Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter smp501
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
exnihilo said:
It is likely the key disagreement and the more I’ve thought on this it is a rather strange problem. I’m not sure that faith is used equivocally so much as misused. I would contend there is no such thing as true faith. There is either faith or no faith. The idea of true faith is to indicate actual faith. The phrase should not have any theological significance. The real issue is how is faith determined? I would contend it is determined by what we do.

If someone were to come up to me and say the banks are going to crash today whether I had faith in that person would be determined by what I did. If I went to the bank and withdrew my money I had faith in them. If I did nothing I did not have faith in them. True faith in the sense often used would here be just faith where I went and acted as if I trusted the person who gave me this message.
Click to expand...
YEaH faith includes obedience i think this is the way paul talk about faith
It seems to me many people want to reduce the issue of salvation to intellectual assent. Scripture is very clear that some who recognize God as being God will not be saved. So holding to the belief that God exists seems insufficient. No one is doubting that Adam believed God existed. The issue for him was disobedience. We can say that act of disobedience was a lack of faith but Scripture does not say as soon as Adam thought to sin he was in trouble.
Click to expand...
Of course Christ later does tell us that what is in our hearts condemns us. This seems to me a call to a higher level of morality. It would seem that in heading Christ’s words some have taken it too far. What we do is certainly important. What we think is certainly important. The most ideal situation is to think and do good, not to just think good or to just do good. Like with children we were first conditioned to do what is right. Then we were instructed to do what is right for the right reasons. Christ explained this to us by proclaiming the foundation of the law being rooted in love of God.
Click to expand...
This is entirely consistent with moral understanding in our criminal law wherein we have both actions and intent. We judge a person’s actions in light of what we perceive to be their intent. But we also judge actions regardless of intent.
Click to expand...
The faith alone issue seems to me to be basing theology on what might best be called an edge case. There are situations, like the thief on the cross, where a person can not do any works as a demonstration of their faith. He was saved in that moment by his faith. He couldn’t do any good works.
Click to expand...
I believe that theif was saved while working, it took great pains to speak on the cross especially with nails in your hands and feet yet he came up to defend Jesus he loved that is charity he asked for forgiveness he certainly was using his will to make a choice. For me that theif actual recieved salvation when he was fulfiling the command of love. I believe he died with great love in his heart
But the faith alone theology has what has to be stranger edge cases. It has to dismiss its standard for children and the mentally retarded or consign them all to Hell. Of course that theology can be fixed with stipulations on its standard. But I think the nuanced version of faith and works salvation makes far more sense and does less violence to scripture, which is explicit that faith alone is not sufficient, than the nuanced faith alone theology.
Click to expand...
wow i had to check again to make sure you were protestant. It seem very catholic. Anyway the key to everything is the different preception of faith and the want to keep salvation simple. This simplicity made luther throw away what he thought to be too complex, he qualified what he believed to be saving faith, he called it fecund*cial and added the word alone to it. so all that is neccesary is a trust in him who has power to save the unrighteous and nothing else counts, nothing else improves or tampers with salvation as calvin later develops. The other difference is our understand of the word justification. Pax And blessings.
Ubenedictus
 
Publisher said:
Contarini;9065269:
Edwin,

I enjoyed this post…it put into perspective ‘something’ missing for me about Catholic belief…as a Friend “love” and “faith” are so bound together that unless “the faith to remove mountains” is accompanied by love;…“it avails nothing” Faith, hope and love are inseperable…Jesus is reported to have said “By this shall all men know you are my disciples…that you love one another.”

“Saving faith” exhibits the fruit of the Spirit…without love…we are lost…to ourselves and to others.

I think I have a better understanding of Cathlicism now…I’ve read some of the posts on this forum and have shaken my head in wonder…it now makes sense.
Click to expand...
wow im curious so where do we defer when it come to salvation. Good post almost sound like my mind. Peace friend.
Ubenedictus
Click to expand...
 
Cat_Herder said:
You boast about how biblical you are, now back it up.
Click to expand...
My only boast is in the joy that permeates my heart in the sure word (which I quote out of love and respect for the author) of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as well as the witness in my spirit …and both assure me that I am his and he is mine… for eternity.
 
1voice said:
Well then why is it practiced by Catholics?
Click to expand...
Catholics don’t “christen”. Catholics baptise.

Christen seems to be a word invented by credo baptisers that deny the validity of infant baptism.

I had a friend baptised Catholic that changed to Baptist. He said “I was christened in the Catholic church but baptised the first time in the Baptist church.”
 
LOL! And, that poster that you refer to, taking a shot at me … is not a deflection?

Actually …I did respond to the poster’s specific comment about my demeanor… first. Then If you read the post following that … you will see that I continued to respond to another assertion from the post.
 
1voice said:
I grew up in a huge Roman Catholic family. My mom, grandmother … everyone for as far back as I remember … used both words interchangeably.
Click to expand...
I was raised in an AG church. I know, personally, the difference between christening and baptism.

I adjure you to stop confusing people for the sake of winning an argument.
 
Cat_Herder said:
I was raised in an AG church. I know, personally, the difference between christening and baptism.

I adjure you to stop confusing people for the sake of winning an argument.
Click to expand...
No, he’s not doing that. Catholics and other traditional Christians do use the terms interchangeably. The idea that they’re different is a weird free-church Protestant notion.

Edwin
 
1voice said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
So what does that prove? Passover was a family celebration … for two thousand years.
Every devout Jew was at home, with family celebrating Jesus death and resurrection. … that was the purpose of the tradition … Everyone participated … throughout Israel. … Jesus was no different … In that same family setting Jesus revealed, for the first time, what the tradition really meant. He simply, clearly “explained the parable” … He revealed the secret that … Every Jew was celebrating the communion table. They just didnt know it. but… “To as many as accepted him … he gave the right to become children of God” and to really understand what the celebration of Passover meant. He never said to stop doing it this way because … now, all of a sudden, it was way too holy to touch … He said “do this” but from now on do it in memory of me… and realize … what the bread and wine is really all about.

The Feast of Passover was a Jewish feast established when Moses led the people out of Egypt. The entire meal was a type or foreshadow of Christ leading us out of the bondage of sin… Jesus is described as the Lamb that was slain and the Lamb of God. The Blood of the Lamb on the doorposts drove away death and preserved life within. The bread without leaven (without sin) was to be pierced and striped and broken … and wrapped in a white linen cloth … and then unwrapped.

It was no coincidence that it was at the Passover meal that Jesus said … This bread (the passover bread) … is my body. This wine (the passover wine) … is my blood.

Here is the description of the meaning of Passover … and the scriptures that are associated with Jesus as the one that Passover foretold.
There are 33 scriptural references toward the bottom of the page.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Now will you please provide Scripture to back up the assertions *you *made (from the first paragraph of this post)? This is now my third request.
 
👍 You’re absolutely correct (although I might wonder about Jehovah Witnesses who don’t believe Jesus is God - but I think that’s another thread). Also, everyone is saved through the Catholic Church - even if they are not formal members.
 
CMatt25 said:
Cat, I did but what was that supposed to prove? It includes the meanings “universal”, “broad minded”, and even the Big “C” had as one definition “the Christian church as a whole”.
Click to expand...
Jharek is correct on all points except my gender 🙂
 
1voice said:
I grew up in a huge Roman Catholic family. My mom, grandmother … everyone for as far back as I remember … used both words interchangeably.
Click to expand...
Oh well! That explains it! Your family used the words interchangeably so that must mean that they mean the same thing.

My aunt was furious at her niece (my cousin) because my cousin obtained an annulment after her former husband and she had had seven children. My aunt said that if there were seven children the marriage had to be a valid Catholic one and that was that. End of story.

She was absolutely wrong.

Your family does not write the rules for christening and baptism and my family does not write the rules for annulment.
 
Cat_Herder said:
Read the dictionary.
Click to expand...
they are** two seperate words that happen to be next to each other, to claim they are even in a dictionary is astounding (etemology is not the same as meaning in context)… this is not the meaning of Acts 9:31 as it indicates an area in the genative case (ownership) immediately after, "throughout the whole **area of Judea &c"

the first recorded case of the single contraction word catholic is by Ignatius (c.110 AD)

Another example of** eisegesis**(reading into the text) 😃
 
Cat_Herder said:
I was raised in an AG church. I know, personally, the difference between christening and baptism.

I adjure you to stop confusing people for the sake of winning an argument.
Click to expand...
Truth erases confusion.

Catholic Christening

chris·ten·ing   [kris-uh-ning, kris-ning]
noun
1.
the ceremony of baptism, especially as accompanied by the giving of a name to a child.
Infant baptism is the practice of baptising infants or young children. In theological discussions, the practice is sometimes referred to as paedobaptism or pedobaptism from the Greek pais meaning “child.” The practice is sometimes contrasted with what is called “believer’s baptism”, or credobaptism, from the Latin word credo meaning “I believe,” which is the religious practice of baptising only individuals who personally confess faith in Jesus, therefore excluding underage children. *** Infant baptism is also called christening.* **
 
LittleSoldier said:
Oh well! That explains it! Your family used the words interchangeably so that must mean that they mean the same thing.

My aunt was furious at her niece (my cousin) because my cousin obtained an annulment after her former husband and she had had seven children. My aunt said that if there were seven children the marriage had to be a valid Catholic one and that was that. End of story.

She was absolutely wrong.

Your family does not write the rules for christening and baptism and my family does not write the rules for annulment.
Click to expand...
Christening
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top