Evangelical vs Protestant

[bigbaldone]

Narrow_path,

Thank you for your reply, and I very much respect the proverbial tone in which you used.

I also know that it is hard in a forum such as this to “hear” the intended tone, which brings understanding, of the point that a person is attempting to make.

 

[paul_c]

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?”

Narrow Path,
this is the problem with personal interpretation. You take a very straight forward statement from Jesus: “follow the commandment to gain eternal life” and twist it to make it say what you want it to say. Look, why do you think Jesus preached the sermon on the Mount if your actions were inconsequential for your salvation? Why did he say in Matthew 25: 31-46 that those who showed mercy to others would gain eternal life but those that didn’t would be condemned? As for Romans, go two chapters earlier (Romans 2:1-16) and you will see this:

Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things. We know that the judgment of God on those who do such things is true. Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance? 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.: Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. There is no partiality with God. All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. **For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. ** For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescription of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, **according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus. **

Man is justified by Faith through Baptism. That is a definitive Catholic teaching. However, once baptized, you need to stay in the state of Grace through doing the will of God. Even if we were to disregard the direct guidance in Matthew 16 to follow the commandments and focus only on his direction to the Rich man to give his money to the poor, isn’t that just more of the same: you need to do the will of God.

Give this some thought. We are justified by faith but we also need to do good works to stay saved. This is consistent with both the readings you brought up and the ones I put forward. To say that you are justified by faith alone requires you to ignore huge sections of the new testament and renders all moral teaching irrelevant. How can that possibly be true?

 

[Flame_of_Christ]

I agree and also would say that in John 15, Jesus tells his disciples to remain in him, that they are already in him, but that they must remain in him or else they will be lose big time.

(my paraphrase)

 

[Cinette]

I was a protestant street witnessing Jesus Freak in the early 70’s. I was charismatic and evangelical. To evangelize is to spread the Word. Charismatic means Holy Spirit oriented. I am a Convert now, since 1993. I am still an evangelical charismatic but now I express all of that within the Church. You will notice that many Catholic churches are turning charismatic. You can even look for a list of charismatic masses in your area. And to add to this, I am a Novus Ordo Latin Catholic and I am in training to become a secular Franciscan. This all works together beautifully.
As for the word “protestant” it means “one who protests”. There are currently over 32,000 sects recognized. Just to prove anyone can build their own “cafeteria style pick and choose” religion, I became a protestant minister! Hey, if you are protestant and you follow the beliefs of a human’s opinions like Calvinists, etc, why not just make your own religion? If you don’t feel comfortable with this, think about the keys of the kingdom being given to Peter and whether you agree with it or not, you are ALL members of the One Body, the Bride of Christ, the one holy catholic (universal) and apostolic (descending from the original Apostles) Church! I realized this myself after 35 yrs. It may not be perfect but it’s the Original Church. Pax et bonum, beejenigma

The largest number of Charismatics in the world are Catholic - did you know that?

 

[Cinette]

For me, I simply wanted to seek the truth out and see where it lead me. Therefore, I was open to Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. When, I first began my investigation of the biblical issues, I must admit that I had a preconceived notion that the RCC was the oldest church in existence because of Christ’s establishment of it through Peter. I thought that this was a given - something that all Catholics would just “have” on those in Protestant and Orthodox faiths (I believe Orthodox doesn’t ackowledge Peter’s primacy) .

Unbeknowst to me, (and upon further investigation), I was shocked to discover that not only is the establishment of the RCC through Peter merely debatable - there is an abundance of biblical data to demonstrate just otherwise and highly doubt it altogether! I have heard Karl Kealting, Scot Hahn, and Tim Staples talk about this, and quite frankly, they are quite unconvincing to me - which was a big part in me becoming Protestant. From the petra/petros debate in original Greek to the true ecumenical council in the book of Acts where certainly Peter would have been presiding (had Christ felt the need to actually establish a papacy) but instead we find James in charge. Later on, Paul even rebukes Peter on a matter of faith and morals (which supposedly the pope is deemed “infallible”)

In fact, the very notion of fallible human beings determining that there is supposedly and infallible magesterium is by its very nature subject to err.

Much more more could be said, but I need to have some dinner…

Pity you were not on this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=327695&goto=newpost

Bon apetite!

Cinette

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Great post in number 13, dcana!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

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.

Actually, I’ve met Protestant Non-Trinitarians, and I’ve met Protestants who don’t seem to believe in sin, and several Protestants that don’t believe in the physical Resurrection of the Dead, and Protestants who don’t believe in Hell, and Protestants who don’t believe in Baptism (“we are baptized by the Spirit, so we don’t need that”), etc.

But your calculation of essentials is a common present-day calculation. The really important thing to see on this is to look at Protestantism’s perspective on “essentials” as it has altered throughout history. I’m just coming off of having spent most of today writing a history paper about the early Protestant views of the Eucharist. Luther said that everyone would bake in Hell if they didn’t share his view of the Eucharist, that it is literally, physically the body and blood of Christ present with bread and wine, both natures present. Calvin taught that those who opposed his view of the Eucharist were godless too, as did Zwingli, and they insisted on the symbol alone interpretation.

The list goes much further on than just the Eucharist, of issues Protestants back then felt they had to agree on or they were damned eternally. Luther, for instance, said that anyone who rejected the doctrine of Infant Baptism should be executed. I think pointing to the modern conflicts might help put this into perspective better.

Look at the liberal movements of Christianity today, and how strongly they differ from the conservatives. Many of the liberals say the Bible could well be wrong on all manner of different issues, that it’s a historical document, or a bunch of stories we can learn lessons from. There are lots of relativistic Christians who believe all religions are equally valid and equally true to their own. The very basics of Christianity are now under question from many of these liberals. That is the modern movement. Three or four generations ago, such questions would have been unheard of. The “essentials” of Christianity people might have listed would have been more numerous. “Christian” acceptance of homosexuality as legitimate, or of abortion, would have been completely unthinkable around 1900. Today, “love” is elevated over doctrine among these kinds of very large movements in an ever intensifying way.

But turning away from these leftist movements that represent a lot of the future of Christianity, the most recent turn to the left (Protestantism has been a continual move toward the left from its very origins- only yesterday’s left is today’s right, so that truth is harder to see), we can see a big new movement in Christianity which is non-denominationalism. That, even though it often is more conservative in moral values than denominationalism, can produce much wilder doctrinal deviation because of its lack of traditional roots. It can be considered a more “pure” form of Protestantism in the sense that it relies more completely on personal interpretation and the Holy Spirit, rather than on traditions of doctrine passed on by other people. This movement relies on small groups or house churches, or just personal actions all on one’s own, and in so doing it cuts itself off from traditions and steps “out of the box.” I grew up non-denominational, very devout, with a very devout Protestant family that have great relationships with God. But the non-denominationals I met online, the non-denominationals I met in Bible study groups, and the non-denominational doctrines I found in my own household as I came to know about it better, are far off in some ways from even some of the “essentials” you have listed. And I didn’t meet all these people through the same sources- I met them in a variety of different ways, and they can be off in just a few areas, but when they go off they can go WAY off. Because there is no tradition or hierarchy or infallible interpretation for them to hold to; there is only their own and what they subjectively feel the Spirit is guiding them to, in the Scripture.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

“Essentials” of Protestantism have devolved a LOT since the day of Luther, and they are devolving a lot in front of our eyes within our own generation. Non-denominationalism on the one hand (strengthened greatly by the modern movement against organized religion) and liberalism on the other are two great waves of the Protestant future, and these are devastating doctrinal “essentials” within our own lifespan . . . though they themselves are only the most recent phases of a continually devolving process of the disintegration in essentials for Protestantism. The enormity of the number of divisions in Protestantism has caused people to learn to think little of the differences, to see these as non-essential because it is virtually impossible to get by in our world while seeing as a big deal all the differences of doctrine that in the past would have been seen as shocking abominations between differing denominations. Because we need to “get by,” our understanding of the vital importance of doctrine diminishes and our acceptance of differing doctrinal viewpoints grows ever broader with each passing generation. That’s what’s been happening for about 500 years within Protestantism, and a lot of Catholics get caught up in that kind of perspective too because it’s all around them, and living in it, that’s what they become accustomed to.

It’s very sad, but historically, this is what’s happening. Many of your “essentials” will not be seen as essentials in mainstream Protestant thought in four, three, or maybe even two generations, if the current trends continue as they have been for centuries. Liberalism and relativism are eroding them horrifically, and non-denominationalism looks set to deal the knock-out punch.

Don’t get me wrong- I know that non-denominationals and liberals and people of a broad variety can have real relationships with God. But Protestantism is and has always been a disintegrating religion, and if you look at Protestantism from a historical vantage point, and look at its big future movements today, you’ll see how modern viewpoints of “essentials” are transitory and much, much sparser than they ever have been in Protestant history, and much, much sparser than the new big Protestant movements in liberalism and to some extent in non-denominationalism make it still.

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.

He is a heretic if he rejects the Marian dogmas. The existence of heresy and confusion does not mean truth is unclear. Sometimes people just don’t know the truth, and sometimes they know and reject it even though it’s clear. When they reject it while Catholics, they sever themselves from the Church at least to the extent that they deny it. The Lord said that He made the wisdom of the wise foolishness; we must rely on Christ, and He brought us all that the Catholic Church gives.

There are heretical Catholics and there are faithful Catholics who remain united in truth. The fact that some leave the truth does not mean the Church is not one, for those that leave the truth leave the Church, and it remains a spiritual and unspeakably precious unity. Just as Jesus prayed to His Father before entering the Passion, “I pray that they may be one as you and I are one.” That is the grace He pours out to the Church through the Eucharist, union for all in the faith and in the Spirit. Christ’s Body is not divided; it is one glorious, majestic and powerful united entity.

It is sad that many Protestants try to rebut teachings that are unspeakably glorious, teachings such as the unity of the Church in faith, and really infallible interpretations of truth from Rome! How glorious, how unutterably glorious, if Christ really DID speak through Rome infallibly rather than leaving everyone in confusion and endless doctrinal disintegration, if the Church WAS really one as Christ and His Father are one, rather than divided in opinion and speaking with millions of opposing voices on matters of religion, rather than with Christ’s voice, Christ who said that whenever He speaks, it is His Father that speaks through Him: that is the majesty of the unity Christ and His Father shared, total oneness in voice, in doctrine, in opinion, in thought and in essence. That is what He manifests in the unity of faith and Spirit of His Church, and in their one action with one Head, which is represented in human form in the Pope in order that the Church might live as one continually rather than shatter millionfold, and might preserve and protect it against the devil’s lies.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

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.

The Bible is one of the great guides that led me to the RCC in the first place. But you’re presupposing in your recommendation the validity of Sola Scriptura, that we have the right to set ourselves up (based on our private interpretations of the Bible) as judges of God’s Word as revealed through Tradition and the Magesterium. The idea that we can judge the Magesterium and Tradition through our private interpretation of the Bible, the test you are recommending, is grounded on Sola Scriptura. There is no reason to assume Sola Scriptura’s validity, so there is no reason to practice your test.

Sola Scriptura, by the way, is not even in the Bible anyway. It’s an extra-biblical tradition created out of a combination of immoral rage against the Church’s moral teachings in the Reformation era (priests wanted to break their vows and have sex, for one), and very legitimate anger at the Church because there were some very corrupt men heading elements of it. People didn’t want to acknowledge any longer the religious authority of people they saw as tyrants, so they rebelled- and others wanted freedom from the restraint of Catholic moral discipline, and princes wanted Catholic lands and money, so for a lot of reasons the extra-biblical tradition of Sola Scriptura caught on in the Reformation where it never existed anywhere up to that point in history.

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.

The way of arriving at truth that I grew up with was read the Bible and pray for the Spirit’s guidance. I did this, and I gained a lot from it. However, I did come to some eroneous conclusions, and occasionally had spiritual experiences I thought were from the Lord which backed up the false interpretations I was arriving at. Here’s the underlying problem with the system: The Spirit is supposed to guide one in one’s interpretation of the Scripture, and we are supposed to test the spirits against the Scripture, yet reliance upon the Scripture to escape the subjectivity of spiritual experiences leaves us relying on another subjective, for we are relying on our own personal interpretations of Scripture. The same goes when one practices this the other way around, learning from Scripture through Spirit. Either way, one ends up relying on one’s own personal wisdom. In Catholicism, on the other hand, we rely on the living God as He acts and speaks objectively through the Catholic Church. We have the interpretation, through the Church, as well as the Sacred Scripture and Tradition, so we are not left in the dark of our own ignorance if we choose to look and follow what the Church says.

I wouldn’t even know where to start with the “infallible” errors that have been pronounced over the years.

Judged errors by your private interpretation of the Bible?

Some Popes have so sharply disagreed with each other that they would OVERTURN each others “infallible” pronouncements.

That has never happened. You’d have to prove it, and I invite you to try.

Other times, there were two Pope’s ruling at the same time.

There have been anti-Popes, yes. False popes. Just as there have been false prophets in Israel’s history, or false gods to displace the true God. The existence of a false Pope does not negate the existence of a true Pope.

One Pope was even killed while commiting adultry! And this is God’s supposed chosen visible representative?? I don’t think so.

Remember, God did not prevent Caiaphas from becoming Israel’s legitimate High Priest. The Scripture never condemned him as a false High Priest; in fact, it says he was the High Priest. There have been evil popes and saintly popes. But the office of Pope comes from God, as did the office of High Priest for the Kingdom of Israel.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

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?

Why did He choose Judas to be one of the 12 apostles? God does what God wants.

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.

The modern rejection of denominational “labels” by many Christians is another of those big breaks from the past I was talking about. Historical Protestants viewed these denominational differences (along with their doctrinal differences, all of which you probably would now call non-essential, because of our time period) as distinguishing between members of the Kingdom of Heaven and people who were outside in darkness, most often.

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.

There is a private judgment that occurs. The will has to assent to Christ’s movement in the heart; that is part of what it means to be human. However, the difference is in what we assent to. Catholics assent to have faith in the Church (whatever interpretations it reaches). Protestants assent to have faith in themselves (whatever interpretations they reach). Catholics have faith in what they believe to be infallible; Protestants have faith in what they know to be fallible. That difference is incredible, if you think about it.

 

[paul_c]

Flame of Christ - 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.

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.

Well, I don’t think you really understand the essence of Catholic Thought. We believe tha the full deposit of Faith (all the knowledge having to do with Faith, morals and salvation) was passed down from the Apostles to the Bishops that succeeded them with the Pope as the lead bishop and vicar of Christ. The church uses various vehicles to pass that truth on to its members including scripture, sermons at mass, papal encyclicals, the catechisms and even art work like stained galss windows, paintings and statues in the church. With only a little effort (paticularly now in the age of the internet), Catholics and others can learn what the church teaches on virtually any issue and why… and can even trace those teachings back to their sources in the Apostolic age to demonstrate their orthodoxy.

Contrary to popular non-Catholic belief, the Catholic Church is a champion of using reason to find God. It doesn’t want or require blind faith. Instead, it teaches the truth by appealing to reason. When people decide the the Catholic church is the one true church, they generally come to that conclusion through reason, not blind faith. Look at the conversion stories that are contained in these pages. Read the books of Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn or any of the others, they will talk about the logical sequences that brought them to the faith. Sometimes, it is by reading scripture and coming to understand that the Catholic Church’s teachings are consistent with it in ways that other Churches are not. Sometimes its by tracing the church’s teachings back through the Early Church Fathers to understand their basis in the Apostles. Sometimes its by understanding that only the Catholic Church fits the title of one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church from teh Nicene Creed. Sometimes, its through the fruits of its labor and its works of Mercy.

Truly, the church was put in place for only one reason: to preach the good news about Salvation in Christ. Its nuns, friars, priests, bishops and the pope carry out their missions with great personal sacrifice, leading lives of Chastity, Poverty and Obedience. And sure, there are isolated cases where priests do not live up to their vows and that is very lamentable, but human’s are imperfect creatures as you know. And historically, there have been many who have tried to use the church to justify their own desires. Yet the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has survived this all and is as robust as ever at its core.

When a Catholic, or any other person for that matter, chooses to go against Church teaching, they are doing so at their own peril. For how can any individual hope to have more insight into the truths of God than the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church with all its history and its millions of theologians over the centuries, and of course the protection of the Holy Spirit? To do so is fool hardy. If confronted with a church teaching that is contrary to my beliefs (something that has not happened for a long time), my approach would be to assume I was wrong and work to understand the church teaching. I think this is different than the Protestant approach, which I assume would be to believe their own intuition over that of any authority.

 

[narrow_path]

I will respond to Flame of Christ because I asked him a direct question, and he answered. Therefore, I will respond to him first. Due to a lack of time, I will not be able to respond to all of the posts today…perhaps this weekend. Keep in mind that I am the minority here, so anytime I make a statement that seems “anti-Catholic” and so forth, there are many that take issue and reply. That’s understandable. And because most on these threads are Catholic, I will have to ask for your patience in my responding…thank you.

Ok…to summarize your response as to how you came to believe and accept that the RCC was the “true church” without engaging in the same private judgment you already deemed illegitimate, you say it was your mom, the peace that you experienced while inside the church itself and Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist. As I gather, these would be the three main contributing factors. Just one problem though – you HAVE engaged in private interpretation and judgment by doing so……

I see a double-standard happening here. For example, the Watchtower Society sees private judgment for you to become a Jehovah’s Witness as perfectly acceptable, but condemns and private judgment that leads you away from the Watchtower Society. And essentially what the dominant theme is here among Catholics is that Rome only condemns those private judgments that contradict its official teaching – but that hardly answers the question! This is called arguing in a circle. How comforting it is to know that Rome allows me to engage in private judgment—so long as the private judgment does not contradict what Rome teaches! In other words, it seems to me that there is confusion between how an individual gets to Rome (private judgment) and with the resulting decision (choosing Rome.)

However, to some people’s credit on this thread, they have admitted that private judgment MUST take place in order to get to Rome. This is more than most Catholics I have met will admit. But I will say that the very same principle that leads people TO Rome is the same principle that leads people like myself AWAY from Rome. So, Rome has condemned the decision I have reached, but it cannot condemn the very principle I used to reach that decision – since it is the very same principle that all Catholics MUST use to conclude that Rome is in fact the “true church”……this is my point.

Many have responded to the question I posed to Flame of Christ, but all who responded did so by engaging is some form of private interpretation or judgment……and Flame of Christ is no exception.

Don’t get me wrong – if you (Flame of Christ) have found solace and security in Catholicism, then as long as you KNOW the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior, I will call it an honor to consider you my brother in the Lord. It gave me great pleasure to see you using words like “relationship” when describing your Christianity. Because, that sums up what Christianity is: a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Even though I am clearly outside the visible boundaries of the RCC for sure, it is nice to know that (some) Catholics still recognize conversion. And after many years of study, I have concluded thus far that there are few doctrines that I share in common belief with Roman Catholicism and have been anathematized (the last time I counted) 53 times over! But I have no trouble sleeping at night because of the faithful study of the Scriptures over the years. Did I already mention that Peter himself did not think of himself as the head (rock) of the church? Check out Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:4-8 where Peter alludes to Christ as the “stone rejected by builders” and as a “rock that makes unbelievers fall.”

Wish I had more time……to be continued………

 

[Flame_of_Christ]

I will respond to Flame of Christ because I asked him a direct question, and he answered. Therefore, I will respond to him first. Due to a lack of time, I will not be able to respond to all of the posts today…perhaps this weekend. Keep in mind that I am the minority here, so anytime I make a statement that seems “anti-Catholic” and so forth, there are many that take issue and reply. That’s understandable. And because most on these threads are Catholic, I will have to ask for your patience in my responding…thank you.

Ok…to summarize your response as to how you came to believe and accept that the RCC was the “true church” without engaging in the same private judgment you already deemed illegitimate, you say it was your mom, the peace that you experienced while inside the church itself and Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist. As I gather, these would be the three main contributing factors. Just one problem though – you HAVE engaged in private interpretation and judgment by doing so……

I see a double-standard happening here. For example, the Watchtower Society sees private judgment for you to become a Jehovah’s Witness as perfectly acceptable, but condemns and private judgment that leads you away from the Watchtower Society. And essentially what the dominant theme is here among Catholics is that Rome only condemns those private judgments that contradict its official teaching – but that hardly answers the question! This is called arguing in a circle. How comforting it is to know that Rome allows me to engage in private judgment—so long as the private judgment does not contradict what Rome teaches! In other words, it seems to me that there is confusion between how an individual gets to Rome (private judgment) and with the resulting decision (choosing Rome.)

However, to some people’s credit on this thread, they have admitted that private judgment MUST take place in order to get to Rome. This is more than most Catholics I have met will admit. But I will say that the very same principle that leads people TO Rome is the same principle that leads people like myself AWAY from Rome. So, Rome has condemned the decision I have reached, but it cannot condemn the very principle I used to reach that decision – since it is the very same principle that all Catholics MUST use to conclude that Rome is in fact the “true church”……this is my point.

Many have responded to the question I posed to Flame of Christ, but all who responded did so by engaging is some form of private interpretation or judgment……and Flame of Christ is no exception.

Don’t get me wrong – if you (Flame of Christ) have found solace and security in Catholicism, then as long as you KNOW the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior, I will call it an honor to consider you my brother in the Lord. It gave me great pleasure to see you using words like “relationship” when describing your Christianity. Because, that sums up what Christianity is: a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Even though I am clearly outside the visible boundaries of the RCC for sure, it is nice to know that (some) Catholics still recognize conversion. And after many years of study, I have concluded thus far that there are few doctrines that I share in common belief with Roman Catholicism and have been anathematized (the last time I counted) 53 times over! But I have no trouble sleeping at night because of the faithful study of the Scriptures over the years. Did I already mention that Peter himself did not think of himself as the head (rock) of the church? Check out Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:4-8 where Peter alludes to Christ as the “stone rejected by builders” and as a “rock that makes unbelievers fall.”

Wish I had more time……to be continued………

Dear narrow_path,

I want you to know that I also see you as my brother in the Lord. I knwo what you are talking about when you say that you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and I commend that so very much. I think that to be catholic, and I hope that you understand this, does not equal a non-relationship with Him. You can know Jesus quite well in teh Catholic Church and I would go so far as to say, whoever you are, your relationship with Him will be heavily blessed by acceptance of the Sacraments in the full power. Of course if you are a nominal christian, the sacraments will still help you. BUT! if you are a faithful Christian, the sacraments will help you there too.

If that is all that I could show in this thread, I would be glad to have done so. Praise the Lord Jesus!

in His concern,

Flame of Christ

 

[usemelord]

O.K. I’m going to blatantly expose my ignorance for the whole world to see, but you don’t know where I live (ha). Here’s my question: If we don’t use “private judgment” or “private interpretation” in helping ourselves discern, then we’re nothing more than zombies. So, Newton is sleeping under a tree and gets bonked by an apple. He picks it up and gazes at it for a moment and announces it is an apple, and further, by the power of deductive reasoning, concludes that gravity caused it to fall. Sounds a bit silly, but isn’t that using private judgment/interpretation? What’s the difference when we’re talking about religious matters, that is, the legitimacy of one church versus another, or how we’ve come to know our Saviour? Yes, it’s through the exercise of independent thinking. What other method is available anyway? And, doesn’t everyone who has recognized the saving Grace of Christ have a “relationship” with Him whether or not we use that specific word? From where I sit, we do. So the beat goes on. Christians of various denominations splitting hairs among each other. Christ is observing all of this from a distance, chuckling to Himself, and, nonetheless, constantly embracing us all. Call it oversimplification if you must, but sometimes that view provides the best lens.

 

[joe370]

Hey narrow_path…

The bishop of Rome is not infallible per se; no man is infallible per se! However, the teachers/shepherds of Jesus’ One established church, beginning with Jesus’ Apostles, are infallible vis-a-vis ALL that Jesus commanded, and nothing more - thanks to the “teaching” and “guidance” of the Infallible Holy Spirit - in perpetuity! Is that a reasonable assessment?

Let’s assume for the moment that you are right about the C.C…Which protestant church in the world today existed for the first 300 years of Christianity? Find that church my friend and you will be Home, for the simple fact that she, as the bride of Christ, is also the Body of Christ to which Jesus is the Head and Savior. Jesus said: “…the gates of hell will not overcome it.” Do you believe him?

You said: “In fact, the very notion of fallible human beings determining that there is supposedly and infallible magesterium is by its very nature subject to err.”

In fact, the very notion of mere sinful, fallible human beings comprising Jesus’ One Church, built on the sinful, fallible Apostles and Prophets, determining which books belong in the “infallible” Holy Bible, out of a bevy of apocryphal books, circa 393 AD, {300 years removed from the genesis of Jesus’ One church} - is by its very nature, ludicrous without the guidance of Jesus’ infallible church. Do you believe that Jesus’ One established church is being guided by the Infallible Holy Spirit? Do you believe that Jesus’ One church is empowered by the Holy Spirit to teach ALL that Jesus commanded, starting in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, and in all Judea and Samaria, and eventually to the ends of the earth?

**"…But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Acts 1

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Matthew 28

“When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” Acts 2 **

 

[paul_c]

narrow path,
I would make a distinction between what you call private judgement and what Catholics call private interpretation. Catholics are allowed to think for themselves. Remember, Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine were Catholic thinkers who promoted reason in finding God.

Private interpretation of scripture is different. You see, the men who wrote the new testament scriptures to begin with, (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, Jude) all taught orally and described to their hearers how to understand what they wrote. This tradition has been passed on for 2000 years through the bishops and magesterium of the Church. Its the difference between reading a text book and being taught by a well trained teacher, who can help you understand the context of what was written and fill in the blanks that are left out of the written word. When trying to go it alone, the chances of misinterpretation are very high if you start out with the wrong context. Practicing Catholics understand the context of what was written because it is discussed every week in Mass and in whatever catechism they experience and this is a great advantage in understanding what is meant. Furthermore, if a Catholic reads the scripture and comes away with a different understanding than what the church teaches, he should ask why the church teaches what it teaches. In my experience, the answer is always a good, well thought out one. You will see that in these pages.

 

[joe370]

Hey usemelord, you said:

O.K. I’m going to blatantly expose my ignorance for the whole world to see, but you don’t know where I live (ha). Here’s my question: If we don’t use “private judgment” or “private interpretation” in helping ourselves discern, then we’re nothing more than zombies.

Agreed!!! The brothers and sisters of Jesus’ One church in the book of Acts also employed “private judgment” or “private interpretation” in helping them to discern… but eventually could not reach an alliance and decided to take the matter to the teachers/shepherds of Jesus’ One church, and that is exactly what Christians belonging to the C.C. do; they take it to the church, as per Matthew 18:17. That is the very reason why Jesus’ One Holy church is called the Pillar and Foundation of truth, and not Jesus’ One Holy bible - thanks to the guidance/protection of the Spirit of Truth!

So, Newton is sleeping under a tree and gets bonked by an apple. He picks it up and gazes at it for a moment and announces it is an apple, and further, by the power of deductive reasoning, concludes that gravity caused it to fall. Sounds a bit silly, but isn’t that using private judgment/interpretation?

Yup…

What’s the difference when we’re talking about religious matters, that is, the legitimacy of one church versus another, or how we’ve come to know our Saviour?

The difference is: Jesus empowered just one church to teach all that He commanded, starting in Jerusalem…to the ends of the earth, and commanded/prayed that there be no division and dissension in His One church, and she remained one and united until the protestant reformation, at which point all protestant Christians, belonging to churches built by mere men, took unresolvable issues to their respective Holy Bibles to settle disputes. As long as their private interpretations agree with the teachings of their respective churches, all is right as rain; seems a bit hypocritical in my humble opinion.

Yes, it’s through the exercise of independent thinking. What other method is available anyway?

When it comes to Jesus’ established church circa 33 AD - the Holy Spirit, Who is “teaching” and “guiding” Jesus’ One church, is the only method that can be trusted; agreed?

And, doesn’t everyone who has recognized the saving Grace of Christ have a “relationship” with Him whether or not we use that specific word? From where I sit, we do.

Agreed!

So the beat goes on. Christians of various denominations splitting hairs among each other. Christ is observing all of this from a distance, chuckling to Himself, and, nonetheless, constantly embracing us all. Call it oversimplification if you must, but sometimes that view provides the best lens.

I seriously doubt He is chuckling at all of the division and dissension in His mystical Body to which He is the Head and Savior; He fervently prayed for His One church to be one, just as He and His Father are one!!! The devil is the one chucking, that I am sure of, for he is the “author of confusion.” The devil has an intense revulsion for Jesus’ One church, ergo the the title anti-Christ, and he will stop at nothing in his attempt to divide and conquer Jesus’ one church, to no avail of course; he can be the down fall of many Christians belonging to His church, but never the church as a whole, for Jesus is the head and savior of His church; she, as the bride of Christ is the pillar and foundation of truth; she is the house of the living God, the new temple!!! I whole-heartedly believe that, if you have searched with all your heart soul and mind, for Jesus’ one church established circa 33 AD, and you end up at a church other than the C.C., THEN YOU ARE HOME. For me, as a former Lutheran, once I did this, it became clear as day that the fullness of faith could only be found in the C.C. Each to their own, I guess. The one thing that I can say with conviction is: Jesus wants brothers and sisters in Christ to love and respect one another, regardless of church affiliation!!!

The Holy C.C., the pillar and foundation of truth, codified just one Holy bible, and that one Holy bible, once viewed as the pillar and foundation of truth, engendered heterogeneous churches, all built by men, not to impugn their work of course; just stating the obvious!

 

[joe370]

Hey narrow_path, you said:

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.

You make a very good point! If not for the few dissenters with a legitimate complaint, who spearheaded the protestant reformation, which mushroomed into the fractured state of Jesus’ One Mystical Body, Jesus’ One monolithic church would have been the only church all of these different people with all kinds of different backgrounds, with differing intelligence levels, discernment and commitment to study, would have been familiar with, the only church in every neighborhood in the different parts of the world, just as it was for the first 1500 years of Christianity. If there had never been a protestant reformation, and as per the bible, there shouldn’t have been one, you would belong to the one church built by Jesus Christ. However, men chose to deviate from the word of God by leaving Jesus’ one church and starting another; they chose to believe that the gates of hell did in fact prevail against the church built by Jesus Christ, instead of dedicating their lives to the betterment of Jesus One church. If Martin Luther would have just trusted in our Lord, he would have witnessed, as a catholic priest, the abrogation of the the buying and selling of indulgences at the Council of Trent (1562). This wasn’t the first time men mascaraing as holy men infiltrated Gods House and attempted to ransack IT; the evil one is sadly, relentless in his diabolical efforts.

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.

It does in the C.C…I don’t know about every single detail; after all we are talking about the sinful fallible human race, but she, as the bride of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, is still one and united, just as she was for 1500 years!!!

The Holy Spirit will illumine the Scriptures for us to understand it - but this takes time, patience and dilligence.

Possibly…I pray everyday that the C.C. and the P.C.'s will once again be one and united. But, in order for that to happen, they must be one and united themselves --FIRST!

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.

If that is enough then why aren’t these P.C.'s united; why do they all go by a different name? The Lutheran church to which I once belonged believes in a metaphorical interpretation of the Eucharist; the church to which a Lutheran pasture I met here at CAF, belongs --believes in the literal interpretation; who is right; who is wrong; who has the divine providential right to arbitrate?

 

[narrow_path]

Once again, my time is limited so I will provide a general response to some of the most common assertions being made……

Many seem to be unaware that the apocryphal books were not canonized by Trent until some 1500 years AFTER they were written largely as a RESPONSE to the Reformation. Of course, Luther was very critical of the RCC for not having scriptural support for doctrines such as praying for the dead. So, by canonizing the Apocrypha, Catholics then had a “go to” passage in 2 Maccabees 12:45,46. Of course I am aware of the arguments made that the Apocrypha should belong in Scripture: some of the early church fathers, including Augustine considered them to be inspired; also the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) contained them. But these facts were ALREADY KNOWN in the early centuries of Christianity; thus, the RCC delay until the 16th century to declare the apocryphal books canonical depletes these arguments tremendously.

Further, NONE of the apocryphal books even claim to be inspired themselves; unlike the canonical NT books we have (see 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21; 3:16). Additionally, no apocryphal book was written by a true prophet or apostle of God nor do they contain divine miracles—something that happened often among the prophets in the OT and apostles in the NT. There is also NO predictive prophecy, which would have served to confirm divine inspiration. And, there is not even one quote of the Apocrypha from ANY of the NT writers. Rome knew all this of course—hence the delay in canonization. Much more could be said.

So, did the RCC give us the Bible as she claims (and almost everyone on this thread)? Or, was there already a body of work that was considered inspired prior to that? Well, I believe it existed prior for a number of reasons. First, Jesus Himself endorsed the OT as being the authentic Word of God. After His Resurrection, Jesus met with His disciples and told them everything that had been written about Him in the Scriptures: “Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27). What do I conclude from this? Since the Lord had come to fulfill all that was written about Him in the Scriptures, there HAD to have existed a recognized canon of Scripture. And there was. We can see this by Jesus’ reference to Scripture. When speaking on His own deity, the Lord said, “the SCRIPTURE cannot be broken” (John 10:35) To what was He referring? It was to that body of Scripture we know as the OT (the Old Testament).

In fact, when Christ was chastising the Jews for their rejection of Him as Messiah, He said, “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about Me.” (John 5:39). Note that Jesus did not say they were looking in the wrong place—at writing that did not constitute as Scripture. Rather, they were looking in the right place, PROVING that there was a recognized body of work that was regarded as the Word of God.

Other examples include when the Sadducees came to Jesus with a question about the Resurrection. In reply, Jesus told them, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” (Mat. 22:29) Therefore, the Sadducees could have resolved their error by referring to the Scriptures, which were a recognized source of authority even at that time. Even in Mark 7, Jesus was able to make a clear distinction between what Scripture teaches and what religious tradition teaches: “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

So, Christ saw the hypocritical behavior of the Sadducees and saw that it was rooted in the traditions of men. How could Jesus say that they had abandoned the commands of God revealed in Scripture, unless a recognized body of Scripture already existed? Perhaps because it DID already exist! One of my favorite NT examples is when Paul arrived in Berea, where he was pleasantly surprised by the attitude of the people—“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). Of course, Paul did not have to correct them, saying they were looking to the wrong source for verification of his message. He did not tell them to be patient until the RCC comes along to provide us with the Scriptures! No, the Bereans WERE looking in the RIGHT place—the 39 books that compromise the OT. These books had long been recognized as the Word of God and canonized long before the RCC came into existence.

I’ll try to address the NT canon next time………

 

[paul_c]

Once again, my time is limited so I will provide a general response to some of the most common assertions being made……

Many seem to be unaware that the apocryphal books were not canonized by Trent until some 1500 years AFTER they were written largely as a RESPONSE to the Reformation. Of course, Luther was very critical of the RCC for not having scriptural support for doctrines such as praying for the dead. So, by canonizing the Apocrypha, Catholics then had a “go to” passage in 2 Maccabees 12:45,46. Of course I am aware of the arguments made that the Apocrypha should belong in Scripture: some of the early church fathers, including Augustine considered them to be inspired; also the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) contained them. But these facts were ALREADY KNOWN in the early centuries of Christianity; thus, the RCC delay until the 16th century to declare the apocryphal books canonical depletes these arguments tremendously.

Further, NONE of the apocryphal books even claim to be inspired themselves; unlike the canonical NT books we have (see 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21; 3:16). Additionally, no apocryphal book was written by a true prophet or apostle of God nor do they contain divine miracles—something that happened often among the prophets in the OT and apostles in the NT. There is also NO predictive prophecy, which would have served to confirm divine inspiration. And, there is not even one quote of the Apocrypha from ANY of the NT writers. Rome knew all this of course—hence the delay in canonization. Much more could be said.

So, did the RCC give us the Bible as she claims (and almost everyone on this thread)? Or, was there already a body of work that was considered inspired prior to that? Well, I believe it existed prior for a number of reasons. First, Jesus Himself endorsed the OT as being the authentic Word of God. After His Resurrection, Jesus met with His disciples and told them everything that had been written about Him in the Scriptures: “Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27). What do I conclude from this? Since the Lord had come to fulfill all that was written about Him in the Scriptures, there HAD to have existed a recognized canon of Scripture. And there was. We can see this by Jesus’ reference to Scripture. When speaking on His own deity, the Lord said, “the SCRIPTURE cannot be broken” (John 10:35) To what was He referring? It was to that body of Scripture we know as the OT (the Old Testament).

Other examples include when the Sadducees came to Jesus with a question about the Resurrection. In reply, Jesus told them, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” (Mat. 22:29) Therefore, the Sadducees could have resolved their error by referring to the Scriptures, which were a recognized source of authority even at that time. Even in Mark 7, Jesus was able to make a clear distinction between what Scripture teaches and what religious tradition teaches: “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

So, Christ saw the hypocritical behavior of the Sadducees and saw that it was rooted in the traditions of men. How could Jesus say that they had abandoned the commands of God revealed in Scripture, unless a recognized body of Scripture already existed? Perhaps because it DID already exist! One of my favorite NT examples is when Paul arrived in Berea, where he was pleasantly surprised by the attitude of the people—“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). Of course, Paul did not have to correct them, saying they were looking to the wrong source for verification of his message. He did not tell them to be patient until the RCC comes along to provide us with the Scriptures! No, the Bereans WERE looking in the RIGHT place—the 39 books that compromise the OT. These books had long been recognized as the Word of God and canonized long before the RCC came into existence.

I’ll try to address the NT canon next time………

I don’t know what inspired you to attack the /deuterocanonical books (what you call the apocryphal books) but your facts are just wrong. The Bible Canon was established in 382AD in its current form and was only reconfirmed at Trent . Note that Luther’s translation of the Bible into German contained the Deuterocanonical books although he made them an appendage. He wouldn’t do that if it wasn’t already recognized as part of the Canon. Also, as you admit, the Deuterocanonical were part of the Septuagint and most reputable scholars recognize that the Septuagint was the scriptural reference used by Jesus and the Apostles.

To state that the Deuterocanonical books were ADDED by the Catholic church is wrong. They were always there in the Septuagint prior to Christ. In fact, the Protestant Churches DELETED them when they started preaching Sola fide because the Deuterocanonical books and particularly 2 maccabees conflicted with their newly created theology.