Evangelical vs Protestant

[paul_c]

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.

…

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.

We’ve had discussions of OSAS many times on this board. I’ve found that there are three basic descriptions of salvation:

The Free Grace view:

Jesus died for our sins and therefore anyone who believes this is saved by Grace through faith. In this theology, upon profession of faith, the believer is sealed forever as one of the Elect, and will not be lost, regardless of future action, In fact, the argument is that man’s actions have nothing to do with salvation, it is a gift to whoever God chooses. Some are born to be condemned, others to be saved.

The Lordship Theology view:
Under this view, people are saved through grace by faith because of Jesus’s sacrifice. Like the Free Grace view, those who are saved will be sealed forever as one of the elects. However, this view recognizes that the elect will do good works and that God would never declare someone as innocent, who is in fact a sinner. Therefore, if you don’t demonstrate your faith through actions, you will be viewed as having never really been saved.

The Catholic View:
People are saved through grace by faith when baptized. After baptism, the Catholic must stay in the state of Grace by loving God and his neighbor as himself. If the Catholic turns from God through sin, he can be reconciled through the sacrament of reconciliation. In this view, no man knows he is saved until the final judgement.

The weakness of the Free Grace theology is that it relies on God calling an unrepentent sinner innocent, which is of course a lie and not worthy of a perfect God. It also militates against the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:16-19 , where he says you must follow the commandments to gain eternal life:
16 Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” 17 He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, " ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; 19 honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’"

The weakness of the Lordship theology is that there is an inconsistency between having to do good works to demonstrate your membership in the elect and in knowing beforehand that you are saved. Because if you have to do good works, you will not know if you have done them faithfully until your opportunities to be tested have ceased with death.

That leaves us with the Catholic position that you can not be assured of salvation until you have died in the state of Grace as the only feasible althernative. As you can see, we are not saved by works. we are saved by Grace through faith. But after being saved, we must continue to stay that way through works of love that demonstrate that faith. Faith without works is dead, after all (James 2).

Also, it is futile to quote any of the scriptural writers and say that they don’t require works to be saved. This is Paul in Romans 2: 5-8: By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. continued…

 

[paul_c]

This is John 1 5-10 - John 2; 1-5
: Now this is the message that we have heard from him and proclaim to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say, “We have fellowship with him,” while we continue to walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin. If we say, “We are without sin,” we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing. If we say, “We have not sinned,” we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one. He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world. The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his command ments. Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: whoever claims to abide in him ought to live (just) as he lived.

So as you can see, both the scriptural passages you use as support of assurance and denied earlier in the same epistles. It is important to understand context when reading scripture. the Catholic church understands fully what it teaches and why. Who are you and what are your credentials that we should believe your interpretations instead?

 

[bigbaldone]

bigbaldone,

Thank you for your testimony and welcome home! So, help me here. What does a Catholic say and how does a Catholic talk to a former Catholic, now Evangelical, that can spur them to think rationally about getting back on track with her original Catholic roots.

That can be difficult. However, the place to start is asking what prompted them to change in the first place. There past can say a lot. Were they a solid Catholic, or merely Catholic by association.

What inspired me was the complete focus on scripture in the mass. In fact I realized that there is more scripture read and sung in a mass than in 99% of the protestant church’s I have been in or know of.

Another inspiration was the worldwide unity of the faith. For so many years, while in full time ministry, I despised the lack of unity in Prot. denominations.

Perhaps they should study the history of the particular denomination they are in. They may be surprised that it was started due to disunity.

It took me over 20 years to return, and I am so glad that I did. I feel closer to God than I did in all my years as a Protestant.

 

[Contarini]

isn’t evangelical kind of like Bible belt really radical protestants.

No. “Evangelical” can mean a lot of things, but for Protestants of a more or less British lineage (i.e., not Lutherans and other Continental Protestants) it refers to the renewal movements of the 18th century and the versions of Protestantism shaped by those movements. Evangelicals emphasize “heart religion” and the experience of conversion. They do also tend to be conservative in their view of the authority of Scripture, although it’s possible to set evangelical experientialism over against conservative views of Scripture.

In the 19th century, American Protestantism was dominated by evangelicalism. However, at the end of the century many Protestant denominations became more liberal (in many cases making precisely the opposition between experience and Scripture to which I referred above), and the conservative folks either left or went into “loyal opposition.” These conservatives, particularly those who split away, were often referred to as “fundamentalists,” though in its narrowest sense “fundamentalist” refers to a version of conservative evangelical Protestantism which embraced dispensationalist theology and the “Keswick” teaching about the “higher life” and held generally Baptist views on most points of traditional disagreement among Christians (believers’ baptism only, congregationalism, etc.). Pentecostals and Holiness folks on the one hand, and conservative Calvinists and other confessional Christians on the other, are usually not defined as fundamentalists by scholars of the subject. One of the characteristics of fundamentalism is separatism–in other words, fundamentalists don’t associate with non-fundamentalists (which generally includes the other conservative Protestants I listed).

In the 1940s, many “fundamentalists” began rejecting this separatist attitude, particularly with regard to other conservative Protestants. A broad alliance developed (embracing fundamentalists, Pentecostals, etc.) which used the word “evangelical” rather than “fundamentalist” (the National Association of Evangelicals is the umbrella organization for this alliance). In the past few decades, evangelicals have become even more diverse. Many evangelicals have moved in more liberal directions, which is viewed with fear by conservatives, who see this as a repetition of the “apostasy” of 100 years ago. (The recent “Emergent” movement is the latest target.)

Part of this loosening up of evangelicalism is greater openness toward Catholicism. I consider myself evangelical, but I want evangelicalism to move toward Catholicism. Hence, many more conservative evangelicals might question whether I’m a “real” evangelical. But the fact that we can have those kinds of debates that distinguishes evangelicalism from fundamentalism (which I suspect is what you had in mind in your post).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I also wanted to address the “40,000” denominations argument that just about all Catholics accuse Protestants of.

It is indeed a silly figure.

This is simply an apples to oranges comparison because the Roman Catholic RULE OF FAITH is being compared to the Protestant’s VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS of the Protestant RULE OF FAITH. The Catechism is the standard belief that all in the RCC must adhere to in order be considered Catholic.

You’re missing the point. Catholics define unity in terms of membership in the visible, organic fellowship of the worldwide Church–of actually being in a relationship of accountability to one another. Your confusion is understandable, since many Catholics on this forum have been influenced by American Protestantism and speak as if the Catechism functioned in the way sola scriptura Protestants think the Bible functions.

Yet, there are just as many interpretations of the RCC’s Rule of Faith as there are of the Bible.

And again, you miss the point. The point is that when Protestants come up with different interpretations of the Bible, they can go their separate ways and ignore each other. Disunity is not disagreeing. Disunity is disagreeing without consequences.

and common sense dictates that all will not learn at the same pace or even as much as others. Hence, all the denominations.

That’s unconvincing. If your argument were correct, Protestants would reach greater unity, instead of greater disunity, over time. The fact that people differ is not what refutes Protestantism. It’s the fact that in 500 years Protestants have not been able to find a way to disagree without simply “walking apart” from each other. That’s not “different paces of learning.” That’s learning completely different things and setting off on widely different trajectories on the basis of this.

This is not chaos when we are all united in the essential teachings of the Bible as we are.

Who are “we”? Of course you can draw a circle around those you consider to believe the right things. But that circle is going to be drawn very differently by different Protestants, and it changes over time. It isn’t a meaningful basis for fellowship, accountability, or historical continuity.

Not to mention, the word “denomination” needs to be defined before it is carelessly thrown out there.

I agree completely with this!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Nope, there is no such thing as “interpreting the Rule of Faith.”

You lose credibility when you say things like that. It’s just obviously false, and any non-Catholic who has talked to more than one Catholic knows it to be false!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As an Anglican I do not consider myself to be Protestant. Who invented the term Protestant? That person then might have had a definition of that. To my understanding Protestants are Anti-Catholic Christian churches.

That’s a rather loaded definition.

We are Protestants because historically Anglicanism has been Protestant since the reign of Edward VI, with a hiccup in the reign of Mary. The 39 Articles are clearly Protestant. Anglicans in the late 16th century unequivocally considered themselves to be Protestants. Only in the 17th century did some Anglicans begin to qualify this, and only in the 19th century, as far as I know, did the Anglo-Catholics totally reject the Protestant label. Which is fine. You can say that you are not theologically Protestant. The word “Protestant” isn’t the first one I’d use to describe my theology either. But it does say a whole lot about the historical reasons why both you and I are not in communion with the See of Rome. And for that reason to reject it is to deny history.

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

That’s a rather loaded definition.

We are Protestants because historically Anglicanism has been Protestant since the reign of Edward VI, with a hiccup in the reign of Mary. The 39 Articles are clearly Protestant. Anglicans in the late 16th century unequivocally considered themselves to be Protestants. Only in the 17th century did some Anglicans begin to qualify this, and only in the 19th century, as far as I know, did the Anglo-Catholics totally reject the Protestant label. Which is fine. You can say that you are not theologically Protestant. The word “Protestant” isn’t the first one I’d use to describe my theology either. But it does say a whole lot about the historical reasons why both you and I are not in communion with the See of Rome. And for that reason to reject it is to deny history.

Edwin

The Thirty-Nine Articles certainly are Protestant in nature. Would you say that they are essentially Reformed or another strain of Protestantism?

 

[Beejenigma]

Hello again from Iowa! It’s me, Beej the Jesus Freak Evangelical Charismatic Latin Rite Roman Catholic Convert again! I was wondering how many protestants took me up on looking at what all Catholic religious brothers, sisters, priests and others must read daily in the Divine Office, or Liturgy of the Hours. Please get back to me on your opinion of whether, in practicing this throughout all of the Catholic Church five times a day, you think that we don’t actually read the bible? Let me know. It can be found at www.universalis.com. No protestant has tried this and gotten back to me. I would like an opinion after reading it daily for say, a week or so, k? Pax et bonum, Beej the female “monk” in training (Third Order Secular Franciscan)

 

[narrow_path]

“So as you can see, both the scriptural passages you use as support of assurance and denied earlier in the same epistles. It is important to understand context when reading scripture. the Catholic church understands fully what it teaches and why.”

paul c - Your admission that Scripture condtradicts itself is so utterly ridiculous that I hesitated for some time to even respond because even the RCC acknowleges the inerrancy of Scripture. By logical extention, you would be putting yourself outside the belief of the RCC by making such an erroneous statement and should (if being honest) be denied communion until correct belief is maintained. (This actually happened to a Catholic friend of mine.)

To put it simply, NO, the Bible does not contradict itself but rather it does complement itself in many areas. The Biblical quotations you mentioned are in complete harmony with the panoply of Scripture:

Matthew 19:16 and following were about a RICH MAN’S misunderstanding of how salvation works. The very first question he asked Jesus was, “What good thing must I DO to get eternal life?” Jesus responds in no uncertain terms by correcting his thinking in terms of righteousness by works: “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only One who is good.” Jesus then proceeds to make a crucial point that the heart is what really matters by exposing where the rich man’s heart really was - in his riches. Therefore, Christ said to the man, “Obey the ten commandments.” The man said that he had kept these (as Christ already knew) so then Jesus cuts right to the issue: “If you want to be perfect, go sell your posessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Of course, the reason why the rich an left sad was because he KNEW that his heart was far from the Lord. Perhaps this is why we are also told that money can be “the root of all kinds of evil.” This parable then makes perfect sense (in a non-Catholic, non-Magesterial) kind of way when Christ concludes with, “Again, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a RICH MAN to enter the Kingdom of God.” A great question to ask yourself after reading parables is “What’s the point?” To you, apparently this parable tells us that we must obey the ten commandments in order to be saved. And, you are at liberty to believe that is you wish. However, other thinking people that consider the ENTIRE context of the parable have great reason to believe that Jesus was simply MAKING A POINT to the rich man that his heart was not in the right place - and He did this by exposing the rich man’s heart through questions and requests (not intended to be taken in a wooden, literal sense as you have taken it).

Amazingly, paul c DID NOT EVEN MENTION (perhaps didn’t know?) that this parable was even about a rich man! This is what he says, "The weakness of the Free Grace theology is that it relies on God calling an unrepentent sinner innocent, which is of course a lie and not worthy of a perfect God. It also militates against the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:16-19 , where he says YOU MUST FOLLOW THE COMMANDMENTS TO GAIN ETERNAL LIFE: "

Amazing…scary…sad…although I should expect nothing less I suppose. All I can say is that Jesus disagrees with you and your 4-verse context that you quoted.

 

[usemelord]

Hey, hey, hey! Let’s keep our responses clothed with a degree of civility. While we may not always agree on interpretation of certain Scripture, that doesn’t mean we can’t exercise courteousness at the same time. That being said, I was always one to take the Bible literally until I started attending Bible study taught by one of the most knowledgeable and effective teachers I’ve ever encountered. He explains that the Bible not necessarily be interpreted literally, rather literarily. Illustrating his point he cites Psalm 50:10, among others, which says “…for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.” Then he asks if Scripture literally means 1,000 hills. If so, then what about hill number 1,001? Similarly, parables shouldn’t necessarily be taken literally, rather metaphorically. So, I guess my point is that we are all entitled to our own opinions about what particular verses of the Bible mean to each of us. Most of us participating in these threads are not Bible scholars, so let’s remember to respect each other’s contributions and if we don’t agree with someone else, then at least avoid verbal chastisement.

 

[narrow_path]

Usemelord - You are absolutely correct. I (and I hope Bill) will take your advice. In fact, I would like to apologize for my words if they were too callous and dogmatic to anyone that may have felt arrogance when reading them. The truth is, I get very defensive when any biblical text is turned upside down on its head. (Just an analogy here, not to be taken literally)

But I do agree in principle with your analogy. But I would say this: The Bible was INTENDED to be taken only in one way as a whole - and I am just another person (as is everyone else) who will stand accountable to God for what he or she believes it says. Therefore, I do the best I can to properly employ a consistent hermeneutic in order to execute sound biblical exegesis. This is what I have dedicated my life to - the TRUE saving gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thanks again for your insight (and rebuke!)

 

[bigbaldone]

The truth is, I get very defensive when any biblical text is turned upside down on its head. (Just an analogy here, not to be taken literally)

But I would say this: The Bible was INTENDED to be taken only in one way as a whole - and I am just another person (as is everyone else) who will stand accountable to God for what he or she believes it says.

Therefore, I do the best I can to properly employ a consistent hermeneutic in order to execute sound biblical exegesis. This is what I have dedicated my life to - the TRUE saving gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1. Please define what you consider as “turned upside down”?
2. “Intended”…in what book did you find this reasoning?
3. A) What training, academic, do you posses that qualifies you in hermeneutics and what makes you confident that your exegesis is without error?
   
   B) What qualifies your established belief system as possessing the “TRUE” saving gospel?

I trust that you will not take offense and begin to lash out with sardonic comments. I ask the above based on this and other posts, and the fact that you do list a religion.

Your answers will be most helpful.

 

[narrow_path]

bibbaldone-

“turned upside down” is simply an analogy for an incorrect interpretation…or one that was not intended by the biblical author.

Intended - I was not quoting this from any “book”; just trying to communicate that each book has an intended meaning.

I never said nor implied that my exegetical basis was “without error.” Ironically, I happen to think that this question should be asked of all Catholics - because Catholics are the ones claiming supernatural authority…and I don’t see that taught anywhere in Scripture (and have been looking for many years.) Although Bible College and Seminary are in my past, I don’t believe that in itself would “qualify” me. Rather, I depend on the Holy Spirit to be my guide.

Next, “my belief system” is not my own - rather it is God’s revelation to mankind via His Word, specifically, it is grace through faith alone that saves. But this is known because of a proper understanding of Scripture; and this is what makes it true - not because I (or anyone) says so.

 

[Flame_of_Christ]

but why do all protestants disagree narrow_path? They all subscribe to the notion that the bible is all that is needed, but has this proven to be what they are really saying?

let me try to paint a picture of something:
I think that if you came from a very evangelical church with a pastor who accepted your understanding of the bible and then he went out and converted the world, then everyone would accept that understanding. That makes sense right?

But here is the thing, not everyone would accept his interpretation, because what he is offering is not the bible alone, but the bible and his interpretation / understanding of it.

Now you might sit here and say, yes but everyone is wrong in their understanding, except me.
Well alright, but why should I trust you as opposed to the catholic church? You both offer the “truth” but are there any reasons why I should accept you as the infallible teacher as opposed to the church?

yet, haven’t you changed your views on some things during the time you have been a christian? So, you see, you were not infallible, and to presume that you are now is to err. You might need to change many views in the years to come. But the church has never contradicted itself in it’s teaching (from day one till now). So at the very least, it has more of a claim to infallibility than anyone else.
“Let God be true and every man be a liar”, as I have heard expounded before.

but back to the pastor going off to convert the world to the bible and his understanding of it.

He is claiming that the bible is all that is needed, yet he contradicts himself because he offers not the bible alone, but the bible and his own interpretation of it.

So clearly, by his actions, he suggests that we do not need the bible alone, but that we need both the bible and its true interpretation. Both are needed, as you prove by trying to give yours.

I hope that this is very clear!

as for the catholic church and her understanding, the reason why we should accept her as opposed to some other, can be found. There are many very good logical reasons why, if we must choose (and we must), the catholic church is the only reasonable choice.

If you are honest with yourself, you know that we need both the bible and its correct interpretation, and not just the bible alone. You have already said that much.

Ask me why I choose the catholic church as opposed to anyone else!

the peace of Christ be yours brother

 

[paul_c]

“So as you can see, both the scriptural passages you use as support of assurance and denied earlier in the same epistles. It is important to understand context when reading scripture. the Catholic church understands fully what it teaches and why.”

paul c - Your admission that Scripture condtradicts itself is so utterly ridiculous that I hesitated for some time to even respond because even the RCC acknowleges the inerrancy of Scripture. By logical extention, you would be putting yourself outside the belief of the RCC by making such an erroneous statement and should (if being honest) be denied communion until correct belief is maintained. (This actually happened to a Catholic friend of mine.)

To put it simply, NO, the Bible does not contradict itself but rather it does complement itself in many areas. The Biblical quotations you mentioned are in complete harmony with the panoply of Scripture:

Matthew 19:16 and following were about a RICH MAN’S misunderstanding of how salvation works. The very first question he asked Jesus was, “What good thing must I DO to get eternal life?” Jesus responds in no uncertain terms by correcting his thinking in terms of righteousness by works: “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only One who is good.” Jesus then proceeds to make a crucial point that the heart is what really matters by exposing where the rich man’s heart really was - in his riches. Therefore, Christ said to the man, “Obey the ten commandments.” The man said that he had kept these (as Christ already knew) so then Jesus cuts right to the issue: “If you want to be perfect, go sell your posessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Of course, the reason why the rich an left sad was because he KNEW that his heart was far from the Lord. Perhaps this is why we are also told that money can be “the root of all kinds of evil.” This parable then makes perfect sense (in a non-Catholic, non-Magesterial) kind of way when Christ concludes with, “Again, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a RICH MAN to enter the Kingdom of God.” A great question to ask yourself after reading parables is “What’s the point?” To you, apparently this parable tells us that we must obey the ten commandments in order to be saved. And, you are at liberty to believe that is you wish. However, other thinking people that consider the ENTIRE context of the parable have great reason to believe that Jesus was simply MAKING A POINT to the rich man that his heart was not in the right place - and He did this by exposing the rich man’s heart through questions and requests (not intended to be taken in a wooden, literal sense as you have taken it).

Amazingly, paul c DID NOT EVEN MENTION (perhaps didn’t know?) that this parable was even about a rich man! This is what he says, "The weakness of the Free Grace theology is that it relies on God calling an unrepentent sinner innocent, which is of course a lie and not worthy of a perfect God. It also militates against the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:16-19 , where he says YOU MUST FOLLOW THE COMMANDMENTS TO GAIN ETERNAL LIFE: "

Amazing…scary…sad…although I should expect nothing less I suppose. All I can say is that Jesus disagrees with you and your 4-verse context that you quoted.

You completely misunderstood what I was trying to tell you. Perhaps I didn’t explain it well enough. I agree that scripture does not contradict itself if interpreted properly. If you find that it does seem to contradict itself, it is because you have the wrong interpretations. That was my point. Your interpretation would require scripture to contradict itself.

And yes, I recognize that the parable speaks to two issues. One, you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven and two, you can’t love both God and Money. The point I was making to you is that first one - that you need to do good works to get to heaven. Even the second point, requires action (selling his possessions and giving to the poor). which is exactly the point. You need to demonstrate your faith through works. And if you fail to do this, you will not be saved.

What are your credentials to speak for Jesus?

 

[narrow_path]

Flame of Christ - You ask why all Protestants disagree? Well, the answer should seem obvious in that there are all kinds of different people with all kinds of different backgrounds. The intelligence differs, discernment, commitment to study, etc. It seems that it would be nothing short of a miracle of EVERYONE agreed on EVERY single issue possible. But of course, this does not happen. The Holy Spirit will illumine the Scriptures for us to understand it - but this takes time, patience and dilligence. Also, there IS agreement and Unity on the ESSENTIALS. The Deity of Christ, the Resurrection, the Second Coming, Original Sin, the Trinity…walk into any orthodox Protestant denomination and ask for a doctrinal statement and you will find agreement in these essential areas.

Further, disagreement especially happens for ALL of the Catholics I have spoken to and known my entire life. Every person (including Catholics) have a different “spin” on what they think the Scriptures teach. My good friend Tom has been a practicing Catholic for 32 years and still does not hold to ANY of the Marian doctrines. He does pray to the saints, say the Rosary, go to confession, etc. and does most of the religious rituals that the RCC demands. But he does not believe that Mary should be called “Mother of God” because “God” is Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Therefore he believes it to be confusing to consider her other than what she actually was - an instrument used by God to bring into the world the Second Person of the Trinity. (Incarnation) In fact, he has some rather negative comments to say about the history of the RCC, but still remains Catholic only because his whole family has been for generations…and he does not want to divide the family and become one of those “silly, naive Protestants” as his family calls them.

But the point is that even among the writers on this very thread, there will be disagreement on numerous issues that the RCC has already deemed “infallible.” So, I am not saying you should “accept me” for what I say but rather search the Scriptures yourself and test what the RCC teaches in light of Scripture.

You say “If you are honest with yourself, you know that we need both the bible and its correct interpretation, and not just the bible alone. You have already said that much.” I agree with you. This is why I am not Catholic. I wouldn’t even know where to start with the “infallible” errors that have been pronounced over the years. Some Popes have so sharply disagreed with each other that they would OVERTURN each others “infallible” pronouncements. Other times, there were two Pope’s ruling at the same time. One Pope was even killed while commiting adultry! And this is God’s supposed chosen visible representative?? I don’t think so. Why would God chose a person to rule His church on earth and not even make sure that this person was one of His own?

The reality is, all people have THEIR OWN individual beliefs regardless of denominational affiliation. But don’t believe me, just talk to them. You’ll find out soon enough that everyone has different (sometimes slightly) beliefs. This is why ultimately God will be our Judge for what we believe…and also why I believe that Denominational labels do not save us but a genuine relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ DOES. God knows His own.

However, getting back to your assertion, since you seem to be condeming private interpretation (as most Catholics do, but Scripture does not) let me ask you a question if I may:

Tell me how you came to decide that Rome was the “true church” without engaging in the very same private judgment or interpretation that you have already dismissed as illegitimate.

 

[narrow_path]

Paul C - “Your interpretation would require scripture to contradict itself. And yes, I recognize that the parable speaks to two issues. One, you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven and two, you can’t love both God and Money. The point I was making to you is that first one - that you need to do good works to get to heaven. Even the second point, requires action (selling his possessions and giving to the poor). which is exactly the point. You need to demonstrate your faith through works. And if you fail to do this, you will not be saved. What are your credentials to speak for Jesus?”

I will try to be as brief as possible: Paul c, apparently you STILL do not understand where I am coming from. So, I will be as plain as day: the parable has NOTHING to do with the Commandments AT ALL. It DOES NOT make two points, but one: don’t let money be a snare to you and steal your heart for the sake of Christ! It saddens me to think that you can read this passage and take away this: “The point I was making to you is that first one - that you need to do good works to get to heaven.” Abosolutely not. Salvation is not nor has even been righteousness-based. If it were, we would certainly have something to boast about, right? Rather it is a free gift given to sinners who are undeserving of it. Finally, worry less about credentials and more about what Scripture is trying to say to you:

“Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” (Romans 3:27-28)

“What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.” (Romans 4:1-5)

Peace

 

[Flame_of_Christ]

It is really good to talk to you brother in Christ. I want you to know first of all that I have accepted Jesus as my only Lord and Savior. I am a Catholic Christian. I know that you yourself are a christian as well (maybe i can help you gain the catholic part!)

Let me try to answer your question.

Tell me how you came to decide that Rome was the “true church” without engaging in the very same private judgment or interpretation that you have already dismissed as illegitimate.

well for me, let me just give you some background first that I hope will spell this out. For over 20 years I did not believe in God at all. then, through some miracles, I did. Later came a point where I called upon Jesus. I became a christian and began to go to a methodist church. But I left there because the pastor was a woman and I was like “whoa, the bible says…” so i left.

I next joined a non-denominationl evangelical. There I was really blessed to have praise and worship, and great bible teachings on living the christian life. There was also a strong emphasis on Jesus being our Savior. It was a good church. But here is the thing, I had to leave there as well! The reason why was because I had been having a faith walk with the Lord that was pretty intimate, and at this church, I began to hear that they were teaching that salvation could not be lost even by terrible sins chosen freely. wow, I thought, I know that God will not let you sin like that, I knew this because of my relationship with Him. So I knew that this church, as good as it was and as much as I was being blessed, was teaching error. The bible really convicted me as well that “immorality must not even be mentioned among you.” and they meant that no matter how much you sinned, it was okay! wow

I know that there are some other views of christianity about if christians can still sin without losing there salvation, like lets say “you were never really saved in the first place.” but the thing is, I knew that my faith was weak. But that I did have faith.

so okay, here is why I chose the Catholic Church. Honestly, it wasn’t me! I didn’t choose it! It seems that God chose it for me, through my mom. Because after that moment I said to myself and to God “I guess that I will just go back to the way things were with me at the beginning: just me and my bible, I won’t go to churches.”

But my mom asked me one day, “why don’t you check out the catholic church?” I replied, “I dunno mom, don’t they worship statues and worship Mary? That’s definately not in the bible.” But the funny thing is, I still went to go and see.

So here is it: When I was there, after many years away from the catholic church (I had been raised catholic) I had such an experience of God, that I knew I was supposed to be there. I felt this incredible peace while praying to God in there. Incredible peace. And I knew that God was with them, in that church. I knew almost nothing about the beliefs of the Catholic Church and so began to read. It was Jesus Christ’s true presence in the Holy Eucharist, in that church, that led me back home.

He is there!

 

[usemelord]

So, narrow_path, you have a Catholic friend who does not believe that Mary is the Mother of God. That’s pretty astounding. As I explained earlier, I was Protestant (Bible church, Baptist church) for the first 60 years of my life, then began to carefully and objectively examined the Catholic Church and all the myriad of things I either didn’t understand or thought to be superfluous and unnecessary for worship. One of the things I had a particularly difficult time with was understanding what the “big deal” was about how Catholics treated Mary. To me, she was a vessel of sorts to bring Christ into the world, nothing more, nothing less. However, the more I thought about it, it made perfect sense to elevate her to a much higher status. Please understand ,if you are not Catholic, that Catholics do NOT worship Mary, but we do venerate her. Let me tell a quick story to illustrate my point. When I was going through the RCIA program, one of my born again Christian friends at work was visibly upset that I was entertaining the idea of becoming Catholic and asked me, “Why do Catholics worship Mary?” I said, “Charles, didn’t you have a mother, and didn’t you love her in many different ways?” “Yes, of course,” answered Charles. Then I proceeded to take it one step further by asking, “If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God (i.e. the second person of the Trinity), then does it not logically follow that Mary is the Mother of God?” How can that be denied? Indeed, Mary is the Mother of God, undisputedly, but even so, not all Catholics are into Marian devotion. Nor do all Catholic practice praying the Rosary. Nor do all Catholics regularly go to confession. So, be careful not to “paint with a broad brush” when you say ALL Catholics do this or that. It ain’t true. Regarding the subject of money Scripture does not say money is bad. Money earned legitimately and used wisely is a very good thing most especially when it is used to help the poor, the unemployed and the disenfranchised, etc. However, the Bible is crystal clear that the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil. No one can doubt that. One cannot love God AND money at the same time. But, if one does not love money, but uses money for the advancement of the Kingdom, God loves a cheerful giver. That’s why we tithe. There is a very interesting book you might think about reading called, “Surprised By Truth” by Patrick Madrid, a compilation of a dozen or so stories of people like myself all of whom were convinced beyond any doubt that they would become Catholic when hell froze over; i.e. when pigs fly…never, never, never!!! I could not in a million years ever imagine that it would happen to me. My mother would roll over in her grave. Well, guess what? She’s rolling (and I think she’s truly happy for me). One last thing in closing. I also mentioned earlier that I attend an ecumenical Christian men’s group every Wednesday morning. We sing, pray, listen to a speaker and have table discussion. There are men from many other Christian denominations and even a pastor from a charismatic church. I wish you could experience how well we all get along, because we know we are unified by our mutual love of Christ, not divided by our silly, petty differences as to what a certain verse of Scripture is suppose to say, or not say. It’s truly beautiful. Bottom line, we are all Christians saved by GRACE (God’s Riches At Christ’s Expense). As Rodney King said some time ago, “Can’t we all just get along?”