Protestants; why won't you be CATHOLIC!?

[Bill_Pick]

As I mentioned in a previous post I love my Protestant friends and never had too many questions for them, there was one time however I wondered and questioned a Baptist friend about Baptist doctrine.

  A family relative had a live in girlfriend.  She is a Baptist church member attending

church on Wednesday and Sundays faithfully. I mentioned to a Baptist friend that under the circumstances her behavior was some what scandalous.

My friend responded to me by saying,” she could never have been saved in the first place, she is a hypocrite, or she wouldn’t being doing it. I didn’t get that, as a Catholic

my way of thinking is, if you are a Christian baptized and confirmed and you do as they were doing you were a sinning Christian and headed for hell unless you stopped the behavior and repented.

 Sometimes when sinful behavior is pointed out, it is mentioned

that we are being judgmental. I understand that scripture tells us

that it is not wrong for us to judge situations as morally wrong,
however, we must understand that only God can judge peoples intentions.

My question to a Baptist Christian would be–Is it true that what my Baptist friend replied to me, ”She couldn’t have been saved in the first place”, is Baptist doctrine.? Catholics, if that is so, isn’t Baptist teaching in error?:shrug:Carlan

The Baptisi Teach Once saved always saved which is a fales teaching,but if you kill someone and die the next night you are not saved in the first place .

 

[historyb]

The Baptisi Teach Once saved always saved which is a fales teaching,but if you kill someone and die the next night you are not saved in the first place .

Something like this is always used as an example but that’s not quite the whole story, when one is saved they have no desire to commit a grievous sin. The person desires to please God with their whole being and as Scripture say God replaces their heart

26And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Ezek. 36:26

and makes them a new creation.

17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

2 Corinthians 5:17

So if someone had a murderous heart than they were never saved to begin with.

 

[guanophore]

What authority outside of Scripture do you recognize?

Tradition and reason given to us by the Spirit

What “tradition” is that, and how do you know it is “by the Spirit”? How is it that another person, equally fervent in faith, can reach opposite conclusions through their traditions and what they believe is the HS?

The main difference is that there is a standard outside of individual Catholics about the nature of the doctrine. This does not exist in Protestantism. Every group has their own creed, confession, or requirements for membership. this happens because everyone extracts from Scripture what they believe to be true.

Here is the fallacy: who are you talking about when you say Protestantism? That is much too broad of term to use accurately to depict any one denomination.

All who are separated from the Apostolic Tradition. And you are right, and prove my point. There is such a plethora of denominations because each one believes they are being led by the HS, and end up all over the place.

Actually, it is a matter of Apostolic Doctrine. It is they who taught that the mysteries of the faith were to be sought from those who were ordained by themselves.

Again, it is your version of what is Apostolic. I’m certain that Orthodox Christians and Anglicans wouldn’t agree with much of what you profess.

No, the Orthodox and Anglicans are all in agreement with us on this point. Neither of them are “bible based” churches, and have not fallen into the error of Sola Scriptura.

 

[guanophore]

Something like this is always used as an example but that’s not quite the whole story, when one is saved they have no desire to commit a grievous sin. The person desires to please God with their whole being and as Scripture say God replaces their heart

Ezek. 36:26

and makes them a new creation.

2 Corinthians 5:17

So if someone had a murderous heart than they were never saved to begin with.

I understand the principle here, but this represents a very stunted perception of human nature. It would mean that David, because he committed adultery and murder with Bathsheba, was never truly a man after God’s heart in the first place. It think the Scriptural record will show this is not the case.

Also, if there were no struggle against the “old man” (a saved one seeks God with their whole heart) then Paul would never have had a need to write Rom. ch.7. There would be no struggle, because the truly saved person would have no inclination toward sin. Scripture does not support this view.

Then one would also have to find a way to dispense with all the letters to believers in Rev., where Jesus tells them He will “spit them out” if they remain in sin.

Then there is Hebrews, falling away from the faith…just too many scriptures to the contrary.

 

[historyb]

I understand the principle here, but this represents a very stunted perception of human nature. It would mean that David, because he committed adultery and murder with Bathsheba, was never truly a man after God’s heart in the first place. It think the Scriptural record will show this is not the case.

In this case it was Pre Christ and things were different then

Also, if there were no struggle against the “old man” (a saved one seeks God with their whole heart) then Paul would never have had a need to write Rom. ch.7. There would be no struggle, because the truly saved person would have no inclination toward sin. Scripture does not support this view.

Then one would also have to find a way to dispense with all the letters to believers in Rev., where Jesus tells them He will “spit them out” if they remain in sin.

Then there is Hebrews, falling away from the faith…just too many scriptures to the contrary.

I have seen about these and they have a different meaning than thought, I must look them up again.

 

[SimonArizona]

2 Corinthians 5:17

So if someone had a murderous heart than they were never saved to begin with.

Salvation is not a blink of an eye one time confession of jesus and you are saved deal. Sins can be forgiven in the blink of an eye but purification of character to become holy is a process. The Holy Spirit will continue his work he began in you, and workout your salvation with fear and trembling. Revelations tells us nothing unclean shall enter heaven. You can be a strong believing christian, advancing forward in virtue, and still have major sinfull tendencies. The pure shall see God. The purification unto holiness happens in this life through cross bearing, self-denial, and sufferings, and the power of Christ’s cross to save reaches passed the grave unto purification of the soul after death.

 

[historyb]

Salvation is not a blink of an eye one time confession of jesus and you are saved deal. Sins can be forgiven in the blink of an eye but purification of character to become holy is a process. The Holy Spirit will continue his work he began in you, and workout your salvation with fear and trembling. Revelations tells us nothing unclean shall enter heaven. You can be a strong believing christian, advancing forward in virtue, and still have major sinful tendencies. The pure shall see God. The purification unto holiness happens in this life through cross bearing, self-denial, and sufferings, and the power of Christ’s cross to save reaches passed the grave unto purification of the soul after death.

Actually Salvation is one time, Sanctification is a lifetime process.

 

[SimonArizona]

Salvation is far too rich a concept to be limited to a three-second statement. In this view of salvation, the person remians corrupt, but God sees the person differently because of his or her faith in Jesus. The person is not transformed by God’s grace, but rather hidden by it.

On the contrary. Confession and baptism are the beginnings of the process of becoming holy as He is holy and this process (as revelations tells us) is required for salvation.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

As I mentioned in a previous post I love my Protestant friends and never had too many questions for them, there was one time however I wondered and questioned a Baptist friend about Baptist doctrine.

  A family relative had a live in girlfriend.  She is a Baptist church member attending

church on Wednesday and Sundays faithfully. I mentioned to a Baptist friend that under the circumstances her behavior was some what scandalous.

My friend responded to me by saying,” she could never have been saved in the first place, she is a hypocrite, or she wouldn’t being doing it. I didn’t get that, as a Catholic

my way of thinking is, if you are a Christian baptized and confirmed and you do as they were doing you were a sinning Christian and headed for hell unless you stopped the behavior and repented.

 Sometimes when sinful behavior is pointed out, it is mentioned

that we are being judgmental. I understand that scripture tells us

that it is not wrong for us to judge situations as morally wrong,
however, we must understand that only God can judge peoples intentions.

My question to a Baptist Christian would be–Is it true that what my Baptist friend replied to me, ”She couldn’t have been saved in the first place”, is Baptist doctrine.? Catholics, if that is so, isn’t Baptist teaching in error?:shrug:Carlan

The Baptisi Teach Once saved always saved which is a fales teaching,but if you kill someone and die the next night you are not saved in the first place .

This indicates to me the lack of redemptive suffering I saw in protestant theology as a “nominal” Methodist but even more so in the once saved always saved religious philosophy. In demeaning works as trying to attain salvation by ones own power, (a concept seen in the atheistic world view opposed to all religions and God, salvation of humanity by technology and control of nature), protestants seem to put emphasis on NOT doing works, minimizing humanity as a community (me and Jesus), and focusing just on salvation. This is seen especially in Baptist churches.

Accepting what God sends our way, if difficult (after making sure it is sent by God) is the sacrifice of love for God, and if something we are given is good, we should make sure we don’t become attached to it. This is the sacrifice I didn’t see then and don’t see now in protestant theology. The difference is in working with God’s Grace to be “Holy as God is Holy” as opposed to trying not to “do” sin to prove a “once saved, always saved” status. Our actions make us into who we are, as Catholics we are reminded of this in the morality standards God has revealed and the Church reminds us of. Not all Catholics achieve this and some protestants do suffer for God and love God to the point of sacrifice. It is the teaching of the particular denominations where the trouble lies as the Catholic Churches teaching is authoritatively guided by the Holy Spirit to remain infallible in faith and morals.

 

[historyb]

Salvation is far too rich a concept to be limited to a three-second statement. In this view of salvation, the person remians corrupt, but God sees the person differently because of his or her faith in Jesus. The person is not transformed by God’s grace, but rather hidden by it.

On the contrary. Confession and baptism are the beginnings of the process of becoming holy as He is holy and this process (as revelations tells us) is required for salvation.

Now there you assume I was talking about seconds, never did I say such a thing. Salvation or Conversion can happen quite instantly or take time. For example CS Lewis went on the bus an atheist and came off a Christian.

Nor did I say it ended there, I am afraid you have me mixed up with an evangelical; Once one has a conversion to Christ than Sanctification starts which last a lifetime.

 

[jake23]

Is ***that ***why Catholics don’t become Protestant ?​

We are not Protestant becasue we believe in the teachings of the apostles handed down from Christ, not the vein arrogance of Luther and the Billy Bob pastors that have a different theory on a corner of every block. It is what God thinks that counts not the invidual opnions of protestants.

 

[JonNC]

We are not Protestant becasue we believe in the teachings of the apostles handed down from Christ, **not the vein arrogance of Luther **and the Billy Bob pastors that have a different theory on a corner of every block. It is what God thinks that counts not the invidual opnions of protestants.

Am I to take this as a brave accusation against a man long dead, and not here to defend himself? Also, is Billy Bob a real person, or is this simply some form of vein arrogant condescension?
Fortunately, I do not view your lack of charity as indicative of Catholic posters here, or the Catholic Church at large.

Jon

 

[jake23]

Am I to take this as a brave accusation against a man long dead, and not here to defend himself? Also, is Billy Bob a real person, or is this simply some form of vein arrogant condescension?
Fortunately, I do not view your lack of charity as indicative of Catholic posters here, or the Catholic Church at large.

Jon

typical! ignore the writings of the other person, LOL! Yes I will talk such ways about a man who mislead poeple from the opportuniy of a complete and mature relsationship with Christ! It is funny though because looking at protestants these days, they are nothing like what Luther intended them to be, atleast from the bios made and or about him.

 

[Sellers1]

What authority outside of Scripture do you recognize?

What “tradition” is that, and how do you know it is “by the Spirit”? How is it that another person, equally fervent in faith, can reach opposite conclusions through their traditions and what they believe is the HS?

The main difference is that there is a standard outside of individual Catholics about the nature of the doctrine. This does not exist in Protestantism. Every group has their own creed, confession, or requirements for membership. this happens because everyone extracts from Scripture what they believe to be true.

You are wrong. The standard exists in all churches. Catholics are no more united in doctrine than any Protestant church. The church says one thing in doctrine and the people do other things. It’s called being a fallible human. Protestants such as Anglicans have had time tested doctrines as does the Catholic church, but still people make the individual choice to either adhere or not. Same for all.

All who are separated from the Apostolic Tradition. And you are right, and prove my point. There is such a plethora of denominations because each one believes they are being led by the HS, and end up all over the place.

Actually, it is a matter of Apostolic Doctrine. It is they who taught that the mysteries of the faith were to be sought from those who were ordained by themselves.

That’s a cookie cutter reply for a Catholic, seeing as you profess to be the only church (except for Orthodox Christians) to be Apostolically Succeeed

.

No, the Orthodox and Anglicans are all in agreement with us on this point. Neither of them are “bible based” churches, and have not fallen into the error of Sola Scriptura.

See above reply

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Too many

s to make sense of what the point is in the above post. If authority and succession, it had a beginning in the first years of the Church.

When I was looking for a church to go to after coming to faith by the Holy Spirit, I reasoned that the search should be about truth and not about what I wanted out of a faith community. The question in my mind was about authority to teach me God’s revelation. It is helpful to think about how the Church was founded in the months after the ascension.

In the beginning, someone had to have authority or all the disciples would have made their own experience with Jesus the standard by which to teach others what was important, like we have today in “Bible alone” . The humility and acceptance that Jesus showed was and is the “Way” for us as well as an antidote to pride that is the beginning of all sin. This was important then as well as today and is seen in Peter being mentioned so many more times in the Bible than any other apostle and the humility of people coming together to share what they had, as in the Book of Acts.

Mary, the Blessed Virgin, was there as an example and as a link to what Jesus did before His public ministry as well as after the ascension, like She is today. Her being chosen by God for the Incarnation and Her holiness was a source of grace to the young community and to individual disciples, especially to the apostles, just as it is today to the successors of the apostles and the successors of the disciples, us.

This is part of the Sacred Tradition handed down, the Traditions opposed to the “traditions of man” through a life of superstitious “prayer” to luck or chance and our own effort to lessen the pain of life, both physical and emotional. God lets us go the way we want, even into perdition by even the smallest effort of our freewill away from Him. This is offset by God accepting the least movement of our will toward Him with contrition. Obedience to that authority is the opposite of our own will and trust in our own effort.

 

[JonNC]

=jake23;5522501]typical! ignore the writings of the other person, LOL!

Typical of what or whom? Gottle of Geer is Catholic, btw.

Yes I will talk such ways about a man…

That’s ok, we are all known by our fruits

…who mislead poeple from the opportuniy of a complete and mature relsationship with Christ

Your opinion, not based in fact. How would you know the level of completness and maturity of anyone’s relationship with our Lord and Savior. You presume things you have no way of knowing.

It is funny though because looking at protestants these days, they are nothing like what Luther intended them to be, atleast from the bios made and or about him.

Now this I can agree with in part, if you are talking about Lutherans. We would do well to continue our rediscovery of Luther’s catholicity.
OTOH, Protestants of other traditions, Calvinist, Baptist, etc. shouldn’t be expected to resemble Luther.

Jon

 

[Zundrah]

the Eucharist/Real Presence

(and infallible Church teachings…)

This is all that seperates us (obviously there is actually alot more than this)… but the Eucharist isn’t anything to do with being a christian! The Eucharist is super-stition!

 

[Zundrah]

I can’t become catholic because I can’t believe in the Eucharist. I will however never leave my catholic church!

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I can’t become catholic because I can’t believe in the Eucharist. I will however never leave my catholic church!

This doesn’t bode well for you: From the Council of Trent:

ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

**CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.**

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each [Page 83] species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

 

[Zundrah]

This doesn’t bode well for you: From the Council of Trent:

ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each [Page 83] species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

Oh my, you are so cruel… :snowing:

anathema;

1. a person or thing detested or loathed: That subject is anathema to him.
2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
3. a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
4. any imprecation of divine punishment.
5. a curse; execration.

This is what you believe in Earnest Bunbury? My methoist church would never detest anyone, even if they denied christ.

---