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

[Major1]

One good thing is talking to people and makes me go on where did I learn that & why do I believe that? I just don't want to create a religion and God that fits my short comings?

Good point. IMO we must be in a position where by what we believe is that God created man and not that man created God.

That is why I for one place so much authority on the Bible and NOT on the traditions of man.

I would ask any Catholic believer to provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

 

[Major1]

If you ask the Orthodox you get a very different answer Scripture trumps tradition. There are Traditions handed down out side of scripture and if you want a book on it it is written down in the
THE DIDACHE

The Church Fathers. The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection: 3 Series, 37 Volumes, 65 Authors, 1,000 Books, 18,000 Chapters, 16 Million Words (Kindle Locations 32-33). Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.

You can also get the books if not the kindle version, but clear several shelves off for all of them.

The scriptures came from the Orthodox church and it is the guardian of them.

I can sum up the differences in the denominations. In Orthodox, you have unity and freedom in the same church. The Roman church schism and put unity above or at the cost of freedom. The Reformation happened and put freedom above or at the cost of unity. Only in the original do you get both and it not something that can be proven, it has to be experienced and to do that you have to go all in an experience the Orthodox church.

If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?

 

[Major1]

It has been my personal experience that Man cannot agree on anything. That is why we have wars, countries, division, political parties etc. Yet even within each division there is controversy, disagreement etc.

It is within this context that I can truthfully say there will never be agreement until Man's nature is extinguished and replaced with the incorruptible.

Remember that God did not create denominations - Man did.

Excellent response. No argument from me.

Didn't Cain kill Able over religion????

 

[Major1]

The problem always is in finding agreement on what are the essentials of the faith and what are secondary issues or even adiaphora. It is hard to call people "brothers and sisters in Christ" when they hold to heretical positions on essential doctrines and have revised what the scriptures actually say in order to fit them to their own values, that is, when they promote a false gospel. If they are apostate, then only God knows if they are actually saved Christians at all.

Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John all warned of false teachers and leaders who would spring up in the churches (wolves in sheep's clothing, hired hands, weeds among the wheat crop). Turning a deaf ear to heresy and sinful lifestyles is not the answer. Paul advised teaching the truth, rebuking false teachers, and eventually separating from those who are unbelievers or apostates (2 Cor 6:14-17).

Agreed.

Would you agree that if the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?

 

[marineimaging]

IF you have been on this web site for any length of time you have seen that most of the conversations and debates revolve around the conflict between the Catholic faith and the Protestant faith.

There is constant back and forth banter and in the end the difference is still there.
IT seems that the debates always disintegrate into personal combat and verbal wars with the moderators finally ending the thread and in fact I expect that same thing to happen to this thread.

It seems to me that the conflict comes from our basic human nature in dealing with fundamental disagreements concerning eternal truths. The Protestants understand that the RCC teaches a "work-gospel" that can not save and the Catholic church thinks that Protestants teach a "greasy - grace" gospel that requires nothing more than a simple confession of wrong doing/sin due to the emotional preaching of a man.

However, looking deeper than just that the question must be WHY?
In My Opinion the real rift that ignites the debate is rooted in AUTHORITY!

How anyone answers that question always determines the answers to all the other questions.
I think that every Catholic believer will agree that when it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t anything to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled.

Therefore we have the ROOT of the conflict. Whenever there is a theological discussion when trying to debate a Roman Catholic – reason and Scripture are not the Catholic’s final authority; they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of Roman Catholic Authority.

Because of this, the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one's “private interpretation” of Scripture as against the "official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."

Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their reliance on their TRADITION. But that never satisfies the difference but instead merely pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities to choose their authority and their interpretive skills to understand what that authority teaches in order to determine what they will believe. IMO, Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

A Catholic believer called up the Catholic radio station in Houston the other day and asked the host what scripture supported the following...., (To avoid an argument I won't go into the details because it could have been any of a dozen major issues between Catholic and Protestant teachings but that is not the subject here.) The commentator stated to the effect of, "Well, there is no actual scripture which says that exactly, but, (and he quoted a few scriptures then went on)... so the Church has determined the answer to be...,. and he stated what the Church teaches. She then thanked him and hung up but you could hear the disappointment in her voice. When I am discussing Christian issues the one thing I cannot tolerate is, "Well, what I believe is..." I honestly don't care what someone thinks the word of God says. I will ask, "What scripture says that? What in the WORD of GOD says what you just indicated?" Right there we get into an issue with a persons belief in their own authority to interpret and speak for our Creator. Furthermore, the Bible we use as the reference in our teaching has so much to do with our understanding. There are so many versions which come from different places in the world that it should be no surprise that we can't agree. But those who imply that God spoke to them personally AND that the Holy Spirit said something that is a complete contradiction to everything Biblical...? I mean, What makes them think God spoke to them and did so knowing that person was going to bury the truth or do nothing with it? Especially after God had already sent His only begotten Son to do that very thing 2000 years ago AND to do it in such a way as to fulfill every prophecy ever spoken in the Bible - including his crucifixion for the final atonement? Seriously, Jesus took the sins of the world upon his shoulders and came back from the dead and sealed the deed just so you could contradict what He brought in confirming Gods Word? How can one say that this or that stands as Gods intention for mankind when it isn't in scripture but rather, is decided on by men even though it contradicts our Lord? I don't get it.

 

[rdliid]

IF you have been on this web site for any length of time you have seen that most of the conversations and debates revolve around the conflict between the Catholic faith and the Protestant faith.

There is constant back and forth banter and in the end the difference is still there.
IT seems that the debates always disintegrate into personal combat and verbal wars with the moderators finally ending the thread and in fact I expect that same thing to happen to this thread.

It seems to me that the conflict comes from our basic human nature in dealing with fundamental disagreements concerning eternal truths. The Protestants understand that the RCC teaches a "work-gospel" that can not save and the Catholic church thinks that Protestants teach a "greasy - grace" gospel that requires nothing more than a simple confession of wrong doing/sin due to the emotional preaching of a man.

However, looking deeper than just that the question must be WHY?
In My Opinion the real rift that ignites the debate is rooted in AUTHORITY!

How anyone answers that question always determines the answers to all the other questions.
I think that every Catholic believer will agree that when it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t anything to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled.

Therefore we have the ROOT of the conflict. Whenever there is a theological discussion when trying to debate a Roman Catholic – reason and Scripture are not the Catholic’s final authority; they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of Roman Catholic Authority.

Because of this, the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one's “private interpretation” of Scripture as against the "official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."

Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their reliance on their TRADITION. But that never satisfies the difference but instead merely pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities to choose their authority and their interpretive skills to understand what that authority teaches in order to determine what they will believe. IMO, Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

 

[Major1]

Yes, the short answer to "why so much animosity" goes back to why this great church schism happened in the first place. There were important (even vital) reasons for the Reformation. Most of those reasons still remain. Back then there were burnings at the stake and beheadings over these issues. The animosity is far less now. We argue a bit, it is true, but many ecumenical projects have been successful. Just do not expect very many protestants to cross the Tiber or very many Catholics to embrace Luther, Calvin, or Cranmer.

I think that at one time, someone was threatened with execution for saying the earth was round.

 

[Mary7]

Agreed, except I would say “Satan produces disunity, where Scripture is used as the sole source of authority.”

It certainly seems that a lot of people have trouble putting themselves under the authority of someone else. We like to think that we are in charge of our own lives. Nobody likes to be told what to do.

So we have this system that allows us to interpret Scripture however we like, all the while feigning that we have Jesus as our authority while in reality we are our own pope, as you put it..

If the elders at your church don’t go for it, you go to the church next door until you find one that agrees with you. Or you do as many people on this site do, stop going to church altogether and form your own little church of one on the internet, where your interpretation of Scripture is supreme and everyone else is wrong.

I have been Protestant all my life. My recent searching into church history is opening my eyes to several things. I have been fed up with all the thousands of denominations spawned by the Reformation but most especially the tV false teachers and MANY non denom teachers who teach whatever they like with no accountability. Also toss in the cults like JW etc that are a product of the Reformation. And as was said.. if you don't like it just go next door or next door again and again. There are multitudes and all claim to be based on the Bible but actually they are based on their leaders interpretation and also on his traditions.
Having been in a non denom church such as that at one point I decided I would rather have teachers, pastors, priests etc that have to account for what they teach. It is safer. Sheep are way to easily led astray.

Say what you will about the RCC and Orthodox, at least they have steadily .. for the most part.. remained stable but I sure cannot say that about most protestants. I think I would now rather have a pope (and no I don't believe in infallibility) than some crazy tv ministry seeking wealth and teaching heresies. Most would not recognize a heretic if they were talking face to face with one.
Remember also that the Bible was 'put together' under the (Orthodox) Catholic church around 350ish AD and the Nicean Council was formed by Catholic members. There was safety in that.

I also want to point out that as a Protestant, all my life I have heard how evil the RCC is and I just accepted it. I was wrong. My researching into doctrines as well as the early church is something every christian should do. I was shocked to hear that catholics believed you are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ.
They have explained that they do not believe the works of the law save you. I believe personally that if you are truly saved then you will bring forth fruit = good works.. see the book of James. Oh wait!! Luther tried to ban James and Revelation and Hebrews and I think 1 other book.

My apologies to all the Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[Major1]

A Catholic believer called up the Catholic radio station in Houston the other day and asked the host what scripture supported the following...., (To avoid an argument I won't go into the details because it could have been any of a dozen major issues between Catholic and Protestant teachings but that is not the subject here.) The commentator stated to the effect of, "Well, there is no actual scripture which says that exactly, but, (and he quoted a few scriptures then went on)... so the Church has determined the answer to be...,. and he stated what the Church teaches. She then thanked him and hung up but you could hear the disappointment in her voice. When I am discussing Christian issues the one thing I cannot tolerate is, "Well, what I believe is..." I honestly don't care what someone thinks the word of God says. I will ask, "What scripture says that? What in the WORD of GOD says what you just indicated?" Right there we get into an issue with a persons belief in their own authority to interpret and speak for our Creator. Furthermore, the Bible we use as the reference in our teaching has so much to do with our understanding. There are so many versions which come from different places in the world that it should be no surprise that we can't agree. But those who imply that God spoke to them personally but the Spirit said something that is a complete contradiction to everything Biblical...? I mean, What makes them think God spoke to them and did so knowing that person was going to bury the truth or do nothing with it? Especially after God had already sent His only begotten Son to do that very thing 2000 years ago AND to do it in such a way as to fulfill every prophecy ever spoken in the Bible - including his crucifixion for the final atonement? Seriously, Jesus took the sins of the world upon his shoulders and came back from the dead and sealed the deed just so you could contradict what He brought in confirming Gods Word? How can one say that this or that stands as Gods intention for mankind when it isn't in scripture but rather, is decided on by men even though it contradicts our Lord? I don't get it.

You are preaching to the choir my brother.

Do you think that the difference comes down to what God has said in His written Word or what men have said in smoke filled rooms with the door closed?

 

[PollyJetix]

I really think it's because of our historical roots. We would like to deny that our attitudes are shaped by our history... but they are.
When one group outlaws the right of the other to exist, and burns them alive, for daring to think for themselves... I mean, really, the very existence of this forum, with the freedom of thought expressed here, is a testament to the Protestant spirit.

I know, the Catholic church has made statements, and has changed their official stance toward the Protestants... trying to win them back.

But the Catholic stance has always been, "WE are the authority, and if you disagree, you shall be burned--if not in this life, then at least in the one to come!"

And then, they wonder why the animosity.

 

[wilts43]

It's a simple matter of truth and sincerity. The Bible is God's truth, and should be delivered with sincerity because hypocrites will always violate God's truth with the lies of men and hypocrisy invites demons to assist such a damnable scheme (1 Tim. 4:1-2).

The Catholic church fails on both points, and should be regarded by born again, Bible-believing Christians as a threat to Biblical Christianity. What fellowship does light (truth) have with darkness (lies)?

www.becarefulhowyouhear.com

The question is which is the light, & which the darkness?
Jesus did not write a book.
Jesus never told his Apostles "Go and write....."
Jesus the Carpenter never built the printing press so that Protestants could be invented.
The early Christians (Catholics) had no bible.
The Catholic Christian Church existed 300 years with no bible,
The Catholic Church discerned, selected & compiled the Bible circa 400 AD in 4 councils & with several popes ratifications.
Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) is self-defeating as it is nowhere to be found in The Bible.
It is contradicted many times in the NT which refers often to holding "to the traditions" (therefore not only scripture)
The Bible says...."The Pillar & bulwark of truth" is NOT The Bible, but the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
"If I (St. Paul) am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great..." [1 Tim. 15-16]

"Sincerity" is absolutely no guarantor of truth. That must be obvious to all.

The Catholic Church uses scripture exactly as scripture say it should be used
(2 Tim. 3:16) "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
Paul is only referring to the OT here of course
He says "All The old Testament"...."is useful".....
Protestants shred this text as "ONLY The Bible"....."is the sole rule of faith"

The Catholic Church USES SCRIPTURE BECAUSE .....IT "IS USEFUL......"
Protestants abuse scripture; implying that it says it is all-sufficient, all-encompassing & exhaustive.
Sola Scriptura is not only contradicted by scripture it has never existed
Scripture does not speak at all.
The reader speaks. And the reader brings all their baggage with them.
With their baggage, the reader interprets; so we never have Sola Scriptura
The reader reads through the goggles of their tradition.
We all do that....except many Protestants are in denial that they have a "tradition" of interpretation (That is dangerous)
I read scripture in my tradition....which is the tradition of the Catholic Church Christ founded upon Peter & the Apostles. That is the one & only tradition guaranteed by Christ (Matt 16:18 28:20) & consistently referred to in the NT Epistles.
He sent them out to teach. Some wrote some things down on their own initiative.
But it was a living, teaching kingdom, one organism & Church, that he created & guaranteed "The Gates of Hell will never prevail against it" (& yet it is the very premise of Protestantism that Jesus got this wrong! Doh!).
It was the mustard seed that becomes the greatest of trees. And yet Protestants are always trying to recreate the Acorn-Church with their bibles (though the acorn-church didn't have bibles) instead of sheltering under the sweet shade of God's Oak-tree-Church.
How you can see Catholicism as a "threat to Biblical Christianity." is astounding.
They gave us The Bible itself.
If you don't accept the authority of The bishops & popes, I list some of the works used by early Christian-Catholics that they left out of the NT.
You had better compose your own NT to be sure.
If you don't accept their divinely-commissioned authority you must reject The Trinity. It is not biblical. (You can sort of "infer it", but you can infer "the Assumption" as well).
The Trinity is a Catholic Dogma, pure & simple. Why accept it....but not the authority which devised it?
If you reject Catholicism, be consistent.
Go back & compile your own bible.
Go back through all the heresies the Catholic Church condemned (because you cannot trust them).

Some suggestions for your personal NT. (because you don't trust Catholic Bishops Authority)
The Epistle of Barnabas
Shepherd of Hermas
Didache
Gospel of mary Gospel of Thomas
Infancy Gospel of James
Apocalypse of Peter
1 Clement
Lost Epistle to the Corinthians
Third Letter to the Corinthians
The book of Jubilees
Epistle of Barnabas
Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans
2 Clement
Preaching of Peter
Apocalypse of Peter
Gospel According to the Egyptians
Gospel According to the Hebrews

Some early heresies you ought to check out. If you don't trust the Catholic Bishops to have made spirit-guided judgements in the past. Perhaps your "true" Christian ancesteors are here. These are just a few of the early ones. But you obviously can't trust the Catholics to have judged truly......so you have to check all this out ....and you have to check out 45000 Protestant denominations.....because this was Jesus's plan to make it all so horrendously complicated & intellectual that only the most erudite, individuals that lived longer than Methusalah would have a hope of finding the truth.
Me, I trust the Chrch HE founded as the true fold. I follow the Shepherd HE left in his stead.

Adoptionism.
Anomeanism.
Apollinarianism.
Arianism.
Donatism.
Gnosticism.
Macedonianism.
Marcionism.
Modalism.
Monophysitism.
Monothelitism.
Montanism.
Nestorianism.
Novatianism.
Pelagianism.
Priscillianism.
Sabellianism.
Semi-Arianism.
Subordinationism.
Valentinianism.

 

[marineimaging]

You are preaching to the choir my brother.

Do you think that the difference comes down to what God has said in His written Word or what men have said in smoke filled rooms with the door closed?

I sincerely believe that accepting the Word of God as the authority will tell you if you are in the Word, in the Spirit, in the Teaching, in the Grace through Jesus Christ. I have read scripture in an earnest desire to do Gods will, found the answer, and did what it said and the outcome was a miracle. A year later I was searching for God's will, read the Word, followed the Word, and the outcome was a miracle. But guess what, it was the same chapter and verse as the first time but it seemed to read entirely different the second time and the outcome was as good as the first. That is why I tell and believe the Word of God is the Living Word to be applicable in all things, all of the time, every time.

 

[Major1]

I have been Protestant all my life. My recent searching into church history is opening my eyes to several things. I have been fed up with all the thousands of denominations spawned by the Reformation but most especially the tV false teachers and MANY non denom teachers who teach whatever they like with no accountability. Also toss in the cults like JW etc that are a product of the Reformation. And as was said.. if you don't like it just go next door or next door again and again. There are multitudes and all claim to be based on the Bible but actually they are based on their leaders interpretation and also on his traditions.
Having been in a non denom church such as that at one point I decided I would rather have teachers, pastors, priests etc that have to account for what they teach. It is safer. Sheep are way to easily led astray.

Say what you will about the RCC and Orthodox, at least they have steadily .. for the most part.. remained stable but I sure cannot say that about most protestants. I think I would now rather have a pope (and no I don't believe in infallibility) than some crazy tv ministry seeking wealth and teaching heresies. Most would not recognize a heretic if they were talking face to face with one.
Remember also that the Bible was 'put together' under the (Orthodox) Catholic church around 350ish AD and the Nicean Council was formed by Catholic members. There was safety in that.

I also want to point out that as a Protestant, all my life I have heard how evil the RCC is and I just accepted it. I was wrong. My researching into doctrines as well as the early church is something every christian should do. I was shocked to hear that catholics believed you are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ.
They have explained that they do not believe the works of the law save you. I believe personally that if you are truly saved then you will bring forth fruit = good works.. see the book of James. Oh wait!! Luther tried to ban James and Revelation and Hebrews and I think 1 other book.

My apologies to all the Catholics and Orthodox.

I for one will not argue what you believe. If what you have stated is what you believe then may the Lord bless you.

I would however point out to you that your comment of " I was shocked to hear that Catholics believed you are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ" is actually incorrect according to the Roman Cathoic productions.

The Roman Catholic Church itself says it believes in salvation by grace alone. However, their “grace” is not the free gift of Christianity but can only be received by the individual in partial installments dispensed through the “magesterium” of the RCC *
(see Catholic Doctrinal Guide for definition).

The RCC says it believes in salvation through faith alone - but adds works to that.
It says it believes in salvation through Christ alone - but adds, among other things, membership in the Catholic Church, a belief that water baptism, even of infants, is what constitutes being born-again, and unbiblical beliefs about Mary.

You are free to accept what you choose to believe, I just hope that you have correctly understood what it is you are saying.

 

[rdliid]

I would like to make a few disjointed comments. First, I was raised in the Assemblies of God but have in my 62 years become a priest in the Anglican tradition. As such, I feel I have seen both sides. They both have a great deal to offer - the "fire in the belly" of the Protestant, Bible believing Christian on the one hand, and the disciplined, liturgical practice of the devout Catholic on the other.

Second, the issue of authority is particularly difficult for Protestant American Christians. Somehow, we have come to equate democracy with Christianity. Christianity is not a democracy. There have been, since apostolic times, those in charge of the church. The ambivalent stance taken by most Protestant denominations has manifested several aberrations that Catholicism has managed to avoid. Jesus said, by their fruits ye shall know them. Protestant churches are struggling with ethical issues such as divorce, homosexuality, immoral life styles, and other practices that are strictly forbidden in the Bible. No one seems to have the final say - or authority to speak what stance one should take. While the Catholic Church is far from perfect, it has managed to manifest a more Biblical morality. Even though individual priests may fall, the Church stands firm in its affirmation of human life, the sanctity of marriage, and correct gender behavior.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

IF you have been on this web site for any length of time you have seen that most of the conversations and debates revolve around the conflict between the Catholic faith and the Protestant faith.

There is constant back and forth banter and in the end the difference is still there.
IT seems that the debates always disintegrate into personal combat and verbal wars with the moderators finally ending the thread and in fact I expect that same thing to happen to this thread.

It seems to me that the conflict comes from our basic human nature in dealing with fundamental disagreements concerning eternal truths. The Protestants understand that the RCC teaches a "work-gospel" that can not save and the Catholic church thinks that Protestants teach a "greasy - grace" gospel that requires nothing more than a simple confession of wrong doing/sin due to the emotional preaching of a man.

However, looking deeper than just that the question must be WHY?
In My Opinion the real rift that ignites the debate is rooted in AUTHORITY!

How anyone answers that question always determines the answers to all the other questions.
I think that every Catholic believer will agree that when it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t anything to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled.

Therefore we have the ROOT of the conflict. Whenever there is a theological discussion when trying to debate a Roman Catholic – reason and Scripture are not the Catholic’s final authority; they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of Roman Catholic Authority.

Because of this, the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one's “private interpretation” of Scripture as against the "official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."

Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their reliance on their TRADITION. But that never satisfies the difference but instead merely pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities to choose their authority and their interpretive skills to understand what that authority teaches in order to determine what they will believe. IMO, Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

Every interpretation comes from a “place” to the extent that no interpreter can fully avoid the influence of his or her highly complex social situation and cultural and religious context. As we read and study any biblical text, what we perceive and value is inevitably colored by our own background, culture, experiences, personality characteristics, and presuppositions. This principle is an underlying foundation to all biblical (indeed all kinds of) interpretation. I refer the reader to Michael Barram’s article:. “The Bible, Mission, and Social Location: Toward a Missional Hermeneutic,” Interpretation, 43 (2007), p 44.

Humility is always in order. It is impossible for human beings to avoid being biased, so one's perspective of history (as well as the current state of affairs) is always moot, always subject to both unintentional and intentional spin. This happens with our interpretations of scripture... and our interpretations of the interpreters and theologians as well. Even what our most respected leaders have written, including the Pope and top Reformed theologians. There is no getting around our personal interpretation of every speck of information that comes our way… and thus there is no getting around our biases and fallibility. It would be a lot easier if all the leaders of the churches and all the big name theologians agreed, but they have not. And they will not do so on this side of heaven.

The approach with the most integrity is to admit one's biases on the front end and then proceed to back up one’s beliefs with scriptures, facts, reason, and tradition. And then don't expect others to see it your way. : )

 

[Major1]

I sincerely believe that accepting the Word of God as the authority will tell you if you are in the Word, in the Spirit, in the Teaching, in the Grace through Jesus Christ. I have read scripture in an earnest desire to do Gods will, found the answer, and did what it said and the outcome was a miracle. A year later I was searching for God's will, read the Word, followed the Word, and the outcome was a miracle. But guess what, it was the same chapter and verse as the first time but it seemed to read entirely different the second time and the outcome was as good as the first. That is why I tell and believe the Word of God is the Living Word to be applicable in all things, all of the time, every time.

As do I ! Blessings to you and thank you for your testimony!

 

[Major1]

I would like to make a few disjointed comments. First, I was raised in the Assemblies of God but have in my 62 years become a priest in the Anglican tradition. As such, I feel I have seen both sides. They both have a great deal to offer - the "fire in the belly" of the Protestant, Bible believing Christian on the one hand, and the disciplined, liturgical practice of the devout Catholic on the other.

Second, the issue of authority is particularly difficult for Protestant American Christians. Somehow, we have come to equate democracy with Christianity. Christianity is not a democracy. There have been, since apostolic times, those in charge of the church. The ambivalent stance taken by most Protestant denominations has manifested several aberrations that Catholicism has managed to avoid. Jesus said, by their fruits ye shall know them. Protestant churches are struggling with ethical issues such as divorce, homosexuality, immoral life styles, and other practices that are strictly forbidden in the Bible. No one seems to have the final say - or authority to speak what stance one should take. While the Catholic Church is far from perfect, it has managed to manifest a more Biblical morality. Even though individual priests may fall, the Church stands firm in its affirmation of human life, the sanctity of marriage, and correct gender behavior.

I hear you but can not agree with you. I do not know of a Protestant church which struggles with homosexuality or abortion, divorce or the things you suggested.

Those things do happen just as they do everywhere else and have since the beginning of time. Those things are sin and are rejected and preached against and not accepted in any way I know of.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Here is one key, we are quick to claim knowledge of others. Easy to see difference that makes us right vs similarities? Even a ex Baptist or Catholic may tell you what they thought was wrong but could have been misinformed themselves. Like people saying Catholic are full of Man made traditions & fail to recognize where their alter call came from?

So , like traditions so often apparently do continue, even when in error,
those who do continue altar calls in error, yet do not recognize that,
are what? (for calling out others for their error(s), without fixing their own error(s) {whether or not inherited error(s)).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I do not know of a Protestant church which struggles with homosexuality or abortion, divorce or the things you suggested.

Look up the long, long, long list of those that willingly joined the so-called 'ecumenical' movement/world church/.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The only animosity I have ever been aware of has been on the side of the Protestants, towards the Catholics.
... I never heard one word in my Catholic church against the faith of another.

fwiw, anyone who has read any amount of church histories soon finds out. (many, many murders committed by both sides against others, and even against their own !