P
Protestant101
Guest
Well; just for interest’s sake, and to compare the Catholic & Protestant views of “Bible Christianity,” lets explore this question a bit. How does one become “In Christ?” Are some “more” in Christ, than others?
What are the main differences between Bible Christians and Catholics?
- Status
B
benedictus2
Guest
Yes, I would say some are more in Christ than others.
As a matter of fact, if to be a New man one must be in Christ, then until we are in heaven then we are only in partial states of being in Christ because we cannot say that we are completely new.
Except of course right after baptism.
J
JRKH
Guest
How does one become "In Christ?"
First of all by coming to believe in Christ, Repenting, and being baptized.
After this initial coming to Christ then, in order to more fully enter “into Christ” one must grow in faith, trust, and action.
Are some “more” in Christ, than others?
Certainly. Just as there is a difference between belief and faith, mind and heart, types and nature and degrees of spiritual gifts and levels of trust - Jesus told the diciples that some “demons” can only be expelled by prayer and fasting, He also said that faith the size of a mustard seed, could move mountains. He did not say they did not have faith, but only that they had “little faith” (Oh ye of little faith).
I think all of us have read the lives of great people of God and said - I’d love to have that kind of faith. We’ve probably all known others personally who have impressed us by their selfless holiness. I would find it easy to say that my own godfather is more “in Christ” than I am…WHY? Because he has spent his entirel life conforming himself to the image of Christ…
Peace
James
D
Dokimas
Guest
Are you sure we look to the Bible as the sole source of faith? or do we see the Bible as the final source of authority on faith?
C
cooterhein
Guest
I’m pretty sure we aren’t allowed to do this anymore. It was fun, but I’m afraid I can no longer reciprocate.
No, that’s not what I was assuming.
Protestantism has historically been guided by the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. Of course I know how it works.
Most Catholics are not well-catechized, and a solid 70% of American Catholics will consistently answer surveys by saying it is possible to be a Catholic in good standing while using contraception on a regular basis. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that Church teaching indicates the opposite.
In the same way, most Protestants are better-schooled in the basic teachings of Protestantism, but I don’t doubt that 70% of them are unable to articulate the Protestant method of interpretation very well. That doesn’t mean no such method exists, though. Such a method does exist, and it’s called the historical-grammatical method. I will tell you about it.
You have some silly notions, too, but I recognize them for what they are and I don’t demean all Catholics because of you. For example, I don’t assume that all Catholics believe there is nothing wrong with calling Calvinism “idiotic” and defend it by saying “I’m just calling a spade a spade.” Nor do I assume that your church leadership looks on this kind of dialogue favorably.
Would you mind making a poll that has something to do with this? How would you phrase the question, and what kinds of options would you have as answers? You should get some (name removed by moderator)ut from different Protestants in order to make sure nearly all of them can choose an option that describes them, then we can see what they have to say for themselves.
Trust me, you’ll hear the same kinds of things from Catholic converts, too. With them, though, it usually has to do with being exposed to certain passages that they’d never seen before in their entire lives. Then they wonder why their Catholic parish would keep these things hidden.
This is true. I asked you to affirm something, though. It was a bit of a prerequisite for an actual answer. I have to make sure you’re actually listening to me and that I’m not just wasting my time.
Sure, I can do that. Pretty easily, actually, since I know what I’m looking for.
I will give you a helpful link, but before I commit to spending any more time on this, I need you to respond to this little thing:
[SIGN]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.[/SIGN]
It’s called the historical-grammatical method, and this link gives you most of the major information about it.
pediaview.com/openpedia/Historical-grammatical_method
Any further questions or comments on the historical-grammatical method should be prefaced by something indicating that I can rule out the aforementioned possibility that I brought up. And if you want to discuss the possibility of the poll that I mentioned earlier, that would be fine, too.
J
JustaServant
Guest
“Bible Christians” tend to be “anti-creedal”, they will not acknowledge the historic creeds of the Church claiming: “The Bible is our creed”, which becomes very subjective.
To claim “sola scriptura” presents problems because each person interprets that phrase, and the Bible, differently. There simply is no authority.
Without any authority, many “Bible Christians” fall into the heresies of the past. For example, many fundamentalists have begun to deny the doctrine of original sin, a heresy the Church dealt with centuries ago. Once you deny the doctrine of original sin, other doctrines follow like dominoes, the Virgin birth, the impeccability and (eventually) the Deity of Christ. Many take a modalistic view of the Trinity, another ancient heresy. Some deny the need for repentance in regard to salvation. Without any doctrinal authority, “fundamentalism” become very “non-fundamentalist”.
Many “Bible Christian” churches have a “doctrinal statement”.
The problem comes from the “doctrines” within it that were never part of Historic Christianity.
R
rainman10
Guest
I had originally asked this question of Protestant101, but was not answered. Can any protestant answer it?
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?
T
TEPO
Guest
What are the main differences between Bible Christians and Catholics?
Well, just in my own personal opinion, I feel that Bible Christians gather together to increase faith through fellowship and preaching… The prayers involved all seem to revolve around the idea that faith alone should be the most stressed factor in worship. To increase faith seems to be the purpose of bible christians.
Catholics also believe in faith, but treat it equally to works… Catholics are more obligated to sacrifice themselves through suffering as a way of worship. Our prayers are a sacrifice, fasting is a sacrifice, confession is a sacrifice, self flagellation is a form of sacrifice, and communion is a sacrifice.
Catholics even call the Mass “The Sacraficial Mass”… So if sacrifice is considered to be one in the same as works, then Catholics ultimately worship God through faith and works where Bible Christians worship God through faith alone.
Well, just in my own personal opinion, I feel that Bible Christians gather together to increase faith through fellowship and preaching… The prayers involved all seem to revolve around the idea that faith alone should be the most stressed factor in worship. To increase faith seems to be the purpose of bible christians.
Catholics also believe in faith, but treat it equally to works… Catholics are more obligated to sacrifice themselves through suffering as a way of worship. Our prayers are a sacrifice, fasting is a sacrifice, confession is a sacrifice, self flagellation is a form of sacrifice, and communion is a sacrifice.
Catholics even call the Mass “The Sacraficial Mass”… So if sacrifice is considered to be one in the same as works, then Catholics ultimately worship God through faith and works where Bible Christians worship God through faith alone.
P
Protestant101
Guest
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
P
Protestant101
Guest
The “original” Bible wasn’t “Catholic.” You have asked the wrong question
I
Irish_Polock
Guest
This is odd… if the first canon of the Scriptures did not come from the Catholic Church, where exactly did it come from? :yukonjoe:
J
Jehoshua
Guest
Well that depends on what you define as the “original bible”.
If you mean the jewish scriptures, the Torah and Tanakh then clearly they were not canonised by the catholic church rather they were acknowledged by judaism to begin with.
However if you mean the entire canon of the bible including the new testament than history attests to the fact that the books in the bible were canonised by the authority of the Catholic Church, they didn;t just spontaneously descend from the heavens complete and entire. Indeed there were countless gnostic and otherwise erroneous and false gospels that never made it into scripture because they were rejected by the Church with many containing totally abject heresy. From memory there is one that states Jesus was actually a woman for example.
Now it is indisputable that the church did indeed canonise the contents of the bible in an official capacity. It is up to you Protestant101 to show us definitively that the christian bible was not canonised and compiled in its entirety by the authority of the Church and that it was either pre-existent or emerged in some other manner before the canon was declared and defined officially by the Church. Simply saying something is not so without a shred of evidence to proove your point doesn;t make your argument correct so it would be good if you explained to us your point of view and your argument to the contrary of the Catholic position.
If you mean the jewish scriptures, the Torah and Tanakh then clearly they were not canonised by the catholic church rather they were acknowledged by judaism to begin with.
However if you mean the entire canon of the bible including the new testament than history attests to the fact that the books in the bible were canonised by the authority of the Catholic Church, they didn;t just spontaneously descend from the heavens complete and entire. Indeed there were countless gnostic and otherwise erroneous and false gospels that never made it into scripture because they were rejected by the Church with many containing totally abject heresy. From memory there is one that states Jesus was actually a woman for example.
Now it is indisputable that the church did indeed canonise the contents of the bible in an official capacity. It is up to you Protestant101 to show us definitively that the christian bible was not canonised and compiled in its entirety by the authority of the Church and that it was either pre-existent or emerged in some other manner before the canon was declared and defined officially by the Church. Simply saying something is not so without a shred of evidence to proove your point doesn;t make your argument correct so it would be good if you explained to us your point of view and your argument to the contrary of the Catholic position.
B
benedictus2
Guest
But that still does not answer the question of how does any man become in Christ?
Are you saying that if even one man is in Christ, the rest (as signified by “all things”) become new?
B
benedictus2
Guest
?
B
benedictus2
Guest
And that was all you had to say to answer the question. You could have written that at the start.
Still, that answers only the second part about “having mere opinion, ignoring these biblical statemenents on sacred tradition.”It does not address the first claim that “they conveniently ignore scripture which doesn’t agree with them”; which I have explained I have personally experienced and read in conversion stories.
That may be true but the people I cited are not your run of the mill non-denominational Christian. These are learned people, even pastors and theologians.
And I don’t demean Calvinists because of a particular Calvinist. I demean (if one may call it that) Calvinistic belief which is not quite the same.
Calling something ‘idiotic” if it is “idiotic” is not a silly notion. If a something is idiotic and a dangerous belief then it must be exposed for what it is so people will not be misled.
If I were to say that Atheism is a stupid faith (and it is a faith though atheists would disagree), I doubt you would say that it is silly of me to say so.
But of course the burden of proof rests of me to prove that it is indeed idiotic. I can’t just claim it so and expect everyone to believe it to be so.
In the case of Calvinistic Predestination, I think I did prove that it was indeed idiotic. Which is why you came up with the following challenge, remember?
I am still waiting for your reply you know. It’s way past January 6.
But it is not about polls. You said that I don’t really know for a fact that protestants ignore verses that do not agree with them. So to prove to you that I do know that for a fact, I mentioned that I have encountered some Protestants here at CAF who do that. Not all mind you, but there are some.
Which is total hogwash. No Catholic Parish has ever kept anything in the Bible hidden. It is true that in general Catholics are rather lazy about reading the Bible and when it does get proclaimed to them at Mass quite a lot just don’t pay attention. Which of course is their fault and to some extent due to some misguided priest who failed to proclaim the fullness of truth. I know a few of them.
Cooterhein, if I reply to you, you will know I am listening as I have this habit of breaking down a post and replying in detail. I may misunderstand what you say but have no doubt that I have read what you have written. You should know that by now from our previous verbal fencing.
B
benedictus2
Guest
No, I cannot rule out that possibility since you are not the fountain of all truth.
If you propose X and Y, I read it, ponder it, see if it is logical and consistent with whatever evidence I have available to me and if they are so then the most I can say is yes I agree with you to the extent of how you phrased your reply.
Another thing that you must remember is that you are a Calvinist of some sort and not all Protestants agree with you so you cannot even say that you speak for all protestants although you might represent a reasonable portion.
Any further questions or comments on the historical-grammatical method should be prefaced by something indicating that I can rule out the aforementioned possibility that I brought up.
If you had said that right at the beginning instead of saying ‘No that’s not how it works “ then we could have avoided this inordinate amount of typing that is not good for my sore joints.
The poll is not necessary since I do not need to know how many evade passages that do not suit them. It is sufficient that I know they do, from personal experience, conversion stories and debates here at CAF.
B
benedictus2
Guest
If it was not, can you tell us what it is and can you give us a historical record of when it compiled?
R
rainman10
Guest
Interesting response. Then where did the Bible come from? Or is your reply just your tactic to avoid answering my question?
P
Protestant101
Guest
Hang on now! If you check; you will see quite a number of discussions here from the past where I tried to say I am not personally attacking Catholics; only certain beliefs. I have been told over and over that if I attack the belief; I attack the people. Why wouldn’t the same rule apply here?
In reference to 2 Cor 5:17, it is not something I was saying. It’s something that the Bible says. I offered absolutely no interpretation or explanation; I just quoted a verse that is related to the question you asked about being “in Christ.”
Out of curiosity benedictus2, I would be interested to see if you had any other Bible verses that would be linked to this subject of being “in Christ.” How would you explain it from the Bible?
To me; someone can be “in Christ” no matter what denomination they are in. And I believe that is the direction that you are headed with that - how that one cannot be truly “in Christ” unless they are Roman Catholic…
B
benidict
Guest
that would be my assessment. you will eventually BE Catholic my friend. that is if we all reach heaven. or do you believe that Christ is a polygamist, and he is coming back for more than just One Bride? you are only responsible for what you know. i also have a problem with Adventism being labled a denomination. after much study, and debates on this forum, i personally have come to the conclusion that Adventism has anther Jesus they follow. not the Jesus of the bible. they claim that Michael the Arch Angel is Jesus. this is not the Jesus the Church has proclaimed for 2000 years. this is not the Jesus any protestant denomination has claimed. imntbho i do not at this time believe that as a whole, Adventist Are in Christ. im sure despite the teachings of their movement,there are some who still hold to true Christolgy as taught by traditional Christianity. but the organiztion as a whole does not. this would be a major cause of concern dont you agree? peace
- Status