Evangelical vs Protestant

[bigbaldone]

"And, I still must insist, how do Catholics interpret this verse?:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast.” (Eph. 2:9)"

I want to take a stab at this one.

1. The entire context of what Paul is saying is rarely quoted by protestants. Vs 10 states that we are Gods “masterpiece” and that we are created to do good works. The works alone do not save, but they must be present.
2. This harmonizes with what James states in chapter 2 of his letter:

A) Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Vs 17

B) Abraham was justified by his works. Vss 21-23

C) You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Vs 24

D) For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Vs 26

This harmonizes with Paul’s letter. Paul’s emphasis is on Grace vs the Law of Moses., not the Protestant view that all it takes is faith…as shown, that is not even scriptural.

 

[narrow_path]

Thank you, USEMELORD for your kind words. I just wanted to point out the misrepresentation that nearly all Catholics make with the whole “born again” idea. First, when I person prays the “sinners prayer” as it is most commonly called and asked Jesus to “come into their heart” and be “Lord and Savior of their life”, there is absolutely no magic in saying the words themselves. I suspect many have spoken this prayer (or something similar) but the condition of their heart, and thus the testimony of their life demonstrated otherwise. In other words, with New Birth MUST come new growth in the Christian life…as I have mentioned earlier, I believe we are saved by the KIND OF FAITH that produces good works (although the works themselves contrubute nothing to our eternal inheritance.) Having said that, a true, repentant believer in Christ WILL undoubtedly have a change of heart and a change of mind (repent) and the works will testify that our faith is genuine.

Also, you (USEMELORD) mentioned that Catholics do not have exclusivity to heaven. While a agree with this statement, the professional Catholic apologists disagree with you. And, they are simply going by the official teachings of the church - whenther you (or anyone) disagrees with them or not. I just had a person in this thread tell me that I must be a member of the RCC to get to heaven! So, to my mind, this further proves my point in saying that the RCC is far from being a monolith - rather, it is multi-faceted. Just talk to any in the RCC about any number of biblical issues and you will get COMPLETELY conflicting answers from all of them. So who then determines who is actually Catholic and who is not? John Kerry said that he is Catholic and he was vehemently pro-choice. In fact our vice President Joe Biden says he is Catholic too - another pro-choice politician. Some Catholics would say that they are still Catholics, just “not good ones.” Still others would say that they are really not Catholics at all. So who is right? I could provide hundreds on a national and state level claiming membership to the RCC who are pro-choice. Barack Obama will speak at Notre Dame - the famous Catholic institution. Sure, there are some opposed, but that just the problem - its only SOME - shouldn’t it be ALL? Aren’t Catholics united? Isn’t this the “true church” that Christ himself established? How could there be such division? What does all this mean? Well, like I mentioned earlier, GOD is the only one that knows the heart and ONLY HE will be able to judge fallible, sinful human beings accordingly. Thus, denominational labels will mean NOTHING come Judgment Day - for the LORD knows what each and every person believes in his heart.

Also, on a different note, I must say that when I interact with Catholic people who formerly were another Christian faith, the constant theme is something like this:

“I was mesmorized by the beautiful church building itself - from the stained glass windows to the magnificent crucifix display…it captured my heart.”

or

“I was thrilled to discover that the essence of being Catholic (and invariably what those in Protestant faiths miss out on) is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.”

But once again, these are things that the Catholic (or potential Catholic) are told to believe in order to be Catholic. So, it kind of narrows down the options - because there is no option. It is almost as if the RCC doesn’t want people to think for themselves and search the Scriptures to exegete passages - they want to mesmorize them in a creepy hypnotic way and gain their allegiance through a form of brainwashing (IMHO).

Further, there is a constant theme of the whole OSAS concept that most Catholics find abhorrent. My point has been this: IF I genuinely realize I’m a sinner, repent of my sin and completely turn my life around for His glory, and receive Him as the Savior of my life and only means by which I am saved - THEN I will be guranteed heaven. MANY say they are Christian but their actions prove otherwise. Many believe that people can bounce in and out of salvation (I have it today, but tomorrow I don’t). I believe that Christ said to Nicodemus, “Ye must be born again.” He DID NOT say, “Ye must be born again and again and again and again.” John 5:24 indicates that “he who believes in the One that has sent me HAS eternal life and will not be condemned…” And what about Paul’s letter to the Ephesian church saying that “you were marked in Him with a SEAL, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit GUARANTEEING our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s posession.” That sounds pretty secure to me.

But all of this of course goes back to the Magesterial brain manipulation that the RCC has on its members - how dare the members even question the infallible interpreter? This scares the unsuspecting and will assuredly “lock them in” to the RCC usually for life. After all, how could the church be wrong in anything that they have declared infallible? For most, this gives them a false assurance that they indeed are part of the “one true church” and they can now sleep at night.

 

[narrow_path]

Next, Bill (mchale) has responded a couple times to my post, so I did not want to ignore him (although it was tempting). First, Bill, you answered NONE of my specific questions regarding baptism. The theif on the cross was not “baptized with blood” as you say - because blood is not the biblical mode of baptism - water is! That is the whole point. Your words to me are the result of someone who has been conditioned to “explain away” biblical concepts and teachings revealing that the Magesterium has to do your thinking for you (not uncommon). And, if you are following Jesus as you say you are, then why not follow His example for baptism - being fully immersed in a large (enough) body of water. This of course represents WHAT IT MEANS to be a child of God (saved) - being buried to your old life and raised to newness of life through HIS resurrection power. Not sprinkling some water on a infants head because a fallible, sinful early church father thought it was right.

You go on to say that many have concluded with contradictory interpretations of the Bible over time, so we can rest assured that the RCC will be error-free. But again, this is an illogical and even self-defeating statement. Does this mean that in 1950 when the bodily assumption of Mary was officially defined that this is supposed to mean that Christ and the apostles taught this 2000 years ago when there is not a shred of biblical evedence for it? Yes, I have read many Catholic apologists explanations of this and simply find it ridiculous. Tim Stapes tried to explain this away referring to Mary in the book of Revelation, chapter 12 and interpreting this apocalypic literature in a wooden, literal sense. So, if we are to take it literally, that would mean Mary had other offspring as verse 17 indicates. So much for perpetual virginity. I could go on and on concerning the textual abuse that the RCC has employed here. But you know what? It won’t matter. Why? Because most Catholics are “womb to tomb” Catholics in which no amount of evidence to the contray would be enough to convince them. So it is an unfortunate waste of time. But as I said before, the Catholic will not be condemned for believeing this, rather he (and anyone else) will be condemned if he believes the rituals he performs will get him to heaven - and not knowing the Savior. Much more could be said, but I’m tired - it was a long day today.

Peace and blessings in the name of the One True Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[usemelord]

Once again, narrow_path, you have hit the nail on the head as far as I’m concerned. I am in (practically) total lockstep with your thinking. Yes, if we accept Christ and His plan of salvation, it is incumbent on us to change our lives, including the way we act, speak, and treat others, just to name a few things. To repent means to “turn around,” so it is not enough just to say the words of the “sinner’s pray,” rather our mind and spirit has to be overhauled. You stated that someone contributing to this thread who was Catholic suggested that only Catholics can go to heaven. I must have missed that, but let me relate a story concerning that specific topic while I was going through RCIA (the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) prior to my entrance into the Church four years ago. One Sunday morning we were having class as usual when the Senior Pastor paid us a surprise visit. We were invited to ask any questions that were on our mind. I asked him pointedly if Catholics believe they are elitists especially with regard to going to heaven. The priest reflected for a moment and said, “Let me put it this way. If Billy Graham isn’t going to heaven, I can’t imagine anyone else who is.” Needless to say, I was quite pleased with his response not only because it didn’t make any sense to me for Christ-filled non-Catholic Christians to be denied heaven, but also that his answer conforms to Scripture. Another subject you brought up was certain Catholics taking a pro-choice stance which is clearly against what the RCC upholds. Unfortunately, what we have here are “cafeteria Catholics” who pick and choose what is good for them. They are a dime a dozen. In fact, Obama, in my mind, would have lost the election if ALL voting Catholics had voted against him solely on the issue of abortion; that is to say, because such a significant number of Catholics voted for Obama without regard for his stance on right to life, he came out on top. That is, in fact, a reality and goes to illustrate that Catholics are not “mezmerized” or “brainwashed,” rather do exercise independent judgment on moral and ethical issues often contrary to the Church’s stated positions. I happen to know a number of Catholic men and women who are unabashedly and unapologetically pro-choice. Additionally, surveys have established that not all Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, somewhere around 30% or more, I believe, which is rather disturbing to a convert like myself. In closing, I have to tell you that I attend an ecumenical men’s group every Wednesday morning called Christians in Commerce which is held at the Catholic Church I attend, but the men are from across all Christian denominations and we all get along quite well in praising, worshipping and praying to our one true God. By the way, what is “OSAS?” Stay blessed my friend.

 

[bigbaldone]

Also, on a different note, I must say that when I interact with Catholic people who formerly were another Christian faith, the constant theme is something like this:

“I was mesmorized by the beautiful church building itself - from the stained glass windows to the magnificent crucifix display…it captured my heart.”

These church’s were designed to bring glory to God. It is hard not to be taken in awe; that was their original purpose. The Temple in Jerusalem had the same affect on people.

For many people, the environment helps them in worship. It really is not any different than a Charismatic feeling in awe after a very long worship service, a Baptist after a revival…etc.

 

[PioYapJr]

*As for the council of Jerusalem, why is it that since James is recorded last, that it therefore means he was in charge? More importantly, considering how important the Jerusalem Church is, why is it that James does not have a more prominent role in the Gospels? Peter is mentioned more in the Gospels than any other apostle (if I remember correctly, I once did a count and Peter was mentioned more often than both James put together!). *

Good point. Furthermore you will note that everytime the names of the apostles are mentioned and Peter is there, Peter’s name is always mentioned first. It is like having a delegation of U.S. officials anywhere and Obama, Biden and others are there. Naturally Obama’s name would come first in all the reports.

Likewise, Peter would always be mentioned first because by the time any book of the New Testament was written Peter’s primacy was already well established.

 

[bill_chatfield]

"And, I still must insist, how do Catholics interpret this verse?:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast.” (Eph. 2:9)"

I want to take a stab at this one.

1. The entire context of what Paul is saying is rarely quoted by protestants. Vs 10 states that we are Gods “masterpiece” and that we are created to do good works. The works alone do not save, but they must be present.
2. This harmonizes with what James states in chapter 2 of his letter:

A) Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Vs 17

B) Abraham was justified by his works. Vss 21-23

C) You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Vs 24

D) For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Vs 26

This harmonizes with Paul’s letter. Paul’s emphasis is on Grace vs the Law of Moses., not the Protestant view that all it takes is faith…as shown, that is not even scriptural.

As a Protestant I agree with this. I think Catholics and Protestants argue about this because out interpretations seem different, but we are really saying the same things.

1. 
   *]We are saved by grace
   *]The grace is in response to faith
   *]Those who don’t exhibit good works, weren’t really saved (Evangelical view) or don’t really have the faith they claim (Methodist, and Catholic view). Good works are a necessary evidence of salvation received or of a true faith.
   
   So, good works do not save, faith (indirectly through God’s grace) saves. But, one can detect the absence of faith by the absence of good works. That is assuming a person had some time to produce good works between their conversion and the time they died.
   
   Methodist, Lutherns and Catholics have aggrement on the Doctrine of Justification:
   
   JOINT DECLARATION
   ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
   by the Lutheran World Federation
   and the Catholic Church

 

[narrow_path]

bill_chatfield - I want to get to the crux of the disagreement of my view of Justification and (as I am gathering) yours. First, during the medieval period baptism and penance were linked with justification. God’s righteousness was begun (infused) in baptism and continued (perfected) through penance.

Although this understanding of the nature and purpose of baptism can be found from the earliest of times, the same is not true of the concept of penance. The idea of confession to a priest for the remission of sin existed in the second century but did not become a widespread practice until the early medieval period.

The view that developed was that baptism addresses the problem of original sin; confession cleanses the effect of actual sin. Some theologians of this era took pains to stress that the sacraments were the means God used to mediate grace to man. However, this theological nicety was often lost on the laity who became entangled in a works-righteousness system.

As far as merit goes, the term was first used by Tertullian and then fully developed by the Schoolmen in the medieval period. Unfortunately, as with the sacraments, this distinction did not always filter down to the common folk. Conversely, The Council of Trent does assert that works are necessary for salvation in the progressive and eventual senses. For Trent made it dogma that “by his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God." And it is precisely here that Catholics and evangelicals (at least of my sort) disagree.

The Council of Trent declared clearly that to “those who work well ‘unto the end’ (Matt. 10:22), and who trust in God, life eternal is to be proposed, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, ‘and as a recompense’ which is…to be faithfully given to their good works and merit.” By contrast, the Bible declares clearly and emphatically that “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).

Further, in direct opposition to the Catholic position, the Bible guarantees eternal life is a present possession of those who believe. Jesus said: “Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my words and believes in the one who sent me HAS [present tense] eternal life and will not come into condemnation, but IS [right now] passed from death to life.” This same truth is repeated over and over in Scripture (e.g., John 3:36; 1 John 5:13). But according to the Roman Catholic view, one must await a final justification at death to know whether he or she has eternal life and will not see God’s condemnation.

While Catholicism acknowledges that there is an initial act of justification (which some even admit includes a forensic act), nevertheless, it also maintains that one must work to faithfully avoid mortal sin in order to achieve final justification before God. Thus, works are ultimately necessary for salvation. But this is contrary to the biblical teaching that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, based on Christ alone. And, despite Catholic protest to the contrary, this is not conducive to the assurance of salvation by which we “KNOW…[we] HAVE eternal life” (1 John 5:13), and by which we are connected to God by His inseparable love (Rom. 8:1, 36-39).

That is the difference in a nutshell.

 

[narrow_path]

bigbaldone - I didn’t say nor imply that the church buliding themselves were not magnificent, rather I was trying to communicate that if THE REASON for Roman Catholic conversion was due to this, it falls under the category of manipulation in my book.

usemelord - Thank you again for your gracious words. The priest you mentioned (speaking about Billy Graham) was giving his personal opinion on the matter - not what Rome officially teaches. While I certainly don’t blame him for merely stating his opinion, it has always bafflled me how even the Catholic priests themselves drift so far away from official teachings of the church. I could more understand with the common folk, but not from theologically trained priests.

I am also glad (and always am) when members of all denominations can come together and have genuine fellowship with one another (as you have done and are doing.) Bless you for that.

OSAS - Once Saved, Always Saved (Eternal Security issue)

You stay blessed as well my friend.

Peace

 

[bill_chatfield]

In general I agree with your analysis. But there are some comments I’d like to make.

First, during the medieval period baptism and penance were linked with justification. God’s righteousness was begun (infused) in baptism and continued (perfected) through penance.

People did at Jesus’ time have some association with baptism making them pure at heart. Washing of the body was symbolic of washing away sins. Matthew 1:4:

John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

It would be natural to assume that one is then perfected through penance. But, apparently no one was reading Paul’s letter to the Romans at this time.

The idea of confession to a priest for the remission of sin existed in the second century but did not become a widespread practice until the early medieval period.

Agreed. According to the history I am aware of, that is true.

The view that developed was that baptism addresses the problem of original sin; confession cleanses the effect of actual sin. Some theologians of this era took pains to stress that the sacraments were the means God used to mediate grace to man. However, this theological nicety was often lost on the laity who became entangled in a works-righteousness system.

I’m not familiar with this development but it seems logical that it would happen this way. Still no one is bothering to read Paul’s letter to the Romans at this point.

For Trent made it dogma that “by his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God." And it is precisely here that Catholics and evangelicals (at least of my sort) disagree.

OK, I can see at first glance why you’d disagree with that Council of Trent dogma and I bothers me also. But, I have to wonder what he really meant. He said the “justified man”. It may be that he’s talking about a man who is already saved and that his reward (over an above salvation already gained through faith) will be equivalent to the amount of good done in this world. In other words, this is not speaking about salvation itself, but about the degree of reward received by a saved person in heaven. I’m just making a guess based on the wording I see.

The Council of Trent declared clearly that to “those who work well ‘unto the end’ (Matt. 10:22), and who trust in God, life eternal is to be proposed, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, ‘and as a recompense’ which is…to be faithfully given to their good works and merit.” By contrast, the Bible declares clearly and emphatically that “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).

I agree with your analysis.

…I removed stuff here that I agree with to save characters…

While Catholicism acknowledges that there is an initial act of justification (which some even admit includes a forensic act), nevertheless, it also maintains that one must work to faithfully avoid mortal sin in order to achieve final justification before God. Thus, works are ultimately necessary for salvation. But this is contrary to the biblical teaching that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, based on Christ alone. And, despite Catholic protest to the contrary, this is not conducive to the assurance of salvation by which we “KNOW…[we] HAVE eternal life” (1 John 5:13), and by which we are connected to God by His inseparable love (Rom. 8:1, 36-39).

Yes, but it is necessary to distinguish, as John Wesley did, between a saving faith and a non-saving faith. Demons have faith that Jesus is the Christ, but they are not saved. People can believe that Jesus is the Christ, but still hate, oppress, and steal from their neighbor. These types have a non-saving faith.

In contrast a true Christian has a saving faith. They are inspired by Christ to love, charity, forgiveness, acts of kindness (good works of some kind). A true Christian has a saving faith.

If a person with saving faith lapses into non-saving faith, they will then fail to produce good works, and are also in danger. I can’t say if they’ve actually lost their salvation at this point, but God is likely to try to motivate them to get back on the path repeatedly before he lets them go. When this happens (and it does I know of people personally who have lapsed) Calvinist just explain it by saying that the person was never really saved to begin with. That is fine with me. Calvinism is not a bad model of something we can’t truly claim to know as God knows. Calvinism provides good assurance of salvation and frees one from the worry of not being saved so that they can be motivated to be Christ-like and love their neighbor in action, not just in thought.

Good works are not the mechanism of justification, salvation, or of continued salvation. They are only the evidence of saving faith.

So, yes, one must stay on the strait and narrow path to be saved, meaning one must continue to have a saving faith that produces good fruit. Whether you believe in Calvinism or not, Jesus makes it work out, for those who will follow him.

 

[narrow_path]

One more thing: It does seem as if there is a dense fog that needs to be lifted around the brains of those that have a prior commitment to the RCC.

When I read something like this, "As for the council of Jerusalem, why is it that since James is recorded last, that it therefore means he was in charge? More importantly, considering how important the Jerusalem Church is, why is it that James does not have a more prominent role in the Gospels? Peter is mentioned more in the Gospels than any other apostle (if I remember correctly, I once did a count and Peter was mentioned more often than both James put together!).

And then the response: “Good point. Furthermore you will note that everytime the names of the apostles are mentioned and Peter is there, Peter’s name is always mentioned first. It is like having a delegation of U.S. officials anywhere and Obama, Biden and others are there. Naturally Obama’s name would come first in all the reports. Likewise, Peter would always be mentioned first because by the time any book of the New Testament was written Peter’s primacy was already well established.”

I am left scratching my head wondering what happened to the old-fashioned way of looking at Biblical evidence to determine its legitimacy or not. With just scratching the surface, it seems objectively clear to me that when looking at the oft-quoted verse of Matthew 16:18 as biblical support for the papacy, the Catholic misses the point on numerous levels. In this passage Christ says: “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” As many are well aware of, we have the famous “petros” “petra” conundrum to tackle. But notice how Jesus distinguished between Petros (Peter’s name in the Greek, which means “stone”) and petra (the Greek word for “rock”). For Jesus to have avoided any confusion all He needed to do was to simply use the word “Petros” twice. In this way, He would have clearly demonstrated that the church would be built upon Peter. However, as we have seen, He used a different word - namely, “petra” - to make it absolutely clear that He was referring to the foundation of the church. The context of the passage (which, by the way, begins in verse 13) attests to a play, by Jesus, on these two words. In fact, interestingly enough, He used “petra” (or “rock”) to refer to Peter’s confession — that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Thus, Jesus (not Peter) is said to be the rock upon which the church would be established. (This would also deflate the “kepha” argument that many Catholics use for this - for we DO NOT HAVE ANY inspired Aramaic at this juncture - ONLY Greek.)

Further, Peter himself underscores this fact in Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:4-8, when he alludes to Christ as a “stone rejected by builders” and as a “rock that makes unbelievers fall.” Furthermore, the apostle Paul calls Jesus the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), and the spiritual rock (1 Cor. 10:4) of the church. This has cast serious doubt for the supposed necesscity of Christ establishing Peter being the very first pope. In fact, the majority of the patristic interpretations of this verse (including Origen and Chrysostom) concur that it was Peter’s CONFESSION OF FAITH that Jesus “was the Christ, the Son of the living God” that the “rock” in the verse is referring to. Certainly I agree.

I think when it is all said and done, Peter (along with Mary) are going to be the two most disappointed people in heaven for having their lives misrepresented in such a perverse way by the RCC. But then again, maybe they’ll have a sense of humor about it (let’s hope).

Peace

 

[Flame_of_Christ]

Why would Peter’s professing that Jesus is the Rock of our salvation diminish his role as chief pastor of His Lord’s Church?

Couldn’t I say that God is my Father while still being a father myself?

I see no contradiction with Simon having his named changed and Jesus still being Himself God. After all, Jesus is the one who changed His name, and he did it for a purpose.

The purpose is: Every church needs a pastor! Naturally (or should I say supernaturally) Christ’s own church would need one as well.

 

[bigbaldone]

Why would Peter’s professing that Jesus is the Rock of our salvation diminish his role as chief pastor of His Lord’s Church?

The purpose is: Every church needs a pastor! Naturally (or should I say supernaturally) Christ’s own church would need one as well.

Very true.

Because I was a Protestant, and a minister at that, I can attest that the succession of leadership is rarely admitted. It is easier to deny/bash this fact than to realize that the proof is in the proverbial pudding.

When in comes to the term “Pope” and Peter being the Genesis, the average Protestant does not consider the development of this role over time, even at the end of the first century. What I am saying is that the style or expression of the papacy today developed beginning with Peter, just as the style and expression developed with the High Priest in the days before Christ.

Modern Protestant services developed over time as well. In fact, non-liturgical services took over 100 years to develop, and even then they were small pockets and not the norm.

Leadership is established by God. It is a foundation. It was true under the Old Covenant…it was true at the beginning of the New Covenant…it is still true today.

A lack of central leadership is the reason for numerous denominations and beliefs among Protestants. Consider:

Missionary Baptist, Free Baptist, Southern Baptist, Independent Baptist. Reformed (RCA), Christian Reformed (CRC) Protestant Reformed, different Lutheran Synods, United Methodists (The Wesley’s were Anglican), Wesleyan, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, United Brethren, Assembly of God, United Pentecostal, Apostolic, Four Square, African Methodist Episcopal, Church of God, Charismatic congregations, etc.

No Unity in beliefs, each with their own leadership, but not in unity. They are like competing corporations: Each with the best product; why they are correct, and why the others are lacking.

 

[bigbaldone]

Narrow_path stated:
Yet, a conservative Catholic and and moderate Catholic can (and do) read the very same Catechism and invariably arrive at a completely different understandings of what the rule of faith actually teaches. This happens continuously!

This is true, but let us be fair and examine the following:

1. Different understandings by an individual do not establish the teaching and understanding by the church.

Also, 99% of differences are related to the expression of the faith; Tridentine or modern mass, as opposed to the substance of the faith. (expression is a hot topic on both sides of the fence;Catholic and Protestant)

1. Within this context we must also realize that Old Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics do not count in these statistics. They are not in communion with the RCC, and therefore fall into the Protestant category in this sense.
2. This is more rampant, or “happens continuously”, among Protestants than Catholics, and the result is church splits, new church formations, differnt denominations, youtube videos…and the list goes on.

 

[PioYapJr]

Very true.

Because I was a Protestant, and a minister at that, I can attest that the succession of leadership is rarely admitted. It is easier to deny/bash this fact than to realize that the proof is in the proverbial pudding.

Very true!
And if one looks at the “pudding” outside the holy scripture (which people outside the RCC interpret in thousands of ways), they are unmistakable.
Just consider the unity of the Catholic Church with its billion of mambers and the fragmentation outside it with their smaller number.
Consider also how its enemies have been hammering it from the outside and its own misguided members chiselling it from the inside. For an institution to withstand such relentless assaults for 2,000 years is truly miraculous. And we owe this diamond-like solidity to the rock that is Peter (as instituted by Christ). And we can rest with the assurance that it will still be here until the return of our Lord. Here is one “pudding” my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[bigbaldone]

For an institution to withstand such relentless assaults for 2,000 years is truly miraculous.

That is it!

Humans mess up. The church has had some bad times, some bad leaders (something that critics like to point out),and as you stated relentless assaults. Seems to me that the Jews had some bad leadership as well, however, the foundation was solid and it lasted until Jesus gave us a New Covenant.

Why has it lasted that long. Because it is Christs church, and the gates of hell will not prevail. Take the example of a house: The foundation is solid, even if a window gets broken, a few shingles come off in a storm, or if a wall needs to be repaired. If the foundation is strong, it will last. The church has lasted!

 

[fbl9]

Very true!
And if one looks at the “pudding” outside the holy scripture (which people outside the RCC interpret in thousands of ways), they are unmistakable.
Just consider the unity of the Catholic Church with its billion of mambers and the fragmentation outside it with their smaller number.
Consider also how its enemies have been hammering it from the outside and its own misguided members chiselling it from the inside. For an institution to withstand such relentless assaults for 2,000 years is truly miraculous. And we owe this diamond-like solidity to the rock that is Peter (as instituted by Christ). And we can rest with the assurance that it will still be here until the return of our Lord. Here is one “pudding” my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Actually we should cautious with the number of the members of the church,for there are too many that say they are catholics but only in word> True though they are members but have cut themselves off from God.

 

[mchale]

I am left scratching my head wondering what happened to the old-fashioned way of looking at Biblical evidence to determine its legitimacy or not.

There are many ways of looking at the evidence. It seems to me that we should look at all the different ways.

With just scratching the surface, it seems objectively clear to me that when looking at the oft-quoted verse of Matthew 16:18 as biblical support for the papacy, the Catholic misses the point on numerous levels.

Just because something seems objectively clear to you, that doesn’t mean it actually is objectively clear. In fact history is riddled with many examples of things that seemed objectively clear that turned out to be anything but.

In this passage Christ says: “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” As many are well aware of, we have the famous “petros” “petra” conundrum to tackle. But notice how Jesus distinguished between Petros (Peter’s name in the Greek, which means “stone”) and petra (the Greek word for “rock”). For Jesus to have avoided any confusion all He needed to do was to simply use the word “Petros” twice. In this way, He would have clearly demonstrated that the church would be built upon Peter. However, as we have seen, He used a different word - namely, “petra” - to make it absolutely clear that He was referring to the foundation of the church. The context of the passage (which, by the way, begins in verse 13) attests to a play, by Jesus, on these two words. In fact, interestingly enough, He used “petra” (or “rock”) to refer to Peter’s confession — that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Thus, Jesus (not Peter) is said to be the rock upon which the church would be established. (This would also deflate the “kepha” argument that many Catholics use for this - for we DO NOT HAVE ANY inspired Aramaic at this juncture - ONLY Greek.)

You are correct in stating that we don’t have any inspired Aramaic, but we do have to understand that the Gospel account is most likely a translation from what Jesus said in Aramaic. Thus, the Kepha argument is still valid.

Further, I also find it fascinating how the arguments about how Jesus did not mean for Peter to be first amongst the Apostles come from the Reformation, not the Orthodox Church. Consider the fact that the Greek branch of the Orthodox Church (which was easily predominant until the fall of Constantinople and is still extremely important today) actually was dealing with the Gospels written in their own language (or today the direct ancestor of their language). The Orthodox however have never protested the Pope’s primacy, only his authority. You would think that they, who actually know Greek natively, would be the ones who would make this argument to justify their position.

In fact, I believe that modern Biblical Scholars have pretty much discredited the Petra, Petros argument as being anachronistic (i.e., taking something true of modern Greek and applying it to Biblical Greek).

Also, lets keep the whole passage in context. First Jesus asks the Apostles who he is. Peter gives him an answer that Jesus points out was revealed by God. Then gives him the name Peter (Rock) and tells him that “upon this rock I will build my Church” and finally he gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. In other words, even if Jesus was talking of Peter’s declaration of faith, he is clearly being given special authority by Jesus.

Further, Peter himself underscores this fact in Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:4-8, when he alludes to Christ as a “stone rejected by builders” and as a “rock that makes unbelievers fall.” Furthermore, the apostle Paul calls Jesus the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), and the spiritual rock (1 Cor. 10:4) of the church. This has cast serious doubt for the supposed necesscity of Christ establishing Peter being the very first pope. In fact, the majority of the patristic interpretations of this verse (including Origen and Chrysostom) concur that it was Peter’s CONFESSION OF FAITH that Jesus “was the Christ, the Son of the living God” that the “rock” in the verse is referring to. Certainly I agree.

I think we should be clear that Catholics consider Jesus to be the center and focus of our faith. Ultimately, it is his teachings upon which everything we do is based.

Of course one of the things I find interesting is how often people are willing to refer to other passages when they believe that the passages shore up their interpretation (in your case, on the role of the Pope), but then claim that the passage’s meaning is perfectly clear on its own without reference to other passages (you on the issue of saved by faith alone or by faith and works).

I think when it is all said and done, Peter (along with Mary) are going to be the two most disappointed people in heaven for having their lives misrepresented in such a perverse way by the RCC. But then again, maybe they’ll have a sense of humor about it (let’s hope).

Peace

Of course you can think what you want, but ultimately, it is what God thinks that really matters. If might be the Protestants who find that they have misrepresented the lives of Peter and Mary.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

Next, Bill (mchale) has responded a couple times to my post, so I did not want to ignore him (although it was tempting). First, Bill, you answered NONE of my specific questions regarding baptism.

Actually, I think it is more likely that you just didn’t like my answer. Just because you want 2+2 to equal 5, me telling you it is 4 does not mean I didn’t answer your question.

The theif on the cross was not “baptized with blood” as you say - because blood is not the biblical mode of baptism - water is! That is the whole point. Your words to me are the result of someone who has been conditioned to “explain away” biblical concepts and teachings revealing that the Magesterium has to do your thinking for you (not uncommon).

My goodness, your arrogance is astounding! You presume to believe that my answers come from conditioning? You think that I and every other faithful Catholic here is just a parrot for the Church? Brainwashed such that we can’t think on our own? I struggled with my faith and still do. Frankly I don’t trust the faith much of anyone who doesn’t struggle with it.

You may be a sincere Christian, but you are hardly a theologian or a biblical scholar.

Also, lets start with what I actually said: I did not say the thief was baptized by blood, I said he was baptized by blood and desire. Perhaps baptism by blood was a bit strong since the thief was not actually a martyr, but I think it is reasonable to assume that he would have been baptized by water if it had been available to him. Therefore he was baptized by desire.

That being said in Mark 10, Jesus speaking to James and John of his own death on the Cross asks them if they are willing to be baptized with the baptism he will receive. Thus, clearly the concept of baptism by blood is established in the Gospel.

And, if you are following Jesus as you say you are, then why not follow His example for baptism - being fully immersed in a large (enough) body of water. This of course represents WHAT IT MEANS to be a child of God (saved) - being buried to your old life and raised to newness of life through HIS resurrection power. Not sprinkling some water on a infants head because a fallible, sinful early church father thought it was right.

Clearly you are not up to date on the current practice of the Catholic Church. While sprinkling remains an option, the preferred method is now baptism by immersion.

Of course you are now arguing against yourself. Earlier you were saying baptism didn’t matter, only faith did. We know the Bible says that Jesus was baptized, and that he told his disciples to baptize (If it didn’t matter, then why include it in the Great Commission?). The specific form (i.e., whether immersion was used or not) is not specifically stated.

Ultimately, you can’t argue it both ways. You can’t claim that baptism doesn’t matter and then at the same time, try to prove that the Catholic Church is doing it wrong.

If, like you argue, baptism is only an outward symbol of conversion, then why is baptism by blood less acceptable than baptism by water since the former is sacrifice of one’s life for their beliefs… clearly a more definite symbol of conversion than getting wet!

–
Bill

 

[paul_c]

One more thing: It does seem as if there is a dense fog that needs to be lifted around the brains of those that have a prior commitment to the RCC.

When I read something like this, "As for the council of Jerusalem, why is it that since James is recorded last, that it therefore means he was in charge? More importantly, considering how important the Jerusalem Church is, why is it that James does not have a more prominent role in the Gospels? Peter is mentioned more in the Gospels than any other apostle (if I remember correctly, I once did a count and Peter was mentioned more often than both James put together!).

And then the response: “Good point. Furthermore you will note that everytime the names of the apostles are mentioned and Peter is there, Peter’s name is always mentioned first. It is like having a delegation of U.S. officials anywhere and Obama, Biden and others are there. Naturally Obama’s name would come first in all the reports. Likewise, Peter would always be mentioned first because by the time any book of the New Testament was written Peter’s primacy was already well established.”

I am left scratching my head wondering what happened to the old-fashioned way of looking at Biblical evidence to determine its legitimacy or not. With just scratching the surface, it seems objectively clear to me that when looking at the oft-quoted verse of Matthew 16:18 as biblical support for the papacy, the Catholic misses the point on numerous levels. In this passage Christ says: “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” As many are well aware of, we have the famous “petros” “petra” conundrum to tackle. But notice how Jesus distinguished between Petros (Peter’s name in the Greek, which means “stone”) and petra (the Greek word for “rock”). For Jesus to have avoided any confusion all He needed to do was to simply use the word “Petros” twice. In this way, He would have clearly demonstrated that the church would be built upon Peter. However, as we have seen, He used a different word - namely, “petra” - to make it absolutely clear that He was referring to the foundation of the church. The context of the passage (which, by the way, begins in verse 13) attests to a play, by Jesus, on these two words. In fact, interestingly enough, He used “petra” (or “rock”) to refer to Peter’s confession — that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Thus, Jesus (not Peter) is said to be the rock upon which the church would be established. (This would also deflate the “kepha” argument that many Catholics use for this - for we DO NOT HAVE ANY inspired Aramaic at this juncture - ONLY Greek.)

Further, Peter himself underscores this fact in Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:4-8, when he alludes to Christ as a “stone rejected by builders” and as a “rock that makes unbelievers fall.” Furthermore, the apostle Paul calls Jesus the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), and the spiritual rock (1 Cor. 10:4) of the church. This has cast serious doubt for the supposed necesscity of Christ establishing Peter being the very first pope. In fact, the majority of the patristic interpretations of this verse (including Origen and Chrysostom) concur that it was Peter’s CONFESSION OF FAITH that Jesus “was the Christ, the Son of the living God” that the “rock” in the verse is referring to. Certainly I agree.

I think when it is all said and done, Peter (along with Mary) are going to be the two most disappointed people in heaven for having their lives misrepresented in such a perverse way by the RCC. But then again, maybe they’ll have a sense of humor about it (let’s hope).

Peace

Narrow path:
First, the scriptural support of Peter’s leadership of the church is very strong indeed. In Matthew 16, he is called the Rock, on which Christ will build his church. Your discussion of Petros vs petra is without merit. It just was appropriate for the Greek translators to translate Rock (petra) to Petros since Peter is most definitely masculine and petra is feminine. In the same chapter he is given the keys to heaven. In John 21, Peter is told by the risen Lord to tend his sheep. In Acts 15, Peter says with no rebutal that he was chosen from all the Apostles to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles, while in Galations 2, Paul also acknowledges that Peter was given the Apostolate to the Jews. Those two pieces, leaders of the Jews and non-Jews covers everyone.

In addition, Peter is mentioned 195 times in the new testament. the next most mentioned Apostle is John at 29. We follow Peter’s story in parallel to Jesus’ passion because he is Jesus’s chosen leader. He follows this with acts of leadership in ACTs. Peter is shown as defining the need to pick Judas’s successor in Acts 1. He speaks for the Apostles at Pentacost and tells the new converts they must be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit. He heals the lame man and speaks to the people and then the Chief priests and finally the Sanhedrin on behalf of the Apostles. He deals with the honesty of Ananias and Shapira in Acts 5, brings the Gentiles into the church in acts 10 and ultimately makes the crucial decision at the Council of jerusalem in Acts 15. James, as the leader of the Jerusalem church, which was advocating following the Jewish laws, follows with his support , thus showing the unity of the church behind the decision. When Paul starts his mission, he sees Peter for 115 days and he goes back 14 years later to make sure he is not running in Vain. The fact that both Jesus and Peter are called the rock of the Church shows that Peter was taking on the leadership role on earth.

What more do you want from Scripture showing Peter’s leadership. If you want more details, see this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=327695