Catholicism

[Holy Warrior]

OK, first up I want to apologise for insulting anyone, I realise I'm new here and to be honest I don't know if I'll be allowed to get away with this, but it's something I have been thinking about a lot recently. I don't know whether this is the right board for this topic, but it seemed to fit better than the others I've come across. Bear in mind that I'm not in any way a bigot or a catholic hater. I have a number of catholic friends, though i doubt any of us would be particularly comfortable discussing matters of theology with each other. I also know some ex-catholics from church who made the switch due to many of the points below.

Well, to the point, I suppose. How can both the Roman Catholic faith and the Protestant faith(s) be compatible? There are so many non-biblical doctrines in the catholic tradition, such as the assumption and perpetual virginity of Mary, praying to the saints, papal infallibility, Purgatory etc that I just don't understand how both this and Protestant doctrine can be correct.

Take confessions to priests and the related ''hail Mary's'', use of the Rosary, etc. To me, this goes directly against Ephesians 2v8-9:

For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no-one can boast.(NIV)

I suppose it basically comes down to the adoption of non-scriptural doctrine and the subsequent altering/fabrication of scripture to fit. If it's not obvious already, I'm a Bible-believing Christian, and I just don't get how there can be so much God 'neglected' to put in His Word.

As I said, I am not out to bash Catholics, ridicule their beliefs, or try to get one over on them. I merely want to better understand the differences between the two faiths and clear some stuff up in my head.

I realise this has the potential to be a very contentious topic, so I would ask that if you have nothing positive to add to the discussion, please don't waste your time and mine by flaming. I don't needlessly flame anyone else's threads, and all I ask is the same courtesy from you. Feel free to PM me over anything I have said/will say.

Thanks in advance,

Alex

[Phoebe]

Actually, you are welcome to visit the Catholic forum, One Bread, One Body. If you don't wish to debate these topics, you can ask them these same questions. They are willing to explain how they view Scripture.

[Filia Mariae]

Alex,

If you want to understand why Catholics believe as they do, please ask us. You appear to have many of the usual misconceptions about Catholicism, which we are not allowed to explain to you in this forum.

You are most welcome to ask us anything you would like in OBOB. If I wanted to know what you believe, I'd ask you. If you want to know what we believe, please ask us.

In Christ,
Carly

[seebs]

Let me point something out:

BBSs are non-Biblical. Nothing in the Bible describes them.

The question must be not just "is this in the Bible", but "does this contradict the Bible". Even then, whose interpretation shall we accept?

Do I agree with the Catholics? No. So? I don't agree with most Baptists on many issues, and my Presbyterian mother-in-law and I probably disagree on points of theology, too.

It seems to me that you would do well to ask the Catholic members more about what they believe and why.

I don't share many of their conclusions, but I don't know that I think they're any worse than what many of the Protestants I know believe, and I'm sure my errors are going to be just as embarassing when I'm asked to give account of my decisions later.

[JVAC]

Actually the Catholic Faith and some Protestant faiths are pretty similar. Heck there are even some Lutherans that confess to preasts, for the biblical refference check out 1John 1:5-10!!

There are many things in the Cathoic Faith that are quite biblical. Such as the Hail Mary (Ave Maria) prayer in the Rosary, finds its origins from the Evangelist St. Luke 1:42 "And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, 'Blessed art Thou amongst women and blessed is the Fruit of Thy womb" Later on in the Magnificat (Mary's Song) She does say "All nations shall call me blessed".

Everything can get quite fuzzy though. If there are any other questions about relating the two beliefs I think we could relate them, but if you want a statement of belief, as suggested above you might want to post in One Bread One Body (Catholic Forum)

-James

[InquisitorKind]

How can both the Roman Catholic faith and the Protestant faith(s) be compatible?
They can't be. If the Evangelical notion of faith alone is an accurate expression of the Gospel, and Roman Catholicism understands and rejects faith alone (see the Council of Trent), the conclusion is that Roman Catholicism has rejected the Gospel. Different Gospels are incompatible (Galatians 1:6-9).

~Matt

[Holy Warrior]

Thank you all for responding to this post. The general consensus here and from PMs I have received is to stick my head over the parapet and ask in OBOB, so when I get time I'll draw up a list of questions and do just that.

Seebs, it's been my experience that the differences between protestant denominations are relatively minor in comparison to the differences with Catholicism, though of course over here there aren't quite so many of them. I've never (knowingly) met a Lutheran, for example. I can't think of any Lutheran churches in NI, or Edinburgh for that matter.

Inquisitor, that's the view I've tended to take on the issue.
What I'd like to know is if there's anyone who disagrees and would say they are compatible, and how you reached this conclusion.

[Oblio]

If the Evangelical notion of faith alone is an accurate expression ...
the conclusion is that Roman Catholicism has rejected the Gospel


You mean of course:


the conclusion is that Roman Catholicism has rejected the Evangelical notion of the Gospel ;)

[Crazy Liz]

They can't be. If the Evangelical notion of faith alone is an accurate expression of the Gospel, and Roman Catholicism understands and rejects faith alone (see the Council of Trent), the conclusion is that Roman Catholicism has rejected the Gospel. Different Gospels are incompatible (Galatians 1:6-9).

~Matt
Actually, the Roman Catholic Church has distanced itself from this position. See:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

[Acceptance]

it's been my experience that the differences between protestant denominations are relatively minor in comparison to the differences with Catholicism
That's not really true though. Lutherans, Catholics, and Episcopal's are all much closer to each other than they are to say the Christian reformed denomination.

In my neck of the woods, the Lutheran and Catholic churches celebrate Christ together all the time, not a mass or service, but things like choir, bible study, and misc. interactive prayer and fellowship events are all common place.

[InquisitorKind]

You mean of course:
I don't see the point of this comment.

~Matt

[InquisitorKind]

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church has distanced itself from this position. See:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
ECT fails to seriously address the fundamental differences between historic Protestant and Roman Catholic positions on justification. Both camps define some of the concepts stated in the document differently, such as saved "through faith." As R.C. Sproul said on the topic:

"If two parties agree on the wording of a statement but do not mean the same things by the words used, is the agreement a real agreement? If Evangelicals mean one thing when they say justification is through faith and Roman Catholics mean something quite different, then the agreement is not genuine" (Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, R.C. Sproul, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995).

Since the RCC hasn't retracted its position on Trent, and Protestants haven't retracted Sola Fide, the two faiths are still incompatible.

~Matt

[shomethadoor]

Quite right, Inquisitor. For me, as a Protestant, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are non-negotiable essentials. Period.

[Phoebe]

That's not really true though. Lutherans, Catholics, and Episcopal's are all much closer to each other than they are to say the Christian reformed denomination.

In my neck of the woods, the Lutheran and Catholic churches celebrate Christ together all the time, not a mass or service, but things like choir, bible study, and misc. interactive prayer and fellowship events are all common place.This is true. Of course, the Lutheran church you speak of may very well be ELCA and not LCMS. (?) I'm ELCA, and we've had joint services with our Episcopal church. The Lutheran worship style is similar to the Catholic and Episcopal. (sorry, I don't know much about WELS)

Our compatibility lies in who we worship, not always how.

As for 'protestant' differences, we have different views on baptism, communion, ASAS, rapture theory, etc...

We need to be careful how we judge others, because we will be judged in like manner. It's the double edged sword.:prayer: :pray:

[angeljan]

Most protestant sects, believe in Salvation for justification.

The few that dont are religions that have only been around for the last couple of hundred years. The baptist, Born again, the new age groups or sects, etc,. etc.


Lutherans, episcopalians, Methodist, etc. etc. believe in Justification for salvation or the basics of the bible which has been taught for 2000 years. Faith and commandment keeping.

I was Lutheran for 30 years and believed and professed Faith and commandment keeping.


Angel

[Holy Warrior]

As I said, I'm only speaking from my own experience. At home, the main denominations are some form of Presbyterianism, Methodism, Gospel Hall/Brethren types and Catholicism. I've not had much contact with the liturgical traditions.
Church of Ireland (Episcopal) isn't particularly big, though they have a lovely old building our school would use for the carol service. Lutherism, as I said before, is something I've never encountered. I've only ever seen the RC chapel from the outside.

[Jason1646]

I don't see the point of this comment.

~Matt

Yeah, I agree. Try going over to OBOB and correct a Catholic after making a statement like "the Protestants rejected the Church that Jesus established" and see how long it takes before you get a PM telling you that it was a violation of the rules.

Shame on you Oblio, aren't you a moderator?

~Jason

[ej]

As I said, I'm only speaking from my own experience. At home, the main denominations are some form of Presbyterianism, Methodism, Gospel Hall/Brethren types and Catholicism. I've not had much contact with the liturgical traditions.
Church of Ireland (Episcopal) isn't particularly big, though they have a lovely old building our school would use for the carol service. Lutherism, as I said before, is something I've never encountered. I've only ever seen the RC chapel from the outside.
PM me... I may have a deal to strike with you ;)

[Sola Gratia]

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church has distanced itself from this position. See:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

You link does not work. But I differ with your assessment that there is a change from the stand of Trent. Trent, and its findings has never been removed from the doctrinal stand of the Catholic church.


Within the last few years there was a meeting of Protestants and Catholics together to discuss evangelization in America .

Much of the Evangelical community have rebuked the paper because of the compromise made by the "evangelicals " to replace the phrase of "faith alone" to simply "faith" for the Catholics.

Those are two very different positions.

The cry of the reformation Sola Fide . It is not Faith + anything . It is not Faith and good works or Faith and church attendance or Faith and the sacraments. or Faith and baptism .

It is faith and Faith alone

[angeljan]

Faith alone, its what we do with this faith of ours that makes one a follower of God or just a hearer of the word.


There is a difference.

[Oblio]

Yeah, I agree. Try going over to OBOB and correct a Catholic after making a statement like "the Protestants rejected the Church that Jesus established" and see how long it takes before you get a PM telling you that it was a violation of the rules.

Shame on you Oblio, aren't you a moderator?

~Jason

It (the post I commented on) was an insinuation that Catholics preach another Gospel, and in itself was worthy of being reported, rather than that I simply pointed out that it was the opinion of certain Protestants that this was the case and not necessarily fact. I have no desire to correct your opinion which you are certainly entitled to as long as it is stated as such.

[Jason1646]

It (the post I commented on) was an insinuation that Catholics preach another Gospel, and in itself was worthy of being reported, rather than that I simply pointed out that it was the opinion of certain Protestants that this was the case and not necessarily fact. I have no desire to correct your opinion which you are certainly entitled to as long as it is stated as such.
This is a great example of double-standards arising from when ones own presuppositions get in the way of any meaningful dialogue. Given your post, anything that is not 'necessarily' fact should be stated as 'opinion'. Well, isn't your very denial that Catholics preach a different Gospel begging the question and simply your opinion? What you consider to be 'fact' is only that which accords with your position, and anything else is automatically differentiated as opinion. If someone defines preaching the Gospel as preaching faith as the alone instrument by which sinners are justified (which is not my personal opinion of what preaching the Gospel is, by the way), then guess what, Catholicism does not preach the Gospel given that definition. But you can't see past your own presuppositions to even permit Protestants to provide their own definition of what is preaching the Gospel in their own forum and let it alone! I think it would be an interesting exercise to read through your own posts and see if you have placed such qualifiers as "the Orthodox notion of (X)" when referring to Orthodox dogmas that Protestants deny in order to indicate that it is merely your opinion of (X), and not necessarily fact. Hmmm, what would we find? http://www.fccmerrnh.org/images/scratch1.gif

~Jason

[InquisitorKind]

It (the post I commented on) was an insinuation that Catholics preach another Gospel, and in itself was worthy of being reported, rather than that I simply pointed out that it was the opinion of certain Protestants that this was the case and not necessarily fact. I have no desire to correct your opinion which you are certainly entitled to as long as it is stated as such.

I don't understand why what I posted was "worthy of being reported." Aren't you the person I dialogued with on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? You stated that denying it detracts from the Gospel, insinuating that Protestants detract from the Gospel. You certainly didn't say it was your opinion.

Could you please tell me where the rules state I cannot say something in a way that demonstrates I believe it's fact? I understand the rules about flaming, and calling all Catholics non-Christian, etc., but unless I have done that with my comments (which I haven't even come close), where is the rule violation in saying that Roman Catholicism, or any group, such as the Mormons, preaches a false Gospel?

~Matt

[RhetorTheo]

If Catholics and Mormons (or Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) disagree on doctrine, is it acceptable to say that they worship "different gods"? If so, then why don't Catholics and Protestants worship "different gods"? At what point does a disagreement on doctrine become "different gods"?

[Oblio]

where is the rule violation in saying that Roman Catholicism, or any group, such as the Mormons, preaches a false Gospel?



This includes implied accusations that another member is not a Christian.

[RhetorTheo]

If one religious group teaches that non-Christians cannot be saved, but only those who believe in Jesus (+/- other things), and another religious group teaches that all who follow God to the best of their knowledge and ability will be saved, are these the same gospel? TIA.

[RhetorTheo]

where is the rule violation in saying that Roman Catholicism, or any group, such as the Mormons, preaches a false Gospel?

No Troll Rule: This includes implied accusations that another member is not a Christian.

Doesn't this entire site, by its very rules, make implicit and explicit accusations that some members are not Christian (eg, Mormons)? Perhaps it would be better to say that it's a violation to post opinions that disagree with the opinions of the moderator in charge of that particular forum?

[Oblio]

Sorry, that should have been the No Flame rule

[Lotar]

That's because Mormons are not Christian. If you don't hold to the creeds, your not Christian.

In some respects, Orthodox and Catholics do teach a different Gospel. That's not saying that they aren't Christian, just that they are very very wrong in certian areas.

Oblio,
I find it supprising that you of all people are the one pressing this. There are many posts in TAW, by you and others, that we find offensive and imply that we are not Christian.

[Jason1646]

This assumes that when we claim someone preaches a false Gospel they can't be Christians, which Matt never claimed, and nor would I.

~Jason

[Bastoune]

The Catholic view is faith cannot be alone... after all, when one is born again, one can't NOT have "faith alone"... if one does not do good works, is one really born again?!?

[Lotar]

The Catholic view is that works are required for justification, which is wrong. Justification comes from faith alone, works are only a result of that faith.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

How do all of you think that the book of James comes into this discussion? He claims that faith without works is not faith at all.

[A. believer]

How do all of you think that the book of James comes into this discussion? He claims that faith without works is not faith at all.I'd say that you hit the nail on the head in regard to James. James doesn't contradict justification through faith alone. He contradicts the idea that a mere profession of faith is equivalent to justifying faith. (::waits for someone to pipe in with 2:24:: )

[RhetorTheo]

Did the early Church claim that those who disagreed with their views (eg, the Nicene Creed, requirements for salvation, etc.) are not Christians, or just that those who disagree with their views are holding false views? TIA.

[Lotar]

If it were possible to have true faith that does not produce the works that flow from it, then it would be possible for someone to be saved without having any works. This is not possible though, since works cannot be seperated from faith, nor faith from works because a true saving faith will produce works. That does not mean that those works have a bearing upon salvation.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

I'd say that you hit the nail on the head in regard to James. James doesn't contradict justification through faith alone. He contradicts the idea that a mere profession of faith is equivalent to justifying faith. (::waits for someone to pipe in with 2:24:: )

Therefore, I do not believe it to be presumptuous to say then that the Catholic belief has the egg before the chicken. Faith cannot be without works, but it is faith that stirs the believer to perform works.

[Lotar]

Did the early Church claim that those who disagreed with their views (eg, the Nicene Creed, requirements for salvation, etc.) are not Christians, or just that those who disagree with their views are holding false views? TIA.
The early church held that those who did not hold the Nicene Creed were not Christian. One of the points of the creed is to define what is Christian. You can buy and read the works of the early Church yourself if you wish.

[RhetorTheo]

Lotar, so a Catholic (for example) who has a fuzzy understanding of the trinity and believes in modalism - or perhaps has no real opinion at all as to the interworkings of the trinity - is not a Christian?

Also, is the converse true? That is, is everyone who believes the Nicene Creed a Christian? TIA

[Oblio]

The Catholic view is that works are required for justification ...


Is your premise true ?

[Lotar]

Is your premise true ?
Yes, though may not have been stated clearly. Catholics believe faith is required as well.

[Lotar]

Lotar, so a Catholic (for example) who has a fuzzy understanding of the trinity and believes in modalism - or perhaps has no real opinion at all as to the interworkings of the trinity - is not a Christian?

Also, is the converse true? That is, is everyone who believes the Nicene Creed a Christian? TIA
I do not know how much slack God cuts us for ignorance. As far as I know, a modalist is not a Christian, but in the end it is God who decides, not me.

Everyone who believes all 3 creeds is a Christian.

[RhetorTheo]

"You believe in the gospel. That is well and good, but even the demons believe, and they tremble! But faith without works is dead." What does this mean?

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

"You believe in the gospel. That is well and good, but even the demons believe, and they tremble! But faith without works is dead." What does this mean?

That your faith is evidenced by your works. In more detail, I think that it is saying that someone who has truly come to the knowledge of Christ and salvation will turn from their ways and WANT to perform works.

[RhetorTheo]

Are you saying that "faith" or "belief" is more than mere belief (which the demons have), but also a desire to do what is right, regardless of whether the faith is actually acted upon? The difference between a demon who believes in Jesus, but does not accept him as his Lord/master, and a person who not only believes in Jesus but accepts Him as his Lord (even if he occasionally disobeys)?

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Are you saying that "faith" or "belief" is more than mere belief (which the demons have), but also a desire to do what is right, regardless of whether the faith is actually acted upon?

The faith I speak of is of one who is saved and has more than the rudimentary belief in God that the demons have. This type of faith should make the person want to do what is good. If works are done because of faith, then that faith is acted upon. That is how I read James. Please, someone do correct me if I am in error.

[A. believer]

Is your premise true ?
He may not have thoroughly qualified his statement, but it's certainly true. Roman Catholics make a distinction between "initial justification" in which only faith is required and an increase in justification in which works are also required. Lotar's reference is to the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification which makes works part of the basis by which God accepts us. Although with a reference to "initial justification," one could say that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that only faith is required for justification, and that, too, would be a true statement. But that doesn't mean that Lotar's statement is not true. Only that he the qualification that made it true wasn't stated. So my question is, if a Roman Catholic said, "Catholic teaching is that works are not required for justification," without qualifying his use of the word justification as "initial justification," would you infer the same dishonesty you seem to be inferring from Lotar's statement?

[Oblio]

Fair enough, I just wondered if indeed that was what they believed (though I would like confirmation from a Catholic) . As we often see on these boards, the beliefs of others are misrepresented and then attacked, sometimes willfully, other times innocently.

[de Unamuno]

Obviously the Catholic view of "Faith + Works" creates some issues in regards to salvation and justification, at least in the mind of the Protestant. For those of us new to Christ, can one of our Protestant brothers explain the real issue, in your mind, behind a faith that requires works (physical, outward manifestation of the Holy Spirit) to be saved? Why is this a problem? In what (hypothetical or real) situations would this impact one's relationship with God? Feel free to provide some historical background, or whatever else you think might help explain. I understand the biblical citations (seemingly supporting both sides), but I'm fuzzy on the theological implications.

I'm not attacking here. I'm sincerely interested at getting at the root of a common Protestant point that just has not been explained to me before.

In Him,

[InquisitorKind]

...
Jason accurately expressed my sentiments. Just because a denomination "officially" teaches a false Gospel doesn't mean that the people who claim to be in communion with that denomination cannot be or are not saved--considered Christian.

Since it's your opinion that I've insinuated (or, perhaps, directly proposed) that Roman Catholics aren't Christian, could you please demonstrate, from what I've written, that I believe this? You've also implied that I've violated the rules. Could you please explain where I have done this, more than just citing the possible rule violation?

Passing judgment on the orthodoxy of a professed doctrine isn't the same as passing judgment on those who claim to adhere to it.

~Matt

[RhetorTheo]

Unamuno, it's important whether salvation is "once-saved-always-saved," or if you can lose your salvation by sinning a single time without repenting before you die, or something in between - no?

[Oblio]

Could you please explain where I have done this, more than just citing the possible rule violation?


You stated that


the conclusion is that Roman Catholicism has rejected the Gospel.


So you are saying that those that reject The Gospel (Catholics) are Christians ?
Or are you saying that Catholics do not adhere to their faith as you have defined it ?

[II Paradox II]

Fair enough, I just wondered if indeed that was what they believed (though I would like confirmation from a Catholic) . As we often see on these boards, the beliefs of others are misrepresented and then attacked, sometimes willfully, other times innocently. This article by James Akin is pretty good at explaining the catholic position:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/justcath.htm (http://%0Ahttp://www.cin.org/users/james/files/justcath.htm)

One more article as well. This has the respsones of 4 catholic and protestant leaders on the Joint declaration on justification. An interesting read, even if fairly short:

http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/12-25-99/cover_2.asp

ken

[InquisitorKind]

So you are saying that those that reject The Gospel (Catholics) are Christians ?
Or are you saying that Catholics do not adhere to their faith as you have defined it ?
Neither option is an accurate representation of my view. In short:

The official documents of Roman Catholicism preach a false Gospel. However, I believe that many people who call themselves "Roman Catholic" will be saved, inspite of the official teachings of their denomination.

I don't know how the terms are used around here, but I have always understood the terms Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, as opposed to Roman Catholic and Protestant, to refer to their respective religious movements and primary leaders, not specifically the nature of the people that adhere to them.

As I stated previously:

Passing judgment on the orthodoxy of a professed doctrine isn't the same as passing judgment on those who claim to adhere to it.

~Matt

[Oblio]

The official documents of Roman Catholicism preach a false Gospel. However, I believe that many people who call themselves "Roman Catholic" will be saved, inspite of the official teachings of their denomination.


So are you saying that those that are faithful to the teachings of Catholicism (which rejects the Gospel in your opinion) are, or are not, Christians ?

[InnerPhyre]

I just wanted to ask what you all thought about Orthodoxy, and conservative Lutheranism, since their beliefs are very similar to Catholicism. Anyone?

[Filia Mariae]

So are you saying that those that are faithful to the teachings of Catholicism (which rejects the Gospel in your opinion) are, or are not, Christians ?


I'd also appreciate it if Matt would clarify himself on this point.

[de Unamuno]

Unamuno, it's important whether salvation is "once-saved-always-saved," or if you can lose your salvation by sinning a single time without repenting before you die, or something in between - no?

So the idea is that a Protestant who accepts Christ is forever one with Him... nothing can separate that person with Christ, no matter what that person does. This opposed to the Catholic doctrine that once we are one with Him (baptized) then we must constantly reconcile ourselves with him (Confession) as we continue to sin (in minor and major ways), even following that baptism.

Ok, so if Catholics were right, this would imply that a Protestant may, in fact, not be in Communion with Christ (assuming any number of sins that can be committed during a lifetime after baptism), yet he/she still assumes that he/she is in communion. Ok, so I see why this is a problem. ;)

So, what if I accept Christ as a Protestant, but I commit a grievous sin... say, knowlingly and maliciously kill someone. Surely that happens? Am I still saved?

And what if I think I accept Christ, but somewhere down the line I separate from him... renounce him and go worship Zeus and his crew. e.g. Some folks on CF have spilt and become atheists. Is this a situation where I was never really saved?

These are at least problems I can see with OSAS. Do you see similar issues with the Catholic doctrine?

[InquisitorKind]

So are you saying that those that are faithful to the teachings of Catholicism (which rejects the Gospel in your opinion) are, or are not, Christians ?
If you answer this question first, I will be more inclined to answer yours (since I don't know how much clearer my position on this subject, or its ends, can get):

If someone is faithfulto the teachings of Mormonism (which rejects the Gospel in your opinion--and if it doesn't, simply substitute any group which you think proclaims a false Gospel), are they, or are they not Christians?

I hope you understand why it's necessary for me to ask this.

~Matt

[Oblio]

I'd also appreciate it if Matt would clarify himself on this point.


I think we have our answer ;)

[RhetorTheo]

Some "Christian" groups I was a member of taught that if you sinned a single time before death without repenting, you went straight to hell (United Pentecostals). Other Christian groups taught me OSAS (Baptists). Others taught things in between.

The OSAS that I knew (and encountered on the BaptistBoard) would say that if you later left Christianity, you never were saved. Thus, someone like Dan Barker who was a minister and (believed he was) a born-again Christian for decades was actually never a Christian at all. (While this solves the problem a saved person being a worshipper of Zeus, it puts everyone's salvation in question, as nobody knows what we will/would do forty years from now. For example, if Dan Barker had been hit by a bus before he lost his faith and became an atheist, there would never have been any reason for Barker or anyone else to question his salvation . . . yet the Baptists would say that he was never saved.)

[RhetorTheo]

If you answer this question first, I will be more inclined to answer yours (since I don't know how much clearer my position on this subject, or its ends, can get):

If someone is faithful to the teachings of Mormonism (which rejects the Gospel in your opinion--and if it doesn't, simply substitute any group which you think proclaims a false Gospel), are they, or are they not Christians?

I hope you understand why it's necessary for me to ask this.

~Matt

I think you just proved his point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that while a "Catholic" who shares the beliefs of the Baptists (for example) can be a Christian - and thus you don't say that all "Catholics" are not Christian - you believe that Catholicism is not Christian, and thus a person who believes in Catholicism is not Christian. In other words, it appears you believe that Catholics as Catholics are not Christians, but a Catholic in name only might be a Christian. That's the only conclusion I can make from your treatment of Catholicism equally with Mormonism. Whether you are right or wrong in that conclusion, either stating or implying that can get you reported.

[good4u]

Holy Warrior,

There are many things in common with our Catholic brothers and sisters. I particpate in a Bible Study with over 58 church affliations and that includes Catholics. But these are individual Catholics who take Bible Study very seriously and in that, we have commonality. They are not so steeped in the confusion of "tradition." I find I have more of a bond with those Catholics than most other traditional Catholics.

Nonetheless, the differences are significant, especially when one does not understand the clear teaching of the Bible regarding the issue of justification. As you rightly point out Ephesians 2:8-9 is crystal clear and there is no way around it. None. It will always be God's work alone. Man has no part in salvation. Other than to receive what God has done in the total sufficiency of Christ. This is a the basis for the reformation and there will be no going back -- ever.

[de Unamuno]

Interesting paradox, RoleTroll. I suppose both Catholics and Protestants can back up their claims in scripture... but it is vague enough to at least imply two paths 1) the "cover-your-a**" philosophy of Catholics, but certainly more difficult, or 2) a riskier(?), but non-conditional road followed by many Protestants. If I'm following you, some Protestants may agree with Faith + Works (to one degree or another), whereas others dismiss it completely.

What did people believe in the years before the Bible? There were hundreds of books and letters that never made it into the Bible that people widely circulated around that time. If justification is claimed through scripture, how the heck did they make any sense of all the information floating around?? (maybe rhetorical unless someone thinks they have an answer)

For any Protestants wondering how on Earth Catholics can keep up with such "legalism", I would say that attending regular Confession is simply a spiritual choice. Most atheists can't understand the feeling of the Holy Spirit, so this message is lost on them. But for Christians, standing in confessional line with a bunch of sinners... you can't help but smile at the humility and love! I've seen some Protestant denominations that put on a good front, never really looking themselves in the mirror. All I know is that all of Satan's constant whisperings and accusations fall silent once you walk out of that booth. Too bad more Christians can't/won't take advantage of it, but I suppose they find food in other ways :)

[Phoebe]

Obviously the Catholic view of "Faith + Works" creates some issues in regards to salvation and justification, at least in the mind of the Protestant. For those of us new to Christ, can one of our Protestant brothers explain the real issue, in your mind, behind a faith that requires works (physical, outward manifestation of the Holy Spirit) to be saved? Why is this a problem? In what (hypothetical or real) situations would this impact one's relationship with God? Feel free to provide some historical background, or whatever else you think might help explain. I understand the biblical citations (seemingly supporting both sides), but I'm fuzzy on the theological implications.

I'm not attacking here. I'm sincerely interested at getting at the root of a common Protestant point that just has not been explained to me before.

In Him,
I will attempt to answer this, at least partially. I think it is felt by many protestants that when we focus on the work, we are not focused on the faith behind the work. Its the work that becomes a tradition.

"For when faith dies, and the word of faith is dumb, works soon take its place, and the tradition of works." -Martin Luther

[Oblio]

Luther apears to be saying that this is after faith dies. If that is the case, then does his statement apply to those who practice works through faith ?

[Filia Mariae]

There are many things in common with our Catholic brothers and sisters. I particpate in a Bible Study with over 58 church affliations and that includes Catholics. But these are individual Catholics who take Bible Study very seriously and in that, we have commonality. They are not so steeped in the confusion of "tradition." I find I have more of a bond with those Catholics than most other traditional Catholics.


I am not debating but would just like to clarify that Catholic teaching stresses the importance of Scripture, and any Catholic in good standing places heavy emphasis on them.

The Catholic Church teaches the importance of serious Bible study. To believe otherwise is erroneous.

Please see what the Church herself says on this matter:



104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God". 67 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=104&FNoteNum=67) "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them." 68 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=104&FNoteNum=68)

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." 72 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=107&FNoteNum=72)

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture." 111 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=132&FNoteNum=111)

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. 112 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=133&FNoteNum=112)

In short, a Catholic who does not take Scripture study seriously is not a good Catholic.

[Filia Mariae]

Is IDD back open?