Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

You have expressed that even when faith is present it is next to nothing. So no I don't think I need to rethink what I've said.

Aren't you the same guy who complains about inferring absolutes when he has not insisted he is talking absolutely.I'm not sure how I earned the condescension in your post, but if it is not clear from what I have said already, both the idea that faith is 'nothing' and that faith is 'next to nothing' are wrong. There is no distinction between the two ideas that is Biblical or in accordance with what Christ teaches or what Paul states he learned from Christ. The Gospels include examples of Jesus telling people they are healed through faith or have exhibited faith without any evidence of works. Both the story of the woman with the issue of blood and the story of the man who climbed a tree to get a better view of Jesus are examples of such.

Post whatever you think helps prove your point. No, you haven't. You've insisted that Catholics teach earning their way to salvation through works. The comment was not meant to address your personal works, but instead to address disdain for the works of others.

It is decidedly not the same thing. I see now that what I thought was lying is simply thinking befuddled beyond anything I could have expected.But at least it is not lying. It is simply confusion, honestly held. I apologize for calling you a liar.

Isn't your faith attributable to you?Given that Jesus told us both that works are expected and that he was the only path to salvation, then what you are describing is doing the will of the Father exactly as Jesus described. Surely you can recognize in the scripture Jesus and Paul imploring Christians to see that there is work to do and to put whatever talents and gifts you have to work?I simply don't see any other way to stay out of the goat pile other than by following Jesus teachings. What I see from you arguing is exactly what Jesus would call straining at gnats. Instead of worrying about some wrinkle inside someone's head that may or may not be as you expect it, the issue ought to be whether God is glorified, whether souls are won for Christ and in the end whether Christ ignores you when you call out Lord, Lord.It turns out that the end results from either faith produces works or faith plus works doctrines are exactly the same. You accept Christ into your life and then you get busy.As for the reformers, they aren't the last word about what's Christian. I think their words regarding gifts are best understood in light of the abuses they saw in the Catholic Church of their day. But when the reformers pursue doctrine that is not Biblical or cannot be made to fit with scripture, then they aren't on any more solid ground than anyone else.Certainly both Calvin and Luther are easily seen to be mere mortals as flawed as any other men and in no sense free from error.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Book, chapter, and verse, please. I've been looking for such a proof to use on Jehovah's Witnesses and now I find out that you are holding out on us. Being exclusionary and using definitions of Christian that include only one particular brand of Protestant has everything to do with it. Yes. But we are talking about people who do accept Christ as their savior and yet do not meet your definition of Christian. Remember that your accusation is that Catholics add an additional requirement and not that they do too little.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The words are not I am 'I AM', but 'I am he'. Can you make a case based on the original Greek that Jesus was using an expression reserved for the Great 'I AM'?Small wonder you have not convinced anyone. 8:24 is just a few verses down from Jesus telling us that he was sent by the Father (8:16 and 8:18). And when asked directly who he was, Jesus replies in 8:26 that he was sent by the father.Similarly in verse 54 Jesus again references being sent by the Father. So unless Yahweh had a Father, what Jesus seems to be saying is that he is the Messiah. I agree that many Jehovah witnesses to under value these verses. But your reading of the Bible seems as poor as your recollection of civil war history and early American history.

They are not deceived. They are in fact following words from Jesus that you yourself set at naught. And in the end their works are no more than Jesus himself expected.I accept that you believe otherwise. But your claim to know better than they is completely unjustified by the Bible.

The obvious answer is no. But... I find your position completely incredible. One might make similar excuses for those "pseudo Christians" who owned slaves and otherwise absolutely detested colored people back before and after the civil war, or for the Inquisition but of course, you don't do that.Yet your heroes get all of the understanding and forgiveness you can muster. Puritans execute and ostracize Quakers until England puts a stop to it, and you say that it was not the leadership, but a few misguided folks. That is despite the fact that their legislature enacted laws to persecute and murder Quakers.Protestants execute witches over a period of about 15 years and to you it's all some mass hysteria. (No it was not just during the Salem Witch Hunt). You excuse Martin Luther's blatant anti-semitism as understandable and honorable service for Jesus.Just what is it that that you won't find reason to forgive for 'the good guys' ? A king attending a witch trial isn't he same thing as you or I doing the same thing. A king insisting on the divine rights of kings isn't merely a man of his times. And he isn't just a 'good man' despite his evil. Off on your own witch hunt, are you?Same pattern from you. First denial, then excuses. For protestants only. According to you, mentioning merely mentioning that protestants did the bad stuff they actually did makes a person an evil propagandist liar.The truth is that witches don't have super powers. Period. People who aren't superstitious know that the only human on earth with the super human ability to put other humans in the dust is Usain Bolt, and his powers will fade with time. And it is not excusable that the basis of your superstition is from the Bible.If you do your research, you'll find that King James is at least as beyond any reasonable excuses as the execution of Giordano Bruno is beyond the excuses of the Catholic Church. But you'll still manage to do one and not the other.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What if the man had been Catholic. Would that make it a bit easier to condemn him?

In what sense is James a good Christian? Yes I did read the sarcasm, but I still want to talk about relativism. Even the most extreme relativism does not provide a standard for a Christian to recognize James as a Good Christian.Presumably, the New Testament is supposed to inspire Christians to some approximation of Christ-like behavior. And surely it has done exactly that for some people. So why is it that 15 centuries after Jesus Christ's ministry, and nearly the same amount of time after Paul provided the example of what it means for us ordinary mortals to follow Jesus, are we still supposed to be making excuses for torture and murder by Christians and maintaining that we have to judge them by the worldly standard of their times.No need for relativism. People did horrible things based on Bible inspired beliefs. It does not make those inspired beliefs Christian. No reason to excuse what King James did in order to defend the Bible. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Really? A blog post? Okay, that answers the question of where you got your impression. But that's not a sufficient reference for me. After all, we can read about how stupid biologists and geologist are on your blog, but we don't just take your word for it.We know plenty of stuff about King James. And you yourself have acknowledged his nonsense about the divine rights of kings, which opens up another can of stuff to put on the man including attempting to bury the Geneva Bible.Do you know whose persecution the Puritans were fleeing when they came to America in the middle 1500s? That of the self same King James who hadn't yet arrived at the more admirable position of hating and persecuting Catholics.This bit of revisionism of yours has eroded what must be close to the last of your credibility. You aren't even close to the truth.

I note that you don't even bother to deal with any of the things we all know King James actually did. King James was not a good man who just happen to kill and torture dozen of people. Wrong. Persecuting other Christians does make you a bad man and not so great a Christian. But that's beside the point. With all of the smoke you are throwing up, you've pretty much agreed that torturing people into confessions and killing them is not the extent of King James evil. Amusing. Don't you want to be released from obeying laws against discriminating against gays? Yet you condemn the Catholic church from freeing people from obeying a dictator's laws.

Instead of telling us about murderers and God believers, because surely that does not describe all Catholics, why don't you tell us which laws of the land the Catholic Church said that their followers did not have to obey. That would be the real issue with the Divine right of kings I would think. Is a king really a god as King James proclaimed? Is that really a Christian proposition?Yes, killing a king is traitorous and there was a plot to kill King James in 1605. None of that justifies are explains the divine right of kings stuff. It does not even justify his persecution of Catholics. Typical elderly fundy. Praying for the end times because your knees hurt?

This thread was started so that Faith could present her evidence that the Catholic Church, past and present, was the evil Empire, while the reformers and their followers are sugar, spice and everything nice.I for one, was not expecting cites to the Journal of World History. I was expecting exactly the level of scholarship that we are getting. Jack diddly squat. (Pardon the triple negative)