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

[redleghunter]

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

I think Jesus pointed out the Centurion's great faith:


"I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Judging things visible, by what is visible,
is entirely different than Jesus says to judge (righteously, YHWH'S Judgment, things that ARE important, UNseen).

 

[redleghunter]

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

What are the logos biases of the Roman Catholic church?

 

[redleghunter]

No, because only those with ears to hear what the word of God is saying are going to hear it.

Agreed. However, I believe your position is one can only have those 'ears to hear' in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Am I correct?

The false interpretation of a passage of Scripture by an individual flawed human being is not an authority.

A lot of your theology is based on what the Patriarchs and early church fathers wrote. By your statement above I assume you see their writings as infallible? Or only infallible when there is consensus?

 

[Goatee]

John said in his Gospel that there were many things that Jesus preached which, there would not be enough books in the world to contain them!

The Apostles were with Jesus. They heard these teachings.

Obviously they are not compiled in the Bible today.

But, as I believe in Sacred Tradition, I believe that many teachings have been revealed to the church via Sacred Tradition too. God is constantly revealing things to the world.

God, The Holy Spirit, Revelations, do not end when the Bible is closed shut!

Major1 has only started this thread to continue his never ending attack on Catholicism. This is plain to see.

He has picked up scripture and decided to 'go it alone'. To do so is like letting loose a chicken in a pack of wolves! He is very vulnerable indeed.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

The above is very Augustinian.

 

[redleghunter]

To do so is like letting loose a chicken in a pack of wolves!

Hen or Rooster?

I think the Rooster could hold its own.

 

[Goatee]

Agreed. However, I believe your position is one can only have those 'ears to hear' in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Am I correct?



A lot of your theology is based on what the Patriarchs and early church fathers wrote. By your statement above I assume you see their writings as infallible? Or only infallible when there is consensus?

What is a Sola Scripture persons theology based on? What is a non- denoms theology based on?

Individual interpretations of the word of God?

Put a bunch of Sola Sripture people / non-denoms and they will all come up with different interpretations, opinions, views etc on scripture. That is why we have 1,000s of different 'faiths'.

 

[redleghunter]

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".

I think the above sums up your position nicely. It also shows the Pelagian and semi-Pelagianism heresies are still alive. However, you made your point nicely and I too have observed such.

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

Yes your quoting of Romans 10:17 stops at the bolded. Noticed you slipped in "Sacrament."

 

[Major1]

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".



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

-CryptoLutheran

Bless your heart. Really.....With all of the documented differences between the RCC and the Bible, your concern is the Alter call in a Protestant church and that it is an act or WORKS in order to be saved, how it is given or even if one should be given???

To You, that is more important, and overshadows the documented practices of the RCC which are rooted in the minds of men instead of the Word of God. THE ALTER CALL!

Let me ask you a question......When was the 1st Gospel message given in the Bible????

In Geneis we read.........."And the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him.....
Where art thou"?

Now when God gave that message.....do YOU think that He was expecting an answer????

Isn't.........."WHERE YOU" and alter call my dear friend???

When Jesus said to His disciples........."Come and follow me", do YOU think that He was expecting a response?

When God calls men to follow Him, isn't the natural thing to expect a response?????

How then I wonder do men get saved in a Catholic church then. Is it just assumed that every single person in the room is a Christian and there is no need for the question to be asked????

 

[Major1]

I don't twist like you do and I do not only rely on Scripture.

Now that is really funny!!!!

You said..........."I do not only rely on Scripture".

Now you say that like it is a big surprise to all of us! WE ALL KNOW THAT!!!!
That my friend is the root of ALL the discussions between Catholics and Protestants.

Protestants believe the Bible and YOU believe the stories of men.

Lets do this shall we........why don't you post a Scripture where I have twisted it.

 

[Albion]

Keys to the kingdom of heaven. Sounds pretty Popish to me.

That's because this is what you were taught to think of that passage, natch. But if it were so, the church would have had the same impression. Yet the idea of a Papacy didn't develop for centuries.

And, while Peter was addressed this way by Christ, you fail to notice that He did not say anything about "passing along" to other people (!) what you suppose was given to Peter. Even if he were expected to do so, the Roman Catholic Church itself admits that Peter died without having consecrated a successor in Rome.

What's more, Peter was given keys, not a key, meaning that the attempt to link this act of giving to the Old Testament event involving a kind of early prime ministership also falls flat. The language is different.

Stick to the Bible and do not begin by taking at face value any denomination's self-serving twists, and you'll be all right.

 

[Goatee]

Major1.

You are showing yourself up to be only interested in bashing anything Catholic. You have no interest in learning about Catholicism. You don't want to listen to Catholic truth. You just bash, again and again.

This thread is all about you wanting to attack Catholicism.

I don't see Catholics starting threads to bash your beliefs!

 

[Goatee]

Stick to the Bible and do not by taking at face value any denomination's self-serving twists, and you'll be all right.

Exactly. Don't go along with a church, like the Anglican church, who allow openly gay ministers and women priests!

 

[Tayla]

Then you are ignorant of what misunderstanding means versus disagreement. Now go back and answer the questions you ignored or avoided, since these pertain to the real issue.

Sorry, I do not wish to participate in insulting other faith traditions. As long as they are based on the Nicene Creed, the Trinity, and the canon of scripture; I welcome them as Christian brothers and sisters in the Lord.

 

[Major1]

That's because this is what you were taught to think of that passage, natch. But if it were so, the church would have had the same impression. Yet the idea of a Papacy didn't develop for centuries.

And, while Peter was addressed this way by Christ, you fail to notice that He did not say anything about "passing along" to other people (!) what you suppose was given to Peter. Even if he were expected to do so, the Roman Catholic Church itself admits that Peter died without having consecrated a successor in Rome.

What's more, Peter was given keys, not a key, meaning that the attempt to link this act of giving to the Old Testament event involving a kind of early prime ministership also falls flat. The language is different.

Stick to the Bible and do not begin by taking at face value any denomination's self-serving twists, and you'll be all right.

Excellent advice and from my experience with this young man, he will certainly take your advice.

Now remember, He is an attorney so he has the ability to weigh the facts.

 

[Goatee]

Now remember, He is an attorney so he has the ability to weigh the facts.

Unlike mere fishermen?

 

[Albion]

Goatee, why don't you start a new thread on that subject so that I (and others) can set you straight about this issue you seem to want to learn more about? The question here on this thread asks why there is so much animosity between Catholics and Protestants; it does not solicit a stream of examples of the problem!

 

[Tayla]

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.

Sorry, I do not wish to participate in insulting other faith traditions. As long as they are based on the Nicene Creed, the Trinity, and the canon of scripture; I welcome them as Christian brothers and sisters in the Lord.

 

[Goatee]

Goatee, why don't you start a new thread on that subject so that I can (and others) can set you straight about this issue you seem to want to learn more about? The question here on this thread asks why there is so much animosity between Catholics and Protestants; it does not solicit a stream of examples of the problem!

You brought up your view of twisting scripture.