Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

You are making NO sense. Weasel out of WHAT evidence for WHAT?

IT"s FOR KILLING WHOLE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. KILLING THEM, MURDERING THEM, TAKING THEIR LIVES,

You said weaseling out of EVIDENCE. There is no evidence of any sort in what jar said. He used the word "Protestants" a number of times without ever giving the slightest evidence that anybody involved in whatever he was talking about was in fact a Protestant.He never gave one iota of evidence that anything remotely "Protestant" was involved.And when I responded by defining the term I was going back to what I've said dozens of times on this thread is a definition of Protestant belief and the context I've used it in has consistently been in contrast with ROMAN CATHOLIC belief. OFFICIAL DOCTRINE. So I pointed that out too. There's no weaseling of any sort going on here. If he can't show that the people who were doing whatever he says they were doing really were Protestants acting AS Protestants for Protestant purposes he's proved nothing.

BUT none of it was done FOR PROTESTANT PURPOSES as Roman Catholic atrocities were all in the service of their RELIGIOUS GOALS which is the point of this thread believe it or not.And frankly I doubt all this political correctness about genocide anyway, a lot of it is totally out of context, the true history is muddled up by what liberals want us to think, true motives and situations are conveniently forgotten and so on. There were Indians fighting for the French against the English and vice versa, there were some absolutely brutal Indian tribes, there were CATHOLIC PRIESTS involved with the Indian tribes as well, the picture is NOT this simple thing you are all making it out to be as if only this bunch of people called "Protestants" were responsible for whatever. I don't trust any of it. And now when you're trying to pin this vague blanket accusation on "Protestants" forget it. Define your terms, come up with real evidence, names, dates, places, stop just mouthing your favorite canned accusations.

Are you simply not getting that "faith plus works" means SALVATION comes by faith plus works or what? It was discussed a great deal up thread that from a Protestant point of view works are the RESULT of the faith that saves, we are saved UNTO good works scripture says, but that salvation itself, justification, the remission of our sin, is through faith alone. It was this principle of the Reformation that drew all those anathemas of Rome against Protestants because they teach that faith plus your own righteousness or works is how you get saved.This is absolutely pivotal to the differences between the two systems. The Reformation is famous for its "Solas" -- Sola scriptura, that we rest on the Bible alone, rejecting Catholic teaching that tradition is equal to the Bible in authority; sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, that salvation comes by God's grace alone and not anything we can do to earn it, through our faith alone in Christ alone, not by our works or personal righteousness but trust in the work and death of Christ alone in our place.A few posts back you recognize that Faith Alone IS foundational to Protestantism, it's definitive of Protestantism. That's what I keep trying to say here. Justification by Faith is THE Protestant hallmark. This is a very recently concocted formula that is actually contested by some Protestant teachers these days, basically because it's too vague. It's why I wanted to make it very clear that forgiveness comes only through the DEATH of Christ and not some "acceptance" we do of some vague "Jesus." Faith is much more than just some vague possibly merely mental "acceptance." Faith in His death is a more accurate description of salvation. Except again that this is a very recent formula that some think is too vague, me included and it does give the very false impression that salvation is about some feeling we have, which is a BIG mistake. I never "asked Christ into my heart," I simply believed that He died for my sins. Likewise the current "Jesus loves you" formula is not something that was ever said until the last few decades as an invitation to the gospel.The gospel is more accurately something like this: "You are a sinner, you have violated God's Law, His commandments, even one little lie is an infinite sin in the economy of God. You cannot possibly pay for your infinite sins but God Himself became a man so that He could obey the Law perfectly in our place and then die for our sins in our place, and His death paid for all the sins committed by anybody. He did it for all who are willing to believe that He did this for us, who trust in His death for your own personal sins, repent of them, give your life to Him."Yes I know "Jesus loves you and all you need to do is accept Him into your heart" is the current formula and I'm sure many have been saved through it, but I think it's not as accurate as how I've put it above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Without getting into the details which could take us down many rabbit trails, and I certainly do not want to have to review the entire Protestant Reformation's theology of the Bible on a thread here, what jar believes is what Bible believers call Liberal Christianity. It's the corruptions that got started in many denominations back in the 19th century, though it had been undermining orthodox Protestant teaching among individuals for a long time before that, a corrupting influence which could be imputed to the Enlightenment emphasis on Reason as the arbiter of truth rather than revelation.The major American Founders Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine believed in Providence, in prayer, and so on, so they weren't really Deists, but they rejected the strictly Christian teaching of Jesus as God who died for our sins so they definitely weren't Christians. They were products of the Enlightment or the Age of Reason which had decided that anything supernatural was contrary to Reason. This could be said to be the basic Liberal formula although there are many variations on it.Apparently jar's church is a Liberal church. Most Anglican churches are these days but there are other denominations which are also liberal. There are two versions of some denominations, a liberal version and an orthodox version. Presbyterian USA is liberal, but Covenant Presbyterian and Presbyterian in America I think are both orthodox, differing on some point of church government but not on the gospel; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is liberal but Lutheran Missouri Synod is orthodox.Jar doesn't even adhere to his own church's reference to God as "Father" as he so often uses the blaphemous "She" to refer to God, and many other ways he likes to twist Christian teaching to suit his own ideas of what "not checking your brain at the door" means to his own peculiar brain.In any case as he's made very clear he rejects the Solas of the Reformation so to hold onto the title "Protestant" is just an empty formality that only serves to confuse the important issues.But I can refer to his system as Liberal Protestantism.

So I guess you too should be classified as a Liberal Christian or Liberal Protestant, take your pick, since you reject major portions of what Reformation Protestantism regards as foundational Biblical truth.Although I do regard myself as a Bible-believing Protestant who adheres to the Solas of the Reformation, my point here isn't so much to argue FOR this particular understanding (it's inevitable that I would to some extent of course) but more to try to get it defined clearly so that we can all know what I mean when I talk about the conflicts between Romanism and Protestantism. This is difficult because of all the confused ideas that have been promoted in the name of Christianity, such as jar's ideas, Liberal Christianity, Unitarianism which denies the Deity of Christ, the "Jesus loves you, accept him into your heart" formula and all that. But such clarification of terms and definitions is still my main aim.As No Nukes has pointed out, there is another topic being raised which is not on-topic here. Perhaps it could be proposed for a separate discussion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, thank you. I have no doubt that a majority of the denominations in that supposed 30,000 number people keep putting up adhere to this doctrine. Jar didn't spell this out, merely described his denomination and insisted that it's a "Protestant" denomination, but I did spell out the history for you a few posts back, which comes down to what are called "liberal" corruptions of the Biblical gospel that derive ultimately from the Enlightenment emphasis on Reason as the arbiter of all knowledge, which specifically denies the supernatural elements such as the virgin birth and the claim that Jesus Christ is God Himself in human flesh.Jar's beliefs are in this tradition along with the big name American Founders (though the nation was majority Biblical Christian at the time as were many of the others involved in the founding). Jefferson for instance "edited" the Bible to show what his own reason was able to accept, and he kept a lot of the moral teachings but threw out all the supernatural elements. John Adams and his wife Abigail were Unitarians who denied that Jesus was God, as a matter of fact ridiculing the idea of the Trinity which enshrines His Deity, although they too promoted what they thought of as Christian morality, Adams famously saying that the Constitution was written "for a moral and religious people" being "wholly inadequate for the government of any other" if I'm remembering his phrasing rightly. Some Christians have taken that to be proof that he was a Christian. But as with the other four big name Founders it can be shown from his letters that he was not because he denied essentials of Christian doctrine.I'm coming back to this because I'd really really like to keep these issues CLEAR if at all possible. Thank you for affirming that Sola Fide IS Reformation Protestantism.

I can refer to jar as "liberal Protestant" if I have to but just about everything he says is contrary to the teachings of the Protestant Reformation and I find it absurd that I should have to accept his calling himself a Protestant when he denies so much of what makes a Protestant a Protestant. All that does is muddy up the discussion which I'm working so hard to keep clear. Thank you.And that quote does demonstrate a trend among Anglicans especially but also other Protestant denominations, back to the faith-plus-works salvation formula and other Romanisms that the Protestant Reformation was all about overthrowing.

OK, since I'm trying to be as clear as possible here, this has to be identified as contrary to the principles of the Protestant Reformation which put the Biblical revelation above all other sources of knowledge about God, and teaches that the Bible is God's Word, meaning its writers were inspired by God so that it contains His truth and nothing but His truth.Of course it was "written by men" in the literal sense that men took pen to paper and wrote it, but it was NOT "written by men" in the sense jar means it because it is regarded by Bible believers as being God's revelation to us THROUGH the men who physically wrote it. This is just another way jar shows himself to be no Protestant and no Christian.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Both Biblical Protestants and Roman Catholics back a few centuries would adamantly have disagreed with you, and those who remain purists in those camps continue to disagree with you. There are HUGE differences. Catholicism declared the beliefs of Protestantism to be "accursed," that's what all those anathemas are about, and the Reformers, along with many others who form a long list I linked somewhere in this thread a while back, recognized the papacy as so far from Christian it is the Antichrist as defined by the Bible.The fact that all this history and the doctrinal distinctions between the two are being muddied up these days as Rome tries to sound conciliatory to the "separated brethren" and Protestants are forgetting our heritage and drifting back into the arms of the Antichrist, doesn't change the fact that IN THEIR ESSENCE the two systems are RADICALLY at odds with each other. Nonsense, The beliefs and dogmas of Protestantism have been CORRUPTED, which is what you think of as evolving because you think your liberal denials of the Biblical revelation are progress, but the foundational beliefs of Protestantism in the written revelation of God, the Bible, are still preserved alive and well and uncorrupted among the orthodox Bible believing churches. I'm not going to deny that Protestants as individuals and even occasionally officially through bad teaching have misbehaved and done bad things, but as I am trying to talk about these things on this thread I am not talking about individuals or deviations from good doctrine or the occasional official error -- such as the Salem Witch Trials which killed about nineteen and were finally stopped by the clergy themselves, or that the (mostly liberal) German Lutherans committed when they officially sided with Hitler.What I'm trying to talk about is INSTITUTIONALLY and OFFICIALLY promoted enormities of cruelty and murder such as those perpetrated by the Roman Church in the Inquisition, for which they have NEVER apologized nor repented but it all remains as official doctrine, as a "right" to kill "heretics" as defined by them. Their "apologies" are a fraud, read the wording. The Pope at one point "apologized" for what SOME CATHOLIC BELIEVERS did. But it was NOT what Catholic believers did -- most Catholics have no clue about any of this stuff -- it was what the PAPACY AND ITS ARMY AND ITS ORDERS SUCH AS THE JESUITS did IN THE NAME OF THE POPE AND THE ROMAN RELIGION.I put up a link somewhere back there to a report on what Roman Priests did as promoters and even actual hands-on murderers of the Orthodox Serbs by the Catholic Croatians simply because they were Orthodox and not Catholic.Here's a link to a very scholarly article that carefully considers the various estimations of the numbers murdered by Rome in its various persecutions, Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages and Later by David A Plaisted. He doesn't conclude with a particular number but he does conclude that the highest estimates have good evidence behind them. I hope the link works:http://www.noiseofthunder.com/...%20protestants%20killed.pdfAlso he mentions the Thirty Years War which somebody up thread somewhere tried to impute to Protestantism or at least equally to both Protestantism and Romanism. He says what many other sources say, that it was fomented by the Jesuits, who are responsible for most of the conflicts of that nature. This is part of the historical picture that I've been learning about recently and want to collect evidence for.And again, this has nothing to do with the average Catholic who isn't any more of a sinner than the average Protestant and for the most part doesn't know a thing about any of this as I also didn't until quite recently.

I believe I went on to say that they NEVER apologized because their "apologies" are a fraud. This is because they never acknowledge that it was the PAPACY itself, or the Jesuit order, that ordered the persecutions and murders and they blame it on some overzealous Catholic believers instead. That's a lying misrepresentation of the true history. That article was hard for me to read for some reason, but as I skimmed through it I didn't find a direct quote of the Pope. Perhaps you could dig one up so we can see just exactly what his "apology" amounted to? Or if you don't perhaps I can eventually find it.Meanwhile here are some quotes about the role of the Jesuits in history, a scary bunch of men who even scared the Popes and murdered some of them although their main mission was to serve the papacy. I'm only copying out quotes of a few well known men on the subject but the link has a very long list of quotes: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here ya go, Vimesy. The Pope "apologized" for the "sins of its MEMBERS," THAT's the big fat lying fraud right there in the title of this article: The Inquisition and a whole bunch of other enormities in history that hardly anybody knows about were the work of the PAPACY itself directly in many cases, and the JESUITS as their main instrument of murder and manipulation.The Pope apologized for NOTHING and even tried to put the blame on Church members who for the most part haven't a clue about the crimes and murders and plots of the Vatican.Yet the world applauds this lying demonstration of "humility" and "repentance." What a travesty.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Uh huh, clever and cute and all that, but the point was, of course, to disagree with those who are trying to reduce the Protestant Reformation to an insignificant little spat with Rome that we should all just get over, forgive and forget and all that. Neither side at the time considered it so insignificant and the terms they used against the other demonstrate that point. The distinctions have been getting eroded and corrupted but there are still those who hold to the original doctrines who recognize that the chasm is in fact unbridgeable.

Gosh that is SUCH a cogent argument there, just chock full of EVIDENCE and careful thoughtful reasoning about the arguments I've been presenting. Funny that Western Civilization was built by people who believe as I do if it's so out of touch with reality, and historians generally agree that civilization took a big step forward with the Protestant Reformation. The article demonstrates genuine scholarly work, but I understand that ad hominem is a more effective way to dispense with an opponent than trying to deal with what he actually wrote and the evidence he mustered. Gee and here I thought it was just an honest assessment of the evidence he was considering -- which he very THOROUGHLY considered -- that the higher numbers have a lot of solid support but that no particular number could be calculated in the end.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.