Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

This reply is not in response to this message, but rather is about some issues I see with your descriptions of Protestantism...You keep claiming that if is it is not in all of Protestant doctrine then it does not count against Protestantism. However, isn't this simply an issue with the fact that there are so many denominations within Protestantism?This is why you constantly fall back onto Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola gratia, and Solus Christus as the only Protestant doctrines. All that this does is allow you to compartmentalize different protestant groups out of your definition of Protestantism so that your hands seem clean of misdeeds through the ages.You cannot do this, however. When the Puritans came to the Americas, they were a distinct Protestant sect. They had their central leaders who arrived in the Americas with them. Therefore any actions taken by them to convert or slaughter the native peoples are a mark against Protestantism as a whole, because these decisions came from leaders within their church on what to do. They were CHURCH decisions, based upon biblical reasons. You cannot remove them by stating that their views are different because they are still Protestant.With the Catholic Church, you are dealing with an organization that did not fracture as much internally and so you can make this sweeping claim of "It was Papal Doctrine". It is unfair to require a similar request of Papal Doctrine for Protestant crimes when there is no Papacy. The nearest thing would be the leader of a specific movement of Protestantism, such as John Winthrop. He is the highest leader in the Puritan Sect. Decisions that come from this gentlemen have the same authority to his followers that the word of the Pope has for Catholics. To say otherwise is simply equivocating and trying to save face from the sins committed by your ancestors in the past.Look, I will never state that the Catholic Church is innocent, far from it. However, to try and claim that because only specific groups did violent acts (under the command of their religious leaders) that there is any difference between them and the Catholic Church is a fallacy. These Protestant groups got their instruction from their religious leaders to convert, enslave, or kill those who did not believe in their God. The Catholic groups got their instruction from their religious leaders to convert, enslave, or kill those who did not believe (or believed differently) in their God. Both groups claimed this instruction was divine. Both groups were merciless to those who they mistreated. Please explain the difference between these two ideas, cause I am missing it.The big sticking point to me is still this whole idea that the Catholic Church is continuing the war against Protestantism. I understand that Rome still states you are wrong in your viewpoint of God, but that is because they believe you are. If I am to respect your beliefs, why should you not respect theirs? The goal of any religion is convert the unbelievers to their viewpoint, where is the surprise in the fact that the Catholics did this? Yes, they used violent means during violent times, the same that Protestant groups did against the Natives. Are the Protestants still at war with the Natives? I highly doubt that Rome could gather enough support for an actual conversion parade against Protestants, bringing back conversion or death is highly unlikely.Also, STOP bringing up anathema. I have already pointed out that you feel that Catholics are going to Hell and Catholics feel the same about Protestants (although, that was never taught at any church I ever attended in 20+ years). THAT is what anathema is!!! You are excommunicated from their church, which should not matter because you don't want to believe what they do. Likewise, their beliefs make them incompatible with your church. so they are in essence excommunicated because they do not believe the correct things according to you. You are both under anathema from one another, it is simply that the Catholics are willing to lay out the ground rules of what constitutes a Catholic.

Amen Brother, preach the gospel.I was about to post something very similar to what you have said; a big difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is in structure. Where there is a designated order and organizational structure to Roman Catholicism there is no similar structure in Protestantism. Some individual Protestant Chapters of Club Christian do have similar structures, for example the Anglican chapters all pay at least nominal recognition to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the decisions of the Lambeth Conferences but others specifically deny any such overriding authority such as Baptists.There are also limits placed on the authority in both cases. The Roman Catholic Pope is considered infallible only when speaking as the official head of the church on matters of Roman Catholic Doctrine. In Anglicanism the decisions of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference do not carry the force of law even within the Anglican Communion although both are very influential.

Hi CS, You asked Faith for scripture to support salvation by faith.Quoting from The New American Bible:

quote:

---

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;

​

9 it is not from works, so no one may boast.

​

10 For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.

---

That says a person has been saved by faith. No baptism required, No good works required, No church going required, No tithes required, No sacraments required. In fact nothing is required but faith that Jesus will do what He said He would do.Mankind is saved through faith, not from mankind, but a gift of God.You can not earn a GIFT. If you have to do anything other than accept it in order to receive it you have earned it, which makes it wages and not a gift.

quote:

---

The New American Bible
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

​

17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

​

18 Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

---

Jesus says those that believe in Him is not condemned.It does not make any different what the Catholic church, or any of the churches that came out of the Catholic church or any of the churches that were never affiliated with either of those groups says.The only thing that matters is what Jesus said.The New American Bible is produced by the Catholic Bible press. And is approved by the administrative committee board of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference.The two scriptures I quoted should be enough but if you need more I will be glad to supply them for you.God Bless,

Yet according to the Bible Jesus said that salvation is based on works with absolutely no mention of either faith or belief. Ain't the Bible wonderful? It is so filled with contradictions and factual errors that any position or point of view can be supported by quote mining.

It doesn't say all that, you added a bunch. It doesn't mention baptism or church or tithes or sacraments. It just says that we are saved by grace through faith. Faith plus works salvation is not contradicted with that quote, it too says we're saved by grace through faith, it just goes on to say that you have to do works to justify your faith. And the way you show that you've accepted the gift is through the works you do as a result of it. If you're not doing the works, then you didn't accept the gift. Ergo, we do need to have works too. Sure, but not just that. Well as jar points out, Jesus told us to go and do works. And that's actually Jesus saying that rather than assuming that Jesus was talking through John when John said something. No, they're not enough. You're adding more to them than what they say. Plus, the Bible has other parts that go directly against the faith alone position:

quote:

---

James 2:17

​

KJV
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

​

NIV
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

---

ssuming t hat the day is at hand, the churches are rife with pedophilia and doctrinal nono=sense like that which opposes scientific facts.But remember that Jesus also said people could do the works of testifying in his name.John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:I don't believe you will find many contradictions in the Bibole, though there have always been contradictors who either exhibit poor reading comprehension or misinterpret the scriptures.

This is silly criticism when one reads about the 10 big lies in the book authored by Michael Medved.He explains that only 35 Puritans actually were the whole of the company of the very first successful colony in America.The massive numbers of the native Americans could have snuffed them out had they been a threat as you imply.What really happened was that as these colonies grew and more Europeans arrived, the Indians saw raiding the isolated farmers as a means to gain.
Raiding Parties were part of the culture that saw hunting together not much different than returning back that the wigwams with bounty from other tribes they ripped off, or these puny defenseless isolated white men and women.

Perhaps you could quote the relevant passages? 35 Puritans, armed with black powder rifles could do a fair amount of damage to the basic weaponry of the Native Tribes. Also, these groups were continually receiving more inbound travelers, so the first group is definitely not where their numbers stopped. Yes, they could have, had the native tribes worked together in any way. However, these were distinct groups that had their own governmental leaders and did not work together to formulate a large counter-strike. Even so, they would still run into the issue of being far outgunned by those coming across the ocean. Another thing is that many of these tribes simply wanted to live in peace until they were attacked. The Pequot tribe did not attack the Puritan settlements until they were provoked by those living there. Yes, this did happen, but the fact that the decimation of native tribes was done later on a much grander scale, should not take away from what the earlier settlers did to those they felt were heathens. Also, early settlers would make peace with one tribe to decimate another tribe (the true story of thanksgiving was it was a war feast to celebrate the combined white/native victory over another tribe), and then the settlers would turn on the tribe they had originally assisted.ABE - Not sure I trust the source when the lies include:
"The Founders intended a secular, not a Christian nation." - Not a lie.
"America has always been a multicultural society, strengthened by diversity." - Not a lie, and slightly racist to claim it is
"The two-party system is broken, and we urgently need a viable third party." - Not a lie and would offer more options for Americans fed up with the bickering we currently see.Again, not sure I can trust your source when I do not even agree with these premises, much less that the slaughter of the native peoples was warranted.ABE - The topic of whether the Native Tribes were treated immorally by the original settlers in not exactly on topic in this thread. If you would like to continue to discuss whether it was justified I would suggest another thread. Unless you feel it fits into the topic of Protestantism verus Catholicism through the ages and whether the war is ongoing.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : Realized the discussion was off-topic

You always quote Matthew 25, but it too is not the only scripture in the Bible...you just like it because it supports your particular belief. How to Narcigete Any Bible StoryEdited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : title

Of course it isn't the only scripture in the Bible as I pointed out in the very post you are replying to. Edited by jar, : fix quote marks.

I suppose that Works vs Grace is the issue being discussed. Personally I believe that we are saved by Grace, but I agree with Catholic Scientist that our works are a sign of our salvation....not a prerequisite to it. The Judge will make that final decision and distinction, though.

While doing works may not buy you anything, not doing works says much about what someone really believes.But the point is that is not just a Protestant v Roman Catholic difference.

This I agree with, even as an ex-Catholic. Works show your faith because they are examples of each individual living as Jesus instructed. This is why I do not agree that there is any ongoing culture war where the Catholic church is actively looking to reinstate the inquisition in this modern age, which is Faith's contention.

Argh, I'm allergic to smileys but maybe I'll have to give in and use them sometimes. Just thought you'd KNOW that congratulating you on becoming a Protestant HAD to be a joke. But oh well, OK, smileys. Not sure what you're referring to but it wasn't TOTALLY indecipherable just convoluted and hard to follow and I end up really not knowing what it's trying to say about how a person gets saved. I rather suspect you don't have much more of a clue about that yourself. Do you regard yourself as saved, as justified before God, on the basis of all that in that paragraph being true of you? I think so:Just believe on Him and you shall be saved. Then he preaches who Jesus is and how salvation comes through Him, which we have to know or we won't have a clue what it means to "believe on Him" but it's still ONLY "believe on Him and you shall be saved."Then Peter preaching to the Centurion Cornelius said: That is, whosoever believes in him shall have his sins wiped out, that is, shall be justified in the eyes of God, that is, be saved. And again Cornelius had to be taught who Jesus was and how He died for our salvation and all that, but it's still only "believe in Him and you shall be saved."And of course there's the passage in Romans that finally brought Luther to understand that his own righteousness was useless for salvation, that it all comes from God through Christ alone: "to every one that believes" -- NOT "everyone who repents or everyone who does right or anything else, just "everyone who believes" and "the just" will not live by their own righteousness by by faith ...And here's Paul in Galatians ...justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law...I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me... Not sure what you mean, but you as a Catholic are naturally going to disagree with Protestants on the interpretation of the Bible, which is a main point of this whole topic, but we should at least be able to agree that we DO disagree about this and it isn't just some little schism between the two systems of theology, what with the anathemas on your side against us and the accusation of the papal Antichrist and of misleading teaching on salvation on our side against yours. OK this one can get complicated but since I belong to the Reformed persuasion I believe that it's all of a piece, that faith INCLUDES repentance from sin rightly understood because you can't really have faith in the one who died to pay for your sins if you are still holding on to your sins and not willing to relinquish them.Jesus gave the gospel this way: I'd rather not have to get into all this but since I brought it up I guess I now I have the job of defending it:Here's a well respected Reformed website on the subject:
Is Repentance Necessary for Salvation Got myself into this this way: Yes that was a vague way to say it, I'm not as up on this as I would like to be. When we are saved our spirits are "quickened" or made alive which before were dead, as we are said by scripture to have been "dead in our sins" but "He quickened us," which comes through our faith in Him. As long as we are still living in the flesh we have the flesh's propensity to sin and all too easily fall into it if we are not "walking in the Spirit" and keeping our eyes on Him, but we also have this new life in us which hates sin and wishes to be free of it, and that's how it has been "dealt with" by our faith in Christ, which brings His life into us. It's a war that will go on until we leave this life. Just to be clear, this is a thread about the difference between what Catholicism teaches and what the Reformation taught which is a matter of history, but here's some scripture support: John says we are deceived if we think we have no sin, but he also says that if we are saved we will obey His commandments, which makes it all a part of our salvation. We are sinners by nature but in Christ, through believing in His death for our salvation, our hearts are changed in the direction of WANTING to obey and obeying when we see our error, and that's repentance and that's all part of what we're saved from by Christ.But I don't claim to be any kind of trustworthy expositor of the Bible OR the teachings of the Reformation, I simply know that the Reformation slogans ARE the solas and that salvation by faith alone is the primary slogan and I understand that it ALL comes from God because of the sacrifice of Christ. God's grace gives us the sacrifice of Christ as our propitation, our redemption from sin, which we possess by faith in Him alone without any trust in our own works or rightousness, it's all His gift.But that gift when we possess it changes us, it transfers us from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdome of light. We are newborn babes in that kingdom and must begin to grow up in it just as we did in this world, growing into the "new man" and leaving behind the "old man."

No, the point is to contrast THE essentials of Protestantism with Catholicism as a system unto itself. It's not to escape anything. The differences between the denominations are important to those denominations and can be the subject of some pretty hot debate, but nevertheless we ALL recognize each other as brothers and sisters in Christ BECAUSE OF the doctrines that come down to all of us from the Protestant Reformation. These are DEFINITIVE, the others are not unimportant but they are decidedly secondary. It would only muddy up the discussion irreparably to try to argue, say, a Baptist Reformed point of view or a Congregationalist point of view or a Nazarene point of view against Catholicism. We're ALL Protestants by the fundamentals of the Reformation though we may argue strenuously with each other about this that or the other apart from those essentials. But I would agree with that in principle, we must own the sins of all who are called Protestant. What I disagree with, however, is that the Puritans did any such thing as slaughter anyone. CONVERT, yes, that's why they CAME to America, for that specific purpose, that the gospel of Christ might reach the native peoples here and save them as well as Europeans. But "slaughter," no, that's slander against the Puritans. What CHURCH reasons for what? I'm not trying to remove them, I just haven't seen anything that can be called evidence of an actual PROTESTANT movement such as you are claiming happened. It's a lot of assertion. I've at least put up some evidence for my claims about the papacy, but on the other side it's just been insinuation, accusation, and the fact that you include conversion with slaughter sure doesn't give me any confidence in anything you are saying.The Puritans slaughtered and enslaved nobody. What are you talking about? Are you talking about slavery in the South? If you are that was shamefully rationalized by Christians, that is true, but it was also strenuously opposed by many other Christians from the beginning. We recognize that the Civil War was God's judgment for slavery. Yes, I'll own that as a shameful departure from Christian principles.BUT ALSO, Tempe, when you're pointing the finger at "Protestants" please remember that there were Catholics in this country too, and Catholic priests did a lot of work among the Indians, and Catholics also owned slaves -- you know, Scarlet O'Hara and all that.Also, you might be interested to know that there is reason to believe Jesuits started the Civil War. Lincoln believed this, as I think he was quoted saying at the link I gave a while back, and you can also find this discussed by an ex-priest from the 19th century, Father Chiniquy, in his book "Fifty Years in the "Church" of Rome which I believe is online. You have to read the unabridged version to get the whole story. Why would the Jesuits, and the Pope himself who apparently wrote a letter to Jefferson Davis supporting war, be supporting the Confederates? Some desire to keep slavery in place? To weaken the Protestant foundations of America? I'm not really sure, I don't remember the account well enough, just that they were thought to be behind it, and Chiniquy and others also say it was Jesuits who had Lincoln assassinated. Well, but it was. This is all part of the research I've been doing, and while I'm glad I've already been able to post a few things on this thread in support of what I'm saying I know there's a lot more I have to dig up if this discussion continues. I'm happy to accept John Winthrop as speaking for me. What little I know of him I admire immensely. He was a great Christian and I have no doubt that any accusations of great sins against him are all slander. If you want me to research him more I suppose I can try. Well, I can understand how hard it would be for someone who grew up Catholic and knew only the good Catholic people around you and the Pope as perhaps a somewhat distant but nice fatherly sort of figure that it would be hard to even begin to consider the things I've been talking about here. Which again, I've only recently learned about myself, over about a year to this point. To me this is all revelation of a dark side of history that I had no clue about at all. I can't even begin to convey how startling this news has been to me as I've been learning it.Well, to clarify, I had read Fox's Book of Martyrs, I knew that Rome had persecuted and murdered many for refusing to accept her rule over them, but I had no idea the extent of it, especially the role of the Jesuits, or that there is good reason to see it persisting into the present, the same aims -- 1) destroy the Protestant Reformation, 2) recover rulership of the world once had through the Holy Roman Empire -- based on the same doctrines as always. I can't blame you for not being willing to consider this, especially since although you have left the religion you naturally identify with it culturally, and must have many loved family members who are good Catholics too. This is not true, Tempe, I can't think of one single case of such a thing being done in the name of Protestant religion under instruction from Protestant clergy. Conversion, again, yes, of course, that's considered a great gift from a Christian point of view, but enslaving and killing, no. Jar's blanket accusation of "Protestants" was just that a blanket accusation, a smear, a wild assertion with nothing to back it up. But I'm sure if you have any evidence you will be happy to produce it. This is not really how it happened. Most of this has been done specifically under papal orders or Jesuit orders. I have provided some links in the thread which I can produce again. Rank and file Catholic believers have been whipped up by that sort of thing, yes, if that's what you mean by "Catholic groups," but my focus is on the machinations of the Pope himself and his Jesuit attack dogs (which have sometimes attacked the Popes when they saw their extreme methods and tried to ban them). The average Catholic doesn't share in their desire to rule the world and kill all their enemies I'm quite sure. First you are going to have to give some REAL evidence that any such thing ever happened on the Protestant side because I can't very well explain something I don't believe ever happened.And please be aware that if what I've been learning is true there is good reason to suspect Catholic manipulation of the facts. I recently read Wikipedia on the Protestant Reformation and found it described as a "schism" with a lot of irrelevant supposedly historical distracting information to cover up the fact that from the Protestant point of view this was no "schism" between Christian sects, this was an absolute repudiation of the papacy as not even Christian at all. if Wikipedia gives the Catholic point of view on that subject you can be sure you'll get a lot of Catholic propaganda from many public sources. I take responsibility for the need to muster the evidence for this and I completely understand how hard it would be to believe this, especially in your position, but it was hard enough at first for me to believe it too, and believe me, I'd rather not. I'd rather think we're all just fallen creatures bumbling through life making big mistakes now and then, rather than that there really are people who plot hideous evils against others for the sake of power in this world. Sounds nice, Tempe, but sometimes there really is a right side and a wrong side, even to such an extent that you can't respect doctrines that destroy souls with false teaching on salvation and literally destroy the lives of those who oppose your right to dictate to the entire world. I don't think they ever were and all I've seen about this here is innuendo, accusation and no evidence. \Um, that's not how it works. I may not be able to get all my evidence together, but believe me, that's not how it works. Yeah, I know you have no reason to believe me. Yes and no, but the reason i keep bringing it up is to try to answer those who keep trying to reduce the Protestant Reformation to a little marital spat. No, this was a rancorous divorce of one innocent party from an evil and abusive spouse. Not that simple, not that innocent, sorry.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.