What's the beef with Catholics?

[ithinkthereforeiam]

What is the beef other Christian denominations have with the Catholics? What do you have in common? What are the disagreements?

[micatala]

It seems to me we are wandering a bit away from the OP. We are getting into some good discussion on biblical interpretation, the formation of the bible, and the role of the bible in Christian doctrine and practice.



Now, in the sense that one can have a "beef with Catholics" simply because they answer these questions differently than other denominations or one's own individual views, I can accept that. I don't expect all christians to agree.

However, if the claim is that Catholics are not really Christian, which if I am not mistaken is what disciplex says, then I will try to bring us back to that point.


Does one have to agree with every thing in the Bible to be Christian?

Even leaving out the interpretive questions and disagreements over what the Bible actually means in given passages, I would say no. I would challenge anyone who disagrees to find a passage which CLEARLY SAYS that in order to be considered Christian or to be considered saved (with a reasonable possibility), that one must believe the Bible as presently consituted in its entirety.


As support for my position, I will again bring up the book of Romans.

8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

This seems pretty straightforward. Under these criteria, Catholics are saved. They are Christians.

Now, one might find other verses which one could use to make a case against this, but if that is the case, then is not one admitting that the BIble is not completely self-consistent?


Note that there is nothing here about "well, you are saved but not if you pray to saints." There is no footnote that says "except for people who kneel in front of statues of Mary." There is no "except for people who do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture or who believe in the infallibility of the pope."

It just isn't there. If all scripture is useful for teaching and if it is all binding, then Romans chapter 10 fits the bill, and it settles the issue.

Period.

[Ooberman]

It seems to me we are wandering a bit away from the OP. We are getting into some good discussion on biblical interpretation, the formation of the bible, and the role of the bible in Christian doctrine and practice.



Now, in the sense that one can have a "beef with Catholics" simply because they answer these questions differently than other denominations or one's own individual views, I can accept that. I don't expect all christians to agree.

However, if the claim is that Catholics are not really Christian, which if I am not mistaken is what disciplex says, then I will try to bring us back to that point.


Does one have to agree with every thing in the Bible to be Christian?

Even leaving out the interpretive questions and disagreements over what the Bible actually means in given passages, I would say no. I would challenge anyone who disagrees to find a passage which CLEARLY SAYS that in order to be considered Christian or to be considered saved (with a reasonable possibility), that one must believe the Bible as presently consituted in its entirety.


As support for my position, I will again bring up the book of Romans.

8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

This seems pretty straightforward. Under these criteria, Catholics are saved. They are Christians.

Now, one might find other verses which one could use to make a case against this, but if that is the case, then is not one admitting that the BIble is not completely self-consistent?


Note that there is nothing here about "well, you are saved but not if you pray to saints." There is no footnote that says "except for people who kneel in front of statues of Mary." There is no "except for people who do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture or who believe in the infallibility of the pope."

It just isn't there. If all scripture is useful for teaching and if it is all binding, then Romans chapter 10 fits the bill, and it settles the issue.

Period.

I would agree with this. I think if you "Believe in Christ", you are Christian. I would even open it up to people who use a different Canon, who use other texts outside of the Popular Bible, and people who follow new or different Christs (people other than Jesus, but who they consider to be Christ).

For example, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Rosicrucian and Gnostic are all Christian, IMO.


BTW, the OP is asking for similarities and differences, not that Cath's aren't Xpian.

I think we have laid out one major difference between Caths and Prots - a different Canon. Not to mention a different interpretation of the text - a different Dogma, Doctrine and Theology.

And, as I mentioned, there are other Christians. For example, the Gnostics have their view of Christ based on their sacred texts, as handed down by God. (Just as Hinudism has a number of different sects, but they are all Hindu, or Islam has many different sects, but still Muslim).

[disciplex]

So you're a non-Catholic Christian who is not a Protestant, and yet all of your beliefs are consonant with Protestant beliefs. Sounds like you're just winging it on your own.

I am a Christian, simple as that.

And you can call me a catholic Christian, if you want. I can accept that.

Note: Peter and Paul were not Protestants. I believe what they believed.

It is useful for correction any time anyone makes a claim or does something that is contradicted by what the Bible says.

Thank you! So here, you admit that the Bible is the standard.

If you had a history book that you knew was reliable, you could use it to correct people if they contradicted something in the history, right? But if they claim that an event happened that is not covered in the history book, what then?

The Bible is not like a history book. The Bible is more like a theological book. There is a difference between the two.

But you clearly believe that the Bible contains everything that God wants to reveal to man. If so, why would God neglect to mention that fact in the Bible?

Who said He didn't?

Does not the Bible, on its own, without any explanation from other sources or texts, tell us how to be saved and have eternal life? Or do we also need Roman Catholicism to know what God wants to reveal to us?

Or if the Bible is meant to be interpreted by each individual, why does it not say so? And how can you claim that your private interpretation is correct, and other people's interpretations are wrong? They are just as convinced as you. What criteria will you use to judge? Whatever the criteria might be, they would have to come from outside the Bible. No one can look into another person's soul to see if the Holy Spirit is guiding him.

No human is to interpret the Bible! God Himself explains to us what to understand, and we listen.

2 Peter 1:20-21
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Therefore, Scripture is not for us to interpret. God Himself explains to us what we must understand. So let "Scripture interpret Scripture".

For centuries after Christ ascended, there was uncertainty about exactly which writings were inspired. Who might have the authority to settle such matters? It was in fact settled by councils of Catholic bishops.

The Church knew from the beginning which writings were from God. It was a bunch of heretic groups causing confusion among the Church that led to uncertainties.

Or perhaps you think the Chuch lost its way right from the beginning, and that the Holy Spirit waited 1500 years to finally guide us into all truth.

No, I don't. Peter and Paul were Christians, for example.

But if this is true, why has he guided Christ's flock into thousands of different denominations, each with its own interpretation of Scripture and its own practices?

It has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. It has to do with our human nature. We're so human we end up disagreeing on certain things. No denomination is perfect, and Christians have a lot to learn from God.

Or again, if private interpretation of the teachings of the apostles was to be the norm from the very beginning, you would never know it from reading their writings. It looks like they had a very definite body of truths to bring to the world, and they were very much in charge of guarding the integrity of the gospel.

I know that. So no human (including the Pope) has the right to change the teachings of God through the Apostles.

The apostles spent three years with Jesus. What in the world makes you think that they wrote down everything that they had to teach? If that had been their aim, don't you think they would have said so?

Well, every teaching in the NT is confirmed again and again. If there were other teachings not stated in the Bible, I wonder why they didn't take the effort to state them when they took the effort to state the teachings that are in the Bible more than once.

Why would they have written separate accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, each of which is incomplete and is supplemented by the others?

Many people have the misunderstanding that the Gospel books are biography books of Jesus. They're not.

When it comes to His teachings, all four Gospel books are complete. If you say I'm wrong, then show us.

Why not get together and write one definitive work, a sort of catechism?

Well, if you study well all the books of the NT, they all doctrinally fit in together and make one definitive work. So no problem.

Jesus instituted a Church with a visible structure, with the apostles in charge. What makes you think that He meant for that visible structure to become invisible, leading to all sorts of confusion as to what was to be believed? Why did the apostles appoint someone to take the place of Judas if this structure was meant to dissolve?

Strawman Argument: The Church did not become invisible. The Church is the assembly of all Christians. And as Christians are visible, the Church is visible.

Consider the following quotes from the writings of Paul:

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2)

Yes, the traditions that are contradicted by the teachings of the Pope. Show me one tradition delivered by Paul that I (and other Christians) reject.

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15)

Yes. What's the problem here?

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

Ok. Thank you for showing us this verse. Roman Catholics are not in accord with the tradition received from the Apostles.

"[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

Yes, so I wonder why the Roman Catholic leaders do not accept what Paul taught to Timothy and to others by the grace of God.

You perhaps have a low opinion of the writings of the Fathers of the Church, but consider the following quotes from Irenaeus in the 2nd century:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies., 3:4:1 [A.D. 189]).

No, I don't have a low opinion of him. But remember: Irenaeus is a human, not God. And yet despite that: I don't disagree with him here. So what exactly is your argument here? On the contrary, Roman Catholics have a different set of teachings and traditions than that of the Church that Irenaeus wrote about here.

Likewise from Basil:

"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term" (Basil the Great The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).



From Epiphanius of Salamis:

"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Epiphanius of Salamis, Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

From John Chrysostom:

"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

Note the years. Centuries after the Apostles. I'd rather listen to what the Apostles said.

Where were the "real" Christians in the early centuries if these lights of the Church are false?

I already answered this one above. Peter and Paul were just two examples. And I'm sure Irenaeus was also.

Can you find for me any early Christians whose writings indicate the they believed in sola scriptura?

Why? Is God's word - the Bible - not enough?

By the way, did Irenaeus say the following?

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Let's say some professing Christian comes up with a new unorthodox teaching and claims it's a Christian teaching. Which source do you refer to for correction?

You've just described the history and problem of Protestantism.

You didn't answer my question. Let me reword my question.

Let's say some professing Catholic comes up with a new unorthodox teaching and claims it's a Catholic teaching. Which source do you refer to for correction?

Sez who?

Well, then what's the difference between praying to Jesus and praying to Mary?

[disciplex]

That's really not the point. The point is that Paul is telling Timothy that Scriture is what Timothy knew from infancy - the OT, including apocryphal texts.

And the NT is based on the OT. Anyway, keep in mind that this is not the apologetics section.

Note: The OT doesn't include the Apocrypha.

Which Bible do you use? The NT is based on the OT, true. It is based on the OT that includes the deuterocanonical/apocryphal texts.

I use the Bible that was compiled by the Church in the 4th century.

Note: Many did not consider the Apocrypha to be part of the Septuagint.

That's fine, I never said they weren't. My point was that Paul was speaking about the LXX, not the Hebrew OT, which includes what some Xpians consider "apocryphal" writings.

And do you know why they're called "apocryphal"?

50-100 years later???

Amazing, isn't it?

You are suggesting that Peter was very young compared to Paul. But Paul shows us otherwise in his writings.

The Greek OT is what I mean by the Septuagint, or LXX.

But, no, the OT hasn't always been the same.

According to what you perceive.

The early Christian Church used the same Greek-language Scriptures as the Jews of the time (some of whom spoke no Hebrew), the so-called Septuagint, which consisted of the books of what we now call the Old Testament and the "Apocrypha,"[2] or Deuterocanonical Books.

Just because you added some books to the OT doesn't mean they are now part of the OT (or, in other words, considered Scripture). The Apocrypha, even if they were added to the LXX, were not considered Scripture. Paul was talking to Timothy about Scripture only, not apocryphal writings.

In about 90 CE, the Jewish Canon of Scripture began to be finalized, and today it looks very much like the Protestant Christian "Old Testament."

Thank you for showing us that the Apocrypha was not considered Scripture by the Jews.

The Jewish Canon seems to have centered around the so-called Masoretic Text, which is in Hebrew. It is probable that books whose only extant editions were in Greek were considered less authentic; however, more recent manuscript discoveries indicate that the Greek versions of certain canonical books may be closer to the originals, in some respects, than the Masoretic Text.
http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/deutero.html

The quote above contains several words that indicate uncertainty of what it states.

Notice, they couldn't have been finalizing something in 90CE if it was already final.

Actually, they were not finalizing, to be precise. They were compiling.

Paul wrote in the 50-60's.

No problem. Scripture is Scripture. You don't need to wait for all Scriptures to be compiled together in order to know that Scripture is Scripture.

But let's not quibble. The Bible is the KJV, the Roman Catholic and Greek orthodox Canon. They are each different, but each are correct.

Contradiction.

For a RC, their Bible is correct and they have spent almost 1800 years working it out, whereas prot's have only had a few hundred.

Are you kidding? Protestants have been using the same Bible that was compiled from the 4th century. Doesn't sound like a few hundred years to me.

[disciplex]

It seems to me we are wandering a bit away from the OP. We are getting into some good discussion on biblical interpretation, the formation of the bible, and the role of the bible in Christian doctrine and practice.

Which is part of showing what is unbiblical about Roman Catholicism.

Now, in the sense that one can have a "beef with Catholics" simply because they answer these questions differently than other denominations or one's own individual views, I can accept that. I don't expect all christians to agree.

However, if the claim is that Catholics are not really Christian, which if I am not mistaken is what disciplex says, then I will try to bring us back to that point.

I am already trying to show how Roman Catholicism is not Christianity. So I don't think I'm offtopic.

Does one have to agree with every thing in the Bible to be Christian?

Well, if you actually understand that the text says something contrary to what you believe, and yet you still reject it, then there's a big problem here.

Even leaving out the interpretive questions and disagreements over what the Bible actually means in given passages, I would say no. I would challenge anyone who disagrees to find a passage which CLEARLY SAYS that in order to be considered Christian or to be considered saved (with a reasonable possibility), that one must believe the Bible as presently consituted in its entirety.

Salvation is by grace through faith. That's what the Bible says.

The Bible also says that God is not a liar. Those who are saved know by faith that God does not lie. So if you don't believe what the Bible says, then you don't believe what God says. And hence, we have a problem.

You want a passage that explicitly states that you have to believe the whole Bible in order to be saved, but there is a contradiction in what you ask. If one does not believe the whole Bible to be the word of God and claims he is saved regardless, then what's the point of quoting the Bible? He doesn't have to believe everything the Bible states! So even if I had a passage that says he has to believe everything the Bible says, he doesn't have to follow what the passage says because he doesn't believe every single thing the Bible says.

As support for my position, I will again bring up the book of Romans.

8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Yes, and the heart is key here. It's not enough to profess with your mouth. You need to believe in your heart.

This is why Jesus also says the following:

Matthew 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Notice that Jesus is referring to professing believers. He is saying that it is not enough to profess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord. You also need to do the will of God by faith.

This seems pretty straightforward. Under these criteria, Catholics are saved. They are Christians.

Small note: You mean Roman Catholics.

Well, if this is pretty straightforward to you, what about Matthew 7:21-23?

Now, one might find other verses which one could use to make a case against this, but if that is the case, then is not one admitting that the BIble is not completely self-consistent?

No, because a perceived contradiction is not necessarily a real contradiction. One must study every passage within context and not ignore any word in it.

Note that there is nothing here about "well, you are saved but not if you pray to saints." There is no footnote that says "except for people who kneel in front of statues of Mary." There is no "except for people who do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture or who believe in the infallibility of the pope."

Yet Jesus said that you must do the will of God to show that you are saved. For example, people who disobey God by bowing down to statues of Mary are not doing His will, and thus, they are not showing that they are saved.

It just isn't there. If all scripture is useful for teaching and if it is all binding, then Romans chapter 10 fits the bill, and it settles the issue.

Period.

Notice the word "all". Romans 10 is not the only passage written in the Bible, and even then, it says that professing Jesus is not enough. You need to believe in your heart!

[Catharsis]

Note the years. Centuries after the Apostles. I'd rather listen to what the Apostles said.

If one rejects Saint John Chrysostom or Saint Basil the Great he also rejects the Apostles, and all the Saints and Martyrs throughout the ages.

[Ooberman]

I'm not sure what to do at this point. I am amazed that even after the bloodshed of Ireland that a person would call another person not Christian because of a few quaint practices that differ.

I could quote the tomes of Catholic writing on the subject: of why they are not only Christian, but the only Christians that are assured of salvation (whereas Prots may get in by luck) but what would be the point?

This seems to be a pissing contest between the Sunni's and the Shiite's, with the guy who is claiming he is right also just happens to follow that particular brand. What are the odds!?!?! hahaha

diciplex, you win. You are the true Christian. I'm sure God will reward you for your confidence, and your judgment of your enemy.

I say this as a joke. The frenetic interpretive dancing and convoluted meanderings of a particular brand of a religion is of little interest to me.

The RC's say they are right and Prot's are wrong and they can back it up.

The Prot's say the RC's are wrong and they can back it up.

In the end it is religious propaganda: trying to convince people that what you believe is right because you interpret a few sentences out of a Bible that was cherry-picked hundreds of years later.

Luckily, God will sort it out in the end. (And by that I mean, nothing will come of it. When you die, you die, but people will remember you for what you tried to convince them of.)


As for my assertion that every Bible is right. It's true. Ask the believer how to interpret their sacred text and you will see! Hellalulya!

It is exactly as diciplex is doing: he is telling us how we should interpret what we read. And a fundi RC will do the same.

What's the beef with RC? The same thing that is the beef with any religion.

Religious disagreement. On and on it goes.....

And God stays silent on the matter.

[Amos]

I'm not sure what to do at this point. I am amazed that even after the bloodshed of Ireland that a person would call another person not Christian because of a few quaint practices that differ.

I could quote the tomes of Catholic writing on the subject: of why they are not only Christian, but the only Christians that are assured of salvation (whereas Prots may get in by luck) but what would be the point?

This seems to be a pissing contest between the Sunni's and the Shiite's, with the guy who is claiming he is right also just happens to follow that particular brand. What are the odds!?!?! hahaha

diciplex, you win. You are the true Christian. I'm sure God will reward you for your confidence, and your judgment of your enemy.

I say this as a joke. The frenetic interpretive dancing and convoluted meanderings of a particular brand of a religion is of little interest to me.

The RC's say they are right and Prot's are wrong and they can back it up.

The Prot's say the RC's are wrong and they can back it up.

In the end it is religious propaganda: trying to convince people that what you believe is right because you interpret a few sentences out of a Bible that was cherry-picked hundreds of years later.

Luckily, God will sort it out in the end. (And by that I mean, nothing will come of it. When you die, you die, but people will remember you for what you tried to convince them of.)


As for my assertion that every Bible is right. It's true. Ask the believer how to interpret their sacred text and you will see! Hellalulya!

It is exactly as diciplex is doing: he is telling us how we should interpret what we read. And a fundi RC will do the same.

What's the beef with RC? The same thing that is the beef with any religion.

Religious disagreement. On and on it goes.....

And God stays silent on the matter.

Your behavior is very puzzling to me. You believe that arguments about Theology, Doctrine and Dogma are pointless and silly, and yet here you are arguing about Theology, Doctrine and Dogma.

At the very least you should save yourself a lot of time and trouble by editing the post I have quoted to make it a little more generic so you can just cut and paste it in every thread you visit.

[Ooberman]

Yes, sorry. It is wrong. My strength revolves around the actual historical facts of the Bible, rather than the differences in how people interpret the texts they have chosen to accept as "true".

I just got frustrated because it's obvious that this thread is leading to a quote war. One person quotes their excerpts and expert commentary, another quotes their excerpts and their experts.

It's obvious that there is no solution, since there hasn't been one in 2000 years. I am still convinced, though, that under the rules of one religion, all religions are correct: all religions have their own special way they think text should be interpreted.

I will remove myself from this thread and refuse to try to add an unbiased view to a long disagreement between two camps that call each other heretics.

In the end, each side just pulls out their well-worn argument, but here is the last I will say on the matter:

Both Catholics and conservative Protestants generally agree on some major theological matters, like the existence of angels, Mary's virgin conception; Jesus' sinless life, incarnation, crucifixion, bodily resurrection, and his imminent return of Jesus to Earth in the second coming; Heaven, Hell; the Trinity, and the deity of Jesus. They agree that his execution brought about atonement -- the potential to bridge the gulf between humanity and God caused by sin. However they disagree on how this was achieved. They partly agree about the significance of baptism, but disagree about the timing when it is normally performed. They do not agree on which books are included in the official canon of the Bible.

Perhaps the main difference between conservative Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is expressed by the "five Solas". "Sola" means "alone" in Latin. The first three Sola statements of the early Protestant movement stressed that:
bullet "Sola Scriptura:" The Bible is the sole authority for Christian beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church stresses a balance between Biblical support and the tradition of the Church itself.
bullet "Sola Gratia:" One is saved through grace alone, given to the believer by God directly. The Catholic Church stresses the importance of church sacraments as a channel for God's grace.
bullet "Sola Fide:" Salvation is by the individual's faith alone in trusting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Again, the Catholic Church stresses the importance of church sacraments.

There also exists a great gulf between the two groups on other matters of belief and church practice -- particularly with regard to the rapture, authority within the church, church organization, freedom of the individual, freedom of each congregation, etc.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_capr.htm


However, in the end it is not just Cath's against Prot's. It's religious bigotry to claim that there are not other valid opinions in Christianity. As I mentioned: Mormonism, Christian Scientists, et al.

And you're right I should keep this handy for cutting and pasting. It shouldn't have to be said over and over and over again.

[micatala]

Does one have to agree with every thing in the Bible to be Christian?

Well, if you actually understand that the text says something contrary to what you believe, and yet you still reject it, then there's a big problem here.

I disagree. I ask for Biblical support that one must follow ALL biblical teachings in order to be a Christian. I have already provided a verse which indicates this is not necessary.

I would challenge disciplex whether he supports or follows, for example, Paul's admonitions not to let women speak in church or to follow certain hair cutting or hair-covering practices. Does disciplex follow Jesus' admonition to the young man to sell all he owns and give to the poor?

I would suggest there is not one Christian in 1000 if that who would actually agree to follow ALL biblical teachings and who believes he or she MUST follow them all.

Even leaving out the interpretive questions and disagreements over what the Bible actually means in given passages, I would say no. I would challenge anyone who disagrees to find a passage which CLEARLY SAYS that in order to be considered Christian or to be considered saved (with a reasonable possibility), that one must believe the Bible as presently consituted in its entirety.

Salvation is by grace through faith. That's what the Bible says.

The Bible also says that God is not a liar. Those who are saved know by faith that God does not lie. So if you don't believe what the Bible says, then you don't believe what God says. And hence, we have a problem.

I disagree with the bolded section. In fact, one can show from the Bible that this doesn't hold. Jesus explicitly gave a different teaching on divorce than was given in the OT. In effect, Jesus did not "believe" that that teaching was to be considered binding for all time and for all people. He even suggests it was a teaching of Moses and not of God.

In addition, if you do not accept my quotation of Romans chapter 10 as settling the issue, then aren't YOU calling God a liar????

Your response to the passage in Romans was the following:

8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Yes, and the heart is key here. It's not enough to profess with your mouth. You need to believe in your heart.

This is why Jesus also says the following:

Matthew 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Notice that Jesus is referring to professing believers. He is saying that it is not enough to profess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord. You also need to do the will of God by faith.

Now, I would agree that belief and salvation is a matter of the heart. But it already says this in Romans, where it says confess with your mouth AND believe in your heart.

I would ask disciplex how he reconciles Romans 10 with Matthew 7. Since he believes the BIble cannot lie and if he believes it is totally self-consistent then it is incumbent upon him to reconcile these verses. You can't pick Matthew 7 over Romans 10 under these conditions.

Yet Jesus said that you must do the will of God to show that you are saved. For example, people who disobey God by bowing down to statues of Mary are not doing His will, and thus, they are not showing that they are saved.

First, you have ignored that "bowing down to Mary" does not equate to worshipping her as God.

Secondly, I would submit that if anyone who does anything against the will of God is showing they are not saved, then none of us is saved.

Notice the word "all". Romans 10 is not the only passage written in the Bible, and even then, it says that professing Jesus is not enough. You need to believe in your heart!

Are you saying there are no Catholics who believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord? This would be a truly astonishing claim if so.