Religion Question:

sg24_

All-Conference
Mar 13, 2006
2,697
1,047
0
I am protestant and have some in laws who are catholic. There has never been a moment where I have thought that they were or were not going to heaven for being a catholic. I have always believe that the fruits of a person faith will show in their life no matter what denomination they belong too. (Matthew 7:16)

Worrying about if other denominations are going to get in is really the least of my worries. I have found that their is more to life than arguing over who feels that they are more right than another. Like right now, if more people of faith would do a little more serving and seeing some of the things people are enduring, than this heavan/hell nonsense would sease.

Plus Basketball is starting, our football team is going bowling, and recruiting is fixing to ramp up and we still arguing over the same items.
 

TruBluCatFan

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
19,313
10,108
113
There's absolutely no contradiction. I don't go around starting arguments about how vaccines don't cause autism and I don't go around starting arguments about how you shouldn't believe in Christianity. But when people publicly express bad ideas, particularly when trying to convince others those bad ideas are correct, I criticize them.

If you don't see a contradiction that's fine. But let me ask you this, if I see a thread about atheism on The Paddock and I jump in as a Christian to tell them about Jesus and the Bible because I just want to correct their bad ideas you'd have no problem and wouldn't consider that as proselytizing, correct? Because that is exactly what you admitted to doing in this thread? As long as you are consistent I have no issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimmyWa11

BigBlueSean_rivals178247

All-Conference
Oct 23, 2013
20,054
3,040
0
To the OP, how do you figure that catholics were the first Christians? Serious question. FCC.


Many people view world religions in a line like this:


BuddhismHinduism-Muslim-Judaism-Christianity- Catholicism


From a historical perspective it was more like this:

Catholicism

Christianity

Just Google Martin Luther and Constantine's role in the development of what we call today as Christianity. It is derived from the original church which was the Catholic Church
 

BigBlueSean_rivals178247

All-Conference
Oct 23, 2013
20,054
3,040
0
Jews were the first Christians.

Jews technically were first yes, but I'm talking solely from the perspective of the evolution which led to all the Protestant religions we have today including "Christians".

Catholicism is not merely a denomination. Peter was the first Pope, I know some will say they were Jews who were converted. Converted to what... Christains. Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ, who himself converted many before his crucifixtion. When the Apostles and their band of followers, went out from Jeruselem to evangelize they established churches. The Latin church which eventually landed in Rome, The see of Alexandria and of Antioch were the three largest but not the only, there are 24. This happened long before Constantine. The reason the latter two diosease are no longer as powerful as the Latin church is because Muslim invaders destoyed them. All of the 24 rites of the church are under the protection of the bishop of Rome ie the POPE. ALL protestant denominations are a result of a break from the the catholic church either directly or indirectly. Catholicism is the first christian church, From the evangelism of the apostles it was born with in the first century , not the third.

It was much later that Martin Luther made changes to the Bible (excluded the Apocrypha and even wanted to not include Revelations and a couple other books) and adapted other practices from that which already existed via the Catholic Church such as baptism, communion, etc...
 

cole854

Heisman
Sep 11, 2012
10,156
22,638
0
What I have always found fascinating is why people concern themselves with such thoughts. The Bible clearly says it is not our place to judge others. There is no way I can know God's thoughts or the relationship between God and a specific individual, so why should I speculate on how God will judge other people?


The Bible also says to go and make disciples.

The Bible is theoretically pretty simple....John 3:16-17 and you expound on your faith from there.
 

BigBlueSean_rivals178247

All-Conference
Oct 23, 2013
20,054
3,040
0
I always love when atheists or non believes say "give me something other than quotes from the Bible".... When defending Christian beliefs....what do you want them to use? What sense does it make to use quotes from the Koran to support Christianity? Of course you'd use the Bible.

Also, the Bible does say not to judge, but within that scope it doesn't mean to ignore, excuse, or pardon sin. There's a difference.
 
Mar 13, 2004
14,745
12,925
0
If you don't see a contradiction that's fine. But let me ask you this, if I see a thread about atheism on The Paddock and I jump in as a Christian to tell them about Jesus and the Bible because I just want to correct their bad ideas you'd have no problem and wouldn't consider that as proselytizing, correct? Because that is exactly what you admitted to doing in this thread? As long as you are consistent I have no issue.

You can offer your thoughts or criticisms about whatever idea of mine I'm pitching in a public forum. If I say something, or am trying to convince someone of something, and somebody thinks I'm wrong or leading people astray, I expect them to criticize and offer counter ideas. I'm prepared to address criticism of my ideas. And to criticize in turn. Of course, I can't see myself starting a thread about "hey guys, let's talk about how there's probably no god!" though. I honestly think it's odd how there's traditionally been this blanket of protection around religious ideas where you're not supposed to criticize them even if people are speaking as though they're the truth and trying to convince others to believe them.
 

TruBluCatFan

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
19,313
10,108
113
that is just semantics.

the catholic church is the only one that traces direct lineage to Jesus himself. it is a matter of fact if you accept the historical account, not teaching

catholic is just a word

Pretty sure the Orthodox would disagree with you.
 

TruBluCatFan

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
19,313
10,108
113
orthodox is catholic really... they are just on a 2 week vacation
 

cantstandthecards

Sophomore
Jan 7, 2009
1,259
150
0
Jews technically were first yes, but I'm talking solely from the perspective of the evolution which led to all the Protestant religions we have today including "Christians".

Catholicism is not merely a denomination. Peter was the first Pope, I know some will say they were Jews who were converted. Converted to what... Christains. Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ, who himself converted many before his crucifixtion. When the Apostles and their band of followers, went out from Jeruselem to evangelize they established churches. The Latin church which eventually landed in Rome, The see of Alexandria and of Antioch were the three largest but not the only, there are 24. This happened long before Constantine. The reason the latter two diosease are no longer as powerful as the Latin church is because Muslim invaders destoyed them. All of the 24 rites of the church are under the protection of the bishop of Rome ie the POPE. ALL protestant denominations are a result of a break from the the catholic church either directly or indirectly. Catholicism is the first christian church, From the evangelism of the apostles it was born with in the first century , not the third.

It was much later that Martin Luther made changes to the Bible (excluded the Apocrypha and even wanted to not include Revelations and a couple other books) and adapted other practices from that which already existed via the Catholic Church such as baptism, communion, etc...
The catholic church didn't come around until about 300 years after the death of Jesus Christ.pope is a man made term. Show me the word pope in the bible.
The word catholic is not in the bible, but Christian is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UKserialkiller

cat_in_the_hat

All-Conference
Jan 28, 2004
5,909
4,457
0
The Bible also says to go and make disciples.

The Bible is theoretically pretty simple....John 3:16-17 and you expound on your faith from there.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, so I will only briefly comment. Making disciples has little to do with judging another person.
 

BigBlueSean_rivals178247

All-Conference
Oct 23, 2013
20,054
3,040
0
The catholic church didn't come around until about 300 years after the death of Jesus Christ.pope is a man made term. Show me the word pope in the bible.
The word catholic is not in the bible, but Christian is.


Problem is you can't get over the simple semantics... Catholics are Christians. Essentially one in the same...with some slight differences.
The term Catholic was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages.

The word in English can mean "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church." Many Christians use it to refer more broadly to the whole Christian Church or to all believers in Jesus Christ regardless of denominational affiliation; it can also more narrowly refer to Catholicism, which encompasses several historic churches sharing major beliefs, the main one being Christianity.
 

Stonewall12

Heisman
Nov 15, 2009
24,400
13,211
66
Life's too short to sweat the small stuff... And the only salvation I am in charge of is myself...not my place to designate where others salvation stands

I also have found through this first 4 months a lot of misconceptions one of which like you said is dealing with Mary. Its more of just a way of saying "God chose her to carry the savior- so naturally if she carried the savior of the world, she has an element of divinity." That makes sense to me.
Mary has nothing to do with the element of divinity. Catholics put her on a pedestal for whatever reason. No reason to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cantstandthecards

JimmyWa11

All-Conference
May 9, 2010
1,108
3,677
113
Many people view world religions in a line like this:


BuddhismHinduism-Muslim-Judaism-Christianity- Catholicism


From a historical perspective it was more like this:

Catholicism

Christianity

Just Google Martin Luther and Constantine's role in the development of what we call today as Christianity. It is derived from the original church which was the Catholic Church

Actually, Roman Catholicism did not exist until the Fifth century when the Bishop of Rome began to consolidate power for himself. There isn't even evidence of an episcopal position of bishop in Rome until the late second century.

Also, Islam was not started until the 6th century when Muhammed was taught a misconception of biblical Christianity from traveling Catholic merchants that Christians worshipped the "Trinity" of God, Jesus and Mary...thus his term for Christians in the Koran as polytheists.

Bigbluesean...do you agree with my original post regarding the doctrinal distinctions between Roman Catholics and Protestants in regard to the means of salvation? Thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cantstandthecards
May 6, 2004
15,086
11,447
0
I'm pretty sure catholics aren't taught that grace is achieved by ritual alone, maybe that's just what you are told.

Also, Muhammad very clearly refers to Jews and Christians repeatedly by name and infidel polytheists (Arab Pagans) separately as he spent the his life at war with them.
 

BigBlueSean_rivals178247

All-Conference
Oct 23, 2013
20,054
3,040
0
Can't believe I'm going to type a serious reply in the Paddock...but the OP seems genuine.

The major doctrinal divide between Catholics and Protestants (and the issue that sparked the Reformation 499 years ago Tuesday) is the issue of salvation by grace through faith alone due entirely to the finished work of Christ, not our own works, (the Protestant position; see Ephesians 2:8-10) vs. salvation by grace through continual obedience to the sacraments (baptism, mass, confession etc.).

A Catholic must "earn" grace (Protestants see this as an oxymoron because grace by definition is unearned) by continually participating in the sacraments...a combination of faith and works in salvation.

Protestants claim that this idea of salvation is unbiblical and therefore only those who trust fully in Christ's finished work on the cross (not in their own works, which the Bible calls filthy rags in God's eyes...and this applies to any works based religion) will enter the Kingdom of God.



I would simply say I think you have been mislead or misinformed a bit when it comes to the issue and what Catholics teach. Sorry for the lengthy response, but I just got done discussing this in one of my RICA classes...

Here goes:

The Catholic Church has never taught such a doctrine and, in fact, has constantly condemned the notion that men can earn or merit salvation. Catholic soteriology (salvation theology) is rooted in apostolic Tradition and Scripture and says that it is only by God's grace--completely unmerited by works--that one is saved.

The Church teaches that it's God's grace from beginning to end which justifies, sanctifies, and saves us. As Paul explains in Philippians 2:13, "God is the one, who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work."

Notice that Paul's words presuppose that the faithful Christian is not just desiring to be righteous, but is actively working toward it. This is the second half of the justification equation, and Protestants either miss or ignore it.

James 2:17 reminds us that "faith of itself, if it does not have work, is dead." In verse 24 James says, "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." And later: "For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (2:26).

The Council of Trent harmonizes the necessity of grace and works: "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or by the teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema" (Session 6; can. 1).

The Council fathers continued by saying, "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (Session 6: can. 9).

By the way, "let him be anathema" means "let him be excommunicated," not "let him be cursed to hell." The phrase was used in conciliar documents in a technical, theological sense, not in the same sense as the word "anathema" is found in Scripture. Don't let "Bible Christians" throw you for a loop on this one.

So, far from teaching a doctrine of "works righteousness" (that would be Pelagianism, which was condemned at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418), the Catholic Church teaches the true, biblical doctrine of justification.
 

BigBlueSean_rivals178247

All-Conference
Oct 23, 2013
20,054
3,040
0
Essentially you have Protestant's talking about Catholic teachings like they know for a fact when in actuality they don't know what they are talking about. Non Catholic Protestant's telling other people what Catholics practice and believe without a true understanding of the teaching at all is what often leads people astray when it comes to what Catholics doctrine, teachings and practices really are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lil2coupe

BigBlueSean_rivals178247

All-Conference
Oct 23, 2013
20,054
3,040
0
Actually the Gnostic Christians were the original Christians

Good for them, what came first really doesn't matter to be honest. Its still Christ centered and operates on confession that Jesus is savior and baptism. People in this thread have gotten all hung up on what came first. The true intent of the thread was to find out is it a common belief Protestant's have that Catholics won't inherit the kingdom of heaven....
 
  • Like
Reactions: lil2coupe

JimmyWa11

All-Conference
May 9, 2010
1,108
3,677
113
I would simply say I think you have been mislead or misinformed a bit when it comes to the issue and what Catholics teach. Sorry for the lengthy response, but I just got done discussing this in one of my RICA classes...

Here goes:

The Catholic Church has never taught such a doctrine and, in fact, has constantly condemned the notion that men can earn or merit salvation. Catholic soteriology (salvation theology) is rooted in apostolic Tradition and Scripture and says that it is only by God's grace--completely unmerited by works--that one is saved.

The Church teaches that it's God's grace from beginning to end which justifies, sanctifies, and saves us. As Paul explains in Philippians 2:13, "God is the one, who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work."

Notice that Paul's words presuppose that the faithful Christian is not just desiring to be righteous, but is actively working toward it. This is the second half of the justification equation, and Protestants either miss or ignore it.

James 2:17 reminds us that "faith of itself, if it does not have work, is dead." In verse 24 James says, "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." And later: "For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (2:26).

The Council of Trent harmonizes the necessity of grace and works: "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or by the teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema" (Session 6; can. 1).

The Council fathers continued by saying, "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (Session 6: can. 9).

By the way, "let him be anathema" means "let him be excommunicated," not "let him be cursed to hell." The phrase was used in conciliar documents in a technical, theological sense, not in the same sense as the word "anathema" is found in Scripture. Don't let "Bible Christians" throw you for a loop on this one.

So, far from teaching a doctrine of "works righteousness" (that would be Pelagianism, which was condemned at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418), the Catholic Church teaches the true, biblical doctrine of justification.

Appreciate the thoughtful response. I would say that I don't think I've been misinformed. I am a missionary in Ecuador and interact with Catholics everyday. This is not to brag but simply to inform you that I am well read on this subject after 8 years of theological education with a B.A. And M.Div. in Theological studies and currently working on my Ph.D. In Worldviews and missions.

The biggest problem with the Roman Catholic religion is that, as you stated, it relies on Scripture AND church tradition. This essentially puts the word of the church on a level ground of equal authority with the Word of God found solely in the Bible.

This is where your doctrine of justification gets misconstrued. Romans Catholics confuse justification and sanctification in their soteriology. Justification is solely the work of Christ by the grace of God in our lives. We contribute nothing. Sanctification involves our works as we become more like Christ because the Spirit is PRODUCING the fruit of good works in our lives, hence James 2.

If you truly believe that you can add nothing to your salvation and that you don't need to attend mass, confession, be baptized (in order to RECEIVE justification) rather you are relying solely on the grace of God in the finished work of Christ then I believe you are a Christian according to the Bible. Although if this is truly the case I think you will begin to see contradictions between the Catholic Church you attend and what Scripture says eventually.
 

JimmyWa11

All-Conference
May 9, 2010
1,108
3,677
113
Actually the Gnostic Christians were the original Christians
Also not true...the gnostic "scriptures" did not emerge until the second century and are far different than the original Scriptures.

The original Christians were the believers of the early church as outlined in the book of Acts which dates to the 60's A.D.
 

BigBlueSean_rivals178247

All-Conference
Oct 23, 2013
20,054
3,040
0
Appreciate the thoughtful response. I would say that I don't think I've been misinformed. I am a missionary in Ecuador and interact with Catholics everyday. This is not to brag but simply to inform you that I am well read on this subject after 8 years of theological education with a B.A. And M.Div. in Theological studies and currently working on my Ph.D. In Worldviews and missions.

The biggest problem with the Roman Catholic religion is that, as you stated, it relies on Scripture AND church tradition. This essentially puts the word of the church on a level ground of equal authority with the Word of God found solely in the Bible.

This is where your doctrine of justification gets misconstrued. Romans Catholics confuse justification and sanctification in their soteriology. Justification is solely the work of Christ by the grace of God in our lives. We contribute nothing. Sanctification involves our works as we become more like Christ because the Spirit is PRODUCING the fruit of good works in our lives, hence James 2.

If you truly believe that you can add nothing to your salvation and that you don't need to attend mass, confession, be baptized (in order to RECEIVE justification) rather you are relying solely on the grace of God in the finished work of Christ then I believe you are a Christian according to the Bible. Although if this is truly the case I think you will begin to see contradictions between the Catholic Church you attend and what Scripture says eventually.

See I just don't necessarily see it how you are depicting it. Not that either is right or wrong. Christians do the same thing IMO. IMO both require a confession that Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living God, a person to declare/accept him as their personal savior, and then be born again through baptism.... I have never believed that just doing that, and continuing to live your life however you want is good enough. I simply think Catholicism (and for that matter Christianity) encourage works to become more Christ like- including things like attending church-mass, prayer, confession/asking for forgiveness, repentance, partaking in communion, living a Christ-like life. Both have practices constructed in effort to help us better ourselves and draw close to Jesus. Catholicism is a tad more structured however... I get what you mean when it comes to the word of the church being on equal ground with scripture. How I personally see it is that preachers, deacons, elders, popes, bishops, cardinals, priests are all human channels for gods word and gods light here on earth. One thing I will say that I prefer much more in the Catholic church is the intense amount of education that is REQUIRED to be a priest and how much the Catholic church is open to the understanding not only of history through a religious account, but also a historical account as well. The preacher at my parents church doesn't even have a bachelors degree in any sort of theology at all....at that is EXTREMELY common in most Protestant churches. Whereas Catholic priests are forced to have a four year university degree in philosophy plus an additional 4-6 years of graduate level seminary formation in theology with a focus on biblical research.
 

CatManDoo_rivals376463

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
19,228
2,275
0
so naturally if she carried the savior of the world, she has an element of divinity." That makes sense to me.

Where is this in scripture? Where is it established that in order to carry the divine, one must also be divine? Nowhere. It's a man-made construct that leads to further man-made constructs, such as the Immaculate Conception. So if Mary had an element of divinity, then so too did Anne? So what about Emerentia?

Catholicism

Christianity

Ok, settle down. That's misleading at best, absurd at worst, depending on what you mean by "Catholicism." There were Christians before there were Catholics. As stated in a post above, Christian is in the Bible, Catholic is not. The apostolic church was not referred to as Catholic. That term didn't come around until the second century, when it was used to mean, as in the Greek, "universal," or "on the whole." It was simply a term used to distinguish "true Christianity" from heretical sects who called themselves "Christian." In any case, the "Catholic Church" of the 2nd century was different from the "Catholic Church" of today. Today "Catholicism" generally refers to Roman Catholicism, which didn't come into existence until the Great Schism, except as a purely geographical term. Regardless, your post above is misleading if you are defining Catholicism as the 2nd c Catholic Church, and absurd if you're defining it as Roman Catholicism.
 

CatManDoo_rivals376463

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
19,228
2,275
0
The preacher at my parents church doesn't even have a bachelors degree in any sort of theology at all....at that is EXTREMELY common in most Protestant churches.

That's ridiculous. There's no requirement that Protestant pastors have a certain degree or level of education, but to imply that having none is "extremely" common in "most" Protestant churches is incorrect. Sure, it happens, especially in rural areas, but every Protestant pastor at every Protestant church I've ever attended has had a PhD from seminary. You're making a broad generalization. I could just as easily call into question the validity/quality of Catholic priests' education based on the many cases of pedophilia in their ranks. Was that not covered in their "intense amount of education?"
 

BigBlueSean_rivals178247

All-Conference
Oct 23, 2013
20,054
3,040
0
Literally had a deacon a one of the largest churches in the state say to me "Why does one necessarily need an advanced education be a preacher, if you are called to preach you are called"

I just cant get behind that
 

CatManDoo_rivals376463

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
19,228
2,275
0
Some (uninformed) people think Catholics revere Mary so much as to put her on the same level as The Trinity. I think that's some of the beef.

Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom "he who is mighty has done great things," was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God -- indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory....And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. - Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854

That's establishing a VERY fine line between Mary and the Trinity. Catholics pray to her (see below), consider her divine, believe she obtains whatever she asks, and believe she stands at the right hand of Christ. One can be forgiven for believing Catholics put her on the same level as the Trinity. What characteristic does she lack that puts her a step below?

First major extended family event with my now-wife, and her (every stereotype) Protestant aunt asked another family member why they pray to Mary. It was a loud Thanksgiving.

Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. -
Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854

Pretty clear to me.
 

buckethead1978

All-American
Oct 6, 2007
15,432
6,589
0
Are you really a missionary if you are trying to get someone to switch from Catholicism to a Protestant sect?

Same thing, different brand.