Questions about the Catholic Faith from a Protestant

[jpete79]

mattrue:

we are saved through grace alone.

being saved is a process - when someone asks us “are you saved?” - the answer is i was saved, i’m being saved and i hope to be saved.

I’m saved (Eph 2:5–8), being saved (1Cor 1:8), and hope I’ll be saved (1Cor 3:12–15). I’m working out my salvation in fear (Phil 2:12), with hopeful confidence in Christ (Rom 5:2).

the bible is perfect, it is the word of God.

Thanks for the answer Matt…so you believe in Salvation through Grace…which I agree with…
What role does our Faith have to do with our Salvation though…do you agree we have to have Faith as well (which does or does not have to be in addition to deeds)?

 

[jpete79]

Orionthehunter:

There is a thread started by MariaG on Salvation. I think we should keep threads from becoming excessively confusing.

Short answer: Yes. As paragraph 105 in teh Catechism says, “God is the author of Sacred Scriptures.” God is perfect and can’t lie.

Long Answer: Read the Catechism from paragraph 105-133.

P.S. I think that you should show posters the courtesy by acknowledging answers given to you by others as either acceptable answers or where you continue to disagree. It is really hard to just keep dealing w/ different issues w/o regard to whether the prior issue was adequately addressed.

Thanks and its a good idea but because I had a ton of questions and ended up in debate (which was not my intention) I figured writing out thanks and responses to everyone would add into an even bigger thread…

Also I will read the citations that you put in…

 

[jpete79]

mike182d:

jpete, a couple questions:

1. Who does the Bible say has the authority to interpret it?
2. When does Jesus or the Old Testament grant the Apostles authority to add books to existing Scripture? If they did it without Christ telling them, is it still legitimate? Why or why not?
3. Where does Jesus say that faith alone grants a person entrance into heaven?

1. The Bible says
   no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21

First, the prophecy of Scripture did not come by the will of man but of the Holy Ghost. If this is the case it is the same Holy Ghost that is the true author and interpreter of the Bible. All men when coming to know Jesus Christ as a Savior are also given the gift of the Spirit (Holy Ghost). Therefore, all men can interpret the Bible…but I am cautious when I say this because men are still short of the glory of God and therefore still have sinful desires. Because of man’s limited capacity in understanding God and God’s unlimited knowledge; we still interpret things wrong at times. The Spirit guides us in one direction and our body takes us in the other. This is why I myself use many tools to interpret. I go to the original greek, I read writings and devotionals, I look at commentaries, I ask educated Church leaders, etc. I still look to guidance for it (but I don’t always agree with their answers and they won’t always agree with mine).

1. This is a much longer answer and because I am at work I cannot take the needed time but can give you a quick article on it…mind you I myself only briefly read this and think that there are some good points.
   ginesys.com/redeemer/
2. For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16)
   Also, Christ says there is no way to the Father except through him…He is the way, the truth and the life…When asked about eternal life Love the God with all your heart, mind and soul AND love your neighbor as yourself…

These are indicative of the belief that faith in Christ and God alone are sufficient for Salvation.

 

[Mickey]

jpete79:

do you agree we have to have Faith as well (which does or does not have to be in addition to deeds)?

We are saved by grace through faith. Our good works are the fruit of this faith. Works and faith cannot be separated. If you have faith, your good works flow naturally. If you do not have faith, there will be no good works.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Jpete: For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16)
Also, Christ says there is no way to the Father except through him…He is the way, the truth and the life…When asked about eternal life Love the God with all your heart, mind and soul AND love your neighbor as yourself…

These are indicative of the belief that faith in Christ and God alone are sufficient for Salvation

While still not knowing if you have grasped the inter-dependency of the Tradition, Papal/Magisterium Authority and Scripture written earlier, I will address this statement.

You state what I bolded and claim that is justification for “faith alone” while the text you site encompasses that you must not only have faith but you must also have love and then show that love to others. Sounds a lot like the Catholic principle of one must have Faith, Hope, Charity (love).

By the way, where is repentance in this “faith alone” precept you site? Are you denying that we must repent and reform our lives or do we need just faith?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Orionthehunter:

I couldn’t agree more. Mere men are definitely inadequate to interpret Scripture. Even learned Biblical scholars are inadequate to interpret Scripture inerrantly. However, as you say Scripture is “God-breathed.” This is so true. Concurrently, if you hold that the Bible is “God-breathed” it is inconsistent to not award the same “God-breathed” status to the editors/compilers of the Bible-the Tradition of Papal/Magisterial Authority to speak on matters of correct interpretation.

Speaking of men being breathed on by God, there are only two instances where this occurs in Scripture so this is a pretty big deal. (1) - When God breathes life into Adam & Eve. (2) - When God breathes on 10 of the 12 Apostles (minus Judas & Thomas) in John 20:22. Now, you may say that God breathed on them so that they would be inerrant in authoring the Scriptures. This is true, but not all of them wrote in the Bible. What other ways do you think they used this gift? To lead the Church. And as we’ve said before, we believe that this gift was handed down through apostolic succession. Even you will acknowledge that the canonists had a special gift from God to determine the right books from the wrong ones, so what makes you think that this gift wasn’t there all along and still exists today? Also, here’s another thing that I thought of last night. Protestants often times say that there is only one mediator/intercessor between God and man (Jesus Christ). I totally agree in the proper understanding of Jesus reconciling mankind with God, but this is not what’s implied when Protestants claim this. They often cite the Church, Mary, priests, saints, etc. as unecessary mediators. Catholics, on the other hand, feel that these are all Christ-centered practices/beliefs and that they bring us closer to God. So, my point is this: Isn’t the Bible itself a mediator? Doesn’t it mediate knowledge to us? It is the Word of God, but is it the entire Word of God? The Scriptures imply that there were many other teachings. Some of the letters even say things like, “I’ll tell you the rest when I get there.”

Orionthehunter:

I would like to see Della and Mercygate get involved in this thread and join Jsmitty. While Jsmitty is very learned and patient, as a cradle Catholic, he begins with a perspective that accepts and understands the concept of the inter-dependancy of Authority, Tradition and Scripture. (I too have this same weakness Jsmitty). However, Della and Mercygate are converts. As I’ve read so many of their posts, they have talked so articulately how once they submitted to the Authority, all other matters became understandable.

This is completely true. I’m looking at all these issues through the eyes of someone that was born and raised Catholic. Now, I did undergo somewhat of a reversion, but I was definitely more open to Catholic things than people that were raised Protestant may be. I guess with this whole Sola Scriptura thing it really comes down to 2 things with me:

#1 - How can you hold as your final and only authority something that Christ didn’t give us? The Church gave it to us. Now, why do some accept this one thing that the Church gave us and yet reject the other things that the Church has to offer.

#2 - How can you claim that the Bible is necessary for salvation when the first 300 years of Christendom didn’t even have a Bible?

 

[Chris_W]

jpete79,

Many if not all of your questions ultimately result from differences in interpretation of the Bible. You give Biblical quotes to support your position, and others do the same.

But the core of the problem is the METHOD. We can debate how to interpret the Bible on each question you have. And if you were willing to pick a single question and discuss it to its logical end (giving and receiving replies so as to work out the differences) I believe you would see the Catholic logic of each issue.

However, you seem to refuse to do that, and instead jump from question to question without allowing any single question to flow to its end. This therefore turns attention to the METHOD of determining what is correct or incorrect.

You say the Bible is sufficient. You seem to feel you can support that with Scripture passages. Fine. But the proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Does your method work? If you cannot show HOW your method works…how it leads a person to decide what is and is not truth (and therefore understand God who is identified as truth) then all the supporting evidence in the world cannot justify your method.

Either is works, or it doesn’t work. If it works, explain HOW. If it doesn’t work, then it cannot be what God designed.

If God expects us to know right from wrong, to worship in spirit and truth, to live by His every word…to know and love Him, He must have given us a method to accomplish that.

You are arguing for a method that does not work, which is why there is no agreement even among the people who adhere to your method.

 

[mattrue]

Sorry it took so long i had to give my daughter breakfast.

Justification is a gift of grace (Rom. 3:24; Titus 3:7) that comes through faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1).

we are not saved through faith alone. even demons knew of Christ. another words its dangerous to say, and i’m not saying your like this, but to say i’m going to heaven, i’m saved by faith alone, then go and sin, thats not salvation. in heaven do you think there is sin? of course not. when we are in a state of 100% grace and communion with God in heaven… which also can be reached on earth. please read this fisheaters.com//solafide.html

if your ever in the Chicago land area i would be happy to invite you to a Catholic mass as a brother and a friend.

 

[jpete79]

Mickey:

We are saved by grace through faith. Our good works are the fruit of this faith. Works and faith cannot be separated. If you have faith, your good works flow naturally. If you do not have faith, there will be no good works.

I can agree with that…I’m just taking things one step at a time. Thanks for the response.

So far we agree on Grace (God’s Grace being the doo, Christ knockingr), Faith (us opening the door with Christ), and deeds from that Faith…

 

[jpete79]

JSmitty2005:

Speaking of men being breathed on by God, there are only two instances where this occurs in Scripture so this is a pretty big deal. (1) - When God breathes life into Adam & Eve. (2) - When God breathes on 10 of the 12 Apostles (minus Judas & Thomas) in John 20:22. Now, you may say that God breathed on them so that they would be inerrant in authoring the Scriptures. This is true, but not all of them wrote in the Bible. What other ways do you think they used this gift? To lead the Church. And as we’ve said before, we believe that this gift was handed down through apostolic succession. Even you will acknowledge that the canonists had a special gift from God to determine the right books from the wrong ones, so what makes you think that this gift wasn’t there all along and still exists today? Also, here’s another thing that I thought of last night. Protestants often times say that there is only one mediator/intercessor between God and man (Jesus Christ). I totally agree in the proper understanding of Jesus reconciling mankind with God, but this is not what’s implied when Protestants claim this. They often cite the Church, Mary, priests, saints, etc. as unecessary mediators. Catholics, on the other hand, feel that these are all Christ-centered practices/beliefs and that they bring us closer to God. So, my point is this: Isn’t the Bible itself a mediator? Doesn’t it mediate knowledge to us? It is the Word of God, but is it the entire Word of God? The Scriptures imply that there were many other teachings. Some of the letters even say things like, “I’ll tell you the rest when I get there.”

This is completely true. I’m looking at all these issues through the eyes of someone that was born and raised Catholic. Now, I did undergo somewhat of a reversion, but I was definitely more open to Catholic things than people that were raised Protestant may be. I guess with this whole Sola Scriptura thing it really comes down to 2 things with me:

#1 - How can you hold as your final and only authority something that Christ didn’t give us? The Church gave it to us. Now, why do some accept this one thing that the Church gave us and yet reject the other things that the Church has to offer.

#2 - How can you claim that the Bible is necessary for salvation when the first 300 years of Christendom didn’t even have a Bible?

1- I don’t hold that the Church gave it to us…I hold that God gave it to us. The Law was considered Scripture long before the Church, The books of the prophets and the Psalms were as well. These were written long before ANY Church was in existence (if you translated them that is a different story).

2- The first 300 years didn’t have a translated Bible. Scripture was still established then. I also commend and thank the Early Church for translating it so that more people can read it for themselves. But as was stated before

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16

Paul gained wisdom from God…it compares his epistles with OTHER scriptures which means at this point in time his epistles themselves were scripture.

 

[jpete79]

mattrue:

Sorry it took so long i had to give my daughter breakfast.

Justification is a gift of grace (Rom. 3:24; Titus 3:7) that comes through faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1).

we are not saved through faith alone. even demons knew of Christ. another words its dangerous to say, and i’m not saying your like this, but to say i’m going to heaven, i’m saved by faith alone, then go and sin, thats not salvation. in heaven do you think there is sin? of course not. when we are in a state of 100% grace and communion with God in heaven… which also can be reached on earth. please read this fisheaters.com//solafide.html

if your ever in the Chicago land area i would be happy to invite you to a Catholic mass as a brother and a friend.

I agree with what you are saying. Faith is justified by deeds. But what brings forth these deeds is faith. Paul and James both agreed on that.

I am sorry but at this point, I will not be able to read any links (I am at work), but I promise that I will check up on it later tonight at home.

If I am ever in Chicago, I will gladly accept your invitation. Same goes to you if you are ever in the NJ area.

 

[JSmitty2005]

I think that the problem with faith alone is a matter of semantics more than anything. Catholics feel that it’s more than just accepting Christ. To us, faith has a more broad meaning. Our faith is a way of life. In my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, Protestants feel that faith is a once and done dedication of oneself to Christ or accepting Him into your heart as Lord and Savior. To Catholics, this falls way short of the message of the Gospel. However, I think that through discussions like this, we are beginning to realize that we agree on this issue more than we think we do. Protestants are realizing that Catholics DO NOT believe we can work our way to Heaven. The Church condemned this heresy, called Pelagianism, 1500 years ago. Also, Catholics are coming to recognize that many Protestants don’t have such a narrow view on the meaning of “faith” as we thought they did. An example of this could be the Catholic/Lutheran Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.

Also, I forgot to bring this up before. jpete79, you have often said that it wasn’t until Trent that the Church defined the necessity of Sacred Tradition and rejected the notion of Scripture Alone. I don’t know whether this claim is credible or not but either way, it’s not really a good point. The Church wouldn’t have been able to reject Sola Scriptura prior to it’s invention. To suggest that the Church was “Bible alone” prior to Trent simply because Trent rejected it is like saying that the Church was Arian before the First Council of Nicaea. The Church will not reject a false notion until it is made. Likewise, the Church will not necessarily affirm a Truth until it is questioned (ie. - Tradition). Sacred Tradition was “a given” before Protestantism was born. People just accepted it. When it was questioned, the Church had to affirm it’s necessity. Again, I am saying all this based on the assumption that you are reliable in saying that it wasn’t until Trent that the Church defined the necessity of Sacred Tradition and rejected the notion of Scripture Alone.

-Jon

 

[JSmitty2005]

JSmitty2005:

To suggest that the Church was “Bible alone” prior to Trent simply because Trent rejected it is like saying that the Church was Arian before the First Council of Nicaea.

Actually, a very large part of the Church did fall into this heresy, which brings up another point. Athanasius and the pope were about the only 2 bishops that rejected Arianism. Do you trust them? I mean, you do believe that Christ is God, right? This was a determination of the Catholic Church.

 

[jpete79]

Chris W:

jpete79,

Many if not all of your questions ultimately result from differences in interpretation of the Bible. You give Biblical quotes to support your position, and others do the same.

But the core of the problem is the METHOD. We can debate how to interpret the Bible on each question you have. And if you were willing to pick a single question and discuss it to its logical end (giving and receiving replies so as to work out the differences) I believe you would see the Catholic logic of each issue.

However, you seem to refuse to do that, and instead jump from question to question without allowing any single question to flow to its end. This therefore turns attention to the METHOD of determining what is correct or incorrect.

You say the Bible is sufficient. You seem to feel you can support that with Scripture passages. Fine. But the proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Does your method work? If you cannot show HOW your method works…how it leads a person to decide what is and is not truth (and therefore understand God who is identified as truth) then all the supporting evidence in the world cannot justify your method.

Either is works, or it doesn’t work. If it works, explain HOW. If it doesn’t work, then it cannot be what God designed.

If God expects us to know right from wrong, to worship in spirit and truth, to live by His every word…to know and love Him, He must have given us a method to accomplish that.

You are arguing for a method that does not work, which is why there is no agreement even among the people who adhere to your method.

Chris:

I agree that our differences are interpretative. If you want to follow a solution until its logical end, I will do so with you (I didn’t want to post this because it is confusing to keep on one train of thought with 84 various responses on different issues; which was my fault but your pvt messages were full).

First, what we are debating is whether we need Church Tradition and Scripture or Scripture alone to reach our eternal means and learn our eternal needs. Do you agree?

If this is a correct assumption than what is that end that we wish to agree?

I say the end to which we agree is to see God glorified through us. He created Adam and Eve in His image for companionship with Himself and still wants our companionship (as descendents of His children) for eternity. Adam and Eve both fell short of His glory and now we need to reconcile that difference between us, correct?

If you disagree please tell me where (and stay on my line of thinking as well)

 

[jpete79]

JSmitty2005:

I think that the problem with faith alone is a matter of semantics more than anything. Catholics feel that it’s more than just accepting Christ. To us, faith has a more broad meaning. Our faith is a way of life. In my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, Protestants feel that faith is a once and done dedication of oneself to Christ or accepting Him into your heart as Lord and Savior. To Catholics, this falls way short of the message of the Gospel. However, I think that through discussions like this, we are beginning to realize that we agree on this issue more than we think we do. Protestants are realizing that Catholics DO NOT believe we can work our way to Heaven. The Church condemned this heresy, called Pelagianism, 1500 years ago. Also, Catholics are coming to recognize that many Protestants don’t have such a narrow view on the meaning of “faith” as we thought they did. An example of this could be the Catholic/Lutheran Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.

Also, I forgot to bring this up before. jpete79, you have often said that it wasn’t until Trent that the Church defined the necessity of Sacred Tradition and rejected the notion of Scripture Alone. I don’t know whether this claim is credible or not but either way, it’s not really a good point. The Church wouldn’t have been able to reject Sola Scriptura prior to it’s invention. To suggest that the Church was “Bible alone” prior to Trent simply because Trent rejected it is like saying that the Church was Arian before the First Council of Nicaea. The Church will not reject a false notion until it is made. Likewise, the Church will not necessarily affirm a Truth until it is questioned (ie. - Tradition). Sacred Tradition was “a given” before Protestantism was born. People just accepted it. When it was questioned, the Church had to affirm it’s necessity. Again, I am saying all this based on the assumption that you are reliable in saying that it wasn’t until Trent that the Church defined the necessity of Sacred Tradition and rejected the notion of Scripture Alone.

-Jon

Jon:

I am trying to adjust my train of thinking to find common ground with brothers and sisters in Christ than just debate topics which is why the change in tone…That is also why I commend you on looking deeper into the issue and realizing the subject is about semantics.

In my Church we definately agree with faith will result in deeds because that is what true faith is. I also admittedly was unaware that the concept of “working” one’s way into Heaven was repudiated by the Catholic Church (thanks for sharing that too)…

Now, I posted a comment to logically come to a scripture and tradition/scripture conclusion and would like you to continue commenting with me on that too so we can find more common ground between us.

 

[JSmitty2005]

1- I don’t hold that the Church gave it to us…I hold that God gave it to us. The Law was considered Scripture long before the Church, The books of the prophets and the Psalms were as well. These were written long before ANY Church was in existence (if you translated them that is a different story).

2- The first 300 years didn’t have a translated Bible. Scripture was still established then. I also commend and thank the Early Church for translating it so that more people can read it for themselves. But as was stated before

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16

Paul gained wisdom from God…it compares his epistles with OTHER scriptures which means at this point in time his epistles themselves were scripture.

Ultimately, you’re right. God gave us the Bible. However, God gave us the Church first, through which we receive the Bible. Just because you “don’t hold that the Church gave it to us” doesn’t mean that it didn’t. It simply means that you have not come to accept that…yet.

Yes, the Old Testament Canon was basically settled (except for the Deutercanonicals, but we can address them later). However, it was the Catholic Church that determined the New Testament Canon. This does not imply that God’s people were ‘sola scriptura’ prior to Christianity though. The Jews, like us Catholics, had a 3 legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Authority. When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai, there were 3 things that the Jews respective and held as authoritative. First of all is the teaching authority of Moses. The Jews were afraid of God and had Moses go talk to Him and tell them what He said. The teaching authority of Moses was paramount. Exodus 18 says that the people came to Moses all day long to see what God wanted of them. They had the Law; they had the Torah in written form. Why didn’t they go to that? They went to Moses to find out what God wanted them to do. They also had an oral tradition that came down with the written Word. I will expand on this in my next post.

Now, simply because SOME of Paul’s writings may have been considered Scripture at the time does not account for ALL of his writings nor the other biblical authors. The books: the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of John, Jude, and Apocalypse were all controversial. Also, the Shepherd of Hermas was widely accepted, among others, as being inspired by God. All of this, however, was sorted out by that Church with the pope.

 

[Chris_W]

jpete79:

Chris:

I agree that our differences are interpretative. If you want to follow a solution until its logical end, I will do so with you (I didn’t want to post this because it is confusing to keep on one train of thought with 84 various responses on different issues; which was my fault but your pvt messages were full).

First, what we are debating is whether we need Church Tradition and Scripture or Scripture alone to reach our eternal means and learn our eternal needs. Do you agree?

If this is a correct assumption than what is that end that we wish to agree?

I say the end to which we agree is to see God glorified through us. He created Adam and Eve in His image for companionship with Himself and still wants our companionship (as descendents of His children) for eternity. Adam and Eve both fell short of His glory and now we need to reconcile that difference between us, correct?

If you disagree please tell me where (and stay on my line of thinking as well)

Sorry if I’ve missed your objective here. I guess I’ve been distracted from that with questions about salvation, the papacy, the Bible canon, the assurance of salvation, the merit of deeds, etc. That’s why I said what I said.

Shall I conclude then that at this point you would like to refine this discussion to the topic of Sola Scriptura and focus our attention on that subject?

I think a good starting place would be to take a general look at what each side is ultimately asserting:

1. The Protestant approach (if I may be so bold as to give a broad general synopsis) is that each person can read the Bible and arrive at sufficient truth so as to know and love God, and ultimately receive salvation.
2. The Catholic approach is to say that we need a truth verifying source external to the Bible so as to prevent erroneous conclusions that could jeopardize one’s salvation.

We can discuss what Biblical evidence exists to support each position, but it seems worthwhile to me to first look at the big picture and get a feel for what each is asserting:

The Catholic belief is that Jesus intended for unity of belief. That is to say, we all understand the same truths…we share the same understanding of what God expects of us, and what we can exect from God. The belief in the Papacy allows for this unity.

What is it that your appraoch asserts in general? It sounds like you are saying “we can learn enough on our own…lets just keep it simple”. Is that a fair assessment of your position? Are you of the opinion then that unity among believers is not essential? Or does your approach somehow provide for unity among Christians?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Chris W:

does your approach somehow provide for unity among Christians?

Here’s a good article, written by a Protestant, that addresses the issue of Christian unity:

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_10_122/ai_n14858475

Also, if you guys haven’t listened to it yet, I again suggest Peter Kreeft’s lecture:

peterkreeft.com/audio/03_ecumenism.htm

I’ll be back after class to finish what I was saying about Tradition in the Old Testament.

 

[jpete79]

Chris W:

Sorry if I’ve missed your objective here. I guess I’ve been distracted from that with questions about salvation, the papacy, the Bible canon, the assurance of salvation, the merit of deeds, etc. That’s why I said what I said.

Shall I conclude then that at this point you would like to refine this discussion to the topic of Sola Scriptura and focus our attention on that subject?

I think a good starting place would be to take a general look at what each side is ultimately asserting:

1. The Protestant approach (if I may be so bold as to give a broad general synopsis) is that each person can read the Bible and arrive at sufficient truth so as to know and love God, and ultimately receive salvation.
2. The Catholic approach is to say that we need a truth verifying source external to the Bible so as to prevent erroneous conclusions that could jeopardize one’s salvation.

We can discuss what Biblical evidence exists to support each position, but it seems worthwhile to me to first look at the big picture and get a feel for what each is asserting:

The Catholic belief is that Jesus intended for unity of belief. That is to say, we all understand the same truths…we share the same understanding of what God expects of us, and what we can exect from God. The belief in the Papacy allows for this unity.

What is it that your appraoch asserts in general? It sounds like you are saying “we can learn enough on our own…lets just keep it simple”. Is that a fair assessment of your position? Are you of the opinion then that unity among believers is not essential? Or does your approach somehow provide for unity among Christians?

Chris, I am going to start a new thread (as this is now ridiculously big) and just look over what we agree and disagree on…I’m going to title it Catholic and Protestant Beliefs. Let’s not speak on Sola Scriptura for the time being or Tradition/Scripture but just talk about beliefs that are similar (only talk about where they differ if they do)…

 

[Chris_W]

JSmitty2005:

Here’s a good article, written by a Protestant, that addresses the issue of Christian unity:

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_10_122/ai_n14858475

Thats an intersting article. It wasn’t until I reached the end of though, that I could believe it was a Protestant writing it. One thing of particular interest he said is this:

“Even where we still disagree with what the Catholic Church pronounces, we will have to address the truth of what is pronounced and not simply dismiss it as a sinister play for power.”

This seems to be what jpete79 is suggesting (look at what is common between our religions, to get a picture of where to go from here).

Sounds like a good approach. It often is beneficial for people from differing viewpoints to begin with what we DO agree on.