What are the main differences between Bible Christians and Catholics?

[benedictus2]

It irks me as well as those who deny history and say no true teacher of Christianity existed after the apostles…I use ‘teacher’ in a broad general sense here.

I wonder what America would be like if we were more homogenous like Italy which has few protestants. So I look at Italy and see the same problems more or less…same indifference to faith.

What is the big problem then…Sola Scriptura or indifference and loss to faith? it is tiring for me to keep repeating the same tenants over and over …passive-aggressive prosletyzing.

Just the original post here was passive aggressive…

We can lay it squarely on bad philosophy - Nominalism.

Both Protentatism and the relativism have Nominalism as a parent.
While Nomalism is woven into the very fabric of protestant doctrine, it’s other child – relativism is also crept into the philosophy of so called “Catholic” countries because of the secularization of society.

It is understandable that both should appeal to man since at the root of all this is hegemony of the self. In both, it is the self that rules.

Since this all started with bad philosophy, the way to counter this would be to make good philosophy known and expose the bad philosophy for what it is a - a corruption of truth.

 

[benedictus2]

hello dear sister benedictus. i will go further than sister Kathleen. lol! we are the true latter day saints, we are the true pentacostals, we are the true baptist…etc. etc. not to mention, in agreement with Kathleen, we read throught the entire bible, every 3 year cycle. if you attend daily mass or read the daily readings… peace and blessings to you and yours. and thank God for Holy Tradition.

I wish though we would become evangelicals in the true sense of the word i.e. not afraid to proclaim our faith and the gospel. So many Catholics have this Catholic cringe, such that instead of proclaiming their faith, they water down our beliefs and declare that all faiths are equal. This being a a total load of rubbish to my thinking.

 

[mark_a]

And just in case it hasn’t been already noted, the day-in, day-out biggest difference is the Catholic view of marriage and the marriage act that is not to be (wink wink) tampered with.

 

[benedictus2]

Let me put it this way. If you want to know how biblical interpretation works for Bible Christians and you want to know what kinds of things they do with tradition…

(“You” in the universal sense; not you specifically).

Then. If “you” actually want to know what it is that they’re doing and the things they’re really thinking, you should rely on what they tell you. You’ll notice I didn’t say “ask about it”- I said “rely” on it.

You’ve had some level of meaningful communication with Bible Christians, and you have never heard these kinds of things from them.

You’ve just pulled a cooterhein. You are assuming that I have never heard these kinds of things from them. How do you know that for a fact?

First a clarification.

The quote that I included in my response were not mine but someone elses. My aim was to get you to explain how you think it works instead of just saying that’s not how it works. I am beginning to think that you do not even really know how it works because you have not answered that question.

Now to your assumption that I do not know this As a matter of fact I do. I have one friend who I have started debating with a few years ago and he is one proof of the above statement. Incidentally, this is what led me to CAF.

When I was in high school I had a friend who was “born again” and she had the same silly notions.

And here at CAF, the protestants of different variants that I have encountered in this forum prove those statements true.

But the biggest proof would be the testimonies of “Bible Christian” converts who say the same thing all the time. Things like – “before I became Catholic there were Bible verses that were too hard so I ignored them” or one that was quite damning “all these years we’ve been lied to”.

Quite the opposite, I’d say. The only way you could possibly conclude that these things are at all accurate is if you assume that Bible Christians do the opposite of what they say they do and think things that are very different from what they say they think.

Consequently, I’m going to have to ask you to explicitly reject those kinds of assumptions as a bit of a prerequisite. If you’re making those kinds of assumptions, there’s a decent chance that you’ll ignore things at will and affirm what you want to affirm, even if it’s the polar opposite of what I tell you. As an example, if I tell you X is not how it works and Y is not what happens, it’s possible for you to think "X

** is** how it works and Y** is** what happens." Please tell me I can rule out that possibility.

Now , as a general comment on your post:
You have written a reply of decent length and yet not one little bit of a hint of an answer to my question.

It would be good if you could actually address the questions and reply accordingly.

So again: If that was not really how it works and that is not how it really happened then please give us two answers:

1. 
   *]How does it really work?
   *]How does it really happen?

 

[benedictus2]

doctrine wise, work from majors to minor doctrine, thanks

SUMMARY OF MAIN DIFFERENCES

I will try to give a detailed response to your question although I doubt you are reading or really interested to know (but I could be wrong about that )

First let us be clear by what we mean by Bible Christians. I will use this term to refer to those Christians who go by the Bible alone, so really the correct term is Bible Alone Christians.

DIFFERENCES:
This can be broken down to Foundation and Doctrine.

FOUNDATION:
**
**Catholics are those who belong to the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Bible Alone Christians (or BAC for short) belong to whatever Church some Tom, Dirk or Harry founded in disagreement with another Tom, Dirk and Harry who founded a Church in defiance of a further Tom, Dirk and Harry and so on who may be able to trace themselves back to either Luther, Zwingli or Calvin or some other early follower of the three or a break away. Some are creedal others not.

DOCTRINE

This again can be narrowed down to two : Authority and Justification although really it is only about Authority for if the theCatholic Church through her magisterium really is infallible then she has the authority to decree doctrine and that that doctrine will be infallible.

AUTHORITY

This is a slippery slope for BACs because by accepting the Bible as the sole rule of faith because it is inerrant, they are in effect accepting that the Church would have to have been infallible when she came up with the canon. The Bible was not compiled in the 19th or 20th century when most of these BACs sprouted.

Neither was it compiled during the protestant deformation although there was an attempt to mangle it which is now the reason the BACs have a truncated Bible.

The Bible cannot be held to be the authority because it is precisely the interpretation of the Bible that is being questioned.

JUSTIFICATON
**
**Are we saved by Faith Alone (as per BACs) or by Faith working in love (Catholics).

I think the sticking points here are on how we understand the following:

1.   What are we saved from?

2.   What are we saved for?

3.   How are we saved?

I will present first what I believe are the BACs answers to these, show where the errors are and explain why the Catholic view is the correct one.

1) What are we saved from.

The obvious answer is sin. Both Luther and (and would assume Zwingli) believed in total depravity i.e. we are so totally vile and corrupt that we are not capable of even the tiniest movement towards the good.

It is very important to get a clear understanding of what we are being saved from since the how will also depend on this.

2) What are we saved for?

Simple answer is heaven.

BACs can correct me on this but I think they believe heaven is the place of bliss that you go to if you are lucky enough to be “saved”.

Just as important as getting the “saved from” aspect of salvation right, it is equally important to get this one right as well as this will matter a lot in determining the HOW.

**3)      So now we come to the How – How are we saved**

BAC’s and I think all protestants claim by Imputed Justification or Forensic Justification.

This is the idea that justification is imputed on the person, I.e. one is declared just on account of one’s faith in Christ. But, this doctrine also says that one is merely declared just while one actually remains a sinner.

To put this simply, it would be like saying that your clothes are clean even though they are still dirty.

God covers you with the righteousness of Christ and this righteousness is what He sees, though underneath you are still the same miserable sinner as before.

If we conceive of heaven as just a place where we are deposited after being plucked from the clutches of death on earth, then a forensic view of justification will suffice especially since being totally corrupt we are unable to cooperate in our own salvation.

PROBLEMS WITH THE FOREGOING VIEW.
The questions we need to ask are:

1.  are we really totally depraved,

2.  is justification really merely forensic and

3.  is heaven only a place to go to after death (just so you are not suffering the torment of hell).

Reality disproves the doctrine of total depravity. A quick tour of our friends, acquaintances and even people we don’t personally know show that there are many non-Christians who do good deeds and who love their neighbours. We know that not every single non-Christian is an out and out morally depraved person. They are capable of natural goodness.

[CONTINUED ON NEXT POST]

 

[benedictus2]

CONTINUATION OF POST 45 - SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCE

Catholics believe that we are not totally depraved but that sanctifying grace has been snuffed out of us. An apologist compared this to a car without petrol as against the totally unrecognizable wreck that the reformers portrayed. Both cars are not going anywhere but they are in different states of immobility.

The second difference is in the concept of heaven. Catholics call this beatific vision. But beatific vision is not merely just beholding God face to face. It presupposes that we have the ability to behold God face to face. Since only the holy can behold God, then it presupposes that we been made holy. Since nothing unclean will enter heaven, ( and covered up sins are still sins), then what needs to be done is for sins to be completely removed. Like can only behold like and to see God we must be made Holy as He is.

As Fr Robert Barron put it, our goal in life is to become saints.
*
If our end is not merely a place called heaven but more a state of being divine, then the “how “ of salvation must be a process of becoming divine, of becoming holy as the Father is. It is the process of transformation into the image of Christ, the Father’s Son.* Therefore the how is not just a matter of us getting into heaven but of getting heaven into us (as Beckwith and Kreeft put it) .

This process of transformation into Christ’s image is the Catholic doctrine of deification or as the Orthodox put it – Theosis.

Therefore a mere declaration that we are righteous is not enough. We have to become righteous.

And this is where grace, faith and work come together. God first offers the grace and we respond to this grace. But here is where work comes in. We have to respond to this grace, and the response is love. Only love can answer Love. And love is WORK.

If we remain faithful and always respond with a yes, then we increasingly image Christ.

But even when we say no to God and thus sin, His grace is never far away for as St Paul says, where sin abounds, grace abounds even more.

When we have been completely transformed into this image of Christ, then we can say we have reached heaven, we’ve become saints, we have finally become that, which we have been created for.

That is why the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is so important. Very few complete this process of divinization here on earth. The majority of us will die with some stain of sin left and whatever bit of leftover self-love must be purged away even after death to complete our transformation into the image of Christ who is totally sinless, totally holy.

Christ gave us the process by which this is done – faith to be sure; but indeed also work - for whatever is done to the least of His brethren is done to Him. A growth in humility is also important and this is classified more as work than as faith. Jesus said: learn of me for I am meek and humble of heart.

It must also be stressed that works is transformative. When we do good works, it changes us. The same when we do bad woks and thus sin. It changes us too.

Our choices make us and our choices are reflected in our works. Obedience (a positive choice for God) is works. Obedience is transformative and works in general is transformative. So too disobedence which transforms us negatively or more precisely disfigures us, corrupts us.

So where does the Church figure in all this?

The Church and her sacraments are the means by which God effects this transformation, for all the sacraments (most particularly the Eucharist) are the avenues of grace – that Divine Life of God in us. By these sacraments, Christ increases our faith, hope and our love (which is work) till in the end there is nothing but love.

At St Paul said in the oft quoted verse: Faith, Hope and Love, these three remain but the greatest of this is Love.

** And why?**

Because in heaven we will no longer need faith – that which we use to perceive only through faith we will then see clearly.

In heaven there is no need for hope – for that which we hoped for we have already attained.

But love? This indeed remain – for God is Love.

 

[Protestant101]

CONTINUATION OF POST 45 - SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCE

As Fr Robert Barron put it, our goal in life is to become saints.
*
If our end is not merely a place called heaven but more a state of being divine, then the “how “ of salvation must be a process of becoming divine, of becoming holy as the Father is. It is the process of transformation into the image of Christ, the Father’s Son.* Therefore the how is not just a matter of us getting into heaven but of getting heaven into us (as Beckwith and Kreeft put it) .

This process of transformation into Christ’s image is the Catholic doctrine of deification or as the Orthodox put it – Theosis.

Therefore a mere declaration that we are righteous is not enough. We have to become righteous.

But love? This indeed remain – for God is Love.

Well thanks for all your efforts in expressing your views & understanding of Catholic doctrines here. It is nice to read detailed explanations, with some references by which us “misguided” Protestants can actually understand the Roman Catholic views. 2 Cor 5:17 is in principle, in agreement with Fr Robert Barron. This Bible text says that “If anyone is in Christ, ALL things become new…”

I would also, certainly agree that some Protestants do look at “justification” just as you expressed. However, I have not understood the concepts and experience of justification, in just the way you have expressed. It should be recognized that not all Protestants see it as you have summarized for us here.

There are several points in what you stated in your last two posts which I will be very interested to explore a little more, but it will have to wait till another post, a little later this evening. Certainly, there are some points of sharp disagreement here; but I do like your emphasis at the end where you said “God is Love.” 1 John 4:8 agrees, and further, 1 Cor 13:8 tells us that “Love never fails.” This is something that we should never lose focus on, so I heartily recommend your emphasis on that!

 

[Faith5]

Re: What are the main differences between Bible Christians and Catholics?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by KathleenGee
Nothing.

Bible Christians are Catholics.

The Bible Christians I know do not believe going to church on Sunday is necessary
to continue in God’s grace; however, Catholic Bible Christians will attend church
every week.

 

[Protestant101]

Re: What are the main differences between Bible Christians and Catholics?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by KathleenGee
Nothing.

Bible Christians are Catholics.

The Bible Christians I know do not believe going to church on Sunday is necessary
to continue in God’s grace; however, Catholic Bible Christians will attend church
every week.

So are you saying that one has to go to church every single week to be a “Bible Christian?” Where does the Bible say that?

 

[pablope]

So are you saying that one has to go to church every single week to be a “Bible Christian?” Where does the Bible say that?

Why does it have to be in the Bible? If it is not in the Bible, so you will not go every week, you will go only, let us say, once a month and not out of your desire to worship and show your love to your Creator? And not out of the goodness of your heart?

Following your logic and a logical conclusion of your question, where does it say to pray everyday? Ins’t it we do it out of our love for God, and not because it is written to do it?

 

[Protestant101]

Why does it have to be in the Bible? If it is not in the Bible, so you will not go every week, you will go only, let us say, once a month and not out of your desire to worship and show your love to your Creator? And not out of the goodness of your heart?

Following your logic and a logical conclusion of your question, where does it say to pray everyday? Ins’t it we do it out of our love for God, and not because it is written to do it?

Actually, the Bible tells us to pray every day…should I tell you where?

 

[pablope]

Actually, the Bible tells us to pray every day…should I tell you where?

I do not need to know where because I do it for the love of God and His grace, not because it is commanded or written.

And that is the whole point I am pointing at…why does it have to be written, don’t you do it out of your love and appreciation for your Creator? Same thing with weekly worship, why does it have to be written or commanded somewhere? What does your heart say? Not to do it because it is not written or commanded in the Bible. And if there is not a verse in the Bible, so you will not do it from now till the end of your earthly life?

 

[Faith5]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protestant101
So are you saying that one has to go to church every single week to be a “Bible Christian?” Where does the Bible say that?

Not quite. Bible Catholic Christians must attend church every week.
Non-Catholics can attend based upon the belief or guidence of their pastor.
Remember (Luke 10:16) “he who hears you hears Me; he who despiseth you
despiseth Me.”
The 2,000 year old church is still here and has chief Commandments-
By Gods command through Apolostic Succession. I am compelled to attend
Mass-it’s not a chore.
For NC’s , I’m in sales not Mgs., so let your conscience be your guide.

 

[Protestant101]

I do not need to know where because I do it for the love of God and His grace, not because it is commanded or written.

And that is the whole point I am pointing at…why does it have to be written, don’t you do it out of your love and appreciation for your Creator? Same thing with weekly worship, why does it have to be written or commanded somewhere? What does your heart say? Not to do it because it is not written or commanded in the Bible. And if there is not a verse in the Bible, so you will not do it from now till the end of your earthly life?

OK; I won’t tell you then. LOL. You know I really like your thoughts on doing what we do because of our love for God…Adventists would not disagree with that.

 

[benidict]

I wish though we would become evangelicals in the true sense of the word i.e. not afraid to proclaim our faith and the gospel. So many Catholics have this Catholic cringe, such that instead of proclaiming their faith, they water down our beliefs and declare that all faiths are equal. This being a a total load of rubbish to my thinking.

i couldnt agree more. not only the Gospel, but the true Church that proclaims the True Gospel. all faiths are not equal. why should we offer new converts a yugo, when we have in our possesion a mercedeze? why offer a watered down form of worship when we have the fullness of the Gospel in the Mass? your right. it is garbage. btw, what is the difference between garbage and rubbish? i can never figure this out…Peace

 

[rainman10]

It’s not true that the Bible does not say "the Bible alone. Catholics have almost gloated over this apologetics approach, thinking it to be quite secure, and succesfully tripping up many Protestants.

Trying to prove that the Bible doesn’t say a certain, exact wording, does not prove that that something is not in scripture. It could still be in scripture; in slightly different words, yet still meaning the same thing. The Bible is clear that we are not to add anything to it, and this means “Bible alone” for the Christian.

**Pro 30:6 ** Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Now I know that Roman Catholic teachings do say that “Tradition” supposedly establishes scripture; yet the Bible warns about “tradition” of the very wrong kind.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Protestants teach, on the other hand, that Catholics have added the Apocrypha, while enduring Catholic counter-claims that we “removed” the Apocrypha from the Bible.

“Bible Christians” are just that. They base their teachings on the Bible alone.

These verses are very true. Now for the sake of clarification, which came first, the original Catholic Bible or the version edited by man, the KJV? So which Bible is the one that has been changed, added to, removed from? Which one do you use? The Original or the edited version?

 

[KathleenGee]

Catholics have our profession of faith and we all have seen the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, both to ensure that our faith is that given us by the Apostles.

The greatest feastday in the Catholic Church is not Christmas – it was the favorite of St. Francis of Assisi who created the nativity scene and carried the statue of baby Jesus out for the people to touch as if touching Christ Himself –

The greatest feastday in the Catholic Church is not Easter Sunday either.

The greatest feastday in the Catholic Church is Resurrection Sunday…that is, every Sunday is indeed the celebration of the Lord Jesus Christ Who gave His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity…

And it is a grave sin to turn our back on Him on Sunday, denying our profession of faith of Who He is, that following Him is indeed a daily walk to begin again, to choose to go to some event of creation that will be burned up on the Last Day…rather than give homage to our Creator for 60 minutes on His day, called the Lord’s Day.

It is through Jesus Christ that creation was made, the Word Made Flesh.

Otherwise our faith in Him is more surface and talk, but our hearts far away from Him.

 

[JRKH]

It’s not true that the Bible does not say "the Bible alone. Catholics have almost gloated over this apologetics approach, thinking it to be quite secure, and succesfully tripping up many Protestants.

I’m sorry that you feel that Catholics “almost gloat over this apologietic approach”, but it is not we who take the “everything must be found in the bible stance”, so we rightly ask that protestants prove “Sola Scriptura” by quoting the Bible - Which then naturally brings us to the next question - Which Bible (canon)?

Trying to prove that the Bible doesn’t say a certain, exact wording, does not prove that that something is not in scripture.

I agree with this. Yet many of the, so called, “Bible Christians” (Sola Scripturist) have no hesitation about asking catholics, “where is the word ‘Pope’ found in the Bible”. So this sort of thing cuts both ways.

It could still be in scripture; in slightly different words, yet still meaning the same thing. The Bible is clear that we are not to add anything to it, and this means “Bible alone” for the Christian.

**Pro 30:6 ** Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Are you aware that these same verses exist in at least three different and widely used bible canons? (Protestant=66 books, RC=73 books, EO=81? books) So if the verses mean what you say they mean (applying to the entire canon) the protestant must then ask himself, which canon is correct, especially inlight of the fact that the RC canon and the EO canon are both far more ancient than the KJV canon.
This very fact, of the protestant use of these verses, and the historical facts surounding the development of the bible canon actually led me away from ever embracing “Sola Scriptura”.

Now I know that Roman Catholic teachings do say that “Tradition” supposedly establishes scripture; yet the Bible warns about “tradition” of the very wrong kind.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

But He did not teach against Tradition of the Very Right Kind. He gave to teh Church the authority to bind and loose…whatever.
The Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, did just that in establishing the Biblical Canon. What’s more, they did so by council (you know like the one n the bible in Jerusalem) and not by the fiat of a single man, demoting and moving certain books to a “seperate section” and later protestants dropping them altogether by the highly logical and spiritual expedient of “cheaper printing costs”.

Protestants teach, on the other hand, that Catholics have added the Apocrypha, while enduring Catholic counter-claims that we “removed” the Apocrypha from the Bible.

A point easily settled by examining any complete Bible text or codex created prior to the Reformation.

“Bible Christians” are just that. They base their teachings on the Bible alone.

And the question comes around again, “Which Bible?”, since the SS verses you cite are contained in at least three different and widely used canon’s of the Bible.

Peace
James

 

[benedictus2]

Well thanks for all your efforts in expressing your views & understanding of Catholic doctrines here. It is nice to read detailed explanations, with some references by which us “misguided” Protestants can actually understand the Roman Catholic views. 2 Cor 5:17 is in principle, in agreement with Fr Robert Barron. This Bible text says that “If anyone is in Christ, ALL things become new…”

Yes, that is true. The question is how does one become “IN CHRIST” such that one can become new?

I would also, certainly agree that some Protestants do look at “justification” just as you expressed. However, I have not understood the concepts and experience of justification, in just the way you have expressed. It should be recognized that not all Protestants see it as you have summarized for us here.

No that is true. I think that is the belief mainly of evangelicals and I would say a fair few of other protestants.

How do you understand justification?

There are several points in what you stated in your last two posts which I will be very interested to explore a little more, but it will have to wait till another post, a little later this evening.

I’d love to discuss whatever you want to bring up.

Certainly, there are some points of sharp disagreement here;

I’d like to discuss those points too.

but I do like your emphasis at the end where you said “God is Love.” 1 John 4:8 agrees, and further, 1 Cor 13:8 tells us that “Love never fails.” This is something that we should never lose focus on, so I heartily recommend your emphasis on that!

Yes, that is what everything adds up to - God is Love and we created in Love and created for Love.

 

[benedictus2]

i couldnt agree more. not only the Gospel, but the true Church that proclaims the True Gospel. all faiths are not equal. why should we offer new converts a yugo, when we have in our possesion a mercedeze? why offer a watered down form of worship when we have the fullness of the Gospel in the Mass? your right. it is garbage. btw, what is the difference between garbage and rubbish? i can never figure this out…Peace

Yes, that analogy is very apt. Why would one want something inferior when one can have the best.

As for the garbage thing, I don’t quite know.

I watched part of a documentary called “the History of the English Language” and it said that we have different words for the same thing (ill and sick for example) due to the different races that occupied or lived in England.

So maybe rubbish is a French derivative and garbage is German derivative or something like that.

But under any name it will smell awful