Catholic vs. Protestant – why is there so much animosity?"

[Major1]

Was Jesus preaching when he healed the centurion's servant, or simply going about the business of the Kingdom?

With all due respect, are you kidding?

Did a lost pagan come to faith that day????
Did Jesus come to save the Jews or the Roman army?

Romans 10:17.......
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".

It should be pointed out to you that NOT everything Jesus said was a Sermon, BUT everything that Jesus said was the WORD OF GOD.

John 14:24 .........
"Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me."

Now did God say that?
Can God lie"?

Another thing to consider is that when Jesus preached, He preached Biblically!

 

[Major1]

Jesus directed people to YHWH'S KINGDOM, as also all of YHWH'S WORD does, OT and NT.
The "why-is-there-so-much-animosity.?" title question is because men added to or took away from YHWH'S Word,
thus causing both curses and false teachings when this happened and when this continued. YHWH takes away men's portion in life when they take away from His Word (His Word Says),
and YHWH adds all the curses of Scripture to those men who add to His Word, as His Word Clearly Says.

Agreed. The problem is not so much the "Taking away from the Word of God,'.........
But the ADDING to it.

The Book of Mormon is an ADDITION.
The Sinlessness of Mary is an ADDITION.
The Speaking in tongues as evidence of salvation is an ADDITION.

 

[truefiction1]

Ping me when they do.

Or should you or I be assured the college of Cardinals just so happened to elect four popes from the Medici family?

There's a real problem with self proclaimed authority seen in the ancient churches which was unseen in the NT church.

For the most part the early councils were among peers and deemed ecumenical. Yet when West and East split that was lost. The Eastern Orthodox will make the more ancient claim to the One True Church and point to the Western Church as breaking from tradition. Yet Rome makes the claim the East is in error and out of fellowship of the One True Church.

Off in Protestant land we are now faced with two One True Churches. Your church won't even offer Holy Communion to Roman Catholics. And Protestants and Evangelicals who hold more in common theologically don't refuse the Lord's Supper whether one is Methodist or Reformed.

Please tell me where the greatest divide occurs?

The greatest divide is between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches and the rest of Christendom. This is because of the pernicious "logos bias" (which has always afflicted human nature since the fall) that arose very early and eventually grafted itself into Christendom, beginning in Rome, and worsening in the advent and wake of the protestant reformation. Satan has been using this corruption of our fallen nature as a tool/weapon to wear out the Church through ever increasing disintegration by separation since the beginning.

How well is he doing in this venture so far? How well is the Church faring in her defense against the doctrines that have been born of the logos bias? We are still here, for the time being, so by the grace of the Holy Spirit we rejoice and give thanks.

 

[FireDragon76]

With all due respect, are you kidding?

Did a lost pagan come to faith that day????
Did Jesus come to save the Jews or the Roman army?

Romans 10:17.......
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".

It should be pointed out to you that NOT everything Jesus said was a Sermon, BUT everything that Jesus said was the WORD OF GOD.

John 14:24 .........
"Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me."

Now did God say that?
Can God lie"?

Another thing to consider is that when Jesus preached, He preached Biblically!

Jesus never implied the centurion was lost in the sense many evangelicals talk about.

Jesus merely recognizes the faith of the centurion, a faith that he presumably already had.

 

[truefiction1]

Your statement
"What is not in Scripture is the teaching that Scripture is the highest authority."

Care to retract it?

Matt 4:4

No, because only those with ears to hear what the word of God is saying are going to hear it. The Father gives those ears to hear, by His Word and Spirit. So, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- together One God -- is the highest authority. The false interpretation of a passage of Scripture by an individual flawed human being is not an authority.

 

[redleghunter]

I understand all this. What you don't seem to understand is that my point is, that it is not the Word alone that communicated Truth to the faithful, but the Word Who is being revealed by the Holy Spirit in the heart of a son or daughter of God the Father. Those hear whom I am pointing this out to are dismissing the role of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of each child of God, and are denying that the Holy Spirit is present in the Orthodox Church and is the Author of the expressions of the Church's faith.

No one here, from what I've read, denies that the Father draws souls to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (John 6:44). We know such regeneration is the working of God. So no one I know of is denying the "role of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of each child of God..."

Where there are differences of course is this qualifier "the Orthodox Church...is the Author of the expressions of the Church's faith." I think I already have a couple of posts to you and others where I ask where one can truly find the One True Church of the three claimed (Roman, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox).

I made the error of only mentioning two of the One True Churches and was corrected by @Vicomte13 to include the Oriental Orthodox. So now three One True Churches.

Am I to assume having three One True Churches is something like trying to determine (using an illustration here) the true World Boxing Champion? Whether it be WBC, WBA or the International title?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Agreed. The problem is not so much the "Taking away from the Word of God,'.........
But the ADDING to it.

The Book of Mormon is an ADDITION.
The Sinlessness of Mary is an ADDITION.
The Speaking in tongues as evidence of salvation is an ADDITION.

As I read your post,
I recalled something written about "...... denying the power thereof." in Scripture.
The power to save?
The power to heal?
The power of Truth?
The power of Testimony of Jesus?
The power of LIFE! ?
The power of LIGHT?

and "MY People Perish for LACK of Knowledge" (not at all referring to other religions, apparently) .... and with so many perishing?.... God's Word is always fulfilled....

Where people overcome , as His Word Says, they have LIFE! and LIFE! Abundantly IN JESUS. - continual, daily, righteousness, peace and joy; undiminished by the things of the world (that Jesus Overcame).

 

[truefiction1]

No one here, from what I've read, denies that the Father draws souls to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (John 6:44). We know such regeneration is the working of God. So no one I know of is denying the "role of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of each child of God..."

Where there are differences of course is this qualifier "the Orthodox Church...is the Author of the expressions of the Church's faith." I think I already have a couple of posts to you and others where I ask where one can truly find the One True Church of the three claimed (Roman, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox).

I made the error of only mentioning two of the One True Churches and was corrected by @Vicomte13 to include the Oriental Orthodox. So now three One True Churches.

Am I to assume having three One True Churches is something like trying to determine (using an illustration here) the true World Boxing Champion? Whether it be WBC, WBA or the International title?

Post 367 answers this, if you are aware of the logos bias afflicting all of humanity throughout recorded history and understand how it is expressed in certain Christian doctrines. If you aren't aware and don't understand, then you can't know the real difference between the Orthodox faith and the rest.

 

[truefiction1]

You are correct.

So Joe Sixpack comes to a spiritual cross roads in his life. He sees three churches on the horizon, one Roman Catholic, one Eastern Orthodox and one Oriental Orthodox. He wants to join the One True Church. All claim to be that One True Church. Where does he start stepping out to.

Not a direct question to you but for all to consider.

The Father will lead Joe Sixpack in the way that he is predestined to go, in His providence, by the decree of His Word and power of His Spirit.

On Joe's end of things, he must not cease to search out God in his own heart, and must strive to keep our Lord's commandments at all times.

 

[Major1]

He certainly didn't want division within His own Church.

Whatever you and I think is not important.

Jesus clearly said, that whatever thoughts, or ideas you may have or whatever notions you have entertained, "I" fully affirm, and YOU can depend on it, that I am not come into the world on any such accounts to establish an outward peace among men.

With YOUR Bible open, pleae notice the words of God as He said......"BUT RATHER DIVISION".

I did not say that. You my friend are arguing with God not me.

Jesus is calling the Gospel A SWORD. The Ethiopic versions renders this as .........
"But a sword that I may divide."

Surely what God said is more truthful than what YOU just said. But that is just MY personal opinion.

The Authority I go by is the Written Word of God and it describes the Gospel as the SWORD of the of the Spirit, which divides asunder soul and Spirit, and separates a man from his former principles and practices; and sets men apart from one another, even the nearest relations, at the greatest distance; and is, through the sin of man, the occasion of great contention, discord, and division.

 

[FenderTL5]

Am I to assume having three One True Churches is something like trying to determine (using an illustration here) the true World Boxing Champion? Whether it be WBC, WBA or the International title?

That should be a significantly easier than determining which middle school basketball team is the world champion, given literally the thousands of choices.
[/sarcasm]

 

[JoeP222w]

I agree with you and I thought that, that is pretty much what I articulated. I guess not so well.

I will try to do better.

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood your post.

 

[Major1]

Sadly, this is a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches. They teach, rather, that works are a part of faith. In other words, if you don't have works, you don't have faith, just as James says.

I understand how hard it is to believe something as simple as this but the truth however is that it is Catholic doctrine and NOT my imagination.

Now, does the Roman Catholic Church specifically state that we are "saved by grace and works"? Not that I am aware of and neither do the above Catholic Canons state such a thing. But, when the Roman Catholic Church negates justification by faith alone, it necessarily implies that we must do something for justification; for if it is not by faith alone, then it must be by faith and something.

Catholic Canon 14 says.............
"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema."

 

[Major1]

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood your post.

No problem my friend!!!

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Fair enough then. So I'll ask another question of you, Bible Christian: Since we know that the asking of prayers of saints in heaven, and the veneration of Eastern Orthodox icons is not a practice taught in Scripture, (according to you) would you believe the testimony of a Christian who witnessed a miraculous healing of a person form a medically incurable disease after myrrh that miraculously streams from the surface of a particular icon of the virgin Mary and infant Jesus was dripped upon the sick persons' head, whilst the priests asked Mary to pray for God to heal them?

In this case, the healing by saving faith is clearly linked to the intercessions of Mary, and to the veneration of a myrrh streaming icon of her. Does God grant healing to those who place their faith in intercessory prayers by dead saints and holy oil dripping from icons which they humbly bow or prostrate before and kiss with their lips? What say ye?

No, and this reveals the fallacy of your basis for Truth, for miracles themselves are not determinitive of what is of God: the Egyptian magicians duplicated the first 3 miracles of Moses, thus they could claim this was affirmative of their "gospel." And we are warned of the latter days antiChrist "whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10)

Read "New Age Medicine " ($4.00) by two Christian doctors investigating cases in S. America and you may realize how the devil can do miracles (video ) even claiming to do so in the name of Christ, while even miracles done by Christians with the gift of healing does not necessarily affirm all else they believed.

Thus miracles themselves are not determinitive of what is of God, by as with even the veracity of the apostle's teaching, they are to be tested, and by "affirmation of saving faith and not used as an affirmation of..." I mean saving faith as defined in Scripture, with writing being the God's means of reliable preservation, and as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

In contrast, in Catholicism "The Church" is the supreme judge on what is of God, effectively being above Scripture, thus no contradiction can be allowed as being true, but as in Roman Catholicism what the church says is the supreme law. nor must the veracity of doctrine rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.

So no, your miracles do not affirm PTCBIH anymore than those seen by others of aberrant faith affirm the same, though I cannot exclude God from having regard to the cry for mercy to Him regardless of some of the baggage along side it.

 

[Major1]

I think you are largely correct here and the question of authority (specifically authority of the Pope) is the reason, above all that I rejected RC teaching and proclaim Sola Dios, Sola Soter, Sola Espirito Sancto.

Thank you for the comment.

 

[JacksBratt]

You are correct.

So Joe Sixpack comes to a spiritual cross roads in his life. He sees three churches on the horizon, one Roman Catholic, one Eastern Orthodox and one Oriental Orthodox. He wants to join the One True Church. All claim to be that One True Church. Where does he start stepping out to.

Not a direct question to you but for all to consider.

Joe should try another road.

 

[Major1]

Because we are all the final judges of everything in our own courtroom, any challenge to our fundamental beliefs is, in fact, a direct challenge to our personal decisions, our logic, our intelligence, our wisdom - an attack on us. This evokes animosity, and it's ALWAYS personal. Most people are not honest enough with themselves to admit that, but it is so nevertheless.

Not so. The Lord Jesus Christ will be the final judge of ALL men and we will be judged ..........Wait for it......wait for it..................hear it comes,

John 12:48.....
"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Assertions usually end up like that. Which poster advocated reciting a 'canned' prayer was a requirement of salvation?

I offered it as an example of the kind of "works" usually promoted in modern Protestantism. As for this thread specifically? I don't recall anyone making such a claim; but my point wasn't that anyone said this, but that this is a frequent assertion that exists.

Roman Catholic teaching is condemned as "salvation by works", but the theological position of modern Protestantism, by and large, a system of works; just different sorts of works. The sinner's prayer is treated salvifically, as is the altar call. Sure, peel back the onion layers and ultimately it boils down to "accepting Jesus and confessing Him as your Lord" however that may ultimately be expressed--but that is still a work. The emphasis still resides on the human effort, on the human decision, on the human act of will to accomplish X.

It is precisely this theological formula that results in the idea that one is only saved by believing X, Y, and Z. Because faith has been corrupted from faith to "having certain theological propositions". And/or that salvation is dependent upon particular feelings, experiences. The modern Evangelical emphasis on personal testimony is precisely this thing: one needs to have a "born again experience". I'm not speaking as some outsider here, I'm speaking of what I was taught, what I believed, what was reinforced over and over again not just in one church, but in a multitude of churches and church settings.

Consider these questions:

"Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?"
"If you died tonight, do you know where you would go?"

I remember being taught how to "evangelize", both at my Pentecostal (Foursquare) church as well as the non-denominational (non-charismatic, "Bible-believing"), as well as in the sermons at chapel I heard at my Baptist school, or oh heavens, the lectures, seminars, sermons, teaching sessions at various church camps, youth rallies, Royal Rangers meetings, Christian music festivals, etc. And something drilled and drilled and drilled was that when you are trying to tell someone about Jesus, if they say they are a Christian, you need to ask them when they received Christ, to ask them about when they were born again--and, effectively, if they gave the "wrong" answer (e.g. "I was baptized as a child and raised as a Christian" or "I go to church" etc) then they weren't (or probably weren't) really Christians. Such people were probably "religious" but they did not have "a personal relationship with Jesus" and as such needed to hear about Jesus so they could get saved.

That the theology of Decisionism, that's the theology of personal experience. And it boils down to works, it boils down to saying, thinking, feeling, believing, or doing the right thing(s). One is only saved after X, Y, and Z. "Are you a Christian?" followed by "Jesus died for me" didn't cut it, because what was necessary was something more than what Christ did, what was needed was "But have you accepted Him as your Lord and Savior?" "Have you accepted Him into your life?" "Do you...." The emphasis, the locus, the place of importance is shifted away from Christ, away from His cross to the person, and becomes nothing more than "What have you done?"

This theology can in a sense largely be summed up by the statement by Billy Sunday who said, "if you have done your part (i. e., believe that Christ died in your place, and receive Him as your Saviour and Master) God has done HIS part and imparted to you His own nature".

But don't get me wrong. There are some powerful 'sinners prayers' in the Bible. However, it was not mere recitation on a card of some sort but the outpouring of a manifestly repentant heart seeking God for His salvation. This comes to mind:

Psalms 51, New American Standard Bible (NASB) | Chapter 51 | The Bible App | Bible.com

Now on your point about 'personal experience'....What drew souls to the water in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost? What was the 'personal experience' of the souls who heard the Gospel preached by Peter in Acts 10?

The Holy Spirit creates faith through the means of God's grace: Word and Sacrament. Romans 10:17.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Major1]

Of course there is in your guys mind that is why you bash Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and any that use Holy Tradition.





I am not Catholic. We are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved but we can never presume as evangelicals and some protestants do that we are always saved.

You said...........
"We are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved but we can never presume as evangelicals and some protestants do that we are always saved."

Did you read that before you posted it?????

You just said two diametrically opposed comments in one sentence.

"We are saved, we are being saved and we will be saved...........BUT,
we can never presume as evangelicals and some protestants do that we are always saved."

That makes absolutely no sense in anyway my friend.
That in the south is called giving with one hand and taking it away with the other hand.

Now you have left the thread and gone out on OSAS. Why not start a thread on that I will be glad to join you.