Question to certain 'anti-papist' protestants

[Manco]

I have often seen Protestants lambasting Catholicism as if it was not proper Christianity as several Catholic doctrines are not in the Bible, some even go as far as to call Catholicism satanic.
These same Protestants then turn around and hold the Bible as the unadulterated word of God and are often biblical literalists and have a Sola Scriptura view on religion.

But I wonder, does the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox and other Eastern churches of course) not have its origins in Peter and Paul? And thus is older than the NT, even according to that NT itself?
Is it not that early church that decided* which gospels were to be canon? And consequently the same church some hold as satanic is actually the organisation that canonized their holy books they hold such faith in?
And is the Bible not written by fallible humans? Some then say it was divinely inspired, but it is the writers themselves who say thus, a circular argument then no?

Basically I'm asking how certain Protestant groups justify vilifying Catholicism and its traditions while at the same time putting their complete faith in a book that has been composed and canonized by that very organisation, that everything they know about Christianity has been filtered by 1500 years of catholic influence?
Or do they merely belief the Church became corrupted later on?


(* I use decided in a broad sense, before anyone accuses me of believing the Bible was actually composed at the council of Nicea, and that the church just picked gospels as canonical that matched its views)

[Chaigidel]

its the difference between having a supreme father of your religion ( the pope, the patriarch) and having what protestants call " a personal relationship with god, without need for anyone else"

thats where the poor interpretation of the bible comes from because its laymans minds applied.

basically protestants dont like over arching church leaders, with special dispensation for God proper.

[basics]

" Basically I'm asking how certain Protestant groups justify vilifying Catholicism and its traditions while at the same time putting their complete faith in a book that has been composed and canonized by that very organisation, that everything they know about Christianity has been filtered by 1500 years of catholic influence?"

Manco,

Firstly the word of God, the Bible, is in it's entirety just that, Old and New Testaments, the very word of God ordained by Him to be written and finalised from Genesis to Revelation. For the most what was ordained to be written was by Jewish believers augmented later by one or two Gentiles, because it is to the Jew first that salvation came and still comes.

It is a simple message of communicational means so that God can make what man cannot. In other words by it being the power of God unto salvation it is in those words held that salvation may occur. No other words are necessary, indeed no other words are the power of God to save. So when organisations make words to suit their own needs they step outside the power of God to save.

Salvation is a one to one with God. No church nor priest has any dealings in it. The key or keys is in the message and the message is the Gospel, both Old and New Testaments, for both have the same message. Why the Roman Catholic church and it's cousin the Orthodox make play with external additions when they are not needed is anyone's guess, but the main point is that they follow another gospel, an additional gospel, that is not within Scripture.

Some of Rome's claims are without doubt dubious to say the least and of this I will give some examples. It is said that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. The strange thing about this is that wherever Paul went, even whoever he sent, the first task was to create bishops and or deacons and or elders, all quite interchangeable in the service required of them. So if Peter ever was in Rome it is most likely that a bishop was already in place, since there was a church there and Paul preceded him if not one that he sent.

Secondly, the church or body of Jesus Christ is built on faith, that is faith given to them saved as and when that is done. Conversion comes by conviction and conviction by the Holy Spirit revealing the faults of the sinner to him or herself that because of their nature another had to die in their place so that they might live. They are made aware of how far from God they are and how hopeless their position is relative to God and when that realisation or conviction strikes home, it is God who acts and then their lives are changed.

The Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church and many Protestant churches bypass this by baptising infants under the auspices that they are being converted, born again, and therefore become new creations which is Scripturally wrong and therefore a gospel that is not authenticated by the word of God. Why, because a child cannot be convicted of sin before he or she understands what sin is and why they have it. And then since it is God acting on an individual basis how can any priest assume what only God can do?

And then there is the matter of faith, believing in something already revealed, because without revelation there can be no faith at all. Them that are of faith require no crutches in the form of Mary, crucifixes, rosaries, icons, statues, even bones of dead saints or any other things to sustain what faith dellivers. God dwells in them so none of that matters at all. Faith sees Jesus and only Jesus for it is He that was their Saviour and Him who dealt anything else a blow unworthy of His name. The above are unworthy of His name.

[Buddhababe]

" The Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church and many Protestant churches bypass this by baptising infants under the auspices that they are being converted, born again, and therefore become new creations which is Scripturally wrong and therefore a gospel that is not authenticated by the word of God. Why, because a child cannot be convicted of sin before he or she understands what sin is and why they have it. And then since it is God acting on an individual basis how can any priest assume what only God can do?.

I find this an interesting take on Baptism. If I remember, there is original sin. Therefore, we all born with sin. Baptism can be seen very much like dedicating a child to God (this is done in denominations which do not believe in baptism for children). In the catholic church and many protestant churches, it is communion where the individual begins to understand sin, God and Christ. Taking their first communion is similair to baptism in other denomimations.

Baptism of infants for the Catholic, Orthodox and some Protestant churchs is to ensure infants will be able to be with God if they passed before they were able to understand and dedicate themselves to God due to original sin.

[basics]

" Baptism of infants for the Catholic, Orthodox and some Protestant churchs is to ensure infants will be able to be with God if they passed before they were able to understand and dedicate themselves to God due to original sin."

Buddhababe,

Water never ever saved anyone. The price for sin is blood and one must be aware that he or she is a sinner so that the broken and contrite heart that God so desires comes into effect thus making conversion possible. Therefore sprinkling children cannot save them. However it is my opinion and only my opinion that when a Jewish child reaches a certain age, someone confirm this, he or she becomes an adult, but before that he or she is under God's care.

Now I have no other reason to explain this if only because blood must save or there is no saving but conviction is a prerequisite of that. In other words if one is not brought to that state conversion won't happen. Christ Jesus has not been revealed to make it happen. Perhaps the connection is that in Jesus words unless we who are to be saved are then so in the fashion of a child but that does not mean that children are saved because again in the words of Jesus we are conceived in sin.

[IrishHitman]

Buddhababe,

Water never ever saved anyone. The price for sin is blood and one must be aware that he or she is a sinner so that the broken and contrite heart that God so desires comes into effect thus making conversion possible. Therefore sprinkling children cannot save them. However it is my opinion and only my opinion that when a Jewish child reaches a certain age, someone confirm this, he or she becomes an adult, but before that he or she is under God's care.

Now I have no other reason to explain this if only because blood must save or there is no saving but conviction is a prerequisite of that. In other words if one is not brought to that state conversion won't happen. Christ Jesus has not been revealed to make it happen. Perhaps the connection is that in Jesus words unless we who are to be saved are then so in the fashion of a child but that does not mean that children are saved because again in the words of Jesus we are conceived in sin.

Ah yes, the usual "you are guilty, repent" line of Christianity.
Frankly, enough blood has been split over things deemed sins that are absolutely harmless.

Here's another spanner in the works: You have no authority, nor does anyone, to say that the gospels the Catholic Church uses are any less correct than what you use. The same is true of the opposite, they cannot say that you are a heretic for not using certain books and sections.

Why?
The books themselves are not based on evidence and facts, you cannot debate it without indulging in hearsay, arbitrary decisions of theologians long dead, and propaganda from various sides.

The earliest "Christians" were devout Jews.

Theoretically, the ONLY Christians are Jews.
Jesus would throw up in disgust if he knew his cult was being sold to the gentiles.
Why do you think the Born-Again lot are so obsessed with Judaism... It isn't for the body mutilation, that's for sure.

[basics]

" Theoretically, the ONLY Christians are Jews.
Jesus would throw up in disgust if he knew his cult was being sold to the gentiles.
Why do you think the Born-Again lot are so obsessed with Judaism... It isn't for the body mutilation, that's for sure."

IrishHitman,

Theoretically you are perfectly correct even if you yourself haven't grasped the meaning behind what you say. When Abraham was given the promises from God, there were no Jews, Abraham was an Assyrian from Ur in the Chaldeas, so basically a Gentile. The promise was that through his seed, his seed in the singular, would all the people saved be called the children of God and because his immediate offspring came to be known as Jews and Israel, it is from that that the Israel of God comes.

The seed, referring to Jesus Christ the annointed One, would come via one of these tribes, it being Judah from which the word Jew comes also. As Jesus is the vine in type upon which all the tribes are gathered that vine is therefore known as the Israel of God and them on it the Jews of God or children of God. When they who were not saved rejected the Lord they were cast off making way for the prophetical sayings to happen, that being that the Gentiles could if justified take their places.

So as Paul writes the true Jews are them circumcised in the heart, that is born again, justified by faith, whether Jew or Gentile, the most important aspect being that they in combination are the true Israel of God as promised to Abraham. Jesus Himself said that no man can enter heaven unless he is born again and when you take what is called circumcision of the heart, the old nature replaced by a new one, how that is not possible with babies, rather with conscious understanding in the sinner.

Now that is why we who are saved have that affinity to the Jews and Judaism but that only in it's real sense. I mean by that that if the Jews had understood their Scriptures as we now do and for what purpose they were commanded to be made, all Jews would still be on that vine that is Jesus Christ the Lord, none of us Gentiles could then say that we too are there. If what is now Rome could have understood all that then perhaps all the additional garbage would never have seen the light of day.

[Ummon]

I find this an interesting take on Baptism. If I remember, there is original sin. Therefore, we all born with sin. Baptism can be seen very much like dedicating a child to God (this is done in denominations which do not believe in baptism for children). In the catholic church and many protestant churches, it is communion where the individual begins to understand sin, God and Christ. Taking their first communion is similair to baptism in other denomimations.

Baptism of infants for the Catholic, Orthodox and some Protestant churchs is to ensure infants will be able to be with God if they passed before they were able to understand and dedicate themselves to God due to original sin.

Merely a ritual intended to produce some kind of predisposition to breach the veil of Maya, in a cross-religious comparison.

[Shi Huangdi]

I have often seen Protestants lambasting Catholicism as if it was not proper Christianity as several Catholic doctrines are not in the Bible, some even go as far as to call Catholicism satanic.
These same Protestants then turn around and hold the Bible as the unadulterated word of God and are often biblical literalists and have a Sola Scriptura view on religion.

But I wonder, does the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox and other Eastern churches of course) not have its origins in Peter and Paul? And thus is older than the NT, even according to that NT itself?
Is it not that early church that decided* which gospels were to be canon? And consequently the same church some hold as satanic is actually the organisation that canonized their holy books they hold such faith in?
And is the Bible not written by fallible humans? Some then say it was divinely inspired, but it is the writers themselves who say thus, a circular argument then no?

Basically I'm asking how certain Protestant groups justify vilifying Catholicism and its traditions while at the same time putting their complete faith in a book that has been composed and canonized by that very organisation, that everything they know about Christianity has been filtered by 1500 years of catholic influence?
Or do they merely belief the Church became corrupted later on?

(* I use decided in a broad sense, before anyone accuses me of believing the Bible was actually composed at the council of Nicea, and that the church just picked gospels as canonical that matched its views)

Protestants believe that the Catholic church became corrupted later on (probably in the 1100s or 1200s).

I have three major objections to Roman Catholicism. First, Catholics venerate the Pope, a mere man, as the vicar of Christ and His voice on earth. There is no Scriptural authority whatsoever for this. Secondly, at the Mass, Catholic priests offer Christ's sacrifice again. Christ died once for our sins; it is blasphemy to claim that the one sacrifice on the cross was insufficient, and that His body and blood must be offered again by priests. Thirdly, Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary and hundreds of other saints. We are to pray to God alone; we need no mediator but Jesus Christ.

That said, I do not share the virulent hatred that some Protestants feel toward Catholics. There are many Catholics whom I greatly admire and respect (such as J.R.R. Tolkien ). But I believe many key aspects of Catholicism are unbiblical.

[Manco]

Protestants believe that the Catholic church became corrupted later on (probably in the 1100s or 1200s).

But how do you decide what is proper tradition adn Catholic fantasy or corruption?

But I believe many key aspects of Catholicism are unbiblical.

And one can argue that the Church predates the Bible (NT), and it wasn't written in the Bible because people thought the Church would always be there to describe the rites and traditions.

[razor-]

Secondly, at the Mass, Catholic priests offer Christ's sacrifice again. Christ died once for our sins; it is blasphemy to claim that the one sacrifice on the cross was insufficient, and that His body and blood must be offered again by priests.

What protestant church are you a member of? In the Danish National Church which is Lutheran we have that ritual too, thought all protestants did it actually.

[Shi Huangdi]

What protestant church are you a member of? In the Danish National Church which is Lutheran we have that ritual too, thought all protestants did it actually.

I apologize, I was a bit unclear there.

Certainly all churches celebrate the Lord's Supper, including mine (I am a member of the Presbyterian Church of America). What I was referring to was the concept of transubstantiation, or the idea that the bread actually becomes Christ's body and the wine actually becomes His blood. So, in effect, when a Catholic priest performs a mass, he is sacrificing Christ again, which I believe is wrong because it denies the efficacy of Christ's original sacrifice. But Protestants believe that the bread is simply bread, and the wine simply wine; they are only symbols of Jesus' body and blood.

But how do you decide what is proper tradition adn Catholic fantasy or corruption?

Anything that can be found in the Bible is proper tradition; anything that cannot is fantasy or corruption.

[MaximiIian]

First, Catholics venerate the Pope, a mere man, as the vicar of Christ and His voice on earth.

Incorrect. Catholics see the Pope as the head of their organisation, and as the chiefmost bishop. They do not venerate the guy. What utter nonsense.

There is no Scriptural authority whatsoever for this.

Besides, of course, the New Testament describing Peter as the head of the Apostles after Jesus' death, and him being the rock on which the Church would be built.

Secondly, at the Mass, Catholic priests offer Christ's sacrifice again. Christ died once for our sins; it is blasphemy to claim that the one sacrifice on the cross was insufficient, and that His body and blood must be offered again by priests.

That depends on interpretation of what the Eucharist means. I've heard some Catholics describe it simply as henosis, partaking in the mysteries that the Apostles did in the last supper.

Thirdly, Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary and hundreds of other saints. We are to pray to God alone; we need no mediator but Jesus Christ.

Preposterous. Is there anything in the Bible saying they can't have intercessory prayer?

[VALIS]

I have often seen Protestants lambasting Catholicism as if it was not proper Christianity as several Catholic doctrines are not in the Bible, some even go as far as to call Catholicism satanic.
These same Protestants then turn around and hold the Bible as the unadulterated word of God and are often biblical literalists and have a Sola Scriptura view on religion.

But I wonder, does the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox and other Eastern churches of course) not have its origins in Peter and Paul? And thus is older than the NT, even according to that NT itself?
Is it not that early church that decided* which gospels were to be canon? And consequently the same church some hold as satanic is actually the organisation that canonized their holy books they hold such faith in?
And is the Bible not written by fallible humans? Some then say it was divinely inspired, but it is the writers themselves who say thus, a circular argument then no?

Basically I'm asking how certain Protestant groups justify vilifying Catholicism and its traditions while at the same time putting their complete faith in a book that has been composed and canonized by that very organisation, that everything they know about Christianity has been filtered by 1500 years of catholic influence?
Or do they merely belief the Church became corrupted later on?


(* I use decided in a broad sense, before anyone accuses me of believing the Bible was actually composed at the council of Nicea, and that the church just picked gospels as canonical that matched its views)

The Catholic church simply makes things up. Calling the current Catholic church an uninterrupted lineage to Peter and Paul is absurd. The Catholic church of today in no way bears any resemblence to the early church founded by the early church leaders who undoubtedly would not recognise the Catholic church of today.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

The Catholic church simply makes things up. Calling the current Catholic church an uninterrupted lineage to Peter and Paul is absurd.

Rather less absurd than many things Christians believe.

The Catholic church of today in no way bears any resemblence to the early church founded by the early church leaders who undoubtedly would not recognise the Catholic church of today.

Whereas you think they'd feel at home in a Protestant church? The early church bears no resemblance to any modern Christian church.

[VALIS]

Rather less absurd than many things Christians believe.



Whereas you think they'd feel at home in a Protestant church? The early church bears no resemblance to any modern Christian church.

Perhaps, but I think certain strands of Protestantism are closer to the early church than that of RC'ism.

Question still remains, are we heretical or same creed?

RCC? Heretical.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Perhaps, but I think certain strands of Protestantism are closer to the early church than that of RC'ism.

Since the earliest "church" consisted of groups of devout Jews, both would be utterly alien and abhorrent to them.

[Manco]

Perhaps, but I think certain strands of Protestantism are closer to the early church than that of RC'ism.

How can that be as everything the Protestant Churches know about Jesus comes from the RCC? Even the Bible was 'composed' and conserved by the RCC or its predecessor?

And protestantism relies on Sola Scripture, which was not part of Christianity in the early centuries. I would say that the entire Sola Scriptura business is quite a massive change, distancing it from those early churches.

Every Christian denomination worships Jesus as God, because the Bible clearly states that He is God.

This thread is for debates between Catholics and Protestants, not Christians and Atheists (or whatever you are). Keep your posts on topic or take them somewhere else. There are plenty of threads out there for bashing Christian doctrine.

Euhm, I'm an atheist myself. And the additions of someone actually educated in the matter is something worthwile.

[basics]

" How can that be as everything the Protestant Churches know about Jesus comes from the RCC? Even the Bible was 'composed' and conserved by the RCC or its predecessor?"

Manco,

That's how some might like to think what happened but of course it isn't true. The Gospel of Jesus Christ started at the garden at the time of the fall of man. Beginning with Abel, the first Christian or saint, and the first to be martyred, it follows a path in which many many others were given the revelation, thus converted, of the work at the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. These are listed in the book to the Hebrews in chapter 11 under the heading, by faith.

By faith all these were saved, but faith in what? That the " seed " promised of God would come to save men and women from their sins. Now by any standards, even Roman Catholic standards, this is the Gospel preached from the beginning of time propagated by the prophets until He should come. So long before the Roman version of the church came into being there was a church, even churches, that followed the original Gospel.

The tribes of Israel are seen as the type for what the church is although most of them were never converted but the foundation was there in their Scriptures and all those saved during that time could be said to have been saved by faith just as we of the post-Jesus era are being saved. All are indeed justified by faith, the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is what Protestants follow, nothing to do with Roman Catholicism.

Were that not so, the protestors couldn't have been that in their time because they would have still been under what Romanism demanded and not what Scripture says. What you have to realise is that there was a church, even churches, long before Romanism became the dominant power backed by Roman metal. In other words these Roman Catholics were returning to the original Gospel, hence the term Reformation. The reforming of the original as per the Scriptures.

That is the only connection between the two. It can also be said that where Rome was not, there were indeed churches that did follow the original and a few still do despite the efforts of Rome to eradicate them. That said, the vine that is the Lord Jesus Christ was solely Hebrew and although most were cast off because of their rejecting Him, a remnant is still being saved to take their place on that vine alongside their Gentile brothers and sisters that in the end it will be said that all Israel have been saved, the vine and them on it being the Israel of God according to the promises given to Abraham.

Now Rome has a different agenda. It claims to have right of passage into heaven. The Jews to it were always Christ killers so there was nothing about them being saved but at the point of pressure and the sword at the hands of the Romanist priesthood. They ghettoised the Jews, even stealing their babies by baptism, never knowing that God may well have had one or two among them as His. And where Rome was the Jews have had no peace all on the basis of dead letter belief. And you ask why we Protestants have our disagreements with Rome?

[Vulpex]

On ecumenical side, what are rulings about differing creeds? On catholic side, can a protestant pray on a catholic church, what about the communion?
There must be some official rulings how things are. In my knowledge roman catholics are most centrally led, seconded with orthodox. What are the the lines how one should act with other creeds is my question.
I can only add from lutheran nordic side about things i have heard when younger, meaning we are all cristians, but our manners differ. That was in 70s with high ecumenical time, and i have little knowledge how things are seen nowadays, even less with creeds not my own.