Which came first....Protestantism or Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorwald
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
guanophore said:
I am trying to explain the difference to you, but you do not seem to be listening. Catholicism is not “bible based”, so your question is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Change the word ‘Bible’ to ‘Witnessed Original Word of God In Writing’ (or any other name that you prefer). Does this help? 🙂
 
Thorwald;:
Other than a small difference in the number of books included in the KJV Bible versus the RC Bible, they are basically the same.
Click to expand...
That small difference being 3 books more in both the 1611 and 1796 KJV than the 1602 DR or 1750 DRC.
The major differences between the Christian faiths, stem from the doctrines and understanding/interpretation of the Holy Word.
Click to expand...
What you really should have done, was picked up the specific doctrines, and traced them back through the Early Church Fathers, and Scripture.

jonathon
 
Thorwald said:
The differences lie in the way in which we personally worship God. We interpret the acts/beliefs/interpretations of The Word by ourselves and others, as being correct, or not, and worship accordingly. 🙂
Click to expand...
Would you not wish to believe as the original Apostles taught? The faith was given to them to pass on and spread so those original teachings, if Jesus is correct, should be available to us now in 2009.

Where would Peter, Paul, John etc. find the same teachings they taught … that is what you must find.

Our freedom does not lie in the fact we can interpret ourselves, in a vacuum, but in the freedom to discern the place where those original teachings can be found … the same truths taught in 49 are the same in 2009 … right?
 
Thorwald said:
The Bible, is simply a name given to the collection of Biblical historical writings (books, letters, etc.) which all Christianity is based upon. This ‘collection’ is assumed to be The Word of God. I do not understand your argument. The Word came before any church was formed. Jesus Christ came to bear witness to the truth of the Word, and give us an understanding of it (ie. provide the ‘light’). The disciples and apostles then went forward to teach to His sheep, that they may know the truth. It was at this time, that ‘churches’ (ie. gathering places in order to hear the Word, worship God, and give charity) were formed. The Biblical writings were in place, before the word ‘Bible’ was probably ever thought of.
🙂
Click to expand...
Thorwald, please go back and read what you have just written. The first Christian church was formed at Pentacost, only five weeks after Jesus ascended to Heaven. Surely you don’t think any books of the New Testament had been written at that time do you? Look at most any bible and you will see the approximate dates the N.T. books were written. The first were Galations, 1 Thesalonians and possibly James, around 50 A.D. The last was Revelation, written in the 90’s. It took three more centuries for all these books to be assembled into the canon of the New Testament. Meanwhile the Church had spread over the known world–without the benefit of a bible as we know it.
 
Fidelis said:
The most you can say is that Christianty started at one point in time. When you distinguish between Catholicism and Protestantism, as you did, then it is clear that Catholicism was around 1600 years before Protestantism.

Hope that helps. 🙂
Click to expand...
I agree. Christianity itself started first, then Catholicism eventually became the primary brand of Christianity, until the Orthodox peeled off and then the Reformation. Simplistic view, but that’s basically how it happened.
 
LilyM said:
Surely Jesus only meant, and thus was only teaching, ONE thing when He said ‘This is my body’. Yet Protestants and Catholics believe very different, indeed largely incompatible, things on the topic in spite of reading the selfsame words. Only one can be right, only one can possess the truly interpreted Word of God, no? When Jesus said those words He either meant transubstantiation, or He meant consubstantiation, or He meant symbol. Those Christians who believe wrongly do NOT follow the same teachings or the same NT.
Click to expand...
However what may be wrong to you is correct in another Christian’s eyes, and they may feel you are wrong in the way you believe. The fact is nobody knows for sure what is right or wrong. We all believe what we believe.
 
Thorwald said:
We tend to equate ‘Protestantism’, with the Protestant Reformation. Protestantism is simply a name given to following the original Word of God as per the O/T and the N/T, without any specific doctrinal ‘add-ons’. In other words, as was preached unto us by Jesus Christ, the disciples, the apostles and the prophets.

Other than a small difference in the number of books included in the KJV Bible versus the RC Bible, they are basically the same. The major differences between the Christian faiths, stem from the doctrines and understanding/interpretation of the Holy Word. Other than this fact, can it not be said that both basic faiths started at the same time? Are they not basically originated from the same Word? 🤷
Click to expand...
Your analysis almost works.

But when you consider the wide range of moral beliefs among Christians, well, only one has correct Christian teaching.
 
Thorwald said:
The Bible, is simply a name given to the collection of Biblical historical writings (books, letters, etc.) which all Christianity is based upon. This ‘collection’ is assumed to be The Word of God. I do not understand your argument. The Word came before any church was formed. Jesus Christ came to bear witness to the truth of the Word, and give us an understanding of it (ie. provide the ‘light’). The disciples and apostles then went forward to teach to His sheep, that they may know the truth. It was at this time, that ‘churches’ (ie. gathering places in order to hear the Word, worship God, and give charity) were formed. The Biblical writings were in place, before the word ‘Bible’ was probably ever thought of.
🙂
Click to expand...
The books of the bible weren’t even selected until around 300 AD. Until that time there was much discussion as to what actually constituted scripture. This question was settled by the Church.

The Church was founded by Jesus.

The Church was functioning and saving souls long before the bible was compiled.

Jesus didn’t write a book, he started a Church. His Church wrote a book.
 
As a converting Protestant I have a few observations
  1. Catholicism came first. You cannot Protest against a void.
  2. Aside from the many obvious biblical and historical Truths evident in the Catholic church there is the example of the growth of Protestantism and why the schism cannot be the work of God.
After the reformation there were “main line Protestant Churches” that came directly from the Reformation or directly from a first generation Protestant denomination. These included Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Methodism (from Anglicanism) These churches came from Catholicism with many items that pointed back to the Catholic Church (As a young Methodist we still sang the ‘Gloria Patri’ and always recited either the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed)

After this came the next wave which gave rise to more Errors:
The Baptists with their zero hierarchy and heretical positions on Wine and other items. The Church of Christ with similar errors.

Now we are into 3rd, 4th and even 5th generation Protestant churches which show no memory of Mother Church and are filled with blatant errors and heresies.

Surely Christ did not mean for this to happen when He said that He would build His Church upon the rock of Peter and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

Worse than this, the reformation has made way for more errors and heresies. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and their revamped and extra heretical version of Arianism. The Mormons with their repackaged pagan polytheism. The many suicidal cults (Branch Davidians, James Jones, the Hale-Bopp crown, etc.) that destroy lives and souls.

All of these evils came to be because of the heretical stances of Luther - Sola Fide (by Faith Alone so that Social Responsibility dies) and Sola Scriptura (By Bible Alone so that no Tradition matter) and the bastard child of those two: Independent Revelation. If anyone can correctly interpret and retranslate the Bible then it becomes so watered down as to become useless. Look at the two largest works of Satan acting in Christian clothes: Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism both of which require new translations of the Bible, statements of Bible errors and/or “new” revelations that never underwent anything approaching the care that brought us the Bible we have now.

Beware, for the enemy is vigilant and waits in the shadows to stalk those who have been led astray by false prophets.
 
cthulhubryan said:
As a converting Protestant I have a few observations
  1. Catholicism came first. You cannot Protest against a void.
Click to expand...
hehe.
cthulhubryan said:
  1. Aside from the many obvious biblical and historical Truths evident in the Catholic church there is the example of the growth of Protestantism and why the schism cannot be the work of God.
Click to expand...
beginning with the “Protestants” St. Paul was addressing in his letters - the Epistles - the Bible - the Word of God!

to be steeped in history is to cease to be protestant. -Newman.
 
mark_a said:
Your analysis almost works.

But when you consider the wide range of moral beliefs among Christians, well, only one has correct Christian teaching.
Click to expand...
I know. That is what I’ve been trying to tell you…ie. MINE! 🙂
 
As a past protestant who studied at leberty university to become a pastor I was amazed after studying the original languages, history, and expressions of the biblical text how far off protestant interpreation was! History obviousely shows that the catholic church which means universal church originated first. The church existed before the bible was made (new testament mostly by catholic bishops) the bible came from the the church, not the church came from the bible. There where rituals and oral teachings before the scripture was written down. These of course came mainly from the apostles including the first pope the apsotle peter. I am amzed how knowing a protestant pastor is on memorizing scripture readings but so blind to there actual history when it scomes to meaing. If someone where to write a letter 80 years ago saying that there close where cool they would be talking about the temperature of it, but if someone today read those words they would think that person was expressing that it was neat such as wow your cool man! of course the bible is more complex than that you should get a small idea of my point. The catholic church is the first church. Even luther himslef said that we must thank the catholic church for the bible, which was inspired by god but materialized by men of the catholic faith!
 
Thorwald said:
I agree with your historical facts concerning the Protestant Reformation. I researched all of this topic on the internet. What I am trying to say, is if both faiths follow the teachings (do’s and don’t’s) in roughly the same N/T, how can one faith be before the other? Is it not the same Word of God? 🙂
Click to expand...
It is clear that in the beginning, there were many competing voices about Jesus and what he taught. This is clear from even Paul’s letters. Some of these solidified into serious movements, such as the Gnostics, the Montanists and others.One church eventually emerged having suppressed the competing voices. It made a declaration of the canon, based on it’s beliefs. The Orthodox Church left first over doctrinal differences, quite early in the history. At the time of Luther, and thereafter, certain groups have felt or continued to feel for various reasons that the resultant church has left correct doctrine and has strayed into new beliefs not supported by the scriptures. They all draw from the initial church, but split off at various times and places as they concluded that Rome had erred. Thus the initial church is still the church Universal, and we are all heirs to that universal church. That is why we have so much in common on so many issues. The differences arose later in time.
 
Thorwald said:
We tend to equate ‘Protestantism’, with the Protestant Reformation. Protestantism is simply a name given to following the original Word of God as per the O/T and the N/T, without any specific doctrinal ‘add-ons’.
Click to expand...
In that case there is no such thing as Protestantism. It’s a fantasy.
In other words, as was preached unto us by Jesus Christ, the disciples, the apostles and the prophets.
Click to expand...
You assume that these are all the same. They quite clearly aren’t. (I am applying the same standard that you are using to describe Catholic teaching as an “add-on.” I am not denying that there is one Faith in the sense that matters. I’m following up the consequences of your premises.)
Other than this fact, can it not be said that both basic faiths started at the same time? Are they not basically originated from the same Word? 🤷
Click to expand...
Yes to the second, a clear no to the first. Protestantism is not just “simply the Word of God.” It is a broad historical category, but insofar as we can isolate specific Protestant theological claims these are clearly the result of the events of the 16th century.

As for “Catholicism,” it depends on how we define it. I would say that “Roman Catholicism” originates with the Council of Trent and thus in some sense postdates Protestantism. But the catch is that Trent did not break radically and deliberately with the Catholicism of the Middle Ages. The Reformers did. Not in every particular, of course. Not perhaps in the things that mattered most. But in things that they explicitly said were of vital importance to the Church.

Edwin
 
Thorwald said:
We tend to equate ‘Protestantism’, with the Protestant Reformation. Protestantism is simply a name given to following the original Word of God as per the O/T and the N/T, without any specific doctrinal ‘add-ons’. In other words, as was preached unto us by Jesus Christ, the disciples, the apostles and the prophets.

Other than a small difference in the number of books included in the KJV Bible versus the RC Bible, they are basically the same. The major differences between the Christian faiths, stem from the doctrines and understanding/interpretation of the Holy Word. Other than this fact, can it not be said that both basic faiths started at the same time? Are they not basically originated from the same Word? 🤷
Click to expand...
Protestantism did originate during the 1500’s in the reformation. Luther and his comrades were “protesting” against the Catholic Church. Where is there mention of protestants anywhere before this period? Where did you get your definition of protestantism? Also, are doctrines important? I believe they are.

No, we can’t say that both faiths basically started at the same time! Catholic Church 33AD and protestantism 1500 years after the fact. Please show me where protestantism started before then. Also, we can’t pick and choose which doctrines we want to believe and then say, “can’t we say that both faiths basically started at the same time”. Not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to drive home the point.
 
Jesus said “Upon this rock, I shall build my Church” and the rock was deemed to be St. Peter the first Pope. Along the way, many popes and kings were tyrants and Martin Luther took issue with the true one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. He led those breakaways and they were unto a new sect that evolve to this day. Why they exist today, not one can tell you really other than the bible thumpers with their silly rhetoric.

The King James version of the bible is bogus by the way!! It’s a shame the way the Martin Luther’s of the world went to work on it. Very sad. Do some research on line as to what went on and the edit of the true book~~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top