thomist teaching that Reason can be trusted: it was the very life of the Lutheran teaching that Reason is utterly untrustworthy.”

The Chestertons:

1. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, chap VIII, p. 232, first English ed.
2. Ibid., pp. 234-235.
3. Op. cit., chap I, p. 31

GKC