What changed in 500 years?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Ignatius:
They claim that they aren’t, but inarguably the theology at Calvary Chapel certainly holds to Calvinism’s doctrines of totally depravity, predestination (although not so absolute as some) and Once Saved Always Saved which they called the perseverance of the saints.That is a heavy Calvinistic leaning in their theology no matter how much they want to deny it.
They are not a Calvinistic Chrisitian Church, but rather an Arminian Christian church.
As I said before, they claim to take a middle road between Arminian and Calvinism, But they actually preach the Calvinistic doctrines of totally depravity, predestination and the perseverance of the saints.
They do not teach and believe in total depravity, predestination, and OSAS.
I can’t speak to what the pastors where you went preached, But the one I went to in La Sierra and later Riverside for three years did.
That’s actually one of the things that revealed the errors of Protestantism. Every pastor has his own interpretation and teaching.

Ultimately I had to go with the One Church, founded by Jesus Christ, that has the same Authentic Catholic teaching everywhere and has
for 2000 years.
Check this out:
youtube.com/watch?v=hl-08atFqzc

May the Light of Christ guide your path always.

Your brother in Christ.
 
Thanks for the post. But doctrinally, indulgences are still part of your Faith, correct? In addition, Priests and nuns are still not able to marry. Is my understanding correct on these two doctrinal issues? Would you also agree that the way of salvation is the same as it was taught 500 years ago?
Yes, indulgernces may still be received, but you need to understand what they are, and are not.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Indulgences

The celibacy of Priests and Nuns is part of the vows they make before God. What is wrong with that?

The way of salvation is the same as Christ instituted, 1975 years ago. God’s Grace through faith. But, Scripture shows its not as easy as a catch phrase. Revelation states that we will be judged on what we did, not what we believed.

Christ’s peace.
 
Here is a very famous book which used to be essential reading for Protestants. Here is my documentation; please share yours.
Puleeze! FOXE’s BOOK of MARTYRS is acknoledged to be a polemic and full of error even by Protestant Scholars. To start with its ‘history’ spends 80% of the book on the last 400 years and 20% on the 1,600 years when the only Christian Church was the Catholic Church.

Also, a book like this is nothing but unsubstiantated accusations. It is no where near any kind of acceptable proof.
BTW… are Protestants all heading to damnation because they reject the Roman Catholic Church?
No, The Authentic Catholic teaching is that Gods justice only those who know that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ are obliged to follow her. Here’s a little more information: youtube.com/watch?v=hl-08atFqzc.That being said, however, you do have an obligation to investigate the Catholic claims to be His Church. Be careful, though, many people who have set out to proove the Catholic Church false, including myself, have discovered the Truth and become converts.

God bless.

Yours in Christ.
 
I guess it’s easier to avoid the central issues, since things have not changed. At least Protestants are no longer burned at the stakes for rejecting the Roman Catholic Church. Do you guys have any idea what the main issues were in regards to the Protestant Reformation?
And German Bishops are no longer murdered by the “Reformers”.
 
Yes, indulgernces may still be received, but you need to understand what they are, and are not.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Indulgences

The celibacy of Priests and Nuns is part of the vows they make before God. What is wrong with that?

The way of salvation is the same as Christ instituted, 1975 years ago. God’s Grace through faith. But, Scripture shows its not as easy as a catch phrase. Revelation states that we will be judged on what we did, not what we believed.

Christ’s peace.
I say the way of salvation is older than 1975 years ago. How do you think Old Testament Saints were reconciled to God?
 
I say the way of salvation is older than 1975 years ago. How do you think Old Testament Saints were reconciled to God?
Righteousness. However, it no longer matters. We are living under the new and everlasting covenant. And, that started on earth when a teen-aged Hebrew girl, from a one acre hillside with 30 caves as dwellings said “Let it be done to me according to your word.”

BAM! The world changed forever. Amen! Alleluia!
 
Righteousness. However, it no longer matters. We are living under the new and everlasting covenant. And, that started on earth when a teen-aged Hebrew girl, from a one acre hillside with 30 caves as dwellings said “Let it be done to me according to your word.”

BAM! The world changed forever. Amen! Alleluia!
Are you saying OT sinners are saved apart from Christ? Are you preaching that Mary could have prevented God’s redemption of sinners too? Maybe that is a reason for deep devotion for Mary in Roman Catholicism?

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. - Gal 2

Romans 4

Abraham Justified by Faith

4:1 What then shall we say was gained by [1] Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in [2] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

The Promise Realized Through Faith

13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. 18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. 20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” 23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
 
Are you saying OT sinners are saved apart from Christ? Are you preaching that Mary could have prevented God’s redemption of sinners too? Maybe that is a reason for deep devotion for Mary in Roman Catholicism?
First, take a deep breath. Relax. What I say matters not even to me. Christ opened the gates of Heaven, for all before and since. As to Mary, she doesn’t save us, being a creation herself. But, she sure had a bigger part in it than any other human.
 
And German Bishops are no longer murdered by the “Reformers”.
Please name the German bishops who were “murdered by the Reformers,” and the dates when they died. (Obviously simply quoting intemperate remarks by Luther to the effect that bishops ought to be ikilled is not going to do the trick–you said “murdered” not “whose deaths were called for in fits of polemical rhetoric.”)

Edwin
 
Puleeze! FOXE’s BOOK of MARTYRS is acknoledged to be a polemic and full of error even by Protestant Scholars. To start with its ‘history’ spends 80% of the book on the last 400 years and 20% on the 1,600 years when the only Christian Church was the Catholic Church.

Also, a book like this is nothing but unsubstiantated accusations. It is no where near any kind of acceptable proof.

No, The Authentic Catholic teaching is that Gods justice only those who know that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ are obliged to follow her. Here’s a little more information: youtube.com/watch?v=hl-08atFqzc.That being said, however, you do have an obligation to investigate the Catholic claims to be His Church. Be careful, though, many people who have set out to proove the Catholic Church false, including myself, have discovered the Truth and become converts.

God bless.

Yours in Christ.
Are you saying if your study Roman Catholic doctrine you become accountable? And, if you are ignorant of Roman Catholic doctrine, then you can be saved? In summary, Roman Catholic light is not relly good news, but accountable bad news.
 
First, take a deep breath. Relax. What I say matters not even to me. Christ opened the gates of Heaven, for all before and since. As to Mary, she doesn’t save us, being a creation herself. But, she sure had a bigger part in it than any other human.
Hey, I live in the most unchurched state too. I respond to your postings to challenge you so that you will seek the truth by the grace of God…to the glory of God. Thinking and relfecting is good. Christians cannot check their brains at the door, because we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2).
 
Hey, I live in the most unchurched state too. I respond to your postings to challenge you so that you will seek the truth by the grace of God…to the glory of God. Thinking and relfecting is good. Christians cannot check their brains at the door, because we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2).
It’s you and I against the world, brother! Yes, one must always seek the truth. The greatest minds in history have both received the Gospel and handed it on throughout the ages. We are the recipients of this deposit of wisdom and faith. I have examined, and through brotherly challenges, re-examine my faith constantly.

I have been Catholic since 1987. Jesus Christ, in the Flesh, lives in the Tabernacle and I spend time with Him at mass, and at Adoration as often as I can. I am home, and I invite you to keep seeking the truth, as I seek to go deeper into truth. And, with God’s grace, one day we will eat His Body and Drink His precious Blood together. Amen!
 
Reformed, you just keep grasping at straws. The church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic church. period.
 
Reformed, you just keep grasping at straws. The church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic church. period.
That is a bold claim. Even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges that Protestants are your separated brethren. You also receive the Eastern Orthodox Church as brothers and sisters in Christ. With that official position, the Magestrium receives others that are not in communion with the Pope as being part of the body of Christ and the universal church.

The church of Jesus Christ is the catholic church…and that is a statement that I can agree with! The word catholic means universal, as used in the Apostle’s Creed.
 
The church of Jesus Christ is the catholic church…and that is a statement that I can agree with! The word catholic means universal, as used in the Apostle’s Creed.
Dear Reformed,
First of all: the Catholic Church is and has always been the official name of the church which is in union with the Bishop of Rome. [It was the Anglo-Catholics with their theory of a tripartate Church (Roman, Anglican, Orthodox) who first started calling it the Roman Catholic Church.] So the Catholic or catholic Church referred to in the Apostles’ Creed is the same Catholic Church which you are calling the Roman Cathollic Church. This is even more obvious because this creed originally was the baptismal creed of the church at Rome. In addition, St. Ignatius of Antioch in about 106AD has left us the first known written reference to the catholic church and he was in union with the bishop of Rome, and his 7 letters are filled with Catholic distinctives which Protestants do not accept. I also doubt if the oldest forms of the creed (which would have been written in uncils) have capitol and small case letters. For all these reasons it is not honest or accurate for anyone to imagine an invisble catholic church composed of all true believers to have been the object of faith declared in the Apostles or Nicene creeds. It was always those in union with the Bishop of Rome that were indicated by this title - which was used to distinguish them from all the other heritics and those who had no apostolic succession. To put any other definition on those creeds is to give to them a new meaning that they did not have to the ones who composed them under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So I think it is disingenuous for you to say what you did in the quote above…you have to say it “tounge in cheek” or “with your fingers crossed”.

That being said I don’t think the fact that the Church admits that all the baptized are in some way (although imperfectly) joined to this one true Church of Christ changes anything. This is neither an admission that there is more than one true church or that there is some hypothetical invisible true church. It is only leaving the final judgement to God as to who will be admitted to this one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
 
With that official position, the Magestrium receives others that are not in communion with the Pope as being part of the body of Christ and the universal church.

The church of Jesus Christ is the catholic church…and that is a statement that I can agree with! The word catholic means universal, as used in the Apostle’s Creed.
Mr. Reformed,
P.S. We both agree that the word catholic means universal…but as it is used in the creed it also means: the Catholic Church which is in union with the Bishop of Rome…(which is a defined, organized, identifiable, hierarchical institution on earth & throughout history) but which is universal in the sense that it is open to all peoples everywhere and always who will indicate their desire for membership by believing and being baptized (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:16; Lk. 24:27 & Jn. 3:16 ).

Of course in this Catholic church on earth, there are those who have been saved and are still in a state of grace, and also those who having once been saved have subsequently fallen from grace. We call them all Catholics, and all Christians, and all members…although some are very bad Christians and unless they repent they will not be saved in the end. But this Church is still open to all (universal) who want to belong to it.

Beyond baptism (or a desire for baptism) which in some way joins non-Catholics in an imperfect union with the Catholic Church…a full communion with this one Church also requires unity in faith, worship and government.
 
That is a bold claim.
Yes it is a bold claim (just like John 14:6). But it is obvious that there is only one chruch (Eph. 4:4; Mt. 16:18) and that church will exist in all ages (Eph. 3:21; Mt. 28:20). If it is not the Catholic Church then where is it? If it is true…then the Church must in all good faith and responsibility make such a claim.

You must respect the Catholic Church for making such a claim and for claiming to teach infallibly with the authority of Christ. Such a claim, when historically credible, demands at least a close and careful examination.

I can not immagine any Protestant denomination making such a claim. (For example the Methodist Church in distinction from the Presbyterian Church - considering history that would be absurd.)

Of course the Mormons do make such a claim - but history and common sense betrays their claim as false.

Either the Church is true (or it must be just as bad as the devil himself). It has this in common with its head (Christ). C.S. Lewis’ “liar, lunatic, Lord” argument can also apply to the Body of Christ.

You’ve got to ask yourself…would a responsible loving omnipotent God allow that (such a deception in His Name) for soo long…to so many sincere Catholic believers in Christendom for 1500+ years?

And if the Catholic Church is not true but evil - how can the Bible and the Protestant denominations which both came from the Catholic Church be true and good? A bad tree can not bring forth good fruit.

The apostolic authority of the Popes was a hard pill for me to swallow - but studying Church history helped a lot. Even protestant historians agree that the bishops of Rome alone were like a plumbline of othodoxy throughout the age of the great Christological hesesies. Now I thank God for the sure word of the Catholic Magisterium and for their courage to testify to the incredulous world that they do indeed teach with Christ’s authority.
 
As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs." Tetzel

http://www.ianpaisley.org/images/indul2.jpg

Please help me understand. Are you saying Tetzel was working against the authority of the Catholic Church?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Tetzel
Tetzel was a conman. He was raising money the way that todays’ health & prosperity [so-called] gospel preachers raise it.
Blaming Tetzel on the pope is kinda like blaming John Wesley for
the Boston Tea Party. All they really have in common was the time frame.🤷
Time to go. This thread is also intended for Protestants too. Why should I have an ecumenical agenda if essential doctrines have not changed in 500 years?
Somebody really, really smart once said that you should be able to know His disciples by our love for Him & for each other.
Are 21st century Protesants naive and ignorant about the essential reasons of the Protestant Reformation?
Most 21st C Protestants would have heart failure if they ever read :eek: Martin Luther…Tryhttp://bestsmileys.com/puking/2.gif “On the Jews” some time.
My main driving force is really for the Protestants on this site. If Roman Catholic doctrine has not changed, why should I pursue an ecumenical agenda?
Why not???
So, how do we test what the Reformers taught?
Read what they said…as opposed to what somebody says that they said.
I think the solas is the best representation of what the Protestant Reformers embraced in unity.
I don’t.
And I see no unity among the reformers, either.
Joseph Smith is just a false prophet. His revelation is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church. You cannot possibly compare the Mormonism and Catholicism. It’s like comparing apple and oranges.
Manny, good to have you back home!!
But, my friend, comparing Mormons to Catholics is more like comparing scorpions and eggs…a comparison once made by that 👍 really, really smart Person aforementioned.
I mean, apples & oranges are both edible & nourishing.
 
I’d say the Reformation was too large to adequately decide what has changed in terms of the contention between the various parties. For example, the differences between Luther and Calvin were too large to even group them together. I’d say the problem is that Luther (and his movement pre Augsburg Confessions) were still apart of the Catholic Church’s paradigm. You can effectively dialogue between the parties, and a lot of Luther’s concerns have been dealt with in the last 500 years to the extent that I’d not consider it a stretch to see (in theory) the possibility of reunion.

You take Calvin, and his ideas seem so far out of the range of the Christian schema (if not on points, as a whole) that is hard to come to cohesive conclusions between the concerns of the two parties.

It is one reason, for me, that I think Calvin’s ideas have spread and influenced/directed Protestant theology moreso than Luther’s initial concerns. His theology couldn’t be as easily reabsorbed into the Church.

So what has changed is that you have a multitude of persepectives of the same Christianity that have trouble conversing with each other.
 
Most 21st C Protestants would have heart failure if they ever read :eek: Martin Luther…Tryhttp://bestsmileys.com/puking/2.gif “On the Jews” some time.
I hate to interrupt this thread, but Mr. Zooey touches on something that has bothered me for a while since I have been researching Christianity,

I too have read Martin Luther “On the Jews” and it was very disconcerting.

I also read how John Calvin fried Michael Servetus and how Zwingli drowned the anabaptists. Actually I have read quite a bit about the persecution of the anabaptists by both the Catholics and the Protestants and italso was very disconcerting.

I have also read the Protestant apologetics defending the reformers, and to be honest they seem just as lame as the Catholic apologetics who defend the inquisition. One page that I read in defense of John Calvin could have had names changed and I swear it would have been a lame Catholic apologetic page defending the inquisition.

Yes I know that the reformers were men and subject to the same failings as the rest of us. And maybe that is the answer.

But.

In my lifetime I have rightly seen TV evangelists rightly removed from ministry for sleeping around and fraud. My deceased grandfather had a Jim Bakker PTL Bible and used to get a magazine by Jimmy Swaggart as a faithful contributor to his ministry. As much as he used to like these guys, his admiration ended when they got caught with their pants down.

So what then is the logical difference between Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli versus Bakker and Swaggart unless you want to argue that killing other Christians for Christ and being an anti-semite is not as much of a biggie as sleeping around.

Anyway, this is me being contrarian, but I do have to ask.

That having been said I will defend the Mormon / Catholic comparison since the point of the comparison was that both claim to be the one true church. Of course in other respects they are quite dissimilar but the comparison in that regard is valid,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top