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

  • Thread starter Thread starter distracted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
What does this have to do with the Catechism?

Surely, the practical organization of the church body is irrelevant to its teachings, no? (Otherwise, the myriad of Protestant differences in this area would be cause for consternation, would it not?)

It is the teachings that must be in accord with Christ - how they are promulgated is a matter of practical expediency - no? 🤷

(That in the Catholic they are promulgated through a system that knows precisely where its authority originated, and every single step of how it got here, rather than by hopeful guess and crossed fingers, is one of the more attractive things about Catholicism, for me.)
 
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.)
That’s what I said? God does give grace first & by that grace through faith we are saved.

The idea that grace is given through a sacramental regime is just erroneous. Grace is given by God before we can engage in religion (of any denominational sort) with a sincere heart. Prior to regeneration by grace we are spiritually discerned, unable to seek God or do anything pleasing to Him that might win His favor.

Even the idea that grace is sustained in such a way is not exactly right … although it’s not exactly wrong either. Obviously worship, fellowship, participating in the Eucharist, tithing, charity, etc. are all good things. However, these things flow from grace – they are not responsible for either acquiring it or sustaining it.

Here’s where we truly differ. You think all aspects of God’s grace are universal. That all people in the world are given an equal opportunity at salvation by God. This idea is in accord with the notion of divine justice. In other words to be otherwise we might think it’s unfair. Even Augustine coined predestination the “horrible decree.”

However, this is neither what Scripture reveals nor what human history reveals. Paul tells us we can only believe if we hear, and only hear if preached to (Romans 10:14). Obviously not all people have heard or have been preached to so at least this aspect of grace is not afforded to all people.

The human condition is brutish in reality. Some are born into a tribe that practices cannibalism. I remember in an undergraduate sociology class learning about tribes in this world whose rite of initiation into manhood entails a boy being sexually violated by other men in his tribe – which happened at something like 13 years old.

Some among us here in America are born into horrible circumstances that plunges them into a life of addiction and hopelessness; where they never come into contact with the truth. Other times such circumstances drive men toward the truth.

Some were born in rural China where there is no church, no evangelists, and no chance for becoming Christian.

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son (John 3:18).

Here we see that not only are unbelievers condemned, but condemned “already” (a past tense action); but what about those who had no opportunity to be saved? There exists no disclaimer in Scripture indicating that those who haven’t heard the word will still be grafted into the body of Christ. To the contrary we are told:

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves (Ephesians 1:4-6).

When Scripture talks about the free gift it is generally misunderstood. For some reason many equate free with universal, when its presentation is made in no such way. Rather it is free, unconditional, and irresistible to the elect alone.
 
I definitely prefer to be a Catholic, for sure! 🙂

It’s interesting how “the elect” can be found only within travelling distance of Presbyterian and Calvinist churches. 😛

I would believe in your method, if I had ever heard of someone in a remote region who had never met a Presbyterian or a Calvinist, coming up with your belief system on his own, by God’s direct intervention. So far, I have not. 🤷

(I have, on the other hand, met someone who came up with the Catholic belief system before he had ever met any Catholics - it was a very interesting story; remind me to tell it to you one of these days.)
 
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.
I would agree with everything you said here. I am not sure that Roman error on this is quite as much a false view of providence so much as a false view of soteriology…or, the basis for why and how we are just in God’s sight.

If there’s one thing, at least, that separates Arminianism and Catholicism, is that at least Catholics deny justification by grace alone through faith alone.
 
I definitely prefer to be a Catholic, for sure! 🙂

It’s interesting how “the elect” can be found only within travelling distance of Presbyterian and Calvinist churches. 😛

I would believe in your method, if I had ever heard of someone in a remote region who had never met a Presbyterian or a Calvinist, coming up with your belief system on his own, by God’s direct intervention. So far, I have not. 🤷

(I have, on the other hand, met someone who came up with the Catholic belief system before he had ever met any Catholics - it was a very interesting story; remind me to tell it to you one of these days.)
Well, as George Whitfield said: everyone is born Arminian & by grace we become Calvinists … 😃

However, I’ve never heard of a church called Calvinist. All reformed churches (i.e. Presbyterian), and in fact many protestant churches have a high regard for Calvin’s theology. It is prominent among many Anglican theologians, it’s spreading quite rapidly among Baptist congregations, I guess the only church built on an anti-Calvinist footing is the Methodist church (and its Wesleyan progeny like Nazarenes, Pentecostals, etc.). John Wesley was no fan of Calvin.

However, I admit for reformed denominations it’s not the soteriology in the background that no one talks about – like it is for other denominations. We preach irresistible grace, unconditional election, and the absolute sovereignty of God unapologetically. However, it’s also not all we talk about.

However, you know at our core the differences are less than you think. Fundamentally we all agree salvation is only found through Christ. We all agree Christ changes hearts so we are fitted for honorable use by God. You guys would say one can fall out of grace, we would disagree. However, even that disagreement practically speaking isn’t all that great. You would say if one leaves the church and falls into sin they are out of grace. However, if they come back, as the prodigal son, they will find redemption and forgiveness through being reunited with the church, the holy family, through confession and turning back toward God and holiness.

We would say if they come back they were never out of grace, since we understand election is a past tense action, not an ongoing process. However, if they don’t come back and remain in sin to their last breath, then we would say they were probably never saved to begin with. We simply acknowledge election how it is presented in Scripture. We would take the sinner back as you would. We expect right behavior and decency just like you do. So in practice we’re not that different, just in theology.

Frankly let’s face it – many good Catholics and good Presbyterians don’t really have the in depth understanding of soteriology we do. For most they were raised in a certain faith, everyone in the family is the same denomination, etc. They go to church as young kids and return when they have kids. Most of them don’t even know what the word soteriology means 🙂
 
I would agree with everything you said here. I am not sure that Roman error on this is quite as much a false view of providence so much as a false view of soteriology…or, the basis for why and how we are just in God’s sight.

If there’s one thing, at least, that separates Arminianism and Catholicism, is that at least Catholics deny justification by grace alone through faith alone.
Jesus Himself specifically condemns lipservice in Matthew 7:21-23.

He immediately follows this teaching with the parable of the man who built his house on the rock (the “peter,” interestingly) who prevailed over the man who built his house on the sand.
 
God chose us to get His church back on track. You guys were fired, didn’t you get the memo? 😃
If we were fired, you Protestants ougth to be … well, won’t say…

Anyway… It doesn’t make sense to leave the Church Christ established just because maybe 2% or so are not such great christians… Even if it was 90%, that is still not a good reason. My perspective is tht Martin Luther was on an ego trip… (etc, etc)…
 
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??
It bothered me. I remember 5-6 yrs ago going to my favorite Bible Book store to search for Church History. I had heard about Augustine in a Bible study. I was disappointed that their substantial “history” section only went back about 500 years. I had to believe that there were intelligent, faithful Christians between the time of the resurrection and the Protestant Reformation. Once I discovered Church History, the rest is well, history. 😃
 
Jesus Himself specifically condemns lipservice in Matthew 7:21-23.

He immediately follows this teaching with the parable of the man who built his house on the rock (the “peter,” interestingly) who prevailed over the man who built his house on the sand.
I am quite sure that in that context, the rock was the commandments of Christ.
 
I am quite sure that in that context, the rock was the commandments of Christ.
Of course.

But it’s interesting (at least to me) that Christ’s name for Simon bar Jonah, our first Pope, was “Peter” - the same name He uses for the Commandments.

I’m sure it’s just a total coincidence, though … 😉
 
Of course.

But it’s interesting (at least to me) that Christ’s name for Simon bar Jonah, our first Pope, was “Peter” - the same name He uses for the Commandments.

I’m sure it’s just a total coincidence, though … 😉
No, it certainly is not. He was the rock of the apostles. But we can’t read Peter into everything in Scripture that mentions rocks 😛
 
Of the Church, actually - Jesus doesn’t even mention the other Apostles. (Matthew 16:18-19)
He doesn’t in that particular passage. But the later NT writings mention all of the apostles as rocks of the Church. Also the same promise made to Peter in 16 is also applied to the other apostles collectively in ch. 18. I actually believe 3 different applications can be applied to Matt.16:18
Why not? Personal opinion? 🤷
Well, if Moses and the Israelites were followed by the rock of Christ, it would be a mistake to read Peter into it.
 
I’ve read most of the posts on this thread. Even tho I would like to read them all, I cannot due to a time factor. However, I would just like to say that I was raised in the Brethren church and at age 42, in l995 I became a Catholic. I have never been sorry. I find every day more to support the fact that it is indeed the true Church. I once heard or read, that people who have set out to research and prove the Catholic Church “wrong” have actually become converts because in the process they discovered the truth. As for some of the protestant denominations, I always wondered why people would feel comfortable with the founders like Mary Baker Eddy and Martin Luther. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I have read things about them that sound a little mentally off. I shouldn’t say it if I can’t come up with facts, but it was an impression that I got. I want to know that the Church I am following is on sound footing, not sinking sand. My Church is on a great big ROCK and sound theology.
 
One only needs to pick up a bible with the words of Christ in red, and read his words only. It’s blatantly obvious the Roman Catholic Church is the Church He willed.
 
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.
Heresy manifest.
 
A man makes vows before God, and breaks those vows, then rejects the Will of Christ by starting his own church, and men blindly follow him. A man named Luther.

A king named James takes it upon himself to reject his Church and orders Scripture altered to his own will. Going further, he commands his people to reject the Church of Jesus Christ.

Satan rejoices in the rejection of Christ’s Will of unity in His name.
 
Of the Church, actually - Jesus doesn’t even mention the other Apostles. (Matthew 16:18-19)

Quote:
But we can’t read Peter into everything in Scripture that mentions rocks

Why not? Personal opinion? 🤷
jmcrae here are some scriptures about rocks. If you want to believe it is Peter ok… but that would be personal opinion and not make sense at all.

Exodus 17:6
I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink." So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel.

Exodus 33:22
When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by.

Judges 6:20
The angel of God said to him, “Take the meat and the unleavened bread, place them on this rock, and pour out the broth.” And Gideon did so.

Isaiah 26:4
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. (If you think Peter is the rock referred to here that might equal heresy)

Psalm 62:6
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken.

Psalm 62:7
My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge.

Psalm 71:3
Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress.

Psalm 78:15
He split the rocks in the desert and gave them water as abundant as the seas; (I could go all protestant and say this is a prophecy of how the church would be split… but its not.)

Luke 8:6
Some fell on rock, and when it came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture. ( I would think you would not want this one to refer to Peter or the church… )

1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

There are over 149 passages in the Bible that refer to rocks. One refers to Peter. Most refer to God or Christ, others are just rocks. Yes I did this post in humor, but you are the one who made the silly statement suggesting that not saying Peter is every rock mentioned in scripture is personal opinion.
 
Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the only thing we need for salvation? You are hypocritical to say Catholics added to the Bible… and yet you add this kind of thing… you put your own interpretation on things… just as you claim the pope does…
We in this country have a tendency to look at America through a divine prism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top