Protestants; why won't you be CATHOLIC!?

[guanophore]

Come now estesbob, I was olny joking. Denominations; it is a sad thing that we all have seperated. But let’s just focus on trying to re-unite, that would be beautiful!

I think this is a very good idea. It would be great if you could help out by refraining from posting untruths like this one:

There is also another reason why some people wont become Catholic; you do not let women work in your church.

My Methodist minister wouldn’t be a minister if she was catholic. This, I feel, is very sad.

You have been corrected on this before, so spreading this kind of misinformation is very damaging, not only to others, but most especially to yourself.

 

[guanophore]

I can tell you lack real education!

No, he has plenty of it, it is coming from an anti-catholic source, is all!

third Peter started the catholic church

I think this statement is unsupporotable from Scripture and Church Teachings.

you are not worthy enough to have an opinion! I am so sad and disapointed how foolish protestants are!

I find this remark grossly uncharitable.

 

[guanophore]

The differences between Protestant denominations are Non-Essential…

Janet, can you please point me to the scripture that defines what is “essential” and what is not? I am having trouble locating this list.

 

[Tanner9188]

Janet as a fallen away Catholic, I assume you were Baptized as an infant I
If you have forgotten about the doctrine of Baptism , allow me to refresh your Catholic memory.

Catholics believe the power is in the sacrament of Baptism, even though the**Power cannot be seen. **** That is why they baptise babies.

The way I understand Protestant belief on Baptism, is that for Protestants they have to have faith before they can believe in the power. So they only baptize adults.

Protestants have to believe in the sign first that is why they only baptize adults

For Catholics___ the faith is in believing the Power in the sign of Baptism**.

Carlanba

**More accurately; Protestants recognize the difference between baptism of the Spirit as opposed to water baptism as Scripture teaches.

Here are 3 baptism mentioned in one verse:
Matt. 3:11 (cf. Lk 3:16) "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance**, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. - “fire” is the judgment for the damned; yet future IMU.

Which one of the three is the true baptism that saves; water, Holy Spirit, or fire?

Protestants believe that justification and salvation are two sides of the same coin; justification is the positive of a regenerate /new life and salvation is the negative; saved from, something, sin and its penalty. Whereas justification is the positive; being declared righteous before God through grace alone by faith in Christ, which is freedom from sin and its consequences. The results are identical.

Catholics put justification and sanctification jointly (co-joined); thus denying the doctrine of justification and basing your freedom from sin with working cooperatively with Gods saving grace; something not taught in Scripture and essentially is another gospel, which cannot save. Catholicism denies people the right to assurance of their salvation and goes even further to say one can fall away or loose their salvation; whereas the protestant will state in accord with Scripture that it is impossible to loose one’s salvation once he is declared righteous/justified by God. To say someone can lose their salvation and then come back; indicates the person had full knowledge of the gospel, turned their back on it, then decided to come back again. Hebrews 6 says that is impossible because such a person is an apostate and was never saved in the first place as 1John 2:19 explicitly states.

 

[seekersal]

hi ! this may be a late reply - sounds like you’re frustrated with some differences between a Prot. and Catholic. why make such sweeping generalizations about Prots ? or judge the girl who is living in sin- Galatians5;16 says’ we are to live by the Spirit,and not gratify the desires of our sinful nature’ elsewhere Paul goes on for a long time about the struggle we all have as Christians; he wants to do the right thing but that the sin nature we all have keeps warring inside us, that Paul says the good that he wants to do he doesn’t do, but the bad that he doesn’t want to do, he ends up doing and that his only way out ‘of this body of death’ has been thru Christ’s Atoning death and Resurrection by His blood on the Cross’ . Just because we become Christians does not mean we are free to go out and live it up !! in sin and bad stuff. He is explaining that we have a sin nature that wars against the Spirit; we all instinctively know that. Maybe this young lady needs to go talk to her minister and move out from the boyfriends and get in a good Bible study… God will show the better way to live; He is our Father and will keep us all on the right path . we need to be obedient and it’s NOT easy !!I wish people wouldn’t get offended at ‘Prots’ . Jesus is Lord of us all. let’s read His Word like Mother Angelica says.
God Bless, Seeker sal

 

[Hisalone]

Such a statement reflects a deficient understanding of the nature of the Church. Of course people sin, but the church is not only the people who are members of her. It is the divine elements that make the Church pure, and holy. When men sin, they separate themselves from the Church.

You are grossly misinformed.
Eklessia is Gods assembly His congregation.
When men sin they seperate themselves from God. They are still part of Gods assembly. When an Israelite sinned was he no longer an Israelite? Of course not.
You equate Church with God which is an improper designation. The Church is not God. God saves the Church it is not the Church.

 

[Hisalone]

Well, His, you are trying to understand a phenomenon over 500 years old by using a modern american Dictionary. It is inappriate to insert modernism into history. If we are to understand history, we need to understand how the words were used at the time they were applied.

In fact, the Catholic Church was the only church. During the reformation, people invented their own doctrines, separating themselves from the Apostolic Church. Each denomination is defined by which parts of the Catholic faith it rejects.

No guanphone you are trying to make your own definition to suit your unguided theology.
We need to know how denomination is used today. We are speaking is the Catholic Church a denomination. Yes it is according to the definition today.
The Catholic Church is defined by how far it has strayed from the first century church and how many “foriegn” customs and beliefs it adheres to.

 

[Zundrah]

Any one that will say the Cathloic Church is a denomination is a fool or is this plain ingnort

But wait a minite, I was told that the Catholic Chruch has more than one rite? 35 apparently?

But I don’t know, I was only told but I actually haven’t looked into it at all…

 

[Tomster]

Good… I never did that…
There are significant differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrines. Protestants accuse the Catholics of being unscriptural and the Catholics state that the Protestants do not have the true faith carried through the centuries by the Catholic Church. Which ever side you fall on, the real issue is whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is representing true Christianity.

Really! The real issue is whether or not Protestantism represents true Christianity.

If Protestants knew thoroughly how their religion was formed; with how many variations and with what inconstancy their confessions of faith were drawn up; how they first separated themselves from us, and afterwards from one another; by how many subtleties, evasions, and equivocations they labored to repair their divisions and to re-unite the scattered members of their disjointed reformation; this reformation of which they boast would afford them but little satisfaction, or rather, in would excite in them only feelings of contempt.

 

[Tomster]

Well, His, you are trying to understand a phenomenon over 500 years old by using a modern american Dictionary. It is inappriate to insert modernism into history. If we are to understand history, we need to understand how the words were used at the time they were applied.

In fact, the Catholic Church was the only church. During the reformation, people invented their own doctrines, separating themselves from the Apostolic Church. Each denomination is defined by which parts of the Catholic faith it rejects.

Thanks guanophore. These are historical facts that our esteemed aversaries will not and cannot acknowledge.

This character of heresy has always been observed by Catholics, and two holy authors of the eighth century have written “that heresy, however old, is always in itself a novelty; but that, the better to retain the title of being new, it innovates daily, and daily changes its doctrine.” They are intoxicated with the Protestant dogma of fallible, private judgment which explains the doctrinal divisions among them. They cannot agree even on the non-essentials let alone the essentials of the true Faith.

 

[Tomster]

You are grossly misinformed.
Eklessia is Gods assembly His congregation.
When men sin they seperate themselves from God. They are still part of Gods assembly. When an Israelite sinned was he no longer an Israelite? Of course not.
You equate Church with God which is an improper designation. The Church is not God. God saves the Church it is not the Church.

Your ignorance of Incarnational theology is glaring.

 

[Hisalone]

Really! The real issue is whether or not Protestantism represents true Christianity.

If Protestants knew thoroughly how their religion was formed; with how many variations and with what inconstancy their confessions of faith were drawn up; how they first separated themselves from us, and afterwards from one another; by how many subtleties, evasions, and equivocations they labored to repair their divisions and to re-unite the scattered members of their disjointed reformation; this reformation of which they boast would afford them but little satisfaction, or rather, in would excite in them only feelings of contempt.

So you can question the authenticity of Protestantism but if we questioned the auhenticity of Catholicism we would be banned. How couragous of you.
Do you have any idea how far Catholicism has deviated from first century Christianity?

 

[Hisalone]

Thanks guanophore. These are historical facts that our esteemed aversaries will not and cannot acknowledge.

This character of heresy has always been observed by Catholics, and two holy authors of the eighth century have written “that heresy, however old, is always in itself a novelty; but that, the better to retain the title of being new, it innovates daily, and daily changes its doctrine.” They are intoxicated with the Protestant dogma of fallible, private judgment which explains the doctrinal divisions among them. They cannot agree even on the non-essentials let alone the essentials of the true Faith.

No these are not facts, no source was cited. Nothing but the typical goble-de-gook that is presented here.

 

[Hisalone]

Your ignorance of Incarnational theology is glaring.

 

[Tomster]

So you can question the authenticity of Protestantism but if we questioned the auhenticity of Catholicism we would be banned. How couragous of you.
Do you have any idea how far Catholicism has deviated from first century Christianity?

Catholics certainly can question the authenticity of Protestantism. It is a roiling mass of contradictions and endless divisions based on fallible private judgment. When in expositions of faith, variations were seen among Christians, they were ever considered as a mark of falsehood and inconsistency; the Holy Spirit sheds pure light; and the truth which he teaches has a language always uniform. Whoever is but least conversant in the history of the Church, must know she opposed to each heresy appropriate and precise expositions which she herself never altered.

 

[Tomster]

Is that the best you can do to refute my statement?

Give us your beliefs regarding Incarnational theology. Or, better yet, do you even know what Incarnational theology is?

 

[estesbob]

So you can question the authenticity of Protestantism but if we questioned the auhenticity of Catholicism we would be banned. How couragous of you.
Do you have any idea how far Catholicism has deviated from first century Christianity?

Nonsense-if you scoll down in this thread you will see a Proteatnt who claims Catholics are not Christians. He has not been banned. It appears to me you are hiding behind this strawman becuase you can not provide evdidence to back up your assertions about the Church

Perhpaps you can give of some writings of the First Century Church fathers that affirm any of the Protestant doctines of Sola Scriptura, Faith alone, OSAS. While you are at it find us some writings of the early Church fathers that contradict in any way the Doctines of the Catholic Church

 

[Tomster]

Nonsense-if you scoll down in this thread you will see a Proteatnt who claims Catholics are not Christians. He has not been banned. It appears to me you are hiding behind this strawman becuase you can not provide evdidence to back up your assertions about the Church

Perhpaps you can give of some writings of the First Century Church fathers that affirm any of the Protestant doctines of Sola Scriptura, Faith alone, OSAS. While you are at it find us some writings of the early Church fathers that contradict in any way the Doctines of the Catholic Church

This I gotta see! Good questions estesbob. While not holding my breath for any susbstantive response, any response with be received with interest.

 

[guanophore]

More accurately; Protestants recognize the difference between baptism of the Spirit as opposed to water baptism as Scripture teaches.

Yes. This “recognition” is where the fruit of the Reformation departs from the Apostolic Teachings. The Apostles never separated the two. They taught that “born again of water and Spirit” was baptism, and that what scripture records as occurring by the Spirit happens in the water. Although this error is not a grievous as Sola Scriptura, it certainly is problematic for a number of reasons. Jesus did not make baptism “as opposed to”. However, in an effor to abandon the sacramental principles, Protestants have gone overboard to escape the incarnational principle.

Which one of the three is the true baptism that saves; water, Holy Spirit, or fire?

There is only ONE BAPTISM. They are all aspects of the One.

Protestants believe that justification and salvation are two sides of the same coin; justification is the positive of a regenerate /new life and salvation is the negative; saved from, something,  sin and its penalty.  Whereas justification is the positive; being declared righteous before God through grace alone by faith in Christ, which is freedom from sin and its consequences.  The results are identical.

Well, not ALL Protestants do!

Catholics put justification and sanctification jointly (co-joined); thus denying the doctrine of justification and basing your freedom from sin with working cooperatively with Gods saving grace;

This is a false statement. However, I am glad you made it, because it reveals your ignorance about the Catholic faith.

something not taught in Scripture and essentially is another gospel, which cannot save.

Yes. Fortunately, it is fabricated, so is not a problem for Catholics.

Catholicism denies people the right to assurance of their salvation and goes even further to say one can fall away or loose their salvation; whereas the protestant will state in accord with Scripture that it is impossible to loose one’s salvation once he is declared righteous/justified by God.

Another statement that denies the hope into which we are born again, and the power of the sealing of the HS. Jesus denies us nothing.

To say someone can lose their salvation and then come back; indicates the person had full knowledge of the gospel, turned their back on it, then decided to come back again. Hebrews 6 says that is impossible because such a person is an apostate and was never saved in the first place as 1John 2:19 explicitly states.

I agree, but such formulations emanate from a deficient understanding of salvation. A false conclusion, based upon a false premise.

Scripture is clear that salvation is something that exists in the heart of God before the beginning of time, an event into which we enter in time at one point, works out as long as we are here on earth, and is fulfilled when we are glorified (are like Him).

Therefore, it is misleading to say “lose” salvation, as we do not “lose” anything which we have not yet attained.

Phil 3:13-16
13 Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. 16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

As the Apostle teaches, the mature attitude is to strain forward, press on, and hold to what we have attained. We are not to consider that we have made salvation our own in this life.

 

[Hisalone]

Catholics certainly can question the authenticity of Protestantism. It is a roiling mass of contradictions and endless divisions based on fallible private judgment. When in expositions of faith, variations were seen among Christians, they were ever considered as a mark of falsehood and inconsistency; the Holy Spirit sheds pure light; and the truth which he teaches has a language always uniform. Whoever is but least conversant in the history of the Church, must know she opposed to each heresy appropriate and precise expositions which she herself never altered.

How did the ECF expose heresy?
By the authority of scripture.