Evangelical vs Protestant

[benedictus2]

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

Hi narrow path,

Care to share what biblical data there is that states that Christ did NOT establish the Church upon Peter?

From the petra/petros debate in original Greek

You mean the petra/petros NON DEBATE?

Do you know that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic and that Matthew 16:18 went : “You are kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church”, so a straight English translation really went "You are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church?"

Do you know that the only reason you have the petra/petros debate is because when they translated Aramaic into greek they had to give Simon the name Peter because the Greek language has gender for things and petra is a feminine name so they rendered Kepha into Peter because this is the male equivalent of Petra?

And who said that James is in charge. In Acts 15 Peter cut through all that confusion and makes a definitive pronouncement about not imposing the mosaic law on gentiles. All Paul, James and Barnabas did was second the motion.

The primacy of Peter was not determined in Acts or in Pauls letters.

The primacy and infallibity was WILLED by Christ HIMSELF in the Gospels.

Later on, Paul even rebukes Peter on a matter of faith and morals (which supposedly the pope is deemed “infallible”)

If you really are as knowledgeable as you claim you would realize that what Paul was rebuking Peter about had nothing to do with Peter teaching error on faith morals.

Paul rebuked Peter because Peter was himself not following the revelatioin that Peter himself has received from the Lord regarding eating with the gentiles. When the Judaizers came, he started acting like them.

So yes,Peter was infallible. Paul was not rebuking him about his teaching rarther his failure to follow his own teaching for fear of the Judaizers.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Human beings are fallible but Christ is infallible. And Christ is the one who gave the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church and that He will send her the Holy Spriit to guide her into all truth.

If you say that this is all not true then you are calling Christ a liar.

 

[benedictus2]

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

And that is the major problem. The VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS! Which of these various interpretations is correct?

Only one of these is true:

1. The Holy Spirit is guiding these 30000 or so denominations in the interpretatio of the Bible which means that the spirit one mighty confused spirit and doesn’t really know the truth himself.
2. The Holy Spiri is NOT one mighty confused spirit so the spriit guiding the interpretation of these churches is the UNHOLY Spirit.

The Catechism is the standard belief that all in the RCC must adhere to in order be considered Catholic. Yet, a conservative Catholic and and moderate Catholic can (and do) read the very same Catechism and invariably arrive at a completely different understandings of what the rule of faith actually teaches.

That is right. Some Catholics will interpret the catechism and read into the Bible what they want but they’re own interpretation remains just that - THEIR OWN interpration. It is not the belief of the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, in the protestant tradition, once a particular pastor decides on his own interpretation, he sets up shop and starts his own church.

Once a catholic does that, then he ceases to be Catholic. He becomes another Luther.

This tactic also is also related to sola Scriptura. When a Protestant evangelical says that the Bible is our RULE OF FAITH, Catholics (especially Scott Hahn who doesn’t just say "protestant’ whithout using the disclaimer “THE ANARCHY OF PROTESTANTISM” first) are quick to point out that the Bible must be insufficient because there are so many interpretations of it. Yet, there are just as many interpretations of the RCC’s Rule of Faith as there are of the Bible.

As I have said above, they do not set up shop and become new churches. There is only one teaching authority in the church and that is the magisterium.

It is true that Evangelicals (like myself) consider the Bible uniquely inspired by God as His living Word.

---

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT FOR A FACT? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE BIBLE IS INDEED THE WORD OF GOD?

---

I would really like to hear your answer to that question.

 

[benedictus2]

It is true that Evangelicals (like myself) consider the Bible uniquely inspired by God as His living Word. And it follows that as with any document, it must be interpreted. This would explain that God does not teach the 40,000 denominations, rather He teaches His PEOPLE

And that is true. How did God decide to teach His people? Did Christ go about with a secretary or dictaphone in tow instructing them to take down His teachings? Did Christ personally write the Bible. There is not one single line in the Bible that even says that Christ instructed the apostles to write down what He said.

What did Christ do? He built a Church. The Catholic Church. That is how He WILLED to teach His people.

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

Nah!!! The denominations are not because of this so called pace. You are engineering another excuse for the sorry mess that is protestantism today. The reason you have these denominations is because of pride. The siin of Adam and Eve. The sin of those building the tower of Babel. Everyone wants to be their own magisterium. That is why they do not like the Pope because they themselves are the little popes of their congregation.

This is not chaos

Yes it is!

when we are all united in the essential teachings of the Bible as we are.

No you’re not.
Some of you believe in infant baptism. Some don’t.
Some of you believe in baptism. Some don’t believe in baptism at all.
Some of you believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Some don’t.
All of you approve of divorce inspite of the fact that Christ Himself very clearly prohibited it.

If you are all united, you would be ONE HOLY PROTESTANT CHURCH. But you are not.

The Holy Spirit Unites. The devil divides.

The disagreement lies with non-essential areas.

And what are the non-essential areas. And who says that these areas are non-essential.

And, that is fine with me, especially when I first realized that God did not come to save any particular DENOMINATIONS (including the RCC), rather He came to save His PEOPLE, regardless of what denomination they are in.

Yes, yes, yes. And His People is the Body of Christ, the Church. And what did Jesus say? Simon, you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Chuch.

Yes, he saves His peoople. Acts2: 46-47: " Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes. They ate their meals with exultation and sincerity of heart, praising God and enjoying favor with all the people. And every day the Lord added to THEIR NUMBER THOSE WHO WERE BEING SAVED."

And what number was that? The Church that was born at Pentecost. And which Church was born at Pentecost? The Catholic Church.

So to be saved is to be added to the Catholic Church.

Have you been added yet?

 

[benedictus2]

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

Denominate: To give a name, to designate.

By each church separating and designating themselves as separate from the church they used to belong to, they in fact denominate themselves.

So denomination is not no a careless name. It is an accurate representation of what has happened and continues to happen to protestantism.

Protestantism by its very nature means to protest and continue protestting, and protesting, and protesting, and protestating…

I have always wondered where in the world that the 40,000 figure came from because it sure does not seem like there are that many.

I am not sure about the 40,000 but check out how many churches there are in your area alone. Even if there is only 1 protestant church, that is still one church too many.

And, I have come to find out that this number is based on JURISDICITON rather than on actual DIFFERING BELIEFS AND PRACTICES.

But each pastor starts his/her own denomination when they have an issue with the parent church. So at the bottom of each separation are doctrinal issues. Other wise they would not need to **denominate **themselves.

Therefore, my study has shown that there are 21 differing Protestant denomination

Nope there are certainly much much more than that.

16 different Roman Catholic denominations worldwide.

Wrong again. Rites are not denominations. These Catholic Churches are in union with the Pope.

So, I must conclude that “40,000 denomination” argument is nothing more than a poorly thought out line of reasoning

As I have shown above no it is not. Maybe the figure is a bit out but even if there are 5, that is still 5 too many because Christ built only one church.

that is just as devastating to the Roman Catholic position as the Roman Catholic imagines it to be against Protestantism/Evengelicalism.

Nothing devastating there

 

[benedictus2]

The problem for you (assuming that you are Catholic) is that there IS MUCH division in interpreting the Rule of Faith (Catechism) within the RCC. Further, everything we NEED TO KNOW for SALVATION is clearly taught in Scripture. For example, if you are of the persuasion that Christ completely atoned for your sin on the cross and paid in full the sin debt of humanity, then I believe that if you repent and recieve Him as Savior and Lord, your sins are forgiven and your eternal inheritance awaits.

Not if you do not persevere. What if after being sorry for your sins you commit sin again, say commited adultery or murder then died in the act of commiting this sin? Will you still be saved? Isn’t it that the wages of sin is death?

However, if you believe meritorious works are involved in the equasion to get to heaven, then the burden of proof is with you.

And Biblical proof abound.

There’s James, there’s Matthew 25, there’s 1 John 2, there’s the beautitudes.

And not the proof is not a burden it was actually very light.

Remember, James said, “Faith without works is dead”, so I believe that we are saved by the KIND OF FAITH that WILL produce good works…enough that our works will reveal the real saving faith that we have. But, if you believe that we are saved BECAUSE of the good works you do, then you would have something to boast about, wouldn’t you?

But that is because you do not understand the nature of salvation. Faith does not produce works.
I will explain that to you tomorrow. In the meantime I have to go to the land of nod as it is almost 1 in the morning.

I belive unity is great and it is something we should strive for. However, if push comes to shove, TRUTH will prevail:

Yes, yes, yes! And you have SOME truth but not the FULLNESS OF TRUTH. The Catholic Church HAS THE FULLNESS OF TRUTH. And if TRUTH will prevail then the Catholic Church will prevail.

"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” (Luke 12:52-53)

Which just goes to show how inadequate your understanding of scripture is. This discourse is NOT about sowing division in His Church.

HE PRAYED FOR UNITY IN HIS CHURCH BEFORE HE DIED!

Christ came to DIVIDE in order that we could have TRUTH revealed to us…which is far more important.

And where did He say that He came to divide so that truth will be revealed? The passage you cited above does not say that. So, yes, try again.

 

[narrow_path]

Benedictus2-

Your plethora of comments seem wild and erratic to me. Are you threatened by my statements? If so, please do not take them as threats for they were never intended to be. To summarize my previous point, (and then I’ll get back to the NT canon later) I am simply trying to communicate that works in and of themselves mean NOTHING for our salvation. True, saved people WILL do them, but they do not do them IN ORDER to be saved but instead as a RESPONSE of gratitude for their salvation. You seem to think otherwise, and that is certainly up to you……God will judge you accordingly.

Over my lifetime I have known HUNDREDS of Catholics that were just average, run-of-the-mill kind of people. They were not theologically sophisticated, not very well educated, but still sincere in their Catholic belief. When questioned, they would kindly default to and refer others to their priest for answers. The problem that I saw was that these people, although very religious, appeared to be living any way they pleased. Profanity would be prevalent, fornication, (especially among the younger people), gambling and alcoholism to just name a few. But I was told not to worry about these people because they are already part of the “one true church” and although they are doing some things that are wrong, their religious rituals through the church will more than make up for their erroneous behavior. This line of thinking has resulted in the works-oriented system of salvation that Catholics adhere to today.

Out of the hundreds of Catholics that I have known, more than half have since departed from the stranglehold Rome had on them and began attending Evangelical churches. And, the testimonies will speak for themselves. Over and over again, I hear things like, “When I was Catholic, I just kept doing what they told me to do (in my rituals) but always felt dead on the inside……it was as if the Holy Spirit rescued me from my assumption that my works will get me to heaven……I began to finally read and understand the Bible and had a real craving for the truth of Scripture deep within my soul that simply was not there when I was Catholic because I was told to depend on the Magisterium for answers……” It goes on and on. These former Catholics lives have now been completely transformed and are now active, vibrant members of all denominations and still find their unity IN CHRIST. They are ON FIRE for Christ! Some have felt the calling of seminary to teach and preach God’s Word—and most of these people had no prior college degrees of any kind.

I know these testimonies will be dismissed by most reading this right now, and that is OK with me. Just remember that these are real people for whom Christ died that apparently found “the true church” anything but that. Instead, they are great friends of mine who continue to speak with some of their current Catholic friends—some of whom have already dumped Rome in exchange for a relationship with the lover of their soul—Jesus Christ. And on and on it goes………

 

[usemelord]

Narrow_path, as you may recall from my previous entries on this thread, I have been on both sides of the proverbial fence. I was an evangelical Protestant for 60 years and Catholic only the last four. Therefore, I think I can speak with more than a modicum of credibility to some of the assertions made in your last commentary. First, no Catholics that I know consider rituals as any kind of “make up.” What rituals? Be specific. Praying the Rosary? Praying the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed? Next, do Catholic adhere to a "works-oriented system of salvation? No way Jose!! No Catholic I know believes that heaven can be attained by performing works alone. Quite to the contrary, just like our Protestant brothers and sisters, we first come to faith by believing in the saving Grace of what Christ did for all of us on the Cross. Once we acknowledge that He is our One Lord and One God, then we are called to serve. These acts of service glorify God and show Him our obedience. Works do not come first; they are a consequence of, and flow from, our desire to please our Saviour and grow the Kingdom. Next, you said of your former Catholic friends that they “felt dead” and the Holy Spirit “rescued” them. Well, my friend, what can I say except it is a two way street. The same thing can be said of those who opted to join the Catholic church. I, too, know many converts who felt the same way about being Protestant, myself included. In fact, I wrote my own conversion story about six months after coming into the Catholic Church and explained that the reason for my EVER considering doing so must be “blamed” on the Holy Spirit calling me. Your friends, you say, have claimed to be “transformed.” Another two way street here. My faith was on “life support” before I became Catholic, and now I am totally, as you put it, “ON FIRE for Christ.” I am involved and doing more now for the cause of Christ than I ever did before converting. Lastly, will most of us dismiss the testimonies you offered on behalf of your friends? Not I for one. Not for a moment. However, you must concede that there are countless other testimonies of people just like myself who made the switch from the other side of where you stand. These testimonies cannot be dismissed either. Aren’t we all Christians? Aren’t we all united by Christ? Continue to stayed blessed. Signed, Your (Catholic) Brother in Christ.

 

[joe370]

Hey narrow_path, you said:

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.

Keep in mind that Martin Luther removed 4 books from the N.T. and his successors knowing better, put them back in! When I say apocryphal I am referring to the following books mixed in with the canonized books; the C.C. had the task of weeding out the following spurious books such as the gospel of Peter from the following inspired books such as the gospel of Mark; I am not referring to the books that the multifarious P.C.'s removed in the 16th century! Are we in agreement?

30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

100-200 Odes of Solomon
101-220 Book of Elchasai
105-115 Ignatius of Antioch
110-140 Polycarp to the Philippians
110-140 Papias
110-160 Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
110-160 Traditions of Matthias
111-112 Pliny the Younger
115 Suetonius
115 Tacitus
120-130 Quadratus of Athens
120-130 Apology of Aristides
120-140 Basilides
120-140 Naassene Fragment
120-160 Valentinus
120-180 Apocryphon of John
120-180 Gospel of Mary
120-180 Dialogue of the Savior
120-180 Gospel of the Savior
120-180 2nd Apocalypse of James
120-180 Trimorphic Protennoia
130-140 Marcion
130-150 Aristo of Pella
130-160 Epiphanes On Righteousness
130-160 Ophite Diagrams
130-160 2 Clement
130-170 Gospel of Judas
130-200 Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
140-150 Epistula Apostolorum
140-160 Ptolemy
140-160 Isidore
140-170 Fronto
140-170 Infancy Gospel of James
140-170 Infancy Gospel of Thomas
140-180 Gospel of Truth
150-160 Martyrdom of Polycarp
150-160 Justin Martyr
150-180 Excerpts of Theodotus
150-180 Heracleon
150-200 Ascension of Isaiah
150-200 Acts of Peter
150-200 Acts of John
150-200 Acts of Paul
150-200 Acts of Andrew
150-225 Acts of Peter and the Twelve
150-225 Book of Thomas the Contender
150-250 Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra
150-300 Authoritative Teaching
150-300 Coptic Apocalypse of Paul
150-300 Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth
150-300 Melchizedek
150-400 Acts of Pilate

150-400 Anti-Marcionite Prologues
160-170 Tatian’s Address to the Greeks
160-180 Claudius Apollinaris
160-180 Apelles
160-180 Julius Cassianus
160-250 Octavius of Minucius Felix
161-180 Acts of Carpus
165-175 Melito of Sardis
165-175 Hegesippus
165-175 Dionysius of Corinth
165-175 Lucian of Samosata
167 Marcus Aurelius
170-175 Diatessaron
170-200 Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony
170-200 Muratorian Canon
170-200 Treatise on the Resurrection
170-220 Letter of Peter to Philip
175-180 Athenagoras of Athens
175-185 Irenaeus of Lyons
175-185 Rhodon
175-185 Theophilus of Caesarea
175-190 Galen
178 Celsus
178 Letter from Vienna and Lyons
180 Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs
180-185 Theophilus of Antioch
180-185 Acts of Apollonius
180-220 Bardesanes
180-220 Kerygmata Petrou
180-230 Hippolytus of Rome
180-250 1st Apocalypse of James
180-250 Gospel of Philip
182-202 Clement of Alexandria
185-195 Maximus of Jerusalem
185-195 Polycrates of Ephesus
188-217 Talmud
189-199 Victor I
190-210 Pantaenus
193 Anonymous Anti-Montanist
193-216 Inscription of Abercius
197-220 Tertullian
200-210 Serapion of Antioch
200-210 Apollonius
200-220 Caius
200-220 Philostratus
200-225 Acts of Thomas
200-250 Didascalia
200-250 Books of Jeu
200-300 Pistis Sophia
200-300 Coptic Apocalypse of Peter
203 Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas
203-250 Origen

 

[narrow_path]

Hi Usemelord. Here is the crux: Trent

“CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

While I am honored that you consider me your brother in Christ (as I consider you my brother), your church has placed an eternal curse on me and people like me that believe God grace alone through faith alone saves. This may displease you, or it may not. You may agree with this official teaching or not. However, if you don’t, be aware that members of God’s “true church” are not at liberty to pick and choose what they agree with and disagree with. Either they are in complete submission to the authoritative teachings or they are really not Catholic (even though they may say so and continue to attend religious services). Therefore, there is this most unfortunate situation in which your church does not consider me a brother in Christ no matter what any Catholic may or may not say. Also keep in mind that this is not a singular occurrence. Like I mentioned earlier, I believe the last time I counted there were 50 or 60 anathemas placed on me.

Of course, this would mean the thief on the cross would have also been placed under this curse as well…you know, the one whom Christ told “Today you will be with me in paradise” Him along with every other non-Catholic Christian we read of in Scripture are under this curse apparently from the “true church.” And, of course there will be testimonies on both sides of spectrum. However, I must confess that while I do not doubt the sincerity of the conversion experiences I have read, most often while reading of a Catholic convert, there seems to be Scripture texts taken out of context to fit into a Magisterial interpretation (if there is any mention of Scripture at all). I can say this with confidence having heard these testimonies first hand, and having read the “This Rock” magazine which is available through this website. I would say the 1 Peter passage referring to baptism is perhaps the most abused text that I consistently read from Catholic converts. Having said that, I do not doubt your conversion nor would I have reason to. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for your church’s official teaching against someone like myself.

But in my estimation, these “infallible” anathema’s by themselves will not condemn people to hell…but a rejection of Messiah and a refusal to repent does. So, I will not try to sway people from the RCC if they already are saved (even though they may not know it.) But I will try to sway people away from any church (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) who have counted on their deeds for their salvation. That is all I’m saying.

Peace to you, my brother…for we are united IN CHRIST! Praise God!

 

[usemelord]

Hello once again narrow_path. I feel like I’m getting to know you! You cited a Canon from Trent. Well, there are two things here I must say to that; one, I must also be cursed, and, two, the ONLY thing I give any weight to is Scripture. If someone tries to make a specious theological point to me, I always challenge them to show me where in the Bible their argument is supported. Frankly, I don’t give a hoot if there are innumerable Canons which, in so many words, lay a supposed curse on me. Canons are not biblical, so I pay them no mind. Dare I say that 99% of practicing Catholics are unaware of the Canon you quoted. We all know the saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse; is ignorance of a Canon no excuse? Again, if it’s not found in Scripture, I’m unimpressed. You mentioned something else about not being at liberty to pick and choose. Fact of the matter is that most Catholics I know are commonly referred to as “cafeteria Catholics.” They do, indeed, pick and choose whatever suits their individual spiritual tastes. I suppose, then, that they are not truly Catholic by your definition. As for me, on critical issues such as abortion I stand firm with the Church’s position. On other “less critical” things I do exercise my liberty to “pick and choose.” I’ve told you about the ecumenical Christian men’s group I attend where brothers in Christ meet weekly to praise, worship and pray. Well, guess what? The meetings are held at the Catholic church I attend. Because the church sanctions this men’s group knowing that all men in attendance are not necessarily Catholic, does that heap a curse on the church being in violation of the Canon? As for the so-called curse extending to the thief on the cross next to Christ, how in the world would the words of some Canon written hundreds of years after the crucifixion magically be made retroactive, AND trump Christ’s promise to the thief? Doesn’t make any sense. Another thing you said, quoting, in part, “…of what we read in Scripture are under this curse.” I think you meant to say “Canon” instead of “Scripture,” correct? That is, the curse in NOT scriptural. 50-60 anathemas at last count? Wow! No wonder you feel the way you do about the RCC. I’m not going to get paranoid about anything like that, however. I’m too old for that. As you have stated many times on this thread, the only thing that truly matters is our relationship with Christ. I’m very comfortable with mine, and I know you are as well. And, I’m also quite comfortable being Catholic, anathemas or not.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus2-

Your plethora of comments seem wild and erratic to me. Are you threatened by my statements?

Wild and erratic? What is wild and erratic about it. I took your post and addressed it point by point. I did not just post one big post like you do. I took you r post apart and individually addressed the issues you raised. It seems to me you are the one terrified of my reply because instead of rebutting me you come up with this opening statement. I can smell fear

If so, please do not take them as threats for they were never intended to be.

There was absolutely nothing threatening about your post. Just alot of errors which I tried to correct and which you have not rebutted.

To summarize my previous point, (and then I’ll get back to the NT canon later) I am simply trying to communicate that works in and of themselves mean NOTHING for our salvation. True, saved people WILL do them, but they do not do them IN ORDER to be saved but instead as a RESPONSE of gratitude for their salvation. You seem to think otherwise, and that is certainly up to you……God will judge you accordingly.

As I said before your concept of salvation is inadequate. I will address that this afternoon as the explanation is a bit more involve although I have managed to condense it on another thread.

Over my lifetime I have known HUNDREDS of Catholics that were just average, run-of-the-mill kind of people. They were not theologically sophisticated, not very well educated, but still sincere in their Catholic belief. When questioned, they would kindly default to and refer others to their priest for answers. The problem that I saw was that these people, although very religious, appeared to be living any way they pleased.

You have demonstrated ZILCH here. All you have shown is what we already know - that a huge number of Catholics are under catechized and don’t know their faith. I could say that about you are not catechized and don’t know what the true faith is.
As fo the Catholics, that they don’t know their faith has no bearing on this discussion.

This discussion is about which Church has the FULLNESS OF TRUTH: Protestants or Catholics. Which one has the correct doctrine. It is not about the behaviour of its members.

Profanity would be prevalent, fornication, (especially among the younger people), gambling and alcoholism to just name a few. But I was told not to worry about these people because they are already part of the “one true church” and although they are doing some things that are wrong, their religious rituals through the church will more than make up for their erroneous behavior. This line of thinking has resulted in the works-oriented system of salvation that Catholics adhere to today.

Refer to my statement above. And before you start condemning the fornicators, gamblers, profaners in the Catholic Church there are millions of them in the protestant church as well.

Remember Jim and Tammy Baker? Jimmy Swaggart? Why surely if there is anyone “saved” in the protestant denominations they would have to be among them.

You know what the big difference is? While the Catholics do these and acknowledge them as sin, the protestants don’t. Ask yourself this, have a look around at the different denominations. You all approve of divorce. You know why you don’t think there is something wrong with that in-spite of Jesus specifically prohibiting it? It is because you have decided that it is no longer a sin. And who decides what is sin and not sin? Not you. Not me. Jesus Christ. And yet your denominations have the temerity to appropriate that right for themselves.

Out of the hundreds of Catholics that I have known, more than half have since departed from the stranglehold Rome had on them and began attending Evangelical churches.

Because they know ZILCH about their faith.

And, the testimonies will speak for themselves. Over and over again, I hear things like, “When I was Catholic, I just kept doing what they told me to do (in my rituals) but always felt dead on the inside……it was as if the Holy Spirit rescued me from my assumption that my works will get me to heaven……I began to finally read and understand the Bible and had a real craving for the truth of Scripture deep within my soul that simply was not there when I was Catholic because I was told to depend on the Magisterium for answers……”

Again because they know NADA just as you know nada now.

On the other hand there are learned, I mean truly brilliant protestants who really studied scripture and history (Like Scott Hahn, Thomas Howard, Peter Kreeft) these are not your run of the mill uninformed protestants and yet they have left protestantism. Why, because after rigorous study they have come to the realization that the Catholic Church is the THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.

I will address the rest of your post this afternoon but what I would like you to do IS STAY ON TOPIC. NO EVASION. ADDRESS MY POST. That is how you debate.

**You have not replied to a single point I raised **.

 

[paul_c]

Hi Usemelord. Here is the crux: Trent

“CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

Have you read this carefully? It says that if someone who is IMPIOUS thinks that they will be saved just because they faith, they are cursed. It says you have to act out your faith to be saved. This is completely biblical as we already described.

Of course, this would mean the thief on the cross would have also been placed under this curse as well…you know, the one whom Christ told “Today you will be with me in paradise”

How do you figure that that anathema involves St. Dismas? He acknowledged Jesus as lord, acknowledged his sins, and asked for forgiveness. He acted out his faith to the fullest of his ability, being constrained by being nailed to a cross.

Him along with every other non-Catholic Christian we read of in Scripture are under this curse apparently from the “true church.” And, of course there will be testimonies on both sides of spectrum. However, I must confess that while I do not doubt the sincerity of the conversion experiences I have read, most often while reading of a Catholic convert, there seems to be Scripture texts taken out of context to fit into a Magisterial interpretation (if there is any mention of Scripture at all). I can say this with confidence having heard these testimonies first hand, and having read the “This Rock” magazine which is available through this website. I would say the 1 Peter passage referring to baptism is perhaps the most abused text that I consistently read from Catholic converts. Having said that, I do not doubt your conversion nor would I have reason to. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for your church’s official teaching against someone like myself.

First of all, you state that scripture is taken out of context by the Magisterium. This implies that you have higher authority and more insight than they do to judge context. What exactly are your credentials? Why should we believe your interpretations are superior to those propagated by the Church for 2000 years. It better be a really good reason for us to trust our souls to it.

The church teaches the truth. It has the responsibility to point out to you and to others like you when you deviate from the truth. You then have the option of taking their advice or going your own way. This is free will in action.

But in my estimation, these “infallible” anathema’s by themselves will not condemn people to hell…but a rejection of Messiah and a refusal to repent does. So, I will not try to sway people from the RCC if they already are saved (even though they may not know it.) But I will try to sway people away from any church (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) who have counted on their deeds for their salvation. That is all I’m saying.

Peace to you, my brother…for we are united IN CHRIST! Praise God!

If you are trying to sway people away from doing good works, aren’t you on the side of Satan?

 

[paul_c]

Hello once again narrow_path. I feel like I’m getting to know you! You cited a Canon from Trent. Well, there are two things here I must say to that; one, I must also be cursed, and, two, the ONLY thing I give any weight to is Scripture. If someone tries to make a specious theological point to me, I always challenge them to show me where in the Bible their argument is supported. Frankly, I don’t give a hoot if there are innumerable Canons which, in so many words, lay a supposed curse on me. Canons are not biblical, so I pay them no mind. Dare I say that 99% of practicing Catholics are unaware of the Canon you quoted. We all know the saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse; is ignorance of a Canon no excuse? Again, if it’s not found in Scripture, I’m unimpressed. You mentioned something else about not being at liberty to pick and choose. Fact of the matter is that most Catholics I know are commonly referred to as “cafeteria Catholics.” They do, indeed, pick and choose whatever suits their individual spiritual tastes. I suppose, then, that they are not truly Catholic by your definition. As for me, on critical issues such as abortion I stand firm with the Church’s position. On other “less critical” things I do exercise my liberty to “pick and choose.” I’ve told you about the ecumenical Christian men’s group I attend where brothers in Christ meet weekly to praise, worship and pray. Well, guess what? The meetings are held at the Catholic church I attend. Because the church sanctions this men’s group knowing that all men in attendance are not necessarily Catholic, does that heap a curse on the church being in violation of the Canon? As for the so-called curse extending to the thief on the cross next to Christ, how in the world would the words of some Canon written hundreds of years after the crucifixion magically be made retroactive, AND trump Christ’s promise to the thief? Doesn’t make any sense. Another thing you said, quoting, in part, “…of what we read in Scripture are under this curse.” I think you meant to say “Canon” instead of “Scripture,” correct? That is, the curse in NOT scriptural. 50-60 anathemas at last count? Wow! No wonder you feel the way you do about the RCC. I’m not going to get paranoid about anything like that, however. I’m too old for that. As you have stated many times on this thread, the only thing that truly matters is our relationship with Christ. I’m very comfortable with mine, and I know you are as well. And, I’m also quite comfortable being Catholic, anathemas or not.

I’ll take exception to what you say above. All the Canons have their basis in Tradition and scripture. Trust me on this, All Canons are thoroughly documented so that they can address anyone who doubts. The church has good reason for everything it teaches and those that depart from it, do so at their own peril. If you find that you disagree with Church teaching, the best approach is to try to learn more about it. In my experience, you will find that upon further study, you will find the Church is right…

 

[benedictus2]

I’ll take exception to what you say above. All the Canons have their basis in Tradition and scripture. Trust me on this, All Canons are thoroughly documented so that they can address anyone who doubts. The church has good reason for everything it teaches and those that depart from it, do so at their own peril. If you find that you disagree with Church teaching, the best approach is to try to learn more about it. In my experience, you will find that upon further study, you will find the Church is right…

Very well said and totally true!

 

[joe370]

Narrow_path…

** Why do give any weight to scripture considering the fact that the C.C. codified/canonized sacred scripture? If you say: the Holy Spirit is responsible for my Holy Bible, you wold be correct; the Holy Spirit was sent to just one church on Pentecost and thanks to the guidance of the Infallible Holy Spirit in perpetuity, Jesus’ established Church infallibly codified/canonized the Holy Bible! If you trust that the C.C.got it right regarding the correct inclusion/exclusion of books in your Holy Bible, out of a bevy of apocraphyl books such as: the Gospel of Thomas, Oxyrhynchus Gospel, Egerton Gospel, Gospel of Peter, just to name a few - why not trust her regarding other matters?
**

Where in the bible can one find a table of contents? The only one I see was put there by the C.C.

 

[paul_c]

Narrow Path,
I know several people are responding to you so its hard to keep up. I do want to make a point to you about Sola Fide. (Faith alone). and its companion theology OSAS (once saved, always saved).

Faith alone is a bankrupt theology because it negates moral theology completely. Afterall, there is no reason to be moral if it has no part in salvation. Afterall, isn’t that what life is ultimately about: getting to heaven. Nothing else has meaning. Who cares if you have money, fame, or power after you are dead? None of it translates. So for anything to have any real meaning, it has to effect salvation. Faith has meaning because it leads to salvation. but good works has meaning too. We are called to be holy and that means to love. Remember, In 1Corinthians 13, St. Paul identifies the three theological virtues: Faith, Hope and Love and he says the most important of these is love. This can not be ignored if you believe that all scripture is true. And of course, St. James is clear that Faith without works is dead. (James 2:24).

Now you can argue that Works only demonstrate Faith and that its Faith that saves. If you want to think of it that way, so be it. But it still requires good works to be done to demonstrate that faith. Otherwise faith is only talk and talk is cheap. It still gets you to the same point. If you don’t do good works, your faith isn’t real and if your faith isn’t real, you will not be saved.

If you are arguing that good works are not necessary and if you take it as far as Luther, who famously said to sin robustly because your faith would save you, then you need to really look at whether you are in the grips of Satan. Because after all sin is turning away from God and how can you really argue that someone who turns away from God has true faith? And don’t come back with scriptural readings that say God will never lose one of his own. If you don’t demonstrate faith, you were never one of God’s chosen. After all, even the demons that Jesus expelled knew and admitted that he was the son of God. The reason they were demons (and not angels) was not that they didn’t admit Jesus was the son of God but because they chose not to do his will. Doing God’s will is the differentiator for Man as well. Remember in Matthew 7, Jesus says "not everyone who calls me Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those that do my Father’s will.

Now the philosophy of Once saved always saved is valid only if you believe that no works are required to demonstrate faith. And as we have discussed above, that is a morally bankrupt position because it denies that sin can effect salvation. Once you understand that you need to do good works to reach heaven, then clearly you can never stop because once you stop demonstrating faith, you make the statement that you have turned away from God. And this puts an end to the debate on OSAS. You need to persevere to the end.

 

[narrow_path]

Hi Benedictus2

The disagreement and division demonstrated in this thread among Catholics makes me feel like saying: “I rest my case.” All of this supposed “unity” among Catholics simply does not exist as they might think once they begin to actually find out what each other actually believes. This is what I have been saying all along. Usemelord rejects the authoritative canons of Trent (as do millions of others), yet we (Protestants) are supposed to believe that there is this perfect unity of belief in the RCC. Nothing could be further from the truth as this thread has so clearly exposed. (I hope the uncommenting Catholics will take note.)

Okay, you then make this ridiculous statement: “Refer to my statement above. And before you start condemning the fornicators, gamblers, profaners in the Catholic Church there are millions of them in the protestant church as well. Remember Jim and Tammy Baker? Jimmy Swaggart? Why surely if there is anyone “saved” in the protestant denominations they would have to be among them. You know what the big difference is? While the Catholics do these and acknowledge them as sin, the protestants don’t. Ask yourself this, have a look around at the different denominations. You all approve of divorce. You know why you don’t think there is something wrong with that in-spite of Jesus specifically prohibiting it? It is because you have decided that it is no longer a sin. And who decides what is sin and not sin? Not you. Not me. Jesus Christ. And yet your denominations have the temerity to appropriate that right for themselves.”

I never implied that this kind of sin is not prevalent among Protestants, sir. That is your terribly mistaken conclusion based on your prior commitment to classical Roman Catholic theology. In fact, all a statement like yours does is demonstrate that you have completely missed my point: SIN is the problem and it NEEDS to be repented from regardless of whatever denominational label a person considers himself or herself. You list a couple of well known hypocritical names in Protestantism. So what? Should I provide an exhaustive list of Catholic priests who were involved in pedophilia just in the past year? Would that suffice? Needless to say, once again you have missed the point.

You go on to say that all Protestants approve of sin and divorce. Do I even need to respond to this? Or should I wait for even your Catholic colleagues to rebuke you? Are you speaking for ALL Protestants, my friend?? Surely, if you do not see the wreckless thinking in which you exhibited in your post, then may the Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit guide you out of your erroneous thinking. I simply have not known ANY Protestants that take divorce lightly. Sure, there may be some in the church that are unsaved, and due to this maybe their lack of Spiritual discernment rears its ugly head……resulting in a casual attitude toward many important issues including divorce. I have not seen this first hand, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens. But the same can be said for Catholics as well. To be honest with you, it is almost as if you are living in a fantasy land where all Catholics have perfect theology on an individual basis, and the hellfire awaits all of those pathetic, misguided, heretical Protestants. Boy, will you be in for a surprise on That Day!

So, no offense but I’m afraid you have lost credibility with me and I will reserve my responses in the future for those that are actually willing to listen and respond in an intellectually honest manner.

Peace be with you

 

[usemelord]

Question for all of you, Protestant and Catholic alike: What about the millions upon millions of churchgoers who attend services on a regular basis, who sincerely believe in the saving power of Christ, but lack the desire to do anything else but go to church; i.e. works are absent. Are they doomed to hell? My wife, for example, does not have a “higher education” and possesses only a superficial understanding of the Bible. However, she lives a Christ-centered life although preferring, at the same time, not to wear her religion on her sleeve, as it were. There are tens of millions just like her in both the Protestant and Catholic churches throughout the country. Because they consciously elect not to actively participate in performing good works, how then is their salvation in jeopardy, if at all? Aren’t we all charged with the duty to work on our salvation with “fear and trembling”? What say you, and you, and you?

 

[joe370]

narrow_path, you said to Benedictus2:

The disagreement and division demonstrated in this thread among Catholics makes me feel like saying: “I rest my case.”

Please feel free to cite said division among Catholics here at CAF!

All of this supposed “unity” among Catholics simply does not exist as they might think once they begin to actually find out what each other actually believes. This is what I have been saying all along.

Those darn Catholics are so divided, yet they all attend the same church, unlike those united Protestants who all attend different churches.

Usemelord rejects the authoritative canons of Trent (as do millions of others), yet we (Protestants) are supposed to believe that there is this perfect unity of belief in the RCC. Nothing could be further from the truth as this thread has so clearly exposed. (I hope the uncommenting Catholics will take note.)

I myself have been wrong before and had to be corrected by a fellow Catholic; we both took the the matter to the CCC and presto, problem solved. Do you take it to your church to resolve doctrinal discrepancies when someone challenges you, as per Matthew 18:17? Who are these “millions of others?” CAF as well as all Catholics, are clearly united when it comes to what the C.C. teaches, and when someone errs, they just need to verify it with the leaders of the church, just as they did in Acts 15! I would recommend that Usemelord do the same. Unity is what drew me to the C.C. If you want to see disunity, disharmony, division and dissension, just type in: Protestant forum, and you will get it! I’ve been to many of them; I almost became agnostic because of all the chaos at these forums; luckily I stumbled across this wonderful forum a few years back and everything became crystal clear.

And who decides what is sin and not sin? Not you. Not me. Jesus Christ. And yet your denominations have the temerity to appropriate that right for themselves.”

Perhaps you might want to give your bible a once over; Jesus’ established church decides! Jesus conferred power onto His one established church, which is being guided by the Holy Spirit in perpetuity:

“you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Acts 1

Jesus said in Matthew 28: All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me, yet He still said to just one church, comprised of sinful, fallible people: Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Jesus delegated authority to teach to just one church on Pentecost; find that one church in the world today, and you will find the fullness of faith my friend! Which church in the world today existed when Jesus’ one Apostolic Church was filled with the Holy Spirit? That one church has to still be here because Jesus said, even the gates of hell would not prevail against her…because He is the Savior of His church. And, let’s assume for the moment that it’s not the C.C. By the way, to call Jesus’ one church errant is to call the Holy Spirit errant – agreed? Is that what you are saying?

SIN is the problem and it NEEDS to be repented from regardless of whatever denominational label a person considers himself or herself. You list a couple of well known hypocritical names in Protestantism. So what? Should I provide an exhaustive list of Catholic priests who were involved in pedophilia just in the past year? Would that suffice? Needless to say, once again you have missed the point.

I agree; SIN is the problem and it NEEDS to be repented from regardless of whatever denominational label a person considers himself or herself. As far as evil men masquerading as holy men in any church, why would anyone be surprised; the evil one has but one primary target and that target is Jesus’ Mystical Body - His Church!

You go on to say that all Protestants approve of sin and divorce. Do I even need to respond to this? Or should I wait for even your Catholic colleagues to rebuke you? Are you speaking for ALL Protestants, my friend?

There is no way anyone can speak for ALL Protestants, for they ALL believe something different vis-a-vis sin and divorce.