Protestants: Doesn't it bother you that your religion is of man-made origin?

[TriuneUnity]

Indeed, thanks for the remarks. You know when I think about American history, or history in general it really confirms my Calvinist outlook.

God even uses heathens to accomplish His will. We in this country have a tendency to look at America through a divine prism. It’s been like this for quite some time (manifest destiny is a good example). Even when we look at how Washington was constructed (like Rome) we can see we were an ambitious bunch right from very near the beginning.

There were all sorts of influences in our early history. I haven’t heard the Free Masons mentioned, who were a very important group.

Our early view of Catholicism was shaped by our view of Roman tyranny, which existed to some extent even after the empire was Christianized. Not much sooner after the reformation broke out did the countries who were the most uncomfortable with having a Roman master defect from its church. So this whole thing is beyond mere theological disagreement, there are many historical roots to this that are often ignored.

Indeed the Old Testament does tell us that God blesses and curses nations, not just individuals. So under this premise we might speculate that God looks at protestants favorably.

This country has beaten back every unGodly collection of men in history so far. From the Nazi’s to the communists all have crumbled just exactly as God decreed. Man when I think about the power and majesty of God, divine providence, I get a sense of euphoria.

I think many in Christianity have a tendency to look at God as sort of like a tooth fairy. God is completely good yes indeed, however, He inscrutably uses wickedness to His advantage. The devil to this day has deluded himself into thinking he’s opposing God, all the while God is using even him to accomplish His good will and purpose. How could we know love without hate? How could we know sinlessness without sin? So when people tell me the fall of man or the devils rebellion was some sort of cosmic accident that God did not plan, I say – as if? God is never surprised, He does not learn, He not only knows everything but decreed everything. He doesn’t look down the tunnel of time and react to our behavior, He is time, He creates time and everything in it.

Are you of the Presbyterian persuasion along Calvinist lines?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Are you of the Presbyterian persuasion along Calvinist lines?

Yes

 

[Jonathan_Cid]

Funny, I never see Jesus mentioning Rome in such a light in Scripture. In fact the notion that the RCC is “the church” is invented by the Romans themselves, go figure. Now why would the Romans want to do that? Oh yeah, because they were the Romans, controlling the world was their game. Hey, who could blame them, politicians to this day use religion to gain power. It’s human nature I suppose.

What ever are you talking about? I’m not a Roman Catholic. “Rome” does not = “Catholic”. Go figure. Please don’t change the subject to political abuse of religion, because you know we all agree on that. We’re here to talk about Catholicism.

till living in past glory huh? Collectivism? You mean communism or socialism. Please

Obviously you’re reading of Protestant faith comes from propaganda – the US is the most charitable nation on earth, and most of that money is Protestant money.

Don’t hate on us just because we run things? It works better this way, as we can see from the history of human progress since the reformation.

Yes, collectivism. Jesus Christ is not a God of indivual glorification - the Church is not about the individual. Get over your pride.

I am not attacking the U.S. Don’t change the subject.

I am not hating on you because you “run things”. Don’t change the subject.

Interesting that you mention the “history of human progress since the Reformation”. Get familiar with logical fallacies and learn these Roman words - post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Don’t insult me with your cheap argumentation and faulty logic.

You know full well that the Catholic Church is all there was up until the Reformation - your statement confirms this. Then, you broke away. Christ promised He would always be with His Church , that She was the pillar and foundation of truth, and the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail her.

All that you have said contradicts Christ.

On the side: collectivism does not equal socialism or communism. Don’t mention them unless you know what they are. The Catholic Church makes private property part of it’s social teaching.

If you want to see the real Protestant heritage in the U.S., look at the Puritans. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. George Washington was a Freemason and wasn’t into religion. Benjamin Franklin bordered on atheism. Get over yourselves. Drop the silly arguments, and get to the core arguments. When you can refute that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ, then come to dazzle us with your Presbyterian thinking along Calvinist lines. I’ll stick to the Scriptures and the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[sola_scriptura]

If you want to see the real Protestant heritage in the U.S., look at the Puritans. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. George Washington was a Freemason and wasn’t into religion. Benjamin Franklin bordered on atheism. Get over yourselves. Drop the silly arguments, and get to the core arguments. When you can refute that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ, then come to dazzle us with your Presbyterian thinking along Calvinist lines. I’ll stick to the Scriptures and the Church of Jesus Christ.

You obviously haven’t been reading my posts? I haven’t argued these positions … I agree with your characterization of some of our founders.

My disagreement with Catholicism personally has little to do with history, it’s purely theological.

Indeed we can discuss scripture any day … I’m always glad to testify why I’m Presbyterian, using nothing but scripture!

Peace

 

[Jonathan_Cid]

You obviously haven’t been reading my posts? I haven’t argued these positions … I agree with your characterization of some of our founders.

My disagreement with Catholicism personally has little to do with history, it’s purely theological.

Indeed we can discuss scripture any day … I’m always glad to testify why I’m Presbyterian, using nothing but scripture!

Peace

I’ve clearly been reading your posts. I answered them pretty thoroughly. I even answered the points that had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

That is precisely why this argument goes beyond your interpretation and theology - it goes down to the very rejection of Catholicism, to history.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Yes

OPC, PCA?

 

[Contarini]

Lutherans started about 500 yrs ago… the others are even newer… and all began by mere humans… who disagreed with the pope and with ea other…

Doesn’t that bother you??

Protestants do not think that Protestantism is their religion. They think that Christianity is their religion. Most Protestants view denominations more like Catholics view religious orders (or perhaps like Catholics view the particular churches that make up the Catholic Church–the Roman or Byzantine Catholic Church, for instance) than like Catholics view the Catholic Church.

I wish Catholics would get this point. It would make Catholic-Protestant dialogue so much easier!

Edwin

 

[Jonathan_Cid]

Protestants do not think that Protestantism is their religion. They think that Christianity is their religion. Most Protestants view denominations more like Catholics view religious orders (or perhaps like Catholics view the particular churches that make up the Catholic Church–the Roman or Byzantine Catholic Church, for instance) than like Catholics view the Catholic Church.

I wish Catholics would get this point. It would make Catholic-Protestant dialogue so much easier!

Edwin

Catholics believe you must be a part of the Church to have the fullness of Christianity.

 

[Contarini]

Catholics believe you must be a part of the Church to have the fullness of Christianity.

Of course. I am not arguing against that point. I’m simply explaining how Protestants see things.

How was your post relevant to that goal?

Edwin

 

[Hisalone]

And “argue” is about all they can do…because their argument is “flawed”.

The first part of your statement is erroneous. The United States was “founded on Judeo/Christian principals”… NOT Protestant.

The problem is that many people have very little real knowledge regarding the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers. Many were not Protestants…not in any real sense. Some of the most influential were “Deists”…and there is a significant difference. Also…most of the motivations, even though religious thoughts were included, was the fact that politically every effort was to prevent the establishment of another country that would be ruled by a “monarchy”…and have classes of gentry. Everything was to be structured in opposition to the English model of the day.

You have bought into the secular humanist interpretation of of the religios beliefs of the founding fathers. New England had a strong Puritan influence, Pennsylvania Quaker, Virginia and south Baptist/Methodist.
There were very few deists amoung the founding fathers. Where have deists gone? they have disappeared. No,they were never here to begin with.
George Washington was not an active mason.

 

[sola_scriptura]

OPC, PCA?

Actually PCA … go ahead I know it’s coming, even we keep splitting up right?

However, I do find much accord with all the “conservative” reformed churches, it’s just that a good PCA church happens to be near me.

The liberal branches (namely PC USA) has gone the way of the liberal denominations, like the Episcopalians (though not quite that far) and Methodists. I like a church that adheres strictly to the Pastoral Epistles. I am also reformed, according to the theology of Calvin and his progeny (which of course I believe most closely matches scripture).

 

[TriuneUnity]

Actually PCA … go ahead I know it’s coming, even we keep splitting up right?

However, I do find much accord with all the “conservative” reformed churches, it’s just that a good PCA church happens to be near me.

Are you under the impression I am Roman Catholic? LOL. Sorry if any of my posts confused you. I am Lutheran.

The liberal branches (namely PC USA) has gone the way of the liberal denominations, like the Episcopalians (though not quite that far) and Methodists. I like a church that adheres strictly to the Pastoral Epistles. I am also reformed, according to the theology of Calvin and his progeny (which of course I believe most closely matches scripture).

Unfortunately the PCUSA is pretty close to flirting with apostasy. I know a lot of good Presbyterian pastors within the OPC.

 

[sola_scriptura]

You have bought into the secular humanist interpretation of of the religios beliefs of the founding fathers. New England had a strong Puritan influence, Pennsylvania Quaker, Virginia and south Baptist/Methodist.
There were very few deists amoung the founding fathers. Where have deists gone? they have disappeared. No,they were never here to begin with.
George Washington was not an active mason.

Jefferson and Franklin could perhaps be accurately described as at least liberal protestants (if not bordering on deists); but overall I agree with your statement. To say this country was other than protestant at its foundation is a fantasy only a non-protestant mind could dream up.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Drop the silly arguments, and get to the core arguments. When you can refute that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ, then come to dazzle us with your Presbyterian thinking along Calvinist lines. I’ll stick to the Scriptures and the Church of Jesus Christ.

Okay, I’ll get back to the core argument. The RCC is not the true church because:

1. it fails to understand divine providence and grace,
2. it has invented a Marian theology that in effect creates a fourth member of the trinity (or hypostatic union as it calls it),
3. it wrongfully venerates icons. While it engages in theological gymnastics to explain away this practice, the commandment is clear,
4. it wrongfully imagines saints and Mary may intercede for us in clear contradiction of Holy Scripture,
5. it fails to understand that Mary, while under grace, was a woman, born under the law, and into sin. By making her more than she was you dilute the humanity of Christ. Moreover, by imagining such a thing you posit that Jesus required Mary’s assistance to be separated from sin,
6. it misinterprets the commission of Peter for its own gain,
7. it not only erroneously lays claim to infallibility it fails to understand that confessing our imperfection and utter reliance on God for righteousness is absolutely necessary in the economy of salvation. By imagining that we can excel in the flesh it dilutes divine sovereignty;
8. it denies the truth of its own errors, such as the plain historical fact that it charged money for the forgiveness of sins, by shrouding such actions as something other than what they plainly were. This claim to infallibility has led to a slippery slope of error, as we see in Marian theology, since an inability to admit error logically magnifies the error over time. Essentially it is arrogant to claim perfection; and here we see why such pride is a sin. As Jesus said only God is perfect.

These are my objections to Catholic theology and dogma. This is why when I look for a church I look to scripture to define what a “right” church is. It need not necessarily be Presbyterian, it can be Baptist or various other denominations

Differences over soteriology aren’t that important, however, I do believe it’s critical in ones understanding of God to understand His providence and sovereignty. The fullness of salvation is had when we give up all pretenses that we are in control and surrender to the divine will.

 

[KenEOTE]

Actually in answer to the thread.

I would have to say no it doesn’t bother a Protestant, because they do not believe that it was man made they believe it was the Holy Spirit leading them.

That is the answer.

It the Thread said:

Catholics: Doesn’t it bother you that your religion is of man-made origin?

the answer would be:
No it doesn’t bother a Catholic, because they do not believe that it was man made they believe it was the Holy Spirit leading them.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Okay, I’ll get back to the core argument. The RCC is not the true church because:

1. it fails to understand divine providence and grace,

I agree that it doesn’t understand grace. How do you mean it doesn’t understand providence, though?

1. it has invented a Marian theology that in effect creates a fourth member of the trinity (or hypostatic union as it calls it),
2. it wrongfully venerates icons. While it engages in theological gymnastics to explain away this practice, the commandment is clear,
3. it wrongfully imagines saints and Mary may intercede for us in clear contradiction of Holy Scripture,
4. it fails to understand that Mary, while under grace, was a woman, born under the law, and into sin. By making her more than she was you dilute the humanity of Christ. Moreover, by imagining such a thing you posit that Jesus required Mary’s assistance to be separated from sin,
5. it misinterprets the commission of Peter for its own gain,
6. it not only erroneously lays claim to infallibility it fails to understand that confessing our imperfection and utter reliance on God for righteousness is absolutely necessary in the economy of salvation. By imagining that we can excel in the flesh it dilutes divine sovereignty;
7. it denies the truth of its own errors, such as the plain historical fact that it charged money for the forgiveness of sins, by shrouding such actions as something other than what they plainly were. This claim to infallibility has led to a slippery slope of error, as we see in Marian theology, since an inability to admit error logically magnifies the error over time. Essentially it is arrogant to claim perfection; and here we see why such pride is a sin. As Jesus said only God is perfect.

Differences over soteriology aren’t that important, however, I do believe it’s critical in ones understanding of God to understand His providence and sovereignty. The fullness of salvation is had when we give up all pretenses that we are in control and surrender to the divine will.

Actually, I would say its false soteriology is its most serious offense since it directly impacts our understanding of the Gospel.

 

[jmcrae]

Protestants would argue that the break occured after the Catholic Church departed from the teachings of Christ.

And when, exactly, was that? The Catholic Church has been teaching the same Catechism ever since the Didache, which is thought to have been written by the Apostles in 50 AD.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I agree that it doesn’t understand grace. How do you mean it doesn’t understand providence, though?



Actually, I would say its false soteriology is its most serious offense since it directly impacts our understanding of the Gospel.

Grace and providence are inseparately linked. Providence is the same as omnipotence or sovereignty. Simply stated, God’s power and dominion. The Catholic view of salvation is that we must cooperate with grace. That there is some meritorious quality about us that drives God’s elective choices.

This is, in all essential matters, the same as the Arminian view. I take it you’re Lutheran (or I assume) so you would probably mostly agree with my view of predestination.

If we were to imagine that we, of our effort, can excel in the flesh (without divine grace) then we dilute providence. That is if we believe that through the operation of our own free will we can do something that might be pleasing enough to God that we can win His favor, then we’re crediting ourselves, not God, for our salvation.

I really do believe it is imperative to understand this view has little in common with Holy Scripture. We are taught that God’s divine choices have absolutely nothing to do with our character. He chose us by eternal decree regardless of our flaws. Indeed there is nothing man can do to earn God’s favor since our every will that is independent of God is opposed to Him.

No one is righteous and no one is perfect – except God! When we understand that He chose us we did not choose Him; and when we confess our imperfection and understand our depravity, we can then understand that only by God’s grace are we regenerated, given faith, and saved. However, when we think otherwise we cannot submit to the divine will with all our heart, mind, and soul. When we actually think that we retain any ability to save ourselves or avoid sin through our own will and accord then we set ourselves up for failure, since in our depraved flesh there can be no perfection. By grace we are saved.

We need God to save us not because we can be perfect if we really try hard enough, but because we can never be perfect no matter how hard we try. If we could excel in the flesh then why would we need grace?

I hope that explains my view coherently.

 

[sola_scriptura]

And when, exactly, was that? The Catholic Church has been teaching the same Catechism ever since the Didache, which is thought to have been written by the Apostles in 50 AD.

So you think the Didache supports Catholic doctrine? Frankly, the Didache and Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians not only makes no mention of Rome’s authority – it only makes mention of a presbyterian church hierarchy (local churches led by presbyters and deacons just as Paul enumerates in the Pastoral epistles). This develops into an episcopate, however, the idea of a unified church under one Pope is a later development.

A letter from Ignatius to the Romans contains the quote:

“I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did.”

This is commonly used to support the idea that Roman authority over the church existed even back then, however, it strains the text. Ignatius is simply acknowledging the supremacy of Peter and Paul’s teachings. When we read the prelude to a letter from Ignatius to Polycarp this becomes clear:

CHAPTER 0
0:0 Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto Polycarp
who is bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans or
rather who hath for his bishop God the Father and
Jesus Christ, abundant greeting.

There is no Pope mentioned, rather succession runs from the Bishop to God and Christ. In his first Epistle Clement writes to both the churches at Rome and the Churches at Corinth.

Accordingly Rome did not begin to assert authority over the church in Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor until the time of Irenaeus.

What happened at the reformation was essentially a schism between the Roman church and its German, Dutch, and to some extent Swiss counterparts. Each of the first reformation churches were previously Catholic. All of their clergy, including members of the episcopate, were properly anointed by the Church at Rome. Each bishop who became Lutheran therefore retained Apostolic authority just as much as Orthodox Bishops did at the East West schism. Essentially they did the same thing as the East, denied the authority of Rome and the Papacy.

Obviously there was also a marked split on theological lines. The idea of salvation by grace through faith as taught in Scripture was the hallmark of Lutheran soteriology. The church at Rome not only taught works based salvation but also used this notion to abuse its power. By creating a legalistic regime by which the church controlled the gates of atonement Rome was able to enrich herself for her own ends. In effect the magisterial reformers felt they were taking up the cause of Augustine against Pelagian heresy, in addition to freeing themselves from the abuses that existed in the 16th century Latin church.

Did they “lose” apostolic succession? The idea is preposterous. Indeed they preserved the Apostolic heritage, which first and foremost is validated by their teachings.

 

[jmcrae]

Grace and providence are inseparately linked. Providence is the same as omnipotence or sovereignty. Simply stated, God’s power and dominion. The Catholic view of salvation is that we must cooperate with grace. That there is some meritorious quality about us that drives God’s elective choices.

Uh - no. God gives the grace first (typically, by means of the Sacraments), and then we are made able to do good works, because of the grace from God that is working in us. (Grace is not “imputed” to us, though, and God does not pretend to Himself that our sins are actually good works, as I have seen some Protestants teach.)

If we were to imagine that we, of our effort, can excel in the flesh (without divine grace) then we dilute providence. That is if we believe that through the operation of our own free will we can do something that might be pleasing enough to God that we can win His favor, then we’re crediting ourselves, not God, for our salvation.

I agree completely. We are only able to do good things in a worthy manner when we are in a state of grace - this is precisely why the Sacraments (which are the ordinary means of grace) are so absolutely essential. Grace can also be freely given to sinners in order to move them to conversion, but unless they actually follow that inclination, they won’t gain the grace they need to accomplish other good works in a worthy manner.