Protestants, why?

[XianThinker]

I appreciate your rresponse, prochrist…but am puzzled as to how it applies to this discussion??

Are you saying that the entire message of St. Paul is this: believe in the resurrection and you will be saved?

Surely you can’t be saying that??

Why not? I’ve heard that many times. I think that’s what most Protestants I know believe. Here’s a summary of what several people have told me about salvation:

Jesus died on the cross for ours sins. Before his death, Jesus said, “It is finished.” (John 19:30)" That means Jesus accomplished everything that is necessary for our salvation. Paul said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved (Acts 16:31)" Once a person believes Jesus died for his sins, “the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin (1John 1:7)” which means that ALL our sins are forgiven - past, present, and future. Therefore, once saved, “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)” On judgment day, Jesus will take our place and God will see the perfect righteousness of Jesus instead of our sin and filthiness. Therefore, anyone who believes Jesus died on the cross for his sins will be saved without any need for a church, sacraments, works, etc. Jesus did it all. We just have to accept the free gift of salvation by believing that Jesus did everything for us on the cross.

If you claim that baptism or anything else is required you will get a response like “Requiring anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is a works-based salvation. To add anything to the gospel is to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our salvation. To say we must be baptized in order to be saved is to say we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ’s death in order to make it sufficient for salvation. Jesus’ death alone paid for our sins (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus’ payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, baptism is an important step of obedience after salvation but cannot be a requirement for salvation.”

Quote a few verses and you’ll be told something like "Yes, there are some verses that seem to indicate baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation. However, since the Bible so clearly tells us that salvation is received by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5), there must be a different interpretation of those verses. Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

My Protestant friends tell me that Catholics are trusting in their Church and their own works instead of Christ alone because they don’t believe Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient.

The Church that Christ established isn’t a physical building or a religious organization. The Church is the body of believers established on the truth of Peter’s confession (Matt 16:18). Anyone who believes in Jesus is part of his church. “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them. (Matt 18:20)”

The Catholic Church came along later and Protestants who believe the above are following what Jesus taught and what Christians in the early church believed.

 

[XianThinker]

Xian,

What beliefs do you believe were added by the Catholic Church?

What Catholic beliefs do you believe are not in the Bible and not taught by the Apostles?

1. infant baptism
2. confession & penance
3. transubstantiation
4. purgatory
5. universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the bishop of Rome
6. veneration of statues & icons of Mary
7. prayer to Mary
8. immaculate conception of Mary
9. bodily assumption of Mary
10. Mary as co-redeemer and mediatrix

I’ve read the webpages about these topics on catholic.com but there are other websites and arguments used to support the Protestant teaching on these topics using the Bible and the church fathers.

The Apostles never taught what books should be in the Bible.

Maybe not, but the ECFs of the first and second centuries quoted the Bible extensively. They knew the gospels and the letters of Paul were divinely inspired and quoted them as scripture long before the Catholic Church determined the canon toward the end of the fourth century. Only Hebrews, Revelation, and five small letters (2Peter, 2John, 3John, Jude, and James) now part of the canon were disputed.

 

[GKC]

Fellow Catholic apologists: just a friendly word of advice.

Whenever a discussion devolves into a statistics game of how many actual Christian denominations are there (and non-Catholic Christians ALWAYS get their feathers in a ruffle about this!) my suggestion is to offer to use whatever number they can provide, as long as they offer a valid source.

So far no Protestant who has vehemently objected to the 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 demographic has been able to offer what they believe is the true statistic.

Otherwise, the discussion devolves very quickly into whether 30,000 is a valid number.

And that’s not the point, is it?

Even 3 denominations is a failure of “Me, the Bible and the Holy Spirit”.

But, following a parallel paradigm of another poster I offer this:

Therefore I never use words like murder(er), heretic, hypocrite ,etc as those trying to defend the indefensible would like nothing more than to have the the discussion degenerate into a semantics argument over the meaning of words–estesbob

IOW: Protestants would like nothing more than to have the discussion degenerate into a statistical argument over how many denominations there are…rather than the original discussion.

As another RC has posted here, the figures offered so often in threads like this have no sourceable, factual basis. The argument would not arise if the terms “many”, or “hundreds” or “thousands” were used. The citing of a specific number gives the assertion an air of spurious authenticity. I have no idea what a reasonably accurate number wold be (“lots”, I’d say). I have no idea what protestants would like in discussions like this, not belonging to the species. I do (or did) correct the use of the numbers usually seen, by quoting the source as to what they mean. I’m a fact nut. It’s why I discuss history a lot.

GKC, fact nut

 

[PRmerger]

As another RC has posted here, the figures offered so often in threads like this have no sourceable, factual basis. The argument would not arise if the terms “many”, or “hundreds” or “thousands” were used. The citing of a specific number gives the assertion an air of spurious authenticity. I have no idea what a reasonably accurate number wold be (“lots”, I’d say). I have no idea what protestants would like in discussions like this, not belonging to the species. I do (or did) correct the use of the numbers usually seen, by quoting the source as to what they mean. I’m a fact nut. It’s why I discuss history a lot.

GKC, fact nut

Sure.

But in my own humble opinion, (based not on empirical fact but rather on logic, reason, experience), the number of Christian denominations wrought by the Protestant Reformation is…millions.

So I feel as if I’m being very, very generous to Protestants when I say “tens of thousands”.

 

[PRmerger]

1. infant baptism
2. confession & penance
3. transubstantiation
4. purgatory
5. universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the bishop of Rome
6. veneration of statues & icons of Mary
7. prayer to Mary
8. immaculate conception of Mary
9. bodily assumption of Mary
10. Mary as co-redeemer and mediatrix

Fair enough.

But you have already given us permission to say that it’s “obvious” that these things are part of God’s revelation.

Remember, you yourself are of the position that things don’t have to be in the Bible to believed:

Did you not say, “Even if it didn’t, it wouldn’t matter because the Bible doesn’t need to list what is important or essential because I think it is obvious to anyone who reads the Bible with the desire to learn the truth.”

We believe those 10 concepts above are “obvious to anyone who reads the Bible with the desire to learn the truth.”

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe not, but the ECFs of the first and second centuries quoted the Bible extensively. They knew the gospels and the letters of Paul were divinely inspired and quoted them as scripture long before the Catholic Church determined the canon toward the end of the fourth century.

This, XT, is a perfect expository on the fact that you believe in Sacred Tradition.

How was it that th ECFs “knew,” that the gospels and the letters of Paul were divinely inspired?

Through Sacred Tradition!

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying that the entire message of St. Paul is this: believe in the resurrection and you will be saved?

Surely you can’t be saying that??

Why not?

Because, XT, the Scriptures say something contrary to that.

Even the demons believe, right? (See James 2:19)

Clearly, belief is not enough.

 

[GKC]

Sure.

But in my own humble opinion, (based not on empirical fact but rather on logic, reason, experience), the number of Christian denominations wrought by the Protestant Reformation is…millions.

So I feel as if I’m being very, very generous to Protestants when I say “tens of thousands”.

Not sure where “millions” would come from, that one could point to, but generality will preclude a side tracking response, I’d guess.

I’d try “a whole bunch”, as opposed to “a documented googolplex”.

GKC

 

[Porknpie]

Did you not say, “Even if it didn’t, it wouldn’t matter because the Bible doesn’t need to list what is important or essential because I think it is obvious to anyone who reads the Bible with the desire to learn the truth.”

We believe those 10 concepts above are “obvious to anyone who reads the Bible with the desire to learn the truth.”

As in the complete canonical bible that has 73 books with not 6 removed 1,500+ years after the death of Jesus and the establishment of his church on earth.

 

[PRmerger]

Not sure where “millions” would come from, that one could point to, but generality will preclude a side tracking response, I’d guess.

Since I have time today, and am in the mood to be sidetracked

here’s where I get the “millions”:

I happen to agree with apologist John Martignoni’s assessment that the Protestant paradigm has led to millions of folks being their own pope, pastor and primary theologian.

I disagree because I personally believe, based on my experiences, that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Protestant denominations, and the main reason for this is sola scriptura. Now, I admit that my “experiences” constitute anecdotal evidence, but I have found nothing to dissuade me from the notion that my anecdotal evidence is not indicative of a much more widespread phenomenon. And, for clarity’s sake, I define a Protestant denomination as a religious unit of one or more persons that has: 1) A particular set of beliefs on matters of faith and morals, which may or may not be unique to that group; and 2) Has its own structure of authority that ultimately answers to no human being outside of the denomination.

In the last 15 years or so, I have talked to hundreds and hundreds of Protestants, either on the radio, via email, on the phone, or in person. I have heard from the mouths of at least 2–3 dozen or so of those folks that while they may attend a church in a particular denomination, let’s say a Baptist church for example, they are not, however, members of that denomination. They have all said something close to this: “I only go to that church because that pastor comes the closest to what I believe.” The first time I heard that about 15 years ago it blew me away. But I have heard it time and time again since.

In other words, **these folks are their own little denomination within a denomination. They have their own set of beliefs and they are their own authority for what is, in essence, their own private denomination. ** They are the Pope, the pastor, and the chief theologian of their own personal denomination. --John Martignoni, “Apologetics for the Masses” Issue #151 (bold mine)

 

[GKC]

Since I have time today, and am in the mood to be sidetracked

here’s where I get the “millions”:

I happen to agree with apologist John Martignoni’s assessment that the Protestant paradigm has led to millions of folks being their own pope, pastor and primary theologian.

I disagree because I personally believe, based on my experiences, that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Protestant denominations, and the main reason for this is sola scriptura. Now, I admit that my “experiences” constitute anecdotal evidence, but I have found nothing to dissuade me from the notion that my anecdotal evidence is not indicative of a much more widespread phenomenon. And, for clarity’s sake, I define a Protestant denomination as a religious unit of one or more persons that has: 1) A particular set of beliefs on matters of faith and morals, which may or may not be unique to that group; and 2) Has its own structure of authority that ultimately answers to no human being outside of the denomination.

In the last 15 years or so, I have talked to hundreds and hundreds of Protestants, either on the radio, via email, on the phone, or in person. I have heard from the mouths of at least 2–3 dozen or so of those folks that while they may attend a church in a particular denomination, let’s say a Baptist church for example, they are not, however, members of that denomination. They have all said something close to this: “I only go to that church because that pastor comes the closest to what I believe.” The first time I heard that about 15 years ago it blew me away. But I have heard it time and time again since.

In other words, **these folks are their own little denomination within a denomination. They have their own set of beliefs and they are their own authority for what is, in essence, their own private denomination. ** They are the Pope, the pastor, and the chief theologian of their own personal denomination. --John Martignoni, “Apologetics for the Masses” Issue #151 (bold mine)

That’s understandable. And if you find that persuasive, and expect it to be a solid point in your discussions, fair enough. That it’s anecdotal, personal, opinion, is admitted, and an idiosyncratic definition of denomination as much as the one used in the WEC.

I like citable sources, to assess. I know you have seen the over-zealous, under-educated individual who comes on a board like this, proclaiming that Catholics worship the BVM. An appropriate response to this is to request some Church source document, official, and binding on the faithful, which states that. A reply by the accuser that he’s read a lot, talked to folks, seen the statues, and concludes, logically, that, Catholics worship Mary, is not considered impressive, in my experience.

Not trying to sidetrack you. Like the RC poster before me (Cat, was it?), pointing out an urban legend weakness in this generic argument. In my opinion.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

That’s understandable. And if you find that persuasive, and expect it to be a solid point in your discussions, fair enough. That it’s anecdotal, personal, opinion, is admitted, and an idiosyncratic definition of denomination as much as the one used in the WEC.

And that’s why I love ya, GKC!

I like citable sources, to assess. I know you have seen the over-zealous, under-educated individual who comes on a board like this, proclaiming that Catholics worship the BVM. An appropriate response to this is to request some Church source document, official, and binding on the faithful, which states that. A reply by the accuser that he’s read a lot, talked to folks, seen the statues, and concludes, logically, that, Catholics worship Mary, is not considered impressive, in my experience.

Yes, I see the parallel. And it’s good to have some sort of hard copy that one can turn to to offer, “No, you are wrong about this, and here’s the documentation that details how and why.”

So, if the Protestant folks could offer the, “No, you are wrong about the 30,000, 40,000, millions} statistic, and here’s the documentation that details how and why” I’d be happy to consider.

So far no one has been able to proffer the true statistic.

 

[GKC]

And that’s why I love ya, GKC!

Yes, I see the parallel. And it’s good to have some sort of hard copy that one can turn to to offer, “No, you are wrong about this, and here’s the documentation that details how and why.”

So, if the Protestant folks could offer the, “No, you are wrong about the [30,000, 40,000, millions} statistic, and here’s the documentation that details how and why” I’d be happy to consider.

So far no one has been able to proffer the true statistic.

I don’t think anyone has the slightest idea. On either side.

So, I say “lots”.

And thanks.

GKC
[/quote]

 

[XianThinker]

And that’s why I love ya, GKC!

Yes, I see the parallel. And it’s good to have some sort of hard copy that one can turn to to offer, “No, you are wrong about this, and here’s the documentation that details how and why.”

So, if the Protestant folks could offer the, “No, you are wrong about the [30,000, 40,000, millions} statistic, and here’s the documentation that details how and why” I’d be happy to consider.

So far no one has been able to proffer the true statistic.

40,000 is nothing compared to my estimate of over 10 million Catholic denominations.
[/quote]

 

[XianThinker]

Since I have time today, and am in the mood to be sidetracked

here’s where I get the “millions”:

I happen to agree with apologist John Martignoni’s assessment that the Protestant paradigm has led to millions of folks being their own pope, pastor and primary theologian.

I disagree because I personally believe, based on my experiences, that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Protestant denominations, and the main reason for this is sola scriptura. Now, I admit that my “experiences” constitute anecdotal evidence, but I have found nothing to dissuade me from the notion that my anecdotal evidence is not indicative of a much more widespread phenomenon. And, for clarity’s sake, I define a Protestant denomination as a religious unit of one or more persons that has: 1) A particular set of beliefs on matters of faith and morals, which may or may not be unique to that group; and 2) Has its own structure of authority that ultimately answers to no human being outside of the denomination.

In the last 15 years or so, I have talked to hundreds and hundreds of Protestants, either on the radio, via email, on the phone, or in person. I have heard from the mouths of at least 2–3 dozen or so of those folks that while they may attend a church in a particular denomination, let’s say a Baptist church for example, they are not, however, members of that denomination. They have all said something close to this: “I only go to that church because that pastor comes the closest to what I believe.” The first time I heard that about 15 years ago it blew me away. But I have heard it time and time again since.

In other words, **these folks are their own little denomination within a denomination. They have their own set of beliefs and they are their own authority for what is, in essence, their own private denomination. ** They are the Pope, the pastor, and the chief theologian of their own personal denomination. --John Martignoni, “Apologetics for the Masses” Issue #151 (bold mine)

I’ve talked to dozens of Protestants also and I’d estimate about 90% wouldn’t consider themselves members of their denomination and only go because it is closest to what they believe.

The reason Protestants don’t like saying they are members of a particular denomination is because the Bible teaches “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” (1Cor 1:10-11)”

Based on the passage above most Protestants I know think it’s wrong to call oneself a Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, Catholic, Presbyterian, etc. They believe the Bible teaches that one should refer to himself simply as a Christian. If these people got together they would refer to the Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, and Presbyterian as a Christian and refer to the Catholic as a Roman Catholic. They would be offended if the Catholic refered to them as Protestant.

Most Protestants were raised in Protestant families and attend the same denomination for family reasons. They aren’t going to join another church if they disagree with a few of the church denomination’s teachings.

Please use your criteria to evaluate Catholics and estimate the number of Catholic denominations for us. Make sure to count every Catholic who disagrees with any Church teaching (on abortion, birth control, divorce and remarriage, etc.) as a separate denomination of one.

 

[GKC]

… Please use your criteria to evaluate Catholics and estimate the number of Catholic denominations for us. Make sure to count every Catholic who disagrees with any Church teaching (on abortion, birth control, divorce and remarriage, etc.) as a separate denomination of one.

Saw that one coming.

GKC

 

[pablope]

I’ve talked to dozens of Protestants also and I’d estimate about 90% wouldn’t consider themselves members of their denomination and only go because it is closest to what they believe.

The reason Protestants don’t like saying they are members of a particular denomination is because the Bible teaches “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” (1Cor 1:10-11)”

Please use your criteria to evaluate Catholics and estimate the number of Catholic denominations for us. Make sure to count every Catholic who disagrees with any Church teaching (on abortion, birth control, divorce and remarriage, etc.) as a separate denomination of one.

This this give a good synopsis of what has happened to Protestantism:

holyincarnation.org/pub/options.pdf

Over the centuries, fueled no doubt by polemics, persecutions and historical events,
what has occurred is a sectarian, if not heretical, shift as remarkable as it is regrettable. This
shift, I believe, is traced to and thereby born from the inversion of the catholic principle. The
result is that we now have been taught to read, hold to, and defend the confessions as the
definition not of the holy catholic faith, but the Lutheran faith. And we have been
overwhelmed with the notion that the confessions are not a but the true and correct
exhibition of the faith which, in turn, allows us to ignore most especially the ecumenical
councils whose creeds and canons are the very historical and theological foundation of our
confessions. Subsequently, we are helpless to think, speak, identify, and describe ourselves
not as the catholic church of the west, but as nothing other than one church among many
or, worse yet, as remnants of the church which will never be incarnationally seen with our
eyes, handled with our hands, or in any other way concretely manifest. In short, the
Lutherans stopped being Lutheran the day they believed themselves to be Lutheran rather
than the authentic continuation of the western catholic church. (Or, more simply, our
spiritual fathers eased themselves away from the holy catholic church when they described
themselves as “Lutheran.”) For that we could blame the Jesuits who shrewdly made stick
the moniker that named our increasingly sectarian forefathers after (so they said) the prime
heretic. But, in point of fact, we only have ourselves to thank for reducing our confessional
heritage to one book, and for letting that book alone be the definition of the visibility of our
church.30 In doing so, we have given rise to the desire to form and break communion
fellowships at will; we have nurtured the false notion that Christ in His ecclesial presence is
completely unlike Christ in His sacramental and incarnation presence;31 we have rendered
the word “church” devoid of any concrete meaning outside of the local congregation; and
we have reduced the trans-parochial understanding of the church to a voluntary association
of like-confessing congregations.
29

 

[PRmerger]

IPlease use your criteria to evaluate Catholics and estimate the number of Catholic denominations for us. Make sure to count every Catholic who disagrees with any Church teaching (on abortion, birth control, divorce and remarriage, etc.) as a separate denomination of one.

But that is not our paradigm, XT. That is your paradigm. It is you (and most Protestants) who claim that all you need is “Me, the Bible and the Holy Spirit.”

The Catholic Church says that she is the guardian and interpreter of Scripture. Thus, there are no “Catholics who disagree with Church teaching” permitted in our paradigm. That they do disagree means that they have departed from the faith of the Apostles.

Now, when your fellow Protestants disagree, they are only conforming to that which the Protestant Reformation has set the table for.

 

[stewstew03]

And that’s why I love ya, GKC!

Yes, I see the parallel. And it’s good to have some sort of hard copy that one can turn to to offer, “No, you are wrong about this, and here’s the documentation that details how and why.”

So, if the Protestant folks could offer the, “No, you are wrong about the [30,000, 40,000, millions} statistic, and here’s the documentation that details how and why” I’d be happy to consider.

So far no one has been able to proffer the true statistic.

When I was a Catholic troll on CARM, I would start with the assumption that all protestants were, in fact, Branch Davidians…
[/quote]

 

[Nicea325]

Unity doesn’t mean everyone has the exact same beliefs on everything.

It’s my understanding that all Catholics agree with whatever the Catholic Church feels is necessary (Trinity, salvation, sacraments, etc.) but that Catholics are free to disagree and hold varying opinions on other topics (fate of unbaptized babies, beliefs about the end times, etc.)

Many Protestant churches I’ve been to are the same way. Most Protestants believe in faith alone, Bible alone, and the priesthood of all believers but feel it’s okay to disagree on other less important issues.

Really? You truly believe unity excludes the same beliefs? I do believe St.Paul warns us about such folks. Do believe in Heaven unity excludes the EXACT same beliefs?

Does not MATTER if one or thousands of Catholics disagree. Truth is Truth-PERIOD!