Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Sorry for late response! Sure. I mean, I am not the originator of the term "Dark Age," nor am I a scholar on the history of the Dark Ages. This is not some derogatory smear, but a simple classification created by historians in order to be able to have a name with which to refer to a specific time in history. So sure, it is my Dark Age just as the Enlightenment is the Enlightenment and the War of 1812 is the War of 1812 and so on. Well it is the point of Christianity after all. Sin, brokenness, messing up, "messyness," and the sacrifice of Christ; these are all the central focus of Christianity. So 100% yes. To read that people so close to the time of Christ, people who had met the Apostle Paul, had dinner with him, heard him preach potentially, had become selfish, regardless of those amazing things, is encouragement to everyone and anyone. We all make mistakes. We think about ourselves. This is OK, because that is why Christ did what He did. To find fault in some golden age because people made mistakes is pretty counter-productive since grace for mistakes is the whole name of the game. Not really. I fact I don't ever remember saying anyone was heretical. I don't even really like the term "Golden Age," it is really only useful for determining the time in history when the Church looked to Christ for its authority instead of itself. I'm not here to hate on any denomination or belief system. I love the Church. But simple facts are simple facts. There was a time in history, before canons were decided upon, before buildings were erected, before power was gained, when the People Of The Way simply met in homes, read the scriptures, broke bread, prayed/encouraged one another, and loved their community. This is not the church of the Dark Ages, any historian would affirm this. When did I ever assert that it was not? Or even give the appearance that it wasnt? I love everything you just said. Messy, fallible, human beings all around, doin the best they can. Im sure there were genuine clergy in the Dark Ages who wondered why the scriptures were chained in the church, written in a language the common people couldnt read. I'm sure there were those who wondered why the Church had walked away from the free gift of grace given to all people and opted for rules created by itself. I'm sure some felt sorrow at the extortion and manipulation of thousands in the form of indulgences. And I'm sure there were those who knew the Church had become a political power and no longer a group of individuals devoted to Christ, and wished for something different, but the hard truth is that it happened.And regardless of this fact, Jesus loves every single one of them. Every broken, corrupted, selfish human, like me. Should I hate the church now because of mistakes made in the past? Definitely not. I love the church. We're just taking a long time to figure it out So was there a Dark Age? Definitely. Read any history book on the era for confirmation. Was there a "Golden Age?" Youre the one who called it that, not me, so sure, if you mean a time when followers of Christ were a family united around a mission, and again, relied more upon Christ than buildings, rules, sacraments, and politics.- Raph

Raphael, you are wrong about this. Jesus was very clear that religious leaders who mislead people with their corruptions are going to Hell. That's how He preached to the Pharisees, [abe] for instance in Matthew 23:33: [/abe]The people who corrupted the Church are like the Pharisees. Jesus loves broken sinners, yes, He does not love power-hungry religionists. I'm sure you and I are ordinary broken sinners and not corrupt religionists.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, she does not. She only claims to believe that. She believes a particularly set of truths about the Bible only some of which can be obtained from a literal reading, others of which must be obtained by ignoring parts of the Bible. And the ignoring even includes things that Jesus said.As JonF has pointed out, somehow Christianity has been changed by some to only be about what it takes to go to heaven when you die. Jesus talked about a whole lot more than that. And so did Paul for that matter.

If the question is "What IS a Christian?" the answer is "A person who knows he is a sinner saved by God's grace through faith in Christ's death in his place." That doesn't say anything about all the other teachings that concern the living of the Christian life once saved. And you cannot live any of them in a way that pleases God UNLESS you are saved.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That unity barely existed among the disciples when Christ was walking earth among men. The Bible itself contains stories of bickering among disciples and I at least have the impression that we are not a party to all of the times the disciples acted like regular human beings, which appears to be all of the times prior to Jesus correcting them. And that means times before and after the resurrection.Yes, there was some evidence that there was more unity among the disciples after the resurrection, but the apostles were not every where and Christianity sects popped up all over the place. Surely we don't believe that Paul went to every gentile church, yet his description of the things he found in the churches that he did attend were quite full of tales of human failings.The truth of the matter is that it is much more difficult to find evidence and examples of a church family united around Christ than it is to find people off the beaten path.Very basic concepts about the nature of Christianity were completely unsettled during the first century. How could they have been? Some of those things are difficult to find in the Bible at the best of times, and there was no Bible back then. I'm sure there were plenty of family sized groupings that propped up during those early years, but the opportunity for them to go astray on doctrine was great even for the well meaning.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No it does not. That's exactly my point. Note that my question was about all of Christianity including the obligations of Christians, and not just what you get to call yourself.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What question? You said that some people try to make Christianity out to be ONLY about salvation and I answered that nobody is doing that, it's about salvation if you are asking what a Christian IS, and there's no point in talking about any of the rest of it if that isn't clear.

Exactly. I make a statement about Christianity often being considered to be just about salvation, and the only thing you can even manage to comment on through three exchanges is salvation.I cannot imagine a better demonstration of my point.

Salvation is about what a Christian gets, not what he/she "is". By your logic, a plumber is somebody who gets $150 an hour.A plumber is somebody who does plumbing. A Christian is somebody who does Christianity.

No, a Christian is a sinner who is saved by grace through faith in Christ.

While this may be true, its not a very good working definition, especially for this type of discussion. I believe that I fit that description, but you don't seem to think that I am a "true christian" since I accept that the earth is very old and the the diversity of life we see today can best be explained by the theory of evolution. So it seems you have broader range of criteria for being a "true christian" than just simply "saved by grace."In addition, how can you recognize who is "saved by grace?" I say I am ... is that good enough for you to consider me a "true christian?"I would suggest that a Christian is someone who forsakes his/her former way of life and follows Christ and his teachings as related by the apostles, are part of a Christian community and participates in Christian rites. Acts 2:42HBD

Exactly right. The point of setting up the criteria above is to allow fundies to exclude Catholics and Jehovah's witnesses without excluding themselves. When it is time to exclude more people, then we add the adjective "true" as if it were not always understood to be present.There are plenty of definitions of Christian that can be supported textually. One definition is that a Christian is a person who "loves" Jesus Christ and hence does and believes the things Christ said such people do. Another is that a Christian is someone who follows Christ's teaching, which of course include the means for salvation. But since many fundies don't really appreciate the sentiment of may of the red words in the Bible, definitions like that don't appeal much to them. In fact, many fundies are actually goats.My definition of Christian would include believing that Jesus Christ lived and rose from the dead, in salvation through faith, and endeavoring to follow the example set by Jesus during his time on earth. That definition a fairly conventional one, and it likely does not exclude the overwhelming majority of devout believers on earth.Other people use one of the various Creeds as their definition. Nicene Creed (the definition used by most Christians), the Apostles Creed, or some variation. Those definitions can all be defended textually.Among the questionable things about using any of those definitions is that none of them deal with the Trinity or the Jesus divinity; at least not directly. None of them even mention repentance of sin. People divide themselves into sects based on where they fall on those issues, and the truth of the matter is that they label each other as non-Christian based on those differences.

I'm not trying to answer the question how we can recognize who is a Christian, just the question what a Christian is, and I think it is crucially important that unbelievers know what it takes to be saved. The rest you can argue about all you like, it's not central.There are unfortunately all too many people who go to church and act like Christians and even think they are Christians but aren't, and I don't want their blood on my hands.Catholics for instance MAY be saved if they've taken the gospel message to heart, but it's all too likely that they are deceived by the ritualism of the RCC tradition, and I'd like them to be warned that they probably need to rethink their situation for the sake of their immortal souls.If you are convinced you are saved that's between you and God, but I'd want you to be very clear what the method of salvation is.Here, go read my complete statement on the subject of how much of scripture you can deny and still be a Christian, on the thread "What is a true Christian:"Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And what does it mean to have "faith in Christ"? Does it mean saying, "Lord! Lord!" or does it mean doing what He wanted us to do? You can profess your faith all you want but unless you live it, it isn't real.Fake faith is worse than no faith. Faith without profession is still faith.

I'm not talking about what one professes, I'm talking about the reality, which is between you and God and I mean the faith that saves, faith that His death on the cross paid for my sins and that I now belong to Him. Of course works follow, but the point is that they do FOLLOW, works are necessary but they cannot save, they build on salvation.