Protestantism....

[Guest]

I asked for Catholic input to see if they knew the answer. I have yet to see any follower of Rome actually provide input on the reason why the protestants were protesting unfair treatment.

Perhaps you would enjoy the RCC forum. In there you can discuss the "elections" (non-Biblical, btw) of Popes, the veneration of Mary (non-Biblical), baptism for salvation (non-Biblical), and other hosts of non-Biblical doctrines that the Church of Rome of follows.

Though to keep this thread on point, I would be interested in what you believe are "specifically Protestant doctrines" that were not taught by the early church.

 

[dadof10]

I asked for Catholic input to see if they knew the answer. I have yet to see any follower of Rome actually provide input on the reason why the protestants were protesting unfair treatment .

You're not getting any "input" because we won't take your thinly-veiled bait. You also never asked for "input on the reason why the protestants were protesting unfair treatment" until now.

Perhaps you would enjoy the RCC forum.

No. I'm good here. Thanks for the concern, though.

Though to keep this thread on point, I would be interested in what you believe are "specifically Protestant doctrines" that were not taught by the early church.

Why don't we start with sola Scriptura. First define how your specific denomination understands the doctrine, then show some quotes where the early Church Fathers taught it.

 

[mondar]

Why don't we start with sola Scriptura. First define how your specific denomination understands the doctrine, then show some quotes where the early Church Fathers taught it.

Gerry,
Interesting starting place... Why dont you start with the scriptures?
Mondar

 

[dadof10]

Gerry,
Interesting starting place... Why dont you start with the scriptures?
Mondar

If we're discussing sola Scriptura I can't because it IS NOT SCRIPTURAL. Nor is it logical nor historical, which is my point. It is a man made doctrine invented in the 16th century by a disgruntled monk.

And it's not Gerry, it's Mark. :D

 

[mondar]

Gerry,
Interesting starting place... Why dont you start with the scriptures?
Mondar

If we're discussing sola Scriptura I can't because it IS NOT SCRIPTURAL. Nor is it logical nor historical, which is my point. It is a man made doctrine invented in the 16th century by a disgruntled monk.

And it's not Gerry, it's Mark. :D

Heh, I ask you to start with scripture, you get defensive about our doctrine of sola scrptura. Is there something you don't like about scripture?

If you want to discuss sola scriptura, join the thread. There are several threads devoted to the topic of sola scriptura. Both alonevoice and myself have posted on those threads. You would be welcome to join us there if you wish to discuss the doctrine.

 

[francisdesales]

If you want to discuss sola scriptura, join the thread. There are several threads devoted to the topic of sola scriptura. Both alonevoice and myself have posted on those threads. You would be welcome to join us there if you wish to discuss the doctrine.

Oh, I'd love to join that one again! Are you intending on continuing where you left off when you chose not to respond to me on the subject? Have you finally come up with answers to the questions you left unanswered? I can certainly cut and paste them here if you want to reopen that coffin...

 

[francisdesales]

The word catholic was first used in a letter to the church in Smyrna in the early 2nd. century (105-06AD?, according to my notes).

If I remember correctly, the words Roman Catholic were first used officially in the late 4th. century the the Roman Emperor declared Christianity as the official religion of the Empire.

I didn't read the whole thread, so I apologize if this was already posted. 8-)

Can you point me to an official document that refers to the "ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH" during the first millenium? I would be interested to see at what point the Catholic Church called itself the "ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH" in official documents. i have heard what you have said from other Protestants, but have yet to find any actual evidence of that.

What I don't get, I suppose, is there is this physical Church, a persecuted community, that existed from 33 AD to 315 AD, and it suddenly blew away and fell off the face of the earth - while simultaneously, ANOTHER supposed Church called the "Roman Catholic Church" came into existence. What is strange is that this "RCC" had the same beliefs as the "Church" of before 315! I find this strange.

Has anyone actually thought about the logic of this?

If anyone has evidence of this "RCC" name in official documents from the 4th century, that might help clear matters a bit.

Thanks

 

[follower of Christ]

what year for what? I do not know when the Roman Catholic demoniation came into being.

What year was the term "catholic" used to describe the Church that Jesus founded? Sheesh, try to keep up ;-). The "Roman Catholic Denomination" (not DEMONiation) came into being on Pentecost around the year 36 AD. It's written about in the first chapter of Acts.

huh.
I just looked and I dont see the term 'Roman Catholic' anywhere in that text ....what bible are you using? ;)

 

[francisdesales]

Here is a continuation of what I have found regarding "Roman Catholic Church".

I have gone through the Councils of the first millenium, as well as other local councils, and was not able to find any reference to "Roman Catholic Church". While Pope Gregory does mention "Roman Church", the context is clear that he is discussing the apostolic see, because he also mentions the "Jerusalem Church" and the "Church at Constantinople". There are five apostolic sees, three of them are listed here. Antioch and Alexandria are the other two. But this is just a sub-division of heirarchy. These Churches are obviously united in faith.

After examing the Church writings, I went to the Oxford Dictionary. In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading "Roman Catholic".

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to discuss the Anglican useage of the term in their invention of the "Branch" theory - Anglican, Roman, and the Eastern Orthodox are supposedly Apostolic (as per the term's use in the Nicean Creed). I won't bore you with the details of that discussion. But it appears that this is where the term began.

Really, the term "RCC" is an attempt to obscure history, separating the current Catholic Church from the Catholic Church mentioned by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD. It does not withstand even the slightest of scrutiny, as there is no other "Catholic Church" mentioned by the Church Fathers. NOWHERE is there mention of an opposing "Catholic Church" by the Fathers. It seems clear that there is only ONE Catholic Church. I spent about an hour and it is enough to disprove the idea that "RCC" came from Constantine. If anyone has an actual document that says otherwise, I would be interested in seeing it.

Regards

 

[mondar]

If you want to discuss sola scriptura, join the thread. There are several threads devoted to the topic of sola scriptura. Both alonevoice and myself have posted on those threads. You would be welcome to join us there if you wish to discuss the doctrine.

Oh, I'd love to join that one again! Are you intending on continuing where you left off when you chose not to respond to me on the subject? Have you finally come up with answers to the questions you left unanswered? I can certainly cut and paste them here if you want to reopen that coffin...

Actually, if you made a post that was not answered it must have been back a few pages in the thread on sola scriptura. I must admit that lately I have considered many of your posts nothing but ad-hominim attacks. Rarely do I see you post much of substance exegeting a biblical text.

 

[francisdesales]

I must admit that lately I have considered many of your posts nothing but ad-hominim attacks. Rarely do I see you post much of substance exegeting a biblical text.

Naturally. That is usually what people say when they cannot answer arguments that deflate their pet projects... "it's the other guy's fault, sniffle..."

Perhaps you have forgotten, but it was the Protestant with the proof of burden on showing, FROM Scriptures, the existence of "sola scriptura". Why would I have to "exegete a biblical text" for you? If you can present a verse, we can exegete, as we did with 2 Thes 2:5, and found that there was absolutely no substance to your assertion. If you present the text, and we can look at them.

Anyway, let me know if you can prove your proposition on how oral teachings have blown away, according to the Scriptures. I'd like to hear your new angle...

 

[hacim]

The word catholic was first used in a letter to the church in Smyrna in the early 2nd. century (105-06AD?, according to my notes).

If I remember correctly, the words Roman Catholic were first used officially in the late 4th. century the the Roman Emperor declared Christianity as the official religion of the Empire.

I didn't read the whole thread, so I apologize if this was already posted. 8-)

Can you point me to an official document that refers to the "ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH" during the first millenium? I would be interested to see at what point the Catholic Church called itself the "ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH" in official documents. i have heard what you have said from other Protestants, but have yet to find any actual evidence of that.

What I don't get, I suppose, is there is this physical Church, a persecuted community, that existed from 33 AD to 315 AD, and it suddenly blew away and fell off the face of the earth - while simultaneously, ANOTHER supposed Church called the "Roman Catholic Church" came into existence. What is strange is that this "RCC" had the same beliefs as the "Church" of before 315! I find this strange.

Has anyone actually thought about the logic of this?

If anyone has evidence of this "RCC" name in official documents from the 4th century, that might help clear matters a bit.

Thanks

Actually, the term Roman Catholic Church is not really accurate. There is not a Roman Catholic Church and I really believe that this usage is insulting and does not further the Christian dialogue.

The term Catholic Church is accurate [and means Universal] and as somene posted came into usage in the second century....there are many different rites within the Catholic Church - I believe that he term roman is just one of these rites.....it is short hand to refer to catholics as "Roman" and I can see why the cathlics here seem defensive as it seems you are using it as an insult.........

I am surprised that the 'former catholic' poster did not correct the error .........if one of he catholic posters did I missed it

 

[Guest]

Actually,
it is called the "Roman Catholic Church-state".

For it is not simply an institution claiming to be a Christian church, but it is also an actual political state located in Italy.

Of course, by definition, the Roman Catholic Church-state can not be considered Christian, for it is opposed to Scripture and it is run by a fascist leader claiming to be the "Holy Father", that is, God. The pope is Antichrist.

Let me give a short enumerative definition of what Protestantism is:
1) The Bible Alone Is The Word Of God--this is the axiom of Christianity.
2) Justification By Faith Alone--this is the heart of the Gospel
3) Salvation By Grace Alone--this assumes the absolute predestination of all things
4) Christ Alone--this frees men from the fascist control of priestcraft
5) To God Alone Be The Glory--this is the ultimate reason for whatsoever comes to pass

These 5 principles are diametrically opposed to Roman Catholicism and its heretical/humanistic sacerdotal system of salvation--all based upon human merit and the free will of sinful men.

Red Beetle

 

[hacim]

Actually,
it is called the "Roman Catholic Church-state".

For it is not simply an institution claiming to be a Christian church, but it is also an actual political state located in Italy.

Of course, by definition, the Roman Catholic Church-state can not be considered Christian, for it is opposed to Scripture and it is run by a fascist leader claiming to be the "Holy Father", that is, God. The pope is Antichrist.

Let me give a short enumerative definition of what Protestantism is:
1) The Bible Alone Is The Word Of God--this is the axiom of Christianity.
2) Justification By Faith Alone--this is the heart of the Gospel
3) Salvation By Grace Alone--this assumes the absolute predestination of all things
4) Christ Alone--this frees men from the fascist control of priestcraft
5) To God Alone Be The Glory--this is the ultimate reason for whatsoever comes to pass

These 5 principles are diametrically opposed to Roman Catholicism and its heretical/humanistic sacerdotal system of salvation--all based upon human merit and the free will of sinful men.

Red Beetle

This hyperbole is not useful for dialogue....perhaps you should stay away from overtly anti-catholic sites.....

Now I do not know everything about the Catholic Church.....but the name "Roman Catholic Church-state". means nothing nor is it anything official......

There is Vatican City which is a seperate State [as a geographic entity - independent of Italy]

There is a Catholic Church which is comprised of many Rites - of which the Roman rite is the largest [in membership - not geography - as every rite can have members in any location around the globe; as I understand it]. The exact number of rites is somehting like 27 or 24. I have read about the various rites and I have seen the number, just canoot rememmber off hand.....

I am not sure what all the differences in the rites are....I understand all acknowledge the primacy of the Roman See - that all share the basics of the faith but there are differences in the liturgies and cultural practices [like there are Eastern Rites that resemble the Eastern Orthodox {EO] church but unlike the EO acknowledge the Pope....

These differences are similar to what one might find culturaly different between a baptist church in South Carolina and a baptist missionary church in Africa.......

From there it is possile to discuss similarities and differences.....

Personally, I would stay away from the brainwashing of virulent anti-catholic sites on the web...if they have any honest points to make, the message is lost......

I woud also stay away from the ad hominum attacks like your "pope is the anti-christ".

That sort of attack is just not right, it is not Christian and fails the "WWJD" test.......

 

[dadof10]

Heh, I ask you to start with scripture, you get defensive about our doctrine of sola scrptura. Is there something you don't like about scripture?

If you want to discuss sola scriptura, join the thread. There are several threads devoted to the topic of sola scriptura. Both alonevoice and myself have posted on those threads. You would be welcome to join us there if you wish to discuss the doctrine.

Mondar, I'm not getting defensive, there is no reason to. You asked me to "start with Scripture" but I can't when we're discussing the false doctrine of sola-Scriptura. It's not in the Bible.

aLoneVoice (a mod) asked this in an earlier post: "Though to keep this thread on point, I would be interested in what you believe are "specifically Protestant doctrines" that were not taught by the early church." To which, I responded with the "sola-Scriptura" post asking him(her) to define it and show where it is historical.

I guess aLoneVoice thinks this topic is the OP, maybe you should too.

I love Scripture. ALL Scripture, not just carefully selected verses that "prove" pre-concieved man-made doctrines like sola-Scriptura, which is not Scriptural nor (here we go, back to the OP) historical.

 

[dadof10]

what year for what? I do not know when the Roman Catholic demoniation came into being.

What year was the term "catholic" used to describe the Church that Jesus founded? Sheesh, try to keep up ;-). The "Roman Catholic Denomination" (not DEMONiation) came into being on Pentecost around the year 36 AD. It's written about in the first chapter of Acts.

huh.
I just looked and I dont see the term 'Roman Catholic' anywhere in that text ....what bible are you using? ;)

It's right next to the passages that teach sola-Scriptura . Just kidding.

The term is not used, but doctrines that are purely Catholic are taught in the first few centuries of historic Christianity, unlike any purely Protestant doctrines like SS. Pentecost was the birth of this historic Church.

 

[dadof10]

Here is a continuation of what I have found regarding "Roman Catholic Church".

I have gone through the Councils of the first millenium, as well as other local councils, and was not able to find any reference to "Roman Catholic Church". While Pope Gregory does mention "Roman Church", the context is clear that he is discussing the apostolic see, because he also mentions the "Jerusalem Church" and the "Church at Constantinople". There are five apostolic sees, three of them are listed here. Antioch and Alexandria are the other two. But this is just a sub-division of heirarchy. These Churches are obviously united in faith.

After examing the Church writings, I went to the Oxford Dictionary. In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading "Roman Catholic".

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to discuss the Anglican useage of the term in their invention of the "Branch" theory - Anglican, Roman, and the Eastern Orthodox are supposedly Apostolic (as per the term's use in the Nicean Creed). I won't bore you with the details of that discussion. But it appears that this is where the term began.

Really, the term "RCC" is an attempt to obscure history, separating the current Catholic Church from the Catholic Church mentioned by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD. It does not withstand even the slightest of scrutiny, as there is no other "Catholic Church" mentioned by the Church Fathers. NOWHERE is there mention of an opposing "Catholic Church" by the Fathers. It seems clear that there is only ONE Catholic Church. I spent about an hour and it is enough to disprove the idea that "RCC" came from Constantine. If anyone has an actual document that says otherwise, I would be interested in seeing it.

Regards

That's pretty interesting, I would have guessed it was way earlier, maybe around 900 A.D. when the "schism" was heating up.

 

[dadof10]

Actually,
it is called the "Roman Catholic Church-state".

For it is not simply an institution claiming to be a Christian church, but it is also an actual political state located in Italy.

Of course, by definition, the Roman Catholic Church-state can not be considered Christian, for it is opposed to Scripture and it is run by a fascist leader claiming to be the "Holy Father", that is, God. The pope is Antichrist.

Let me give a short enumerative definition of what Protestantism is:
1) The Bible Alone Is The Word Of God--this is the axiom of Christianity.
2) Justification By Faith Alone--this is the heart of the Gospel
3) Salvation By Grace Alone--this assumes the absolute predestination of all things
4) Christ Alone--this frees men from the fascist control of priestcraft
5) To God Alone Be The Glory--this is the ultimate reason for whatsoever comes to pass

These 5 principles are diametrically opposed to Roman Catholicism and its heretical/humanistic sacerdotal system of salvation--all based upon human merit and the free will of sinful men.

Red Beetle

LOL...

Show #1 in Scripture or from early Church history, "axiom" or not.

Scripture specifically says we are not justified by faith alone so #2 is non-Biblical.

In #3 how does sola-Gratia assume absolute predestination?

#4. Been Catholic my whole life, never heard the term "priestcraft". (let alone, that evil "fascist" priestcraft)

I agree with your entire #5, so can't we all just get along????
:o

P.S. Who is the brainiac you are quoting in your signature?

 

[francisdesales]

Actually,
it is called the "Roman Catholic Church-state".

Have you found any useage of this term before 1400? The commonly held false teaching of Protestants is that the Roman Catholic Church came into existence during Constantine. However, as my previous posts note, there is no historical evidence of this invention. Historical documents put this term's beginning with the Reformation.

For it is not simply an institution claiming to be a Christian church, but it is also an actual political state located in Italy.

The Roman Catholic Church is an actual political state in Italy? I think you are confused. Vatican City is a political state in Italy, not the "Roman Catholic Church".

Of course, by definition, the Roman Catholic Church-state can not be considered Christian, for it is opposed to Scripture and it is run by a fascist leader claiming to be the "Holy Father", that is, God. The pope is Antichrist.

Oh boy. Well, you are entitled to your opinions, no matter how false they are. Do you have any Scriptures to support that the pope is the antichrist (read 1 John's definition and see whether the Church teaches that) or that the Church teaches anything opposed to Scritpures? You are confusing your INTERPETATION of Scriptures with actual Scriptures.

Let me give a short enumerative definition of what Protestantism is:
1) The Bible Alone Is The Word Of God--this is the axiom of Christianity.
2) Justification By Faith Alone--this is the heart of the Gospel
3) Salvation By Grace Alone--this assumes the absolute predestination of all things
4) Christ Alone--this frees men from the fascist control of priestcraft
5) To God Alone Be The Glory--this is the ultimate reason for whatsoever comes to pass

All those "alones" sort of defeats the meaning of ALONE, doesn't it? Is it Christ alone? Grace alone? Faith alone? God alone? The Bible alone? Which one????

These 5 principles are diametrically opposed to Roman Catholicism and its heretical/humanistic sacerdotal system of salvation--all based upon human merit and the free will of sinful men.

That probably sounds really fancy, and it might actually impress someone out there, but it is false. First of all, Protestantism is NOT "diametrically opposed" to Catholicism - for one who really analyzes it and can move beyond the cliches and polemics. And secondly, Catholicism is not based on human merit, but on God's graces given to man and man's response to God's graces. To be able to compare two things, one must actually present more than straw man arguments.

Regards

 

[Drew]

Let me give a short enumerative definition of what Protestantism is:
1) The Bible Alone Is The Word Of God--this is the axiom of Christianity.
2) Justification By Faith Alone--this is the heart of the Gospel
3) Salvation By Grace Alone--this assumes the absolute predestination of all things
4) Christ Alone--this frees men from the fascist control of priestcraft
5) To God Alone Be The Glory--this is the ultimate reason for whatsoever comes to pass

I believe that the Scriptures teach that the heart of the gospel is not "justification by faith alone", but rather that the heart of the gospel is basically that "Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and is the Lord of the Universe". Perhaps you will agrree that this is so. In any event, I think that characterization number 2 is too "narrow" and focuses in on a narrow aspect of what the Gospel is.

With respect to the assertion about the "absolute predestination of all things", you are invited to make a scriptural case to this effect.