The quiet despair of Protestants

[fhansen]

Will do. I will first admit that I am no expert on Roman Catholic theology. There are plenty of people who are much smarter than I am on those topics. I try to be as respectful as I can with my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters (both literally and figuratively), which is why I try to use Catholic approved sources. Usually, my issue is not with Catholic Doctrine. It is when I am having a discussion with a Catholic who doesn't understand what the official Catholic doctrines are. Although, there are times when I have the misunderstanding. I think if more protestants actually took the time to understand the official positions of the Vatican and not the confused opinions of the laity, they would discover that the Roman Catholic Church is not as far off as they expected. Just my opinion though.

Thanks, I appreciate that. It can be fun to hate the CC too tho! She makes for a very big target and there's lots of pop-mythology out there. Plus her members have shown anywhere from the highest levels of love and spirituality to the more selfish and "fleshier" side of humanity down through history.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

@fhansen It is one of the reasons why I am non-denominational. I just can't get into the whole Protestant vs Catholic rubbish.

Edit: In fact, I still enjoy going to a traditional Catholic Mass every now and then. Although, I cannot partake in the Eucharist, there is a beauty about it that is unlike any other.

 

[fhansen]

@fhansen It is one of the reasons why I am non-denominational. I just can't get into the whole Protestant vs Catholic rubbish.

Edit: In fact, I still enjoy going to a traditional Catholic Mass every now and then. Although, I cannot partake in the Eucharist, there is a beauty about it that is unlike any other.

Probably smart to stay out of it as best you can.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Probably smart to stay out of it as best you can.

Yeah...but the Catholics have better donuts. I will give them that.

 

[fhansen]

Yeah...but the Catholics have better donuts. I will give them that.

True enough-can't disagree. And to be honest that was my main reason for returning to the CC.

 

[zippy2006]

True enough-can't disagree. And to be honest that was my main reason for returning to the CC.

Actually our doughnuts don't come close to comparing to the mega-church doughnuts. One time the orders got mixed up. ...Heaven on earth!

 

[Major1]

[I know this is somewhat of a long post, so I have a request to make for those of you who will skim it: If you only read 1 paragraph, read the one I've bolded. Thank you, and may God's blessings be ever in your soul!]

Since coming to college, I've gotten very involved in the Christian Campus House (CCH). Due to the demographic of the area, most of the people I know are Protestant. I've been involved in small groups with CCH for 2 years now, talked a lot with a lot of my Protestant friends, and occasionally they say something that should be deeply worrying to all Christians: They believe that we don't have a Biblical truth. We often discuss many theological issues, like the dispute of faith-alone or faith-and-works, where a thoroughly Biblical argument can be made for both. In my small group now, we're reading through Romans, and various verses point in either direction.

But it's very unsettling to hear how so many decently devout Christians so readily accept the idea that we just don't know how to settle issues like faith-alone or faith-and-works. We all believe the Bible has the truth; Catholics, non-denominationals, Orthodox, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, even the Christians often thought to be unbiblical are fierce in reverence to Holy Scripture holding the truth. But interpretations within Scripture vary wildly, and far too many Christians say that we'll never know how to settle theological issues, because everyone's interpretation of the Bible is different.

In some ways, this is correct. Sermons have applied Scripture to various parts of life for 2,000 years now, and applying a given verse or idea to various circumstances can yield different results. This is the flexibility of Scripture.

But to say there is no theological truth seems like a contradiction to the nature of God!

Jesus is the truth; no one here will deny that. But does the truth say that we are saved by faith alone (believe in me and be saved), or by faith and works (all will be judged according to their works)?

God knows the Bible was written by many different authors to different audiences from different time periods. He knows that the Bible can be hard to interpret. He also sent us the gift of the Holy Spirit to help us out. And as long as He's forming a Church, it's only logical that He would grant His Church guidance by the Holy Spirit to lead people to the truth.

And, as convert John Henry Newman noted, there's only 1 church that even claims to have guidance from the Holy Spirit: The Catholic Church.

The infallibility of the Papacy is vital to preserving the truth, and the framework for it is laid out in the Bible. Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers

While we all have the Holy Spirit guiding us, we're imperfect in accepting it. Much of these forums would not exist if we all accepted the Spirit enough to be led to the truth, because these arguments wouldn't exist. Throughout the Old Testament, it can be said that the Prophets have infallibility. The Bible itself is believed to be true because of inspiration from the Holy Spirit. So it would logically follow that God would grant the modern Church infallibility on theological & moral issues!

And I'll state it again: Everything the Catholic church teaches is thoroughly Biblical. Getting into the apologetics for this would be far too long, but Dave Armstrong has a number of writings on the topic, after he converted from Evangelical Protestantism after doing an in-depth Bible study to disprove Catholicism.

Please remember the Spirit of Gentleness & self-control as you write your responses, and thank you for taking the time to read & think about this critical issue in the Church! May God bless us all, and remind us of our complete & total dependence on Him!

You said and I quote...…………..
"Everything the Catholic church teaches is thoroughly Biblical."

Please remember that YOU asked for what we believe.

The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this biblical?” If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus’ apostles.

That being said I welcome your statement and I am blessed to be able to respond to you in a careful and Christian way.

First of all, The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace.

However, the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith in Eph. 2:8-9, and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation as seen in Eph. 2:10, and 2 Corth. 5:17.; and the fruit of that new life in Christ is read in John 15.

Then of course we all know that The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers in 1 Peter 2:9.

Then there is the Catholic teaching of Sacraments:
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.

What about Confession??? The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God in 1 John 1:9.

Then there is Mary:
The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven.
However, In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture).

Acts 4:12 clearly declares that Jesus is the only redeemer.

1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.

There are many, many more examples that I can list for you if you some desire.
If you want to refute this few I have posted, feel free to do so.

I will only respond to the BIBLE VERSES you post that validate your thinking NOT CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.

 

[Major1]

Thanks for posting this. I don't think you'll get a lot of agreement from most protestants that the RCC teachings are thoroughly Biblical, hence the reformation. Some doctrines are more controversial than others. Select verses are cited as possible support for various doctrines, but there seems to be a lot of stretching of verses or a lot of extrapolation to make a few verses support much larger doctrines or dogmas which are then said to be confirmed thru tradition and papal infallibility. I do hope the subject can be discussed with the gentleness and self control that you request and deserve. I'm sort of confused myself right now and don't really wish to debate.

Actually, it can be discussed very gently and lovingly IF the Catholic believers will simply post the Bible Scriptures which that believe validate their church's teaching.

For example...…..
I would encourage the RCC members to post the Scripture which says that the Bishops/Priests/Pastors can not be married?

Another simple example....
Where in the KJV of the Bible, or even ESV, or Amplified or NIV is the word or the suggestion of a place called PURGATORY?

NOT the RCC teaching or Catechisms, and not the Apocrypha which is NOT in the Bible BUT THE BIBLE verses.

That is what the OP stated one the very 1st page...………….
"Everything the Catholic church teaches is thoroughly Biblical."

So then, instead of arguing/debating what the RCC says or teaches, just list the BIBLE SCRPTURES that validate your position.

 

[W2L]

[I know this is somewhat of a long post, so I have a request to make for those of you who will skim it: If you only read 1 paragraph, read the one I've bolded. Thank you, and may God's blessings be ever in your soul!]

Since coming to college, I've gotten very involved in the Christian Campus House (CCH). Due to the demographic of the area, most of the people I know are Protestant. I've been involved in small groups with CCH for 2 years now, talked a lot with a lot of my Protestant friends, and occasionally they say something that should be deeply worrying to all Christians: They believe that we don't have a Biblical truth. We often discuss many theological issues, like the dispute of faith-alone or faith-and-works, where a thoroughly Biblical argument can be made for both. In my small group now, we're reading through Romans, and various verses point in either direction.

But it's very unsettling to hear how so many decently devout Christians so readily accept the idea that we just don't know how to settle issues like faith-alone or faith-and-works. We all believe the Bible has the truth; Catholics, non-denominationals, Orthodox, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, even the Christians often thought to be unbiblical are fierce in reverence to Holy Scripture holding the truth. But interpretations within Scripture vary wildly, and far too many Christians say that we'll never know how to settle theological issues, because everyone's interpretation of the Bible is different.

In some ways, this is correct. Sermons have applied Scripture to various parts of life for 2,000 years now, and applying a given verse or idea to various circumstances can yield different results. This is the flexibility of Scripture.

But to say there is no theological truth seems like a contradiction to the nature of God!

Jesus is the truth; no one here will deny that. But does the truth say that we are saved by faith alone (believe in me and be saved), or by faith and works (all will be judged according to their works)?

God knows the Bible was written by many different authors to different audiences from different time periods. He knows that the Bible can be hard to interpret. He also sent us the gift of the Holy Spirit to help us out. And as long as He's forming a Church, it's only logical that He would grant His Church guidance by the Holy Spirit to lead people to the truth.

And, as convert John Henry Newman noted, there's only 1 church that even claims to have guidance from the Holy Spirit: The Catholic Church.

The infallibility of the Papacy is vital to preserving the truth, and the framework for it is laid out in the Bible. Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers

While we all have the Holy Spirit guiding us, we're imperfect in accepting it. Much of these forums would not exist if we all accepted the Spirit enough to be led to the truth, because these arguments wouldn't exist. Throughout the Old Testament, it can be said that the Prophets have infallibility. The Bible itself is believed to be true because of inspiration from the Holy Spirit. So it would logically follow that God would grant the modern Church infallibility on theological & moral issues!

And I'll state it again: Everything the Catholic church teaches is thoroughly Biblical. Getting into the apologetics for this would be far too long, but Dave Armstrong has a number of writings on the topic, after he converted from Evangelical Protestantism after doing an in-depth Bible study to disprove Catholicism.

Please remember the Spirit of Gentleness & self-control as you write your responses, and thank you for taking the time to read & think about this critical issue in the Church! May God bless us all, and remind us of our complete & total dependence on Him!

The truth is there, but men have added to it, and caused much division. No the church is not infallible.

 

[redleghunter]

Actually our doughnuts don't come close to comparing to the mega-church doughnuts. One time the orders got mixed up. ...Heaven on earth!

I was invited to a local mega church (I belong to a small church) to view their vacation Bible school. Long story short they had a Starbucks a real no kidding Starbucks on their “campus.”

 

[Albion]

This sort of thing is not all that unusual anymore, although it's not always a Starbucks outlet.

 

[Radagast]

Long story short they had a Starbucks a real no kidding Starbucks on their “campus.”

Given how bad Starbucks coffee is, I find that terribly disappointing.

Not to mention the Matthew 21:12-13 issue.

 

[Major1]

The truth is there, but men have added to it, and caused much division. No the church is not infallible.

That is because ALL churches contain SINNERS.

 

[Major1]

I was invited to a local mega church (I belong to a small church) to view their vacation Bible school. Long story short they had a Starbucks a real no kidding Starbucks on their “campus.”

I can beat that. The local AOG church has a automated Bank machines in it lobby for tithing.

 

[redleghunter]

I can beat that. The local AOG church has a automated Bank machines in it lobby for tithing.

Does it only spit out $100 bills.

 

[Major1]

Does it only spit out $100 bills.

Yes sir. Then you take those down to the "Prophet" and he validates your "Sheath" love offering so that you will get your "1000.00 miracle for God.

 

[Not David]

That is because ALL churches contain SINNERS.

The Bible was written by sinners, does that mean it is not infallible?

 

[Major1]

The Bible was written by sinners, does that mean it is not infallible?

Not so. The Bible was written by men who were under the influence of God Himself.

2 Peter 1:20-21 is the answer...….
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit".

 

[Not David]

Not so. The Bible was written by men who were under the influence of God Himself.

2 Peter 1:20-21 is the answer...….
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit".

The Church can claim the same thing with that verse.

 

[fhansen]

The Church can claim the same thing with that verse.

Yes, and the same Spirit can interpret Scripture, and Tradition for that matter, infallibly for man.