Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[Peter_J]

Before I respond to that, let me ask you a little question to test your knowledge of Catholicism. True or false: according to Catholic teaching, the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals?

Granted, you didn’t need to answer the question, which makes me all the more appreciative of your taking the time out of your busy schedule.

But on a less-positive note, your answer indicates that you’ve been “drinking the cool-aid”. The Catholic Church (the real Catholic Church, not some silly Protestant caricature of the Catholic Church) has never ever taught that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals. (If you have a little time, you might read what Vatican I and Vatican II said about papal infallibility.)

 

[PRmerger]

PR, your response does not at all address the content my comment.

Alright, then.

The Catholic Church gave us the verse: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind” Luke 10:27

Therefore, we can conclude that Catholics are to use their faith and reason to know and understand God. It is through the guidance of the Magisterium, the guardian and interpreter of Scripture, that we can love God with our mind.

Do you, moondweller, follow Christ obediently, without question? It is not yours to reason but to obediently accept, yes?

 

[historyb]

Historyb

There are not just seven denominations and you can not support that statement. In fact there are many different Baptisit beliefs. I know as I was one. It appears you are attempting to fudge the truth to win a debate instead of seriously discussing religion.

Your statement that Catholics place themselves above Christ is inflammatory and you know it is wrong.

Then you state that I lie. Is that a Christian act?

Your post is in error and it appears that you wish to argue instead of discuss. You know that there is only one Catholic belief. As you refute this it shows that you are being disengenious. As such I will leave this post. I choose not to argue with people over religion today.

Looks like you don’t know quite as much as you think you do. Even differing Baptist beliefs falls under the Baptist denomination. Seems like a DUH! would be appropriate here

 

[sambos671]

Looks like you don’t know quite as much as you think you do. Even differing Baptist beliefs falls under the Baptist denomination. Seems like a DUH! would be appropriate here

You haven’t answered my post! How would you classify these?

 

[ScottishColleen]

Someone listed Headcoverings under the variables. My understanding is that not all Catholics agree with headcoverings. If that is doctrine that causes Protestants to be classified differently, then how is it not within the Catholic church as well (again, not attacking, merely asking…and plan on asking the local priest )

 

[ScottishColleen]

You haven’t answered my post! How would you classify these?

There is what is called “majors” and “minors”. The Baptists technically only split into two possible groups on the majors…the minor issues are ones that are not considered actually “divisive” (like my example with headcoverings above…I’m certain you do not consider the Catholic church divided because of this issue and with good reason ). So technically, he is correct. There are branches, and then there are those that hold to various little particulars that do not actually separate them from the rest on major doctrines.

 

[sambos671]

There is what is called “majors” and “minors”. The Baptists technically only split into two possible groups on the majors…the minor issues are ones that are not considered actually “divisive” (like my example with headcoverings above…I’m certain you do not consider the Catholic church divided because of this issue and with good reason ). So technically, he is correct. There are branches, and then there are those that hold to various little particulars that do not actually separate them from the rest on major doctrines.

It seems to me there is Major distinctiveness between IFB, SB, and FWB. The IFB holding strictly to a soteriological view in line with 5 point calvinsim. SB distinctiveness is that not strict 5 point Calvinist and holds to a modified version of reformed theology. Free Will Baptist believe in apostate ability and reject election doctrine. These are distinctive soterilogical divides. The same with the Pentecostals. AG, COG, and JO.

 

[PRmerger]

Someone listed Headcoverings under the variables. My understanding is that not all Catholics agree with headcoverings. If that is doctrine that causes Protestants to be classified differently, then how is it not within the Catholic church as well (again, not attacking, merely asking…and plan on asking the local priest )

Headcoverings are not required in the Catholic Church, but we are permitted to wear them if we so desire.

The issue is listed ostensibly because it’s the result of another verse in Scripture that has been privately interpreted by people to mean one thing–while others read it and receive a totally different interpretation.

Who decides in cases like this?

In our theological system, we have a final aribiter. In the Protestant system, there is no final authority.

 

[PRmerger]

There is what is called “majors” and “minors”. The Baptists technically only split into two possible groups on the majors…the minor issues are ones that are not considered actually “divisive” (like my example with headcoverings above…I’m certain you do not consider the Catholic church divided because of this issue and with good reason ). So technically, he is correct. There are branches, and then there are those that hold to various little particulars that do not actually separate them from the rest on major doctrines.

I would have to ask these Bible-only Christians what verses in Scripture tell them what’s a “major” doctrine and what’s a “minor” doctrine.

 

[ScottishColleen]

It seems to me there is Major distinctiveness between IFB, SB, and FWB. The IFB holding strictly to a soteriological view in line with 5 point calvinsim. SB distinctiveness is that not strict 5 point Calvinist and holds to a modified version of reformed theology. Free Will Baptist believe in apostate ability and reject election doctrine. These are distinctive soterilogical divides. The same with the Pentecostals. AG, COG, and JO.

Oh no, no, no! MOST IFB are anything but 5 point Calvinists! There are a FEW, very few Calvinists infiltrating the IFB churches (yes, they call it infiltrating LOL!). The IFB in general are not Calvinist, though they may be considered Calvinistic (yes, there is a difference ). SBC is much the same way, their practice (dress, requirements, what kind of music and tv they watch and listen to) is considered “looser”, but these are not doctrinal differences (and again, there is a small faction of Calvinists within, but they are the minority, though greater than in IFB churches).

btw, I was raised IFB and my husband was raised SBC…we are neither now (yep, we believe in baptising our children gasp! )

 

[ScottishColleen]

Headcoverings are not required in the Catholic Church, but we are permitted to wear them if we so desire.

The issue is listed ostensibly because it’s the result of another verse in Scripture that has been privately interpreted by people to mean one thing–while others read it and receive a totally different interpretation.

Who decides in cases like this?

In our theological system, we have a final aribiter. In the Protestant system, there is no final authority.

Only if you are lumping Protestants in as a whole. You can’t do that. Some Protestants do hold to an Apostolic Authority. Some disagree with the Catholic church on what that is and some believe they have it as their line of ordination does follow back to the Catholic church during the Reformation. (yes, I know the Catholics will disagree with this, not asking for agreement, simply stating the other views ).

Who decides in these cases? For some, it’s their church authority (minister and elders). For others, much like in the Catholic church, it’s permissible and left to the parishioner/congregant to choose.

 

[sambos671]

Oh no, no, no! MOST IFB are anything but 5 point Calvinists! There are a FEW, very few Calvinists infiltrating the IFB churches (yes, they call it infiltrating LOL!). The IFB in general are not Calvinist, though they may be considered Calvinistic (yes, there is a difference ). SBC is much the same way, their practice (dress, requirements, what kind of music and tv they watch and listen to) is considered “looser”, but these are not doctrinal differences (and again, there is a small faction of Calvinists within, but they are the minority, though greater than in IFB churches).

btw, I was raised IFB and my husband was raised SBC…we are neither now (yep, we believe in baptising our children gasp! )

Ok how about the adherence to AV 1611 in many of the IFB and not so much with the SBC?

 

[ScottishColleen]

I would have to ask these Bible-only Christians what verses in Scripture tell them what’s a “major” doctrine and what’s a “minor” doctrine.

Do you consider the Trinity a doctrine that must be held to? Do you consider the headcovering an ordinance that must be held to? Why are the two different for you? What makes a deal breaker and what doesn’t?

 

[moondweller]

Just out of curiosity would you lump Independent Fundalmentalist Baptist, Southern Convention Baptist, and Freewill Baptist together as one baptist denomination?

They’re all of the “Baptist” Denomination.

Would you lump Assemblies of God and Church of God together and Jesus Only Pentecostals together?

No. Pentecostalism is not a Denomination.

Where do the Nazarenes fit in?

They’re their own Denomination.

How about the multitude of churches that are mega and independent like the Crystal Cathedral? Or Joel Olsteens Church?

A mega church could be Denominational or not. You’d have to find out. Independents are just that.

A “Denomination” is an official organization to which individual, local churches belong. Each of those organizations have their own higher echelon.

But every Protestant church should have a statement of faith. When one visits a Protestant church (Denominational or not) he should ask for a copy of it. If they have none, my advice is: visitor beware.

But the truth still stands, there are not thousands of Protestant Denominations all claiming their own way of salvation.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you consider the Trinity a doctrine that must be held to? Do you consider the headcovering an ordinance that must be held to? Why are the two different for you? What makes a deal breaker and what doesn’t?

It’s the authority of the Catholic Church, Colleen, that determines this. Not me.

Thus, the difference between the doctrine of the Trinity (which is “the most fundamental and essential teaching” of Christianity (CCC 234) and head coverings (the document Inter Insigniores by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (October 15, 1976) stated that the 1917 Code of Canon Law (canon 1262.2) requiring women to wear veils on their heads was a custom of the period and that such ordinances “concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance.” Source here

I think it’s made pretty clear for us, thanks be to God!

 

[PRmerger]

Only if you are lumping Protestants in as a whole. You can’t do that. Some Protestants do hold to an Apostolic Authority.

So they affirm the primacy of the Pope?

Who decides in these cases? For some, it’s their church authority (minister and elders). For others, much like in the Catholic church, it’s permissible and left to the parishioner/congregant to choose.

Do these ministers and elders claim infallibility? I’m assuming they do not–so why would any fallible human follow another fallible human regarding interpretation of Scripture, esp. when there’s a disagreement?

 

[ScottishColleen]

Ok how about the adherence to AV 1611 in many of the IFB and not so much with the SBC?

It’s not a major doctrine in that they do not believe that your Salvation or status as a Christian is dependent on it.

The Trinity is a major Christian doctrine as how we understand and view God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is VERY important. Whether you use the AV 1611, the Geneva 1599, the Orthodox Study Bible, or the ESV is not. The Gospel is still contained within.

 

[moondweller]

Granted, you didn’t need to answer the question, which makes me all the more appreciative of your taking the time out of your busy schedule.

But on a less-positive note, your answer indicates that you’ve been “drinking the cool-aid”. The Catholic Church (the real Catholic Church, not some silly Protestant caricature of the Catholic Church) has never ever taught that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals. (If you have a little time, you might read what Vatican I and Vatican II said about papal infallibility.)

“…we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals.” 1st Vat. Council

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virture of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful…he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of assent of the Church, in as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the apporval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal.” 2nd Vat. CouncilSo when I agreed, I agreed based on the content and context of what is said above. Now, you might be trying to play some little technical game here, but I answered your question based on what was declared and documented in both those RC councils.

However, even when the Pope is not making dogmatic, and therefore “infallible,” pronouncements, RCs are still required to obey him without question (see CCC 892, 2037, 2050):“This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him…” 2nd Vat. CouncilSo, now are you going to answer my question or are you going to renege on your promise?

 

[PRmerger]

They’re all of the “Baptist” Denomination.No. Pentecostalism is not a Denomination.They’re their own Denomination.A mega church could be Denominational or not. You’d have to find out. Independents are just that.

:ehh:

“Independent churches”, eh? Hmmm…I wonder how many of those there are–each preaching different doctrines. There’s at least 130 in my metro area. Proof indeed that Sola Scriptura cannot lead to truth.

 

[PRmerger]

However, even when the Pope is not making dogmatic, and therefore “infallible,” pronouncements, RCs are still required to obey him** without question **(see CCC 892, 2037, 2050)

I didn’t read in any of those quotes where it says we are “required to obey him without question.” Could you show me please, moondweller? I

saw the words “reason” and “understanding” and “religious assent”. But not "without question.’ Does it say that in your CCC?