Protestants, why?

[stewstew03]

Wow, what a seemingly futile effort to get through to many Catholics.

Are you here to “get through” to us Catholics on a particular issue?

The entire context of Matthew 16 is Jesus, not Peter. Follow the context, seek the truth. It is Peter’s confession of faith - “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God” that is the “rock” Jesus refers to. Read and re-read the entire context as many times as you need to. The “church” is people from every tongue, tribe and nation that have a spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. It is NOT all those who believe they are part of some heirarchical institutionalized church of which one must partake in the sacremental system in order to just have a shot at heaven. Catholicism really saddens me when it is brought to it’s logical conclusion.

Then why does Jesus:
(a) re-name Simon?
(b) give Peter the keys to God’s kingdom?
(c) grant Peter authority to judge others on earth (and God will render the same judgement in Heaven)?
(d) grant Peter authority to forgive others, which will also be reflected in Heaven?

These things only make sense if Jesus is relying on Peter (“the rock”) to reveal God’s truth to the world.

It’s the false teachings that make my eye twitch.

Sorry about your eye… but, what are the false teachings?

For example, I agree with Catholics that it is anti-biblical to teach,allow or promote gay marriage in society. However, I don’t hate or have contempt for the Catholic priest down the street from me that teaches this - but I will debunk and repudiate his claims that he makes against the teachings of his own church. The same holds true for other claims that people make inside or outside of the RCC that are sub-biblical.

Your last few sentences are what’s known as “gobbledygook.”

 

[CopticChristian]

9707115]Wow, what a seemingly futile effort to get through to many Catholics. Just read every comment in this thread. James White was right when he kept bringing up the idea of “Sola Ecclesia” in his debates to characterize the religious system of the RCC.

The entire context of Matthew 16 is Jesus, not Peter. Follow the context, seek the truth. It is Peter’s confession of faith - “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God” that is the “rock” Jesus refers to. Read and re-read the entire context as many times as you need to. The “church” is people from every tongue, tribe and nation that have a spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. It is NOT all those who believe they are part of some heirarchical institutionalized church of which one must partake in the sacremental system in order to just have a shot at heaven. Catholicism really saddens me when it is brought to it’s logical conclusion.

So, Mr. Moderator, my heart is saddened, and I do not have contempt for practicing Catholics. In fact,most of my family is Catholic, and I surely don’t have contempt for them. They are just people like anyone else. It’s the false teachings that make my eye twitch. For example, I agree with Catholics that it is anti-biblical to teach,allow or promote gay marriage in society. However, I don’t hate or have contempt for the Catholic priest down the street from me that teaches this - but I will debunk and repudiate his claims that he makes against the teachings of his own church. The same holds true for other claims that people make inside or outside of the RCC that are **sub-biblical./**QUOTE]

Narrow,

I like that. Where does the Bible teach Sub-biblical?

 

[Daneam]

The cause of my being Protestant is I was raised by Protestant parents. Like many people I’ve stuck to what I was raised in. Anyone with any respect for their parents and tradition will find it difficult to change their religious membership. That does not mean it is impossible or that they shouldn’t.

I remain Protestant for a few reasons. The first could be that no Catholic has ever evangelized me. Granted I live in an area of the South where there are not many Catholics. But I’ve personally known quite a few Catholics. I can not recall a single instance of a Catholic sharing their faith with me. And I can’t recall a single instance of being invited to a Catholic Church (outside of a couple of weddings). I have had Evangelicals and Baptists share their faith with me. I’m pretty sure I’ve been invited to church by some of these people, though I can’t recall specifically right now so I dont want to be definitive.

I have learned about Catholicism on my own through reading. I remain Protestant because I am not yet convinced of the power of the Pope. Specifically I mean his jurisdiction and power regarding doctrine and other bishops. I do think that as the Bishop of Rome he certainly has a place above other bishops. I’m just not sure that role is as the Catholic Church views it. If I thought the Bishop of Rome had this role then I’d have to be in communion with him.

I’d also have to say that the direction the Catholic Church has taken since Vatican II causes me pause. One change has been a more welcoming attitude towards Protestants. This is good and attracts me to the church. On the other hand it seems to have led some in the Catholic Church to abandon the very things that help to show truth to the claim that the Catholic Church is the one, true, unchanging church, free from doctrinal error. I realize there can be a difference between official church teaching and practice and that of individual church leaders and members. Nonetheless some of what I read about causes me difficulty.

I totally agree with every you said. Not only Catholics don’t share their faith, my Catholic friends show no appreciation at all when I told them my conversion. To this date I still don’t get it. Didn’t they learn they have an obligation to share the Gospel because they are baptized? What exactly happened to these people? The priest forgot to tell them their obligation as Christian before the confirmation?

I struggled with the teaching of the Pope’s authority too, but the Scriptures support it. I do wonder what happened in the history in which there were two popes, how do the faithful know which one is real?

 

[Porknpie]

So, Mr. Moderator, my heart is saddened, and I do not have contempt for practicing Catholics. In fact,most of my family is Catholic, and I surely don’t have contempt for them. They are just people like anyone else.** It’s the false teachings that make my eye twitch**. For example, I agree with Catholics that it is anti-biblical to teach,allow or promote gay marriage in society. However, I don’t hate or have contempt for the Catholic priest down the street from me that teaches this - but I will debunk and repudiate his claims that he makes against the teachings of his own church. The same holds true for other claims that people make inside or outside of the RCC that are sub-biblical.

Narrow -

To keep it simple, what are the top three false teachings of the Catholic church from your perspective?

And what claims is the priest making that are against the teachings of his own church?

And, were you once Catholic or how the difference from your family?

Thank you for sharing.

 

[Daneam]

Very good. : ) But part of the Catholic faith is believing that it is the one true Christian religion, which places any Protestant religion in the wrong to some degree. I have even heard (or believed I heard) a Catholic priest on WEBN Catholic Radio say that this division was not God-inspired, but Satan-inspired. That’s a bold accusation and one fervent Protestants would reject vehemently.

That is what I always thought. According to John 17:20-23 Jesus prayed that you may be one so whoever divides is from Satan. Do you remember the name of the priest? It is hard to find priests who dare to speak these days because most are afraid to offend others. Yet not telling others the Truth is not act of charity. I wonder what the Church’s teaching on Evangelizing the protestants.

 

[Porknpie]

Truth is everywhere

Yet the fullness of truth is in the Catholic church. Not all truth is everywhere. That would lead to a lot of conflict, particularly on faith and morals. For example, baptism is a sacrament, necessary for salvation and we receive in the Eucharist Jesus’ resurrected body and blood. We know so because of Jesus own words and the actions and beliefs of his church following his death.

and God is the truth!

. Amen.

John 14:6: Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

 

[narrow_path]

Narrow -

To keep it simple, what are the top three false teachings of the Catholic church from your perspective?

And what claims is the priest making that are against the teachings of his own church?

And, were you once Catholic or how the difference from your family?

Thank you for sharing.

The RC priest down the street from me agrees with redefining the institution of marriage and promoting same-sex marriages. The RCC does not teach this. That is the claim the priest is making.

I have tested the teachings of the RCC while being brought up Catholic and have rejected nearly everything. This placed around 67 anathemas (last I counted) on me, none of which I lose sleep over. But God alone has opened my eyes and illuminated the Sacred Text of Scripture to make clear to me what the Gospel actually is.

There’s far more than three of course but these come to mind:

1. Salvation is achieved by being in full concert with Rome and her teachings, (taking part in the sacremental system) and can be gained or lost depending if one is in a state of grace or not. Again, this is not the gospel.
2. Purgatory drawn to it’s logical conclusion militates against the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement on the cross. It’s getting “cleaned up” or purging one’s sins in order to be ‘clean enough’ to enter the gates of heaven. So, Christ does not pay the complete sin debt on the cross in the RC view.
3. The authority: Bible plus tradition. Rome argues that we have her to thank for giving us the Bible! Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, Luke’s gospel was recognized as Scripture within 3 years of its writing. Paul’s writings were also considered to be Scripture long before the RCC was even in existence. It is God that determines the canon, people discover it - they never determine it.

Tradition does not solve the problem of interpretation, it just pushes the problem back one more generation - because someone needs to interpret what the Magesterium says about Scripture. God did not give us a Bible in order that we would be unable to read it for ourselves and let the Spirit guide us and be our Teacher. We don’t need an institution to do our thinking for us - it was never designed that way.

A quick example about using tradition as an authoritative source will suffice: Some early church fathers based on tradition, accepted the Immaculate Conception of Mary while others rejected it. This is why Scripture warns us in 1 Cor. 4:6 to not exceed what has been written. Also see Rev. 22:18-19, 2 Tim 3:15.

 

[awantz]

That is what I always thought. According to John 17:20-23 Jesus prayed that you may be one so whoever divides is from Satan. Do you remember the name of the priest? It is hard to find priests who dare to speak these days because most are afraid to offend others. Yet not telling others the Truth is not act of charity. I wonder what the Church’s teaching on Evangelizing the protestants.

There are priests in the Catholic Church who divide. I know this from personal experience.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, I’ve already explained why there is unity. Christ is the center of each true Christian church. I don’t believe there are “33,000” true Christian denominations, but what does it matter? There could be 133,000 denominations and they would each be valid if Jesus was at the center of each one. Where you place trust and faith in a religion, I place trust and faith in Jesus Christ. Christ’s direction is infallible whereas religion can be man-directed. This is the inconsistency Luther encountered.

Let me quote this passage from Luther the Reformer (Kittelson):

Luther pointed out that by working with Erasmus’s edition of the Greek New Testament, he had discovered that…the common confessional practice had no basis in the Scriptures. The Latin translation of Jesus’ command at Matthew 4:17 read, “Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” But the Greek said, “Be penitent…” Therefore, God demanded not outward deeds but a changed heart and mind. “Doing” had literally nothing to do with salvation, particularly with regard to indulgences. “To repent” and “to do penance” were two different things."
From indulgences, Luther moved to a general critique of confession, pennance, and outward workds of any kind. In particular, he focused on the absolution that came from a priest after confession. He concluded that a priest could declare forgiveness in Christ, but had no authority to absolve. “Christ did not intend [by the power of the keys] to put the salvation of people into the hands or at the discretion of an individual.” Instead, everything depended on “believing only in the truth of Christ’s promise.”

All Protestant churches that are truly Christian follow this principle. Likewise, Jesus’ teachings are central to all true Christian churches. There is no deviation in this between “33,000” denominations. Anyone is free to protest against their faith because God offers a free gift of salvation through Christ. You may either accept God’s gift of love or reject it because God has created us all with free will. Just as all people are not the same, so Christian religions are all not the same. They have reached many more people because of this. If there were no alternatives to Catholicism, far more people may have chosen not to accept the gift at all. This is not a critique of the CC. It is simply a recognition that not all people are persuaded to think and act in the same way. Catholicism fits you but it does not fit me. But that doesn’t separate me from God’s love. Praise God!! What a truly amazing God he is!

Matthew,

You are correct about the denomination issue. I like to look at it as streams of thought.

All Christian thought flows from the Catholic Church.

Anglicans were once Catholic and begat the Methodists, that begat the holiness movement, that begat the AOG, Pentacostal, Oneness Pentacostal, etc non-denominational streams of thought.

Luther was Catholic that begat the Evangelical Free Church Sweden, that begat the Evangelical Free Church in America

Presbyterian/Reformed were commenced by Catholic priests that begat the numerous split Presbyterian goups

Anabaptists begat the Amish that begat the Menonites

Anglicans begat the Baptists that begat the varying and sundry Baptist groups

I will let you figure out from which Protestant group the Mormons, Jehovah Witness, 7th day Adventists and others came from. I provided a good outline for you.

So I see at as streams of thought. All of those streams of thought originated with the Catholic Church, from whom you now have a form of the Bible you now read.

I am really grateful that you are here. I have been studying, looking and waiting. At long last after 500 years there is one Protestant that speaks for all Protestants…took long enough…thank the Lord you have arrived.

 

[router123]

hey anyone here heard of Scientology… one of my friends described it to me. still can;t get the idea of it.

 

[Taestron]

All Christian thought flows from the Catholic Church.

Just a thought. From the Protestant end we look at the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, and we see two Churches that have their roots in early Christianity. How can we tell which one begat who? Did the Catholic Church begat the Orthodox or visa versa? Or did the OHCA Church contain both proto-EO and proto-RC in the same institution, and that Church cannot really be called Catholic in the same sense of the Catholic Church today? I would think that many of us would hold to the latter opinion. And thus it wouldn’t be technically correct to say that all Christian thought flows from the Catholic Church. But certainly all Protestant thought can trace its lineage back to Catholicism.

 

[jlhargus]

Jon–I was speaking about Protestant churches. The assertion was made that thousands of Protestant denominations have numerously different doctrine. My point is, they all have Christ at the center and the only difference is in the presentation. I wasn’t including the Catholic Church. Hope that clears things up.

JL: So the gospel truth is optional and irrelevant to being Christ centered?

 

[pablope]

Where you see disunity, I see unity.

Wll…this is called rationalization…you are rationalizing disunity…that it is good. You are advocating a rainbow Christianity…which is seems you are making or starting another protestant tradition of men.

If you have not looked at this before…in Gen 3, Adam and Eve rationanized their sin, not taking the blame for their disobedience and deflected blame:

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me —she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”…13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

What you seem to be saying is…you are seeing no need for Eph 4: 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Prior to 1521…those beliefs contrary to what was handed down by the Apostles…were called heresies. Do you think this is a heresy you are expounding and believing in?

Let me ask you: If Luther had ignored his dissenting thoughts, how long would it have been before someone else had those same thoughts and questioned the Church’s authority?

 

[Nicea325]

There are priests in the Catholic Church who divide. I know this from personal experience.

Divide exactly what? Cannot divide into a new church,not allowed in the CC. Either one is Catholic or not.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by MatthewMark
Where you see disunity, I see unity.

Your personal belief,yet not derived from God. Big difference. Your position is called relativism.

 

[CopticChristian]

Just a thought. From the Protestant end we look at the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, and we see two Churches that have their roots in early Christianity. How can we tell which one begat who? Did the Catholic Church begat the Orthodox or visa versa? Or did the OHCA Church contain both proto-EO and proto-RC in the same institution, and that Church cannot really be called Catholic in the same sense of the Catholic Church today? I would think that many of us would hold to the latter opinion. And thus it wouldn’t be technically correct to say that all Christian thought flows from the Catholic Church. But certainly all Protestant thought can trace its lineage back to Catholicism.

Taestron,

The OHCAC is Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West…for this discussion. Christ and the Apostles begat the Church that is divided on what I would say are some simple disagreements and human sin.

Who begat as you say has little to do with the acceptance of the Eucharist as the central theme of unity that many Protestants deny. If you step aside and forget who begat who in this scheme can you say that you accept the same 7 sacrements that all these groups accept, the entirety of Scripture, yes I know that the East has more, but Protestants have less and for what reason. These groups all accept Scripture and Tradtion. This is where you need to come to terms with accepting who begat whom.

 

[XianThinker]

I do think that the Author of Chaos and Confusion is very very pleased with the chaos and confusion that has arisen courtesy of the Protestant Reformation’s mantra: Church? We don’t need no Church! We just need Me, The Bible and the Holy Spirit!

Thanks to the above paradigm we have millions of Christians who don’t know whether

Baptism saves? Or is it an ordinance? Or a sacrament? Or a symbol?
The day of worship is Sunday? Or is it Saturday?
We are once saved, always saved? Or we can lose our salvation?
Women can be ordained? Or only men can?
Abortion is a sin? Or a sacrament?
Divorce and remarriage is adultery? Or is it permissible?
Worship should involve music? Or is it an abomination?
The Eucharist is merely a symbol? Or is it the Real Presence? Or a commemoration?



So, yes, I think the Author of Chaos and Confusion looks at the reality of Christian confusion and smiles. :sad_yes:
MatthewMark;9706766:

We all will come before the Savior someday. It is up to each one of us to find the truth as God gives us the power to see the truth. Only God can lead us to the truth. If we pray to Him and ask Him to show us the truth, I believe it will be revealed.

That’s the answer.

I’ve been to lots of Protestant churches and heard that many times. How exactly does that work? I’m not a Catholic and never have been. I’ve been following the Bible alone and relying on the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth for years yet I still don’t know for sure what to believe or what is required for salvation.

Protestants tell me they are united, they all agree on the basics like salvation by faith alone. Yet many of the differences among Protestants I’ve found are about salvation. Protestants really don’t agree on anything. Faith is defined differently in each church. Baptism and repentance are required in some churches, but not in others. Some say salvation can be lost, others say it can’t.

When I asked how I’m supposed to know what to believe, all these people with these various beliefs told me to pray and the Holy Spirit would reveal the truth me. So, what am I to believe?

1. The Holy Spirit reveals one truth to one person and a different, contradictory truth to another, making the Holy Spirit the author of confusion.
2. The truth the Holy Spirit reveals is so basic that it doesn’t even include salvation
3. Only a few of these people have the Holy Spirit guiding them to the truth while the rest, the majority of them, don’t have the Holy Spirit and are deceived

I’ve believed #3 because the first two aren’t logical and clearly disagree with the Bible. One big problem I have with the third belief is the arrogance of it. It’s hard to believe that everyone who disagrees with me really doesn’t believe in Jesus and has only deceived themselves with a false faith. Also, when I hear other opinions and interpretations, I sometimes think I was wrong and change me beliefs which would mean I was previously deceived then or am deceived now. I can never know for sure when I found the truth since maybe I haven’t studied the Bible enough or prayed hard enough to learn the correct interpretation.

The problems with this method and the conflicting beliefs is why I stopped going to church and why I am studying Catholicism now. If I hadn’t heard about the Catholic Church, I think I may have eventually stopped believing and become an atheist.

Please look at my questions below and explain what you believe about salvation. I want to know whether you are convinced your beliefs about salvation are correct and how can you know for sure. How do you know that more studying or prayer wouldn’t result in something different being revealed to you in the future?

Here’s some examples:

Baptism - is it required or not?
One church says, baptism is required, if you aren’t baptized you are going to Hell.
Another church says baptism is not required, if you believe that it is you are going to Hell for trusting in baptism instead of trusting in Christ alone.

Can salvation be lost?
One church says - Of course not, Jesus died for all ours sins. (once saved, always saved) If you think you need to repent when you sin, you believe a false gospel and are going to Hell for not trusting Jesus alone.
Another church says - Yes, if you fall away from the faith and don’t repent, you are going to Hell.
Still another church says God predestined everyone to Heaven or Hell so you really can’t determine your own salvation anyway. Anyone predestined will persevere and go to Heaven (perseverance of the saints).

Faith alone - but how is faith defined?
One church says it means trust in Jesus alone (free grace salvation) and says those who believe loving God is part of faith instead of the result of faith are false prophets who are going to Hell
Another church says one needs to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior (Lordship salvation) and says those who believe in free grace/easy believing are false prophets who are going to Hell

Is repentance required?
Some church - You must repent when you sin.
Other churches - No, Jesus forgave us of all our sins (and that means ALL, not just some but past, present, and FUTURE sins) at the moment we responded to the alter call or prayed the sinners prayer.

 

[Taestron]

Who begat as you say has little to do with the acceptance of the Eucharist as the central theme of unity that many Protestants deny. If you step aside and forget who begat who in this scheme can you say that you accept the same 7 sacrements that all these groups accept, the entirety of Scripture, yes I know that the East has more, but Protestants have less and for what reason. These groups all accept Scripture and Tradtion. This is where you need to come to terms with accepting who begat whom.

But it is precisely this doubt about who begat whom that keeps me a Protestant. I know the arguments against Protestantism from a Catholic perspective and they all have to do with the originality, and thus the authority, of the Catholic Church. So what if the EO and RC are more united than RC and Protestantism. The fact that the schism exists between the EO, RC, and OO means that I cannot trust that RC is in fact the true Church. The issues that divide these traditions are too complex to say that any one of them is the Church which Christ founded. And since these three cannot agree among themselves, why should Protestants listen to them when they say that Protestantism is false?

 

[pablope]

Just a thought. From the Protestant end we look at the Catholic
And thus it wouldn’t be technically correct to say that all Christian thought flows from the Catholic Church. But certainly all Protestant thought can trace its lineage back to Catholicism.

From Romans 11 v18… You do not support the root, but the root supports you.

From the analogy of the root in that chapter…after the Reformers cut themselves from their roots…that Protestant thought has taken varied directions…would you agree?

calledtocommunion.com/2012/02/an-opc-pastor-enters-the-catholic-church/
As I began to dig down to the most foundational differences dividing Protestants and Catholic, the book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism by Louis Bouyer was recommended to me. Bouyer was a Lutheran minister who converted to Catholicism mid-last century. I was already familiar with him and appreciated his work and insights on Christian liturgy but had paid little attention to his discussions on Catholicism. What piqued my interest now was the peculiar thesis of this one book. Bouyer claimed that the Catholic Church is necessary for the full flowering of the principles of the Reformation. Put differently – Protestantism needs Catholicism in order to become all it aspires to be, which, of course, if true means the Protestant Reformation was completely unnecessary. Worse, it means that the Reformation was impossible from the outset because the reformers had unwittingly cut themselves off from the only source that could make their vision fruitful…He then proceeds to critique the more negative aspects of Reformation doctrine (e.g. sola scriptura) contending that these negatives in the course of time undermined Protestantism’s positive principles, eventually giving birth to the reality known as Protestant Liberalism…*

 

[pablope]

But it is precisely this doubt about who begat whom that keeps me a Protestant. I know the arguments against Protestantism from a Catholic perspective and they all have to do with the originality, and thus the authority, of the Catholic Church. So what if the EO and RC are more united than RC and Protestantism. The fact that the schism exists between the EO, RC, and OO means that I cannot trust that RC is in fact the true Church. The issues that divide these traditions are too complex to say that any one of them is the Church which Christ founded. And since these three cannot agree among themselves, why should Protestants listen to them when they say that Protestantism is false?

There are many converts who grappled with the same question as you have…and went on to do an indepth look into this.

Here is one example:calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/i-love-the-orthodox-too-much-to-be-orthodox-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-atomic-bomb-of-holy-orders/