Catholic vs protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marymary32
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We can play scripture quotes all day, however you must know we Catholics do not read or use scripture in 1-3 verse quotes to prove points. We take chapters or larger portions of verses to capture to what the writer intended to convey. When the writers of the books of the bible, they didn’t number the verses, that was a later invention.
Mishakel said:
If you believe a person can be born again and lose salvation you are granting humanity more power than God.
Click to expand...
So is there any situation, in your mind, where a person could lose salvation after being “born again”? In other words, once a person is “born again” they can commit any wrong and not lose salvation?
Mishakel said:
I will give you an example using the Old Testament even. Was David considered righteous prior, during, or after he committed adultery and had Bathsheba‘a husband killed???
Click to expand...
Do you believe a “righteous” man would kill a man and commit adultery?
Mishakel said:
Do you consider adultery or murder mortal sin?
Click to expand...
Do you think they are not?
Mishakel said:
David, because he was righteous, begged God for forgiveness and it was granted. God punished David but he never condemned him for eternity.
Click to expand...
David, because he knew he had sinned and lost favor with God, confessed his sins and expressed real contrition for his behavior. God, with his unlimited mercy, forgives David.
 
Horton said:
We take chapters or larger portions of verses to capture to what the writer intended to convey. When the writers of the books of the bible, they didn’t number the verses, that was a later invention.
Click to expand...
It is clear you like the word “invention” very much but your point is not very clear. As a matter of reference, you are more than welcome to refer to “John word 500 to 520” or something like that but I suspect it will create even more misunderstanding that you should agree is not needed.

As to taking larger points into context you also should know that everyone has access to the Scriptures. It is concerning that you think it wasn’t all studied as a whole. I mean that is elementary academics. I rather think space is more of a problem here and people don’t really read much these days and therefore snap remarks are the order of the day.
 
Last edited:
Horton said:
not being familiar with ALL Protestant traditions, I will say most
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the fact that most non-Catholic traditions require a degree in Theology and in many cases also require a Masters (which opens the way and many even have Doctorates) to be a minister? Correct me if I am wrong but a previous post from you gives me the idea you did not know this?
 
Last edited:
Horton said:
Considering the audience and the current discussion what I said is valid. Protestant (not being familiar with ALL Protestant traditions, I will say most) being Bible alone compared to Catholic being Sacred Scripture, Scared Tradition, and the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “bible alone”?

You don’t have to be familiar with all Protestant traditions, just the ones you’re commenting about the beliefs of.
 
MichaelP3 said:
Are you familiar with the fact that most non-Catholic traditions require a degree in Theology and in many cases also require a Masters (which opens the way and many even have Doctorates) to be a minister? Correct me if I am wrong but a previous post from you gives me the idea you did not know this?
Click to expand...
I would agree that many of the older mainline Protestant traditions require an educated clergy although I don’t agree with most non-Catholic traditions. Why you had question a clarifying statement I made after being accused of lump ALL Protestants into one united group is beyond me. Maybe you just had to find something to criticize?
 
MichaelP3 said:
It is clear you like the word “invention” very much but your point is not very clear. As a matter of reference, you are more than welcome to refer to “John word 500 to 520” or something like that but I suspect it will create even more misunderstanding that you should agree is not needed.
Click to expand...
So you believe snippets of scripture are sufficient to convey the message we are intended to have? That the message the writer wanted the audience to have can be obtained without consideration of the time, culture, or audience?
MichaelP3 said:
As to taking larger points into context you also should know that everyone has access to the Scriptures. It is concerning that you think it wasn’t all studied as a whole. I mean that is elementary academics. I rather think space is more of a problem here and people don’t really read much these days and therefore snap remarks are the order of the day.
Click to expand...
Having been a Protestant before finding the Truth in the Catholic Church I know using small texts from the bible to prove points does happen. I’ve seen it in real life, I heard family members attempt to use it with me, (while telling me I’m going to hell for being Catholic) and I see it all the time online.
 
Horton said:
We can play scripture quotes all day, however you must know we Catholics do not read or use scripture in 1-3 verse quotes to prove points.
Click to expand...
Well, when you (Catholics) do use scripture here on CAF, it usually is just a few scriptures from a few places, or a few father quotes, or a few council decrees, or one or two catechism quotes to put forth a particular point. Then I am thinking that perhaps Jesus did the same thing with scripture…

Of course you may be saying that’s all we do, read a snippet here and there, and you know what, perhaps some do. I certainly don’t have a crystal ball to see or know how much of the bible one has read.

Of course sometimes what is said by someone may reveal some ignorance but it can also just as easily reveal a different understanding.

For example, take the famous Newman quote, " to be steep in history is to cease to be Protestant". I understand his viewpoint of studying history “deeply”, as in thoroughly and not in snippets as you say. Yet his premise is only half the story, depicting P’s converting to Latin Catholicism . The other half, even reality, depicts folks steeped in history converting to Protestantism, or better esteeming and understanding the foundation of such roots.

So indeed let us show ourselves studied in scripture and the things of God (HIStory).

Also we should remember what hardens clay melts wax. We shall find what we seek.

I can read all the exact same stuff you read or vice versa, and whala, we come to some different understandings and maybe some identical ones.
 
Last edited:
Horton said:
Sola Scriptura
Click to expand...
So do you disagree that SS really only is/was necessary to take the CC assigned capital T out of tradition? ( while not downplaying some big differences, wasnt it on this thread where some see an enormous congruity between Catholic teaching and practice and Lutheran?.. what should that say about SS and tradition?)
 
Last edited:
Horton said:
So is there any situation, in your mind, where a person could lose salvation after being “born again”? In other words, once a person is “born again” they can commit any wrong and not lose salvation?
Click to expand...
No because scripture talks about God knowing who the elect would be before he created this world. To believe that a true Christian could lose salvation would also mean you have to believe one of the elect could somehow become one who wasn’t part of the elect.

John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”

This is Christ’s own words.
Horton said:
Do you believe a “righteous” man would kill a man and commit adultery?
Click to expand...
David was a righteous man and he committed those sins.

God knows each of us better than we know ourselves. Around a year after David had the child with Bethsheba he was miserable with guilt. At that point God sent Nathan to David and told David the parable of the rich man with the sheep. David was extremely angry at the rich man at which point Nathan reveals the rich man is David.

David condemns himself. David repents his sin openly to God and he submits to God’s discipline. He watches his child die and forever more has turmoil in his family.

The point is that David committed horrible sins yet God didn’t condemn him. It was only David who condemns himself and realized he wasn’t living as he should.

Did God make David perform actions to atone for his sin? No. David’s faith made him righteous just as Abraham and his repentance was the fulfillment of his faith.
 
mcq72 said:
For example, take the famous Newman quote, " to be steep in history is to cease to be Protestant". I understand his viewpoint of studying history “deeply”, as in thoroughly and not in snippets as you say. Yet his premise is only half the story, depicting P’s converting to Latin Catholicism . The other half, even reality, depicts folks steeped in history converting to Protestantism, or better esteeming and understanding the foundation of such roots.

So indeed let us show ourselves studied in scripture and the things of God (HIStory).

Also we should remember what hardens clay melts wax. We shall find what we seek.

I can read all the exact same stuff you read or vice versa, and whala, we come to some different understandings and maybe some identical ones.
Click to expand...
This is the best way to conclude the discussion. I think at the end of the day, one can study both scripture and history, come to different truths. There are some that decide not to follow Christ at all, some that decide to go into non-trinitarian forms of Christianity. Some people believe after 1 reason, some people don’t believe after 1001 reasons. And obviously for many, personal experience triumphs scripture and history. Bad experience in one church = leave for good regardless of doctrines, scripture and history.

We can keep discussing arguments, but what really is the point of this thread? To prove one belief system is better or to build mutual understanding? I don’t see much point in going forward in this thread after the original poster has came to some conclusion that she prefers catholicism over protestantism. For that, I am out of here.
 
Last edited:
Horton said:
40.png
JonNC:
“bible alone”
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura
Click to expand...
The problem is, regardless of language, the principle of sola scriptura is used in different was by different traditions. The Lutheran use of the principle is much different than some other traditions. So even this isn’t universal.
 
It mostly comes down whether practical meaning is Prima Scriptura or Sola Scriptura.
 
JonNC said:
Generally. There are those who practice what is sometimes called solo scriptura.
Click to expand...
What does that mean in comparison to other two? I never encountered the term (or maybe I did and thought it just meant “Sola Scriptura”).
 
Do you believe the bible was intended to be the sole source of teaching for the Christians. That Jesus told his Apostles, “here is a book, go read it to the nations and tell them what YOU think it means”?

Why do you believe the Catholic Church is wrong?
 
Well, I would say the bible today dictates to teaching sources God’s word more than teaching sources dictate to bible what is God’s word…key word “more”…
 
Horton said:
That Jesus told his Apostles, “here is a book, go read it to the nations and tell them what YOU think it means”?
Click to expand...
And what is the best source for knowing what Jesus and the apostles orally taught?

“To those knowlegeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written”. Barnabus
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top