That doesn’t mean they were right. Ask the average person who left the Church what they believe it taught–9 out of 10 times they actually have no clue. A lot of them will go on a tangent about Mary Worship and how Sola Scriptura is right…
Different truth-seekers are exposed to different things, and since Protestantism and Catholicism are worlds apart, most Protestants don’t even consider a look at Catholicism. It doesn’t go the same way with Catholics, since once you leave Catholicism, all there is is Protestantism (since the Eastern churches are so low-profile in the West) as far as Christianity goes.
I definately agree, since I’m one of them. I studied my Protestant faith, and found it lacking. Everything that was missing (like the Eucharist) I found in the holy Catholic Church, the 2,000-year-old indefectable, pre-denominational Church of Christ, of divine and apostolic origin.
I agree. But every (and I’ve met a few, believe me) Catholic-turned-Protestant I run into knew practically nothing about the Catholic Faith. Catechesis in the United States has been in deplorable state for several decades.
Excellent post!
I agree. We preach the Gospel. We don’t target any one group, be it Catholic or otherwise.
Agreed. We’ve led many Mormon missionaries to Christ this way.
My intent was not to perform a personal attack on you but to understand what frame of theology you base your faith on. In order to have a conversation of what Catholics believe we must agree to understand definition of terms. If for instance you believe in AV 1611 and hold to the translation from the Byzantine text later modified into what we understand is the textus resepticus. I have a better understand of how you translate certain passages of scripture and thereby with that understanding give you something to think about with Catholic doctine. Also, most likely, understand that being informed by the AV 1611 shows me what type of theology you are likely to adhere to. If therefore fundalmentalist exactly where to you fit in that spectrum. 5 point Calvinist? (Reformed theology) Armenianist? How can we agree to justification and salvation if we aren’t using the same definitions for words? I can ask you (if the case) how do you persieve these verses when holding to limited attonment. Other than that you’re just slinging mud and vis versa. Not productive. If you really understood what the CCC is saying on any specific topic you might have a different opinion. For instance there are many terms that found definition from St. Thomas Aquinas work Summa Theologica and some terms that philosophy students understand such as “forms”. Do you understand what this term means or the history of this in Christian thought? How about accidens or substance? certainly you can’t put a modern webster dictionary to it to understand Catholic theology. Just like you can’t but modern dictionary word to many of the Greek terms used in the NT. So in order for productive diologue there must be a frame of referrance.
If we are using marriage as the analogy here, which I believe God does in regards to our relationship to Him, then I have to point out that in a marriage, the two people do not have to wait for the faithfulness to be displayed for them to be married. Marriage starts with a point-in-time event, as I believe our salvation does, and faithfulness then takes place WITHIN the context of that already established relationship. If I fail in my faithfulness or fail to provide acts of love, that does not automatically create a loss of my marriage, yet I seem to get the impression that the Catholic viewpoint is that committing a sin will kick out the Holy Spirit from my life and thus create a loss of my spiritual marriage to Christ, that is, until I go to confession and get the Holy Spirit back again.
Bookwork, I will address the rest of your post shortly, but I had a question for you: in the marriage analogy in the Catholic Church, the Eucharist is analogous to the One Flesh Union.
Indeed. We believe this point-in-time event occurs at baptism.
If by the Holy Spirit you mean “sanctifying grace”, then, yes, there is a loss of sanctifying grace when we sin. We become reconciled with God after receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Yes. Just separated from God.
I’m not sure what you’re asking.
That would be the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Our bodies become the temple, or dwelling place, of God when we accept Christ as our saviour. We are no longer the same person that we were. Instead of being dead in our sins we are now alive in Christ and He is alive in us. We have become “new creatures.” II Corinthains 5:17 says “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.”
No, I don’t mean “sanctifying grace” when I say Holy Spirit. I mean Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells with me and I walk in the Spirit rather than in the flesh. As I said earlier, my body is the dwelling place of the Spirit. What I want to know is if you believe the Spirit leaves that dwelling place when a sin is committed, not just if we lose some sort of “sanctifying grace.”
Can you show me that definition of “Christian” in the Bible?
So it’s a one time thing. So to continue the analogy: during the course of your “marriage”, you and God engage in the One Flesh Union just once?
Indeed. It’s interesting to hear a Protestant say this, in light of the objection to praying to saints. Many Protestants will say that those in heaven are dead and cannot hear our prayers!
No, the Spirit does not leave the dwelling place when a sin is committed, else we would not be able to repent of that sin. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within us that prompts us to reconcile, to turn away from sin and turn back towards God.
So do you believe a Christian cannot sin?
It certainly would be nice if there were a verse that said, "the definition of Christian is . . . " but there isn’t, so meither one of us can claim that our definition comes straight from a Bible verse. We know that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch, but that doesn’t tell us exactly what characteristics comprise a “Christian” or a “disciple.” There is also the word “believer.” Does “believer” have the same definition to you as “disciple” and “Christian”? To me they would mean the same thing, but since Catholics baptize babies and call them “Christians” before those babies are capable of being “believers,” then Catholics must have different definitions for those words. I’m trying yo figure out why Catholics have different definitions for them. So . . . can you show me your definition of “Christian” from the Bible. I’m pretty sure I was using Biblical concepts to explain my definition.
So the answer to my question is “No.” Your definition of Christian is not in the Bible.
I suppose you could say that it’s just once, but it’s a continual, life-long once. I only got married to my wife once. I don’t have to keep getting married to her. I don’t believe that I lose the Holy Spirit after I get saved, just as I don’t lose my marriage, so I don’t have to keep engaging in getting the Spirit over and over again. I have it at the start of my salvation and engage in it continually, in a life-long relationship.
And neither is the Catholic defintion. Unless you can show me the verse in the Catholic Bible that says, "The defintion of Christian is . . . "
So if the indwelling of the Spirit does not leave us when we sin, then can we actually say that sin in a believer’s life separates that believer from God? If you still have the Spirit indwelling you, then you are not separated from God.