Is This What Protestantism Is Really About??

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneTrueCathApos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dig city.
Absolutely not. I cannot even agree with you guys without you thinking something. Let me try it again.

I agree that most of us think we know the Catholic Church and do not.
I agree that it would be confusing to keep up with all the different views.
I also think that the statement that fundamentalism contains zero truth is not accurate.
CWBetts should have asked for more information if need be about what form of fundamentalism.
No digs.
 
I come from a Fundamentalist Evangelical background. I know the poison they spread.
 
Absolutely not. I cannot even agree with you guys without you thinking something. Let me try it again.

I agree that most of us think we know the Catholic Church and do not.
I agree that it would be confusing to keep up with all the different views.
I also think that the statement that fundamentalism contains zero truth is not accurate.
CWBetts should have asked for more information if need be about what form of fundamentalism.
No digs.
“Dig city” means “I understand” in seventies lingo.

My take on “zero truth” is that it was hyperbole.
 
I come from a Fundamentalist Evangelical background. I know the poison they spread.
You did not address any of the things we do agree on. You have moved from one hatred to the other perhaps?
 
No truth in the fundamentalist movement?

We believe in the virgin birth.
We believe in a literal resurrection.
We believe that Jesus was God.
We are Pro-Life.
Come again? No truth? Zero?
I thought we were your seperated brethren? That is your teaching?
Lets see, you believe in the Virgin Birth but not the immaculate conception.
You believe in the resurrection, but not in the primacy of Peter.
You believe Jesus was God, but do not believe he is still physically with us.
You are anti-abortion, but pro-death penalty, which is not pro-life.
 
You misunderstand. The reason I am a Catholic is because there is no truth in the Fundamentalist movement. None. Zero.
So there is no God.
Jesus is obviously not God, and was not born of a virgin, and did not rise from the dead.
The Bible is no different from any other book.

You can’t get around this by pointing out the deficiencies in fundamentalism. I dislike fundamentalism intensely myself. But logically if you say there is *no *truth in fundamentalism then you must believe the things stated above. As a Catholic you obviously don’t deny God’s existence, etc. So you are contradicting yourself. You simply aren’t thinking, being blinded by your dislike of fundamentalism. There is no excuse for this.

Edwin
 
Thank you for the answer. Simple and goes back to the original post.

Let me tell you what I see (to everybody here). I see somebody who loves Catholocism and Catholic apologetics and is upset when his fellow Catholics do not love it as much as he does.
Balderdash. You are insulting your fellow Catholics by this vicious and irrational accusation that they don’t love Catholicism just because they don’t degrade it by bad arguments and hateful rhetoric.
At times, it amazes me how many Catholics on this forum do not back up Catholocism.
You have a warped understanding of what “backing up” Catholicism is. Bad arguments and distasteful rhetoric weaken Catholicism (or any other cause in which they are offered), they don’t “back it up.”

Edwin
 
Like i said, I come from a FUndamentalist background. I have no time for those who identify the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon.
 
DM,
Here is how my church writes about Luther’s anti-jewish writings.

Luther’s anti-jewish statements, as well as that of other Christians of his time, before, and since, are to be roundly and thoroughly condemned. It is clear that the Nazi’s tried to use Luther’s writings to support their crimes, though the influence of Luther’s writings can be overstated, as well as understated.

The lesson, at least for me, is that for most of Luther’s life he spoke well of the Jews, to the point of being chastized by some for doing so. But what is remembered are the cruel words, not the kind ones. With that in mind, my next post.

Jon
Hi Jon,

I was familiar with the repudiation of this aspect of Luther’s teaching in the post-1945 lutheran church…which is a good thing…

I also knew that Luther had previously advocated respect towards the jews. In his 1523 work Jesus Christ was born a Jew he claimed that it was the fault of catholicism that the jews had not converted to christianity and that they were being mistreated:

“They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery. When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves and become right good Christians? I have myself heard from pious baptized Jews that if they had not in our day heard the gospel they would have remained Jews under the cloak of Christianity for the rest of their days. For they acknowledge that they have never yet heard anything about Christ from those who baptized and taught them.”

I’m under the impression, that his biographers typically judge that he changed his mind by the 1540s because the jews had still not converted… that is to say, they judge that he thought in the 1520s that once his reformation spread all the jews would hear christian truth and convert, but when this didn’t happen he then changed his mind and wrote his 1543 tract which I referenced this afternoon in which he called for their destruction.

I disagree with what the Missouri synod says in that he should not be called ‘a rabid anti-semite’.

A single mom once had twin girls that she raised from their infancy. She nursed and cared for them, and took care of them with much love everyday of their lives. But when the girls became teens, she found that they did not return the love she had given them all those years and treated her disrespectfully, so one night she took an axe and hacked them to death.

Now, is it really unfair to judge this woman as wicked for what she did in those few very short minutes, and ignore all the good things she had done for the girls in those so many long years?

Ezekiel 18:24 But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.

So we see, that God remembers the cruelty and not the kindness when the man had turned from kindness to cruelty…

God Bless,
 
Hi Jon,

I was familiar with the repudiation of this aspect of Luther’s teaching in the post-1945 lutheran church…which is a good thing…

I also knew that Luther had previously advocated respect towards the jews. In his 1523 work Jesus Christ was born a Jew he claimed that it was the fault of catholicism that the jews had not converted to christianity and that they were being mistreated:

“They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery. When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves and become right good Christians? I have myself heard from pious baptized Jews that if they had not in our day heard the gospel they would have remained Jews under the cloak of Christianity for the rest of their days. For they acknowledge that they have never yet heard anything about Christ from those who baptized and taught them.”

I’m under the impression, that his biographers typically judge that he changed his mind by the 1540s because the jews had still not converted… that is to say, they judge that he thought in the 1520s that once his reformation spread all the jews would hear christian truth and convert, but when this didn’t happen he then changed his mind and wrote his 1543 tract which I referenced this afternoon in which he called for their destruction.

I disagree with what the Missouri synod says in that he should not be called ‘a rabid anti-semite’.

A single mom once had twin girls that she raised from their infancy. She nursed and cared for them, and took care of them with much love everyday of their lives. But when the girls became teens, she found that they did not return the love she had given them all those years and treated her disrespectfully, so one night she took an axe and hacked them to death.

Now, is it really unfair to judge this woman as wicked for what she did in those few very short minutes, and ignore all the good things she had done for the girls in those so many long years?

Ezekiel 18:24 But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.

So we see, that God remembers the cruelty and not the kindness when the man had turned from kindness to cruelty…

God Bless,
Oh, I agree. And even the time frame Luther lived in is no excuse. For example, we can reasonably condemn Washington’s owning of slaves, even though it was common practice of his time. The anti-Jewish words of Luther, Eck, and all the others of that time should rightly be condemned, even if they represent a one-time thing, and were not systemic of their writings or beliefs.

We must also be aware that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and allow that God will work is mercy or wrath in His way.

Finally, Luther’s anti-Jewish writings are no more what “protestantism” is about than Eck’s anti-Jewish writings are what Catholicism is about.

Jon
 
Finally, Luther’s anti-Jewish writings are no more what “protestantism” is about than Eck’s anti-Jewish writings are what Catholicism is about.
The crux of the biscuit on this particular point.
 
To OneTrueCathApos:

In my last post to you, I included some harsh, perhaps cruel words. By comparing you to Jack Chick, I wrongfully tried to ascribe motive to you, which I am incapable of doing, as I do not know you or your heart. The comments were from anger at what you were writing, but that is no excuse.

While I do not agree with what you say, I apologize for for my reaction, and the words that followed. I pray for you His peace.

Jon
JonNC, it is quite alright. No need to apologize, I do not look for apologies. Sometimes things get a little heated because people have such passion in their faith. I know you are a man of God and that’s all that matters. 🙂
 
Balderdash. You are insulting your fellow Catholics by this vicious and irrational accusation that they don’t love Catholicism just because they don’t degrade it by bad arguments and hateful rhetoric.

You have a warped understanding of what “backing up” Catholicism is. Bad arguments and distasteful rhetoric weaken Catholicism (or any other cause in which they are offered), they don’t “back it up.”

Edwin
You know Edwin, you must stop your redderick about your condescending ways of speaking to people. I agree with adstrinity because you must be a Catholic to understand where he is coming from. And when you use the word “Balderdash”, it really shows your age. 😃
 
Balderdash. You are insulting your fellow Catholics by this vicious and irrational accusation that they don’t love Catholicism just because they don’t degrade it by bad arguments and hateful rhetoric.

You have a warped understanding of what “backing up” Catholicism is. Bad arguments and distasteful rhetoric weaken Catholicism (or any other cause in which they are offered), they don’t “back it up.”

Edwin
Your words “vicious” and “irrational accusation” is a little bit overly dramatic. Thank you adstrinity for backing up your fellow Catholic. 👍
 
Your words “vicious” and “irrational accusation” is a little bit overly dramatic. Thank you adstrinity for backing up your fellow Catholic. 👍
This isn’t a war between Catholics and Protestants. We aren’t trying to win, we’re trying to find the truth.
 
This isn’t a war between Catholics and Protestants. We aren’t trying to win, we’re trying to find the truth.
Lujack,

A good observation. If we are at war with one another, the only winner can be the prince of darkness.
 
This isn’t a war between Catholics and Protestants. We aren’t trying to win, we’re trying to find the truth.
Where do you see the word “war” or anything in this post that implies this?? Catholics have the truth, others need to find their way. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top