The Theological Unity of All Christians?

[GenghisKhan44]

History is only as good as the person recording it. More of history was not recorded than was. I could argue which group seemed to have the most believers, but that is a logically flawed argument as numbers do not indicate correctness of doctrine (appeal to majority).

And yet YOU, as a sola scriptura Protestant, appeal to a BOOK for the source and summit of all your Christian authority!

Joking aside, an appeal to the CURRENT majority would be a fallacy. As would an appeal to the HISTORICAL majority. But that is not what I am advocating.

I am advocating that you look at what the disciples of the Apostles wrote.

Scripture IS (it would seem) limited to the writings of the Apostles and their contemporaries, whom we take for granted died roughly at the beginning at the 2nd century. But the Church, you know, continued well long after that. And I doubt the Apostles left their disciples with only a book. Being teachers, they probably also taught a lot of stuff they thought was important, but that was not written down.

Well, not by the Evangelists's hands themselves. Or if they were, they were not the inspired word of God.

But their students - Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, among others - did write what they learned was important down because it was important.

And later and later theologians, apologists, Church Fathers, preachers, pastors, and scholars wrote down what was seen as important in the eyes of their teachers, and so on and so forth, down to the present day.

In essence, the great river of Christ's Church and its many, sprawling tributaries, flow from the present all the way through history, down to the wellspring of Christ, the source and summit of all of our beliefs. Since from this wellspring there formed a consistent stream of thought, it only makes sense that this teaching should not be consistent only with the Apostles, but with the Church that, not necessarily being the majority, survived continually, without interruption, throughout history. Perhaps thechurch widened and narrowed, twisted and turned, maybe even doubled-back on itself, throughout history. But if the Church failed to exist for an instant, or turned from a river into a swamp or a lava floe, Christ would have not preserved us, and we would be abandoned on this Earth, thirsting with no source of water to drink from.

I present you, gentlemen, links to the writings of the church fathers - the river coming from the mighty Source.

http://www.searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/ant/
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

Both of these links contain various writings of the Fathers of the Church - the Christians who, as far as we know, practised orthodox (correct-thinking) Christianity and not Gnosticism or other heresies, beginning with those who wrote almost immediately after John the Apostle died if not before, and continuing well into the 400s or 500s.

New Advent generally uses the Ronalds-Donaldson edition of these writings. I don't know what the other uses. New Advent also provides no introduction to any of the writings.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

You want to hear what I believe and tell me what you believe? That is what I'm looking for. You want to tell me how wrong I am and how right you are? I can go to the world for that.

I don't want charts and science. I want historic consistency. Can you trace your beliefs back to the Apostles, and throughout the centuries? Can you provide any such thing? If you can, I really want to see it. I do.

Of course this should not descend into "I'm wrong, and you're right". But it also should not descend into "I present evidence" and "I'm being persecuted because you present your evidence".

 

[Patriot]

And yet YOU, as a sola scriptura Protestant, appeal to a BOOK for the source and summit of all your Christian authority!

Which, contrary to history, was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I am advocating that you look at what the disciples of the Apostles wrote.

Scripture IS (it would seem) limited to the writings of the Apostles and their contemporaries, whom we take for granted died roughly at the beginning at the 2nd century. But the Church, you know, continued well long after that. And I doubt the Apostles left their disciples with only a book. Being teachers, they probably also taught a lot of stuff they thought was important, but that was not written down.

To what end? Why do I need more than what the Bible has to offer? Are there new revelations that cannot be inferred from the Bible itself?

 

[Lloren]

Which, contrary to history, was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.


To what end? Why do I need more than what the Bible has to offer? Are there new revelations that cannot be inferred from the Bible itself?

At this same token we could infer that listening to our elders or to pastors doesn't mean anything because we have the Bible and the Holy Spirit. I think we can all agree the necessity of the Church while recognizing that it is not on the same authority as the Word it is a necessary part of the function God has put in place for the building up of the Body.

To often we ignore the past and the enormity of teaching and writings because we like "new stuff". It's amazing the same heresies and philosophies around today were around 2000 years ago if we listen to the past.

 

[Patriot]

At this same token we could infer that listening to our elders or to pastors doesn't mean anything because we have the Bible and the Holy Spirit. I think we can all agree the necessity of the Church while recognizing that it is not on the same authority as the Word it is a necessary part of the function God has put in place for the building up of the Body.

But how beneficial is it to go through the writings of every church leader in history? To do so would be an enormous time sink.

To often we ignore the past and the enormity of teaching and writings because we like "new stuff". It's amazing the same heresies and philosophies around today were around 2000 years ago if we listen to the past.

I don't consider the Bible "new stuff".

The Preacher said that there is nothing new under the sun. This is true with books as well. How many books are there on raising children, being married, etc? Yet, many of them overlap and often simply spout the same information. The same is true of Bible literature (not the Bible itself - but commentaries). I can often gain the same understanding from reading a contemporary author as I could from reading a historical author.

That being said, the Bible stands alone. It does not need commentaries to be understood.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Which, contrary to history, was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Amen, brother. Amen. No contest there.

To what end? Why do I need more than what the Bible has to offer? Are there new revelations that cannot be inferred from the Bible itself?

Well, you certainly take yourself as a keen source of revelation - as does every other Protestant. It's built into your theology. Private interpretation is the only recourse a Protestant has when he no longer has any standard on which to base the Bible (such as apostolicly ordained bishops, or an organised Church).

When Luther, Calvin and Zwingli stopped using the Church's Teaching Authority as the "pillar and foundation" of Biblical interpretation - or any Christian beliefs - and started relying on their own interpretations of Scripture to make up their theologies, they opened the way for others to do the same. After all, if any man may pick up the Bible and find what God wants Him to do, why do you need to listen to any other man's interpretation?

But is every man's interpretation inspired?

Allow me to demonstrate the problem with completely unattached private interpretation. Note: this is a particularly long parable, excerpted from this homily.

Spoiler

...Let us suppose that here is an Episcopalian minister. He is (just for the sake of argument) a sincere, an honest, a well-meaning and prayerful man. He reads his Bible in a prayerful spirit, and from the Word of the Bible, he says it is clear that there must be bishops. For without bishops there can be no priests, without priests no Sacraments, and without Sacraments no Church. The Presbyterian is a sincere and well meaning man. He reads the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no bishops, but only presbyters. "Here is the Bible," says the Episcopalian; and "here is the Bible to give you a lie," says the Presbyterian. Yet both of them are prayerful and well-meaning men.

Then the Baptist comes in. He is (again for the sake of argument) a well-meaning, honest man, and prayerful also. "Well," says the Baptist, "have you ever been baptized?" "I was," says the Episcopalian, "when I was a baby."

"And so was I," says the Presbyterian, "when I was a baby." "But," says the Baptist, "you are going to Hell as sure as you live."

Next comes the Unitarian, (presumably) well-meaning, honest, and sincere. "Well," says the Unitarian, "allow me to tell you that you are a pack of idolaters. You worship a man for a God who is no God at all." And he gives several texts from the Bible to prove it, while the others are stopping their ears that they may not hear the blasphemies of the Unitarian. And they all contend that they have the true meaning of the Bible.

Next comes the Methodist, and he says, "My friends, have you got any religion at all?" "Of course we have," they say. "Did you ever feel religion," says the Methodist, "the Spirit of God moving within you?" "Nonsense," says the Presbyterian, "we are guided by our reason and judgment." "Well," says the Methodist, "if you have never felt religion, you never had it, and will go to Hell for eternity."

The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another with eternal hellfire. "Why," says he, "you are a strange set of people. Do you not understand the Word of God? There is no Hell at all. That idea is good enough to scare old women and children," and he proves it from the Bible.

Now comes in the Quaker. He urges them not to quarrel, and advises that they do not baptize at all. He is the sincerest of men (not really, but for argument's sake), and gives the Bible for his faith.

Another comes in and says: "Baptize the men and let the women alone. For the Bible says, 'unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.' So," says he, "the women are all right, but baptize the men."

Next comes in the Shaker, and says he: "You are a presumptuous people. Do you not know that the Bible tells you that you must work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and you do not tremble at all. By brethren, if you want to go to heaven shake, brother, shake!"

I have brought together seven or eight denominations, differing one from another, or understanding the Bible in different ways, illustrative of the fruits of private interpretation. What, then, if I brought together the three hundred and fifty different denominations, all taking the Bible for their guide and teaching, and all differing from one another? Are they all right? One says there is a Hell, and another says there is no Hell. Are both right? One says Christ is God; another says He is not. One says they are unessential. One says Baptism is requisite, and another says it is not. Are both true? This is an impossibility, my dear friends; all cannot be true.

Who, then, is true? He that has the true meaning of the Bible, you say. But the Bible does not tell us who that is -- the Bible never settles the quarrel. It is not the teacher.

The Bible, my dear people, is a good book. We Catholics allow that the Bible is the Word of God, the language of inspiration, and every Catholic is exhorted to read the Bible. But good as it is, the Bible, my dear friends, does not explain itself. It is a good book, the Word of God, the language of inspiration. Your understanding of the Bible is not inspired -- for surely you do not pretend to be inspired!

Please, I beg you, don't let the fact that it is a Catholic homily bias you against it. If it is correct, it ought to stand on its own merits, as ought any Protestant, Orthodox, or even non-Christian publication. (And I believe many do.) Is there truth in it? If there is, it ought to be considered.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

But how beneficial is it to go through the writings of every church leader in history? To do so would be an enormous time sink.

You may have a point, there. That is a lot to cover.

BUT if Christ established a Church in c. 30 AD, and it is supposed to have survived to the present day, doesn't it make sense for it to have been consistent throughout the past 2000 years - not just any man's interpretation, but Our Lord's?

Perhaps assigning you every writing from Ignatius of Antioch to Ignatius of Loyola is a bit much. Perhaps there is a "condensed" version that some scholar has distilled from these writings...

I don't consider the Bible "new stuff".

The Preacher said that there is nothing new under the sun. This is true with books as well. How many books are there on raising children, being married, etc? Yet, many of them overlap and often simply spout the same information. The same is true of Bible literature (not the Bible itself - but commentaries). I can often gain the same understanding from reading a contemporary author as I could from reading a historical author.

That being said, the Bible stands alone. It does not need commentaries to be understood.

See my article above; it demonstrates the problem of assuming the Bible alone is enough. Essentially, any man can interpret the Bible and say he is divinely inspired. But what are we supposed to do when two or more preach contradictory interpretations - for example, that there both is and is not a Hell?

Either one or the other is correct. Both cannot be. And there is definitely more in Protestantism than just that.

 

[Abba San]

Essentially, any man can interpret the Bible and say he is divinely inspired.

I'd agree with the last comment in your article. Yes, s/he can interpret the Bible any way they want, but s/he may be mistaken. Interpretation is not inspired - the scriptures were inspired. I've seen people who think that the notes in their study Bible were part of the scriptures. Nope.

The canon of inspired books has been set for centuries. Interpretations may abound - but inspired scriptures do not. Only cults add additional "inspired" books.

But what are we supposed to do when two or more preach contradictory interpretations - for example, that there both is and is not a Hell?

The contrasts described in the article were silly - not because it was a Catholic homily, but because the notions were mistaken over simplifications. For example, no Baptist would say that if you were baptized as an infant you were going to hell. Nor would a Methodist propose that if you don't "feel" your religion you are going to hell.

Anyway, check out everything someone my preach against the Bible - including anything preached by any church or even the Pope. If it is not consistent with the Bible it is false. Using your example: that there is a Hell is a biblical fact. The nature of that Hell is open to interpretation because the Bible does not overly expound on Hell. So much of what we think about Hell comes from writings outside scripture.

BUT if Christ established a Church in c. 30 AD, and it is supposed to have survived to the present day, doesn't it make sense for it to have been consistent throughout the past 2000 years - not just any man's interpretation, but Our Lord's?

See...this is where we have to be very careful. Two quick points and a question:

First, Jesus founded his church, his body, but he never founded a religious organization, "a Church." Jesus was very specific that it had to do with relationship, not religion. He said all the scriptures could be summed up by - love God with everything about you and love your neighbor as yourself. He was even pointed enough to say we need to love our enemies, as well. Recognizing who Jesus is and loving him is all that matters, in terms of coming into his kingdom. Praise God for the thief on the cross - who was never baptized, took communion, attended a church, gave a tithe, and probably never even read the the scriptures - but, according to Jesus, he would be in paradise later that very day.

Second, the church, through the ages, has been anything but consistent. Pre-reformation and post, the church has had moments of glory, but it has had sustained times of darkness, when it was politically and spiritually corrupt, with practices that reflected deep biblical error. One of the main reasons for the reformation was the church being in one of those dark times.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by, "not just any man's interpretation, but Our Lord's?" I hope you are not suggesting that any one denomination has the Lord's interpretation to the exclusion of other denominations. What exactly do you mean by that phrase?

 

[Patriot]

Well, you certainly take yourself as a keen source of revelation - as does every other Protestant. It's built into your theology. Private interpretation is the only recourse a Protestant has when he no longer has any standard on which to base the Bible (such as apostolicly ordained bishops, or an organised Church).

When I rely on myself I often get things wrong and act wrongly. I am to rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal God's truths and put them into action.

After all, if any man may pick up the Bible and find what God wants Him to do, why do you need to listen to any other man's interpretation?

It is not a problem to listen to other men's interpretations. However, like the Bereans, we need to be searching the scripture to see if what they say is true.

Allow me to demonstrate the problem with completely unattached private interpretation. Note: this is a particularly long parable, excerpted from this homily.

Perhaps this is the source of our difference of opinion. If this is where you obtained your knowledge on the various denominations then you are misinformed. The author of this was either attempting to use exaggeration to get his point across about varying denominations or he had only a general idea of what each of these denominations actually believe. I've never heard a baptist tell me I was going to hell for not being baptized. Quite the contrary, they've always stressed that being baptized is merely a sign and does not affect your salvation.

In addition, placing the Deity of Christ on par with discussions about baptism and "feeling" religion seems a little odd as the level of importance of those topics is quite different.

See my article above; it demonstrates the problem of assuming the Bible alone is enough. Essentially, any man can interpret the Bible and say he is divinely inspired. But what are we supposed to do when two or more preach contradictory interpretations - for example, that there both is and is not a Hell?

Actually, the article demonstrates the problem of attempting to describe that with which you are not familiar.

Aside from that, we use the Bible (and hopefully the Holy Spirit) to determine if a man is correct. If there is no clear answer in scripture then we should have the grace to agree to disagree as the subject is most likely not a critical one.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

I'd agree with the last comment in your article. Yes, s/he can interpret the Bible any way they want, but s/he may be mistaken. Interpretation is not inspired - the scriptures were inspired. I've seen people who think that the notes in their study Bible were part of the scriptures. Nope.

The canon of inspired books has been set for centuries. Interpretations may abound - but inspired scriptures do not. Only cults add additional "inspired" books.

While I have commentaries on that last sentence, I'll save them and say, yes. Scripture has been around for centuries.

But it has not been around since the beginning of the Church.

The contrasts described in the article were silly - not because it was a Catholic homily, but because the notions were mistaken over simplifications. For example, no Baptist would say that if you were baptized as an infant you were going to hell. Nor would a Methodist propose that if you don't "feel" your religion you are going to hell.

However, they (perhaps not the Methodist) believe strongly enough in their own beliefs that they feel not believing in these things could lead a soul to Hell. Why else, if they did not believe their doctrines to be true, would they feel the need to evangelize other Christians?

Anyway, check out everything someone my preach against the Bible - including anything preached by any church or even the Pope. If it is not consistent with the Bible it is false. Using your example: that there is a Hell is a biblical fact. The nature of that Hell is open to interpretation because the Bible does not overly expound on Hell. So much of what we think about Hell comes from writings outside scripture.

On the other hand, as the Jehovah's Witnesses have proven, the Bible can be used to justify even quite zany beliefs. Mr. Russell, the founder of the JWs, used Christ's not knowing of the time of the end of days, and His praying to His Father as justification of his idea that Jesus was not divine (even before the Watchtower wrote their own version of the Bible).

It's not only a matter of checking things against the Scriptures, but also checking things against the legitimacy of the claimant. By what power did the Apostles and Paul have to preach? Christ's. Since they preached the word of the Son of God, whom they knew as a man directly, in flesh and blood and not merely through Scripture or vision, they had authority - that is, they were is a superior position to speak certainly - about Christ's teachings. And upon teaching and baptising Paul, he, too gained apostolic authority.

See...this is where we have to be very careful. Two quick points and a question:

First, Jesus founded his church, his body, but he never founded a religious organization, "a Church."

You would not call Christ's teachings a system of organised teachings, and thus an organised religion (since religion is, by definition, a collection of theological beliefs)? That is the Church. And this is what He gave to His disciples, His Church. His teachings, and the superior knowledge of what these teachings meant, through the time they had with Him, and through Pentecost among other things.

He said all the scriptures could be summed up by - love God with everything about you and love your neighbor as yourself. He was even pointed enough to say we need to love our enemies, as well.

He could be very pointed at times, though. Take the Sermon on the Mount:

21You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.

22But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

25Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.

27You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

28But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

While Christ did teach "love God and love thy neighbour", which is good and righteous, He also taught us how to love God and how to love each other. And He taught His Apostles; you can see that in any given letter from Paul et al. Or was Paul just filling up scrolls when he wrote about the importance of faith?

Recognizing who Jesus is and loving him is all that matters, in terms of coming into his kingdom. Praise God for the thief on the cross - who was never baptized, took communion, attended a church, gave a tithe, and probably never even read the the scriptures - but, according to Jesus, he would be in paradise later that very day.

Well, in his position, what else could the thief do? There are some people for whom it is difficult, if not impossible, to fully live out the Gospel. Like those who are in a position where Christianity is illegal. Or those who are deathbed converts. It is above and beyond the call of duty to expect these to attend the Mass, find (much less read) the whole Bible, or be able to scrounge up money to donate.

But there are millions more who are perfectly capable of all of these things and much more. But if you look at it as "why do I have to do this x, or that y? They make no sense!", you are missing the point. The point is that by attending Mass, partaking in Christ's body in the Eucharist, giving alms, caring for the poor, not creating schism, and a whole laundry list of other things, you are fulfilling the first commandment: "Love the Lord Thy God." Christ said "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."

Love is an important virtue. But without obedience it just becomes people doing what they think is right to do, and not doing the business of God, as much as they intend to.

Second, the church, through the ages, has been anything but consistent. Pre-reformation and post, the church has had moments of glory, but it has had sustained times of darkness, when it was politically and spiritually corrupt, with practices that reflected deep biblical error. One of the main reasons for the reformation was the church being in one of those dark times.

The "biblical error" you suggest was never propagated as orthodox, or as the standard of the Church. True, the Church had social and political corruption, and some of its members believed and even taught heresy. Johann Tetzel, who got Luther's dander up and triggered the beginning of Protestantism, was one such man.

But never has erroneous teaching ever officially or authoritatively been accepted as orthodox teaching. Entire Catholic dioceses might have taught such error, but if it was not what the Church of Rome taught, it was not Catholic. In fact, that's why we have these things called "councils", "bulls", and "encyclicals" - to draw the line between the orthodox and the heretical.

Without the appointed and authoritative councils of the bishops of the Church, and the authoritative declarations of the Pope only - I repeat again, only - when speaking as teacher and shepherd of the entire Church, there is no line between orthodox and heterodox. It just all blends together.

But the Church of Rome, and the early Church, gives clear boundaries between what is true teaching and what is not. Either you are under the authority of Peter, and the Apostles (who gave their authority to teach to our current Pope and bishops) and thus orthodox; or you are not, and thus either reject the authority of the Pope, or teach something completely different from him.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by, "not just any man's interpretation, but Our Lord's?" I hope you are not suggesting that any one denomination has the Lord's interpretation to the exclusion of other denominations. What exactly do you mean by that phrase?

Every Christian church has at least partially the Lord's teachings. Some things are errors that Christ never taught, and some things are left out and not taught at all.

But if the Lord left us a teaching, He left us a complete teaching, free from error and with everything in it. What would possibly compel Him to mix the truth with error? Of course all Churches teach some truth. But there is only one Church which has the complete necessary truth, and is free from destructive sorts of error. And it is the one Christ Himself founded, Christ's body fully intact and without disease.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

When I rely on myself I often get things wrong and act wrongly. I am to rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal God's truths and put them into action.

That is what every other Protestant also says.

Perhaps this is the source of our difference of opinion. If this is where you obtained your knowledge on the various denominations then you are misinformed. The author of this was either attempting to use exaggeration to get his point across about varying denominations or he had only a general idea of what each of these denominations actually believe.

Thus I called it a parable and not a cold, hard fact. Of course I know there is more to Baptists than refusing infant baptisms. Why else would two Baptist churches in the same town excommunicate, if not outright anathemise, each other?

In addition, placing the Deity of Christ on par with discussions about baptism and "feeling" religion seems a little odd as the level of importance of those topics is quite different.

It makes more sense in the context of Christ asking us to be obedient to His will. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15) Then even little things can be very important.

Aside from that, we use the Bible (and hopefully the Holy Spirit) to determine if a man is correct. If there is no clear answer in scripture then we should have the grace to agree to disagree as the subject is most likely not a critical one.

When Christ is only one Way, Truth, and Life, all truth is vital, whether Scripture makes much of it or not.

 

[Patriot]

However, they (perhaps not the Methodist) believe strongly enough in their own beliefs that they feel not believing in these things could lead a soul to Hell. Why else, if they did not believe their doctrines to be true, would they feel the need to evangelize other Christians?

I think you misunderstand protestants and perhaps that is the core of this debate. If you do not understand our position fully then you will inevitably fall into the trap of arguing against something that doesn't really exist.

As a member of one particular denomination, I do not believe that members of another denomination are going to hell for not believing what I do. I believe people go to hell for not believing and trusting in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Most denominations (as always, there are exceptions both with entire denominations and with individual churches within denominations) hold to the same basic gospel message and therefore preach what is necessary to be saved. The primary reasons for the different denominations usually involve minor differences (worship, baptism, calvinism, end times, etc.) that have no bearing on salvation. I have no problem fellow-shipping with believers of other denominations (case in point, this particular site). I have been to many different denomination churches (Southern Baptist, Independent Baptist, Presbyterian, Calvary Chapel, and currently Evangelical Free - I probably missed a couple, but those are the big ones) and was able to worship and fellowship with them regardless of minor differences. My time spent in each of those churches was several years each. I do disagree with certain aspects of different denominations, but it is almost always a non-salvation issue.

 

[Abba San]

Now I think I see where your arguments are coming from.

Either you are under the authority of Peter, and the Apostles (who gave their authority to teach to our current Pope and bishops) and thus orthodox; or you are not, and thus either reject the authority of the Pope, or teach something completely different from him.

Yep - you are right - I completely reject the authority of the Pope and teach not just something but many things differently from him. Even Paul had to rebuke Peter on some points.

I'm a Christian - Baptist in faith expression. I'm not at all into "converting Christians." Not even Catholics who are Christians.

Clearly, you are hooked on Catholicism. that's okay. I don't think I need to further discuss the issue with you. That's okay, too. God bless you.

 

[ewoksrule]

I too completely reject the authority of the current Pope. My wife and I spent 3 years in Italy as missionaries to Catholics, that is how strongly we feel about it.

This quote from CARM states my position as well.
http://carm.org/are-roman-catholics-christian

If a Roman Catholic believes in the official Roman Catholic teaching on salvation, then he is not a Christian since the official RCC position is contrary to scripture. Therefore, as a whole, Roman Catholics need to be evangelized. They need to hear the true Gospel. They need to hear that they are not made right before God by being in a church, or by being baptized, but by receiving Christ (John 1:12), believing that Jesus has risen from the dead (Rom. 10:9), and that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1) and not by our deeds (Rom. 4:5). It is only true faith that results in true works (James 2), not the other way around. Roman Catholics, like anyone else, need to trust in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of their sins and not the Catholic sacraments, not the words of the priest, not the pope, not Mary, not the saints, not penance, not indulgences, not the rosary, etc. Jesus alone is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).

Finally, I believe that there are truly regenerate Christians in the Roman Catholic church. But, they are truly Christians in spite of official RCC theology and in spite of the ritualistic offerings of this ancient church which has had too many hands meddling in it through the centuries, gradually moving it away from orthodoxy and into apostasy. Yes apostasy. The Roman Catholic Church is no longer representing true Christianity.

Jesus alone saves. Jesus alone is Lord. Only Jesus' sacrifice can cleanse us. Only by faith are we made right before God. Justification is by faith, not by anything we do.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

I do disagree with certain aspects of different denominations, but it is almost always a non-salvation issue.

Ok, let's put it this way. Things about which YOU are utterly convicted, are uncontestable. As far as you can see, by your interpretation of the Scripture which you believe to be divinely inspired, these things which you utterly believe are Christ's teachings. Therefore, to you, they are nothing but the truth. I'm not saying all of the teachings you profess to believe, just the ones you are certain, absolutely certain, are Christ's.

According to you, it does not matter if someone else professes to believe something completely different from you (in this particularly important matter to you), and I assume with the same utter conviction you do. So, then, if both of you are utterly convicted that Christ has revealed to you His truth in the beliefs you profess - both of them also utterly contradictory and irreconcilable...

...how either can you believe that your beliefs are utterly given by Christ and are His teachings, or how can you believe that either his or your beliefs are the only correct one?

You profess to have the undeniably correct beliefs in something, but that someone else's utterly contradictory beliefs are possibly equally as true. As long as you both believe in Jesus Christ, the giver of truth, it doesn't matter whether you two believe in the same utterly convicted "truth" or not.

If his beliefs are equal to yours, then why does it matter what you believe? Why don't you choose to believe in the same thing he does for the sake of unity? And if unity is not important, then how can you say what you believe is the truth?

I don't get it. If you're going to believe Christ taught something, it ought not be your own conviction, but His inspired truth. If it is a lie, then why allow the lie to spread?

I don't get it. Maybe it's that Catholics value truth more than...

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Now I think I see where your arguments are coming from.

Yep - you are right - I completely reject the authority of the Pope and teach not just something but many things differently from him. Even Paul had to rebuke Peter on some points.

I'm a Christian - Baptist in faith expression. I'm not at all into "converting Christians." Not even Catholics who are Christians.

Clearly, you are hooked on Catholicism. that's okay. I don't think I need to further discuss the issue with you. That's okay, too. God bless you.

Very well. Happy Christmas, and I hope someday you will understand what I am trying to say. Obviously I am doing rather poorly, which is not surprising.

 

[Patriot]

I don't get it. If you're going to believe Christ taught something, it ought not be your own conviction, but His inspired truth. If it is a lie, then why allow the lie to spread?

I need a reference point. To what items that Christ taught are you referring? Which specific teaching of Christ is a cause for denomination non-unity?

I don't get it. Maybe it's that Catholics value truth more than...

I'm trying to be civil here and I don't mind discussing the current topic but if you just want to tell me I'm wrong and that I don't value truth without listening to what I am even saying then it would be foolish and futile for me to continue this conversation.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

I too completely reject the authority of the current Pope.

Now, I will say this because I get the feeling you think I think it is impossible for a Protestant to be saved. We don't believe that. I'm sorry if I led you guys to believe that.

However, I also believe that you guys really do believe what you believe is true. In other words, when you say you are Calvinists, you say that because you really believe God's grace is irresistible, and people's destinies are predetermined by God. Or when you say you are a Baptist, you are a Baptist through and through.

Am I wrong? If you wanted to, would you become Lutherans or Mennonites or Shakers on a dime? Would you abandon what you profess to be true now, or consider it of secondary importance, if some other Protestant denomination had some other benefit over your own?

 

[GenghisKhan44]

I need a reference point. To what items that Christ taught are you referring? Which specific teaching of Christ is a cause for denomination non-unity?

For example, in Ephesians 4:5, Saint Paul speaks of there being one baptism among all Christians. Anabaptists, however, believe that rebaptism of converts baptised as infants is needed. That is, they don't believe that infant baptism is valid, and therefore there are millions and millions of uninitiated Christians roaming the Earth. Naturally, other Protestants believe that if they were baptised as infants, they were baptised validly. It seems strange that other Protestants will tolerate this belief of Anabaptism.

Or take the Eucharist. In Matthew 26:26-29, Christ and His Apostles celebrate the Paschal meal. Now of course you know Catholics (and Orthodox) take this to mean He sacrificed His literal Body and Blood. And most Protestants take it as only a symbolic, communal meal. But Lutherans are an odd case; they believe that, somehow, in some way, that they cannot explain, Christ's spirit comes down onto the bread and wine, and in receiving their bread and wine they somehow receive Christ.

I don't understand how other Protestants can receive the Lutheran communion (some do) if they do not profess to believe that Christ's spirit is in it. I don't understand why some Protestants take the Body and Blood of Christ at the Catholic Mass or the Orthodox Liturgy if they don't believe it is what the priest says it is. By taking it, they're pretty much saying they agree with what the priest said, whether they mean to or not.

Perhaps you do not see such things as barriers to Christian unity. But I don't see how a Protestant can say that for a Catholic the Body and Blood is the Body and Blood while for himself it's just a cracker and some juice. He is describing two very different realities. In one, if you eat Christ's body and drink His blood when you don't believe it is really Him, you are making a mockery of Him. In another, if you think a wafer and wine are really Christ's body and blood, you are committing idolatry, or at least you are deluding yourself.

Or how a Calvinist can say that one baptism is enough and also say his Anabaptist friend is right to re-baptise converts. Once again, he is saying his own infant baptism is valid and invalid.

It may not be a game-breaker to you, but it makes no sense to say "let's just agree to disagree" on two opposite realities each with their own sets of consequences. Unless, of course, you are weary of arguing - which, believe me, I understand. Perhaps you might say "oh, this doctrine is not so much a fact as a matter of opinion", but then who decides what is important and what is not?

I'm trying to be civil here and I don't mind discussing the current topic but if you just want to tell me I'm wrong and that I don't value truth without listening to what I am even saying then it would be foolish and futile for me to continue this conversation.

I apologise for being vitriolic. But this is what I see.

When I see the Catholic Church, including the Eastern Catholics, I see a Church that has one teaching of truth that is undivided, uncontested, which everyone agrees to. They profess their faith in different ways - some in Latin, some in Greek, some in Ukrainian, some in the vernacular; some with the Ordinary Mass, some with the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom, some with Charismatic Masses - but they all proclaim the same Christ Our Lord, the same, united Church that proclaims the same teachings on morality, social justice, life, and theology. We all eat the same Body of Christ. We all agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. We all believe that Christ's grace, through faith then good works, are what save us. And we all believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth

But when I see the Protestantism you guys describe, I see several (hundred/thousand) different churches all with some general agreement about what Christ taught - Love God and love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, be not afraid, and so forth - but beyond the generics, there are disagreements on everything. No two Protestants think alike. I mean, even Catholics can and do disagree on what a charitable act to the poor might be, to some degree. But we never believe it is a charitable act to help a man put an end to his life, or to end a fetus's life if it will be born in poverty. Yet you can find both sorts of Protestants who say either it is or it is not OK to euthanise the elderly. You can find Protestants who say that Scripture is inspired and inerrant, and others who say it is a collection of men's writings and not inspired (they still believe very strongly in the rulership of Christ and that the Scriptures tell us all we need to know about Him). You can find Protestants who have organised hierarchies which interpret Scripture much like the Catholic Church does (mainly the Anglicans and the Irvingites). You can find groups of Christians who interpret Scripture independent of any authority. You can find everything in between. In general, Protestantism seems to me to be a collection of individuals, congregations, and organisations, with at least one of these professing practically any interpretation you could possibly get out of the Bible and then some, even if no one else believes it, or if everyone else says the complete opposite, all proclaiming that they are following Christ.

It's like comparing caravans, or wagon trains, or some other collection of travellers heading somewhere. When I look at the Catholic Church, I see people using trains, trucks, camels, aeroplanes, and even their own feet to travel. But they are all travelling the same direction. With Protestantism, you see about the same kind of diversity of vehicles, but everyone is travelling in different directions - sometimes in almost the opposite direction of the general stream of Protestants. And no one seems to have a great problem with that until it degenerates into non-trinitarianism like the JWs or the Mormons.

This is what I see as a Catholic. I'm sorry if I came off as condescending, but I just don't get the great variance of truth and authority within Protestantism.

 

[Abba San]

This is what I see as a Catholic. I'm sorry if I came off as condescending, but I just don't get the great variance of truth and authority within Protestantism.

Yes - it sounds very condescending, with a slanted view of both Catholicism and Protestantism.

Just as with Protestantism, there are conservative and liberal wings of the Catholic Church.

Just as with Protestantism, there are Catholic politicians who defy their church on major moral issues - abortion, poverty, war, et al.

Just as with Protestantism, there are Catholics who have a real faith in Christ and those who only play at faith.

While the church polity and structures are very different - there are many similarities in the ways individuals express their faith, well or poorly.

I have Catholic friends and we have great times of fellowship, serve side by side, even minister on boards together - and it has never been a problem as long as we love the same Lord and serve him the best we can.

I'm not sure why you are so uncomfortable with various faith expressions having the same Lord - why you feel the need to convince us that we should adhere to the teachings of your church. That is the way you are coming across.