Are Catholics and Protestants that different?

I really don't understand what is complicated about this. The OP tries to show that there are differences between Protestant and Catholic Doctrine.But there is no such thing as Protestant Doctrine. There is Episcopal Doctrine and Baptist Doctrine and Methodist Doctrine and many other Protestant Sects but no single Protestant Doctrine.On some issues some Protestants will be closer to the Roman Catholic Doctrine than they are to other Protestants. On another issue the situation may well be reversed.But it is NOT a Protestant vs Roman Catholic matter, it is how a given sect on a given issue compares to the Roman Catholic position on that one issue.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

IMO there is some sort of purposeful confusion being perpetrated by groups such as you have mentioned. By using different terminology when talking about baptism, they make it seem like their is more of a difference than need be.Being baptized is being born again...it is gace through faith 100% all the way. In the case of infant baptism, it is grace from God being given to the child through the faith of their parents and god parents. When the child is matured he may personally dedicate himself to the promise

Were not talking about mere symbology here, we are speaking about these relics giving some sort of mystical power to the possessors. Aside from the three I mentioned, Constantine's army was reputed to have in its possession a piece of the original crucifixion that Christ died on. They believed that having this piece of wood, just because it may or may not have once had Jesus body on it, would give them power to subdue the Muslim horde. Little do they realize that its not about trinkets and treasures of an ordinary kind, but rather of the spiritual kind.Now, if I had a piece of the original cross in my possession, I would certainly be elated at its historical significance. But lets not delude ourselves in thinking that mystical powers can be found on it because Jesus' mojo rubbed off on it. Its a piece of wood and nothing more. The substance of a man is found within him in relation to his Maker. It completely misses the point. Why would that be lost on anyone? Either way is acceptable if you ask me. Because Jesus on the cross symbolizes His ultimate sacrifice for us. But the empty cross symbolizes His divinity and how we should be of good cheer for He has overcome death. Either way, I don't see how the two are problem because they are both factual.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

I can post numerous scriptures if you'd like supporting this. So, I can be immersed in water, not have a lick of faith, and be saved? Doesn't God judge the inward parts of man's heart? It seems like a crying shame that I can pretend to be saved and get baptized as a way of purchasing "fire insurance." I have no problem with the formality, however, I don't need the approval of a priest or a pastor or anyone to inform me if I'm saved, nor are they qualified to know that. All they can do is recognize the fruit I bear in my life. If they just met me two minutes ago, they're aren't going to know my spiritual disposition. My salvation is between me and my Lord Saviour and no other. My moment of salvation was between He and I. It was a very personal experience that He designed specifically for me. I asked Him and He kindly obliged a wretch like me. Easy to understand, yes, easy to believe in the veracity, no. Works do not save. The Bible is replete with that topic. The age of reason. When somebody is able to understand that Jesus sacrificed for them. And they begin to be accountable for their actions when they have realized that they have sinned. There is no magic forumla or specific age, as we're all different. People come to the Lord at 4, 5, 6... We don't need anyone's confirmation because no human is qualified to give that. Salvation is an individual choice between that person and the Lord. As much as I'd love to believe that I can save my children, I know that I can't. All that I can do is lead them by example and pray that they will be receptive to the Spirit when He comes to them that they may know Him and chooses to follow Him not because they want their fire's insurance, but because they love Him. I can't save them, nor can you, or your priest, or the Pope-- nobody but Jesus. If they were not born again, they would have to face the Law of God. You do realize that hell isn't just a place for murderers and rapists, right? Not everyone who says to Him, "Lord, Lord" will be saved. And if people keep saying that all you have to do is get your head wet, there's a good chance that on that Day, He'll say, "I never knew you. Depart from Me." You can't save anyone. You would be doing more damage to someone by telling them that all they have to do is get wet, then tell everybody that you're confirmed and, blickety blam, you're safe from hellfire. God is judging our thoughts and our attitudes, not the outward things we present to people. Why do you think He had such a problem with the Pharisees/Sadducees? Its because there heart wasn't right. They weren't really saved at all. They just thought they were because they were going through the motions. That's not salvation. That's trying to earn your way towards God. If we learned anything from Jesus, its that we can't earn salvation, no matter how good our intentions are, they are as filthy rags next to the cross.Its a tough teaching, but he who has ears, let him hear.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

I didn't say one was wrong or right, either. And I think everyone would have to agree that some Protestants are closer to the RCC than they are to other Protestants. I didn't object to that, just to the suggestion that the "vast majority" of Protestants are closer to the RCC than they are to other Protestants.

Which as I pointed out is simply another attempt to change the subject and a strawman as well.It is simply not related to Roman Catholic Doctrine. There are Protestants as well as Roman Catholics that believe absolute nonsensical things. How often do you see Roman Catholics kissing snakes?see Message 121

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Okay.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

The Pope may pray wherever he likes, as can we.

---

The fact that the Pope prayed in a mosque at the same time as the Muslims around him were praying is, in fact, a very strong indication that he was joining them in prayer. That is the simplest explanation.It is simply willful blindness to rationalize his action away just because you don't like what he did.

quote:

---

Evangelicals are a very large segment of Christianity, likely the majority, but not sure about that.

---

No, Roman Catholics are the largest sect of Christianity, worldwide.

quote:

---

Were not talking about mere symbology here, we are speaking about these relics giving some sort of mystical power to the possessors.

---

You mean like that "prayer cloth" that I was sent by the local fundie church? Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

Maybe that is the simplest explanation, but simple is not always best. I believe as far as the OP goes, it is clear that Catholicism does not officially embrace pluralism, and that actually many sects are very my-way-or-the highway. It is also willful schism to oppose his actions without attempting to understand the delicate political positions and tremendous pressures of the Papacy. Applicable on a few levels there.

But again, that is not something that is different Doctrine. Many Protestant sects are also "My way or the Highway". There have been many instance right here at EvC that prove that very point. Many times I have been called "Not a Christian", one Protestant suggested I should be shot, and it is always other Protestants that make such accusations. The Roman Catholics members here at EvC have been far more pluralistic, more open to considering my positions and beliefs as valid than many of the Protestants.Again, may I point to Message 121. I believe it accurately sums up the issues in this thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, here's a good one to start with;John 3:3 says 'Unless a man be born again he can not enter the kingdom of God'.When Jesus was asked to explain how someone is born again, he answered;John 3:5 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he can not enter the kingdom of God'.Just from this one scripture is is already clear that being 'born again' and being 'baptized' are the same thing. Nope. It is faith that got you into the water in the first place! Otherwise, you just went for a swim In the case of infants, it is the faith of the parents drawing down God's grace for them. If you don't think that is possible, think about this scripture;Matthew 8:8; 'Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my servant shall be healed'.And Jesus was astonished at the faith of the centurion, and said to him:'Go thy way, as you have believed, so shall it be done to thee.' Sure, that is why adult candidates for baptism are put through many months of spiritual counseling and discernments. Do the works of God save? I thought I made it clear to you that baptism is not a 'good work'. It is a sacrament, or as you would call it in your lingo 'grace thru faith'. So why then did you also say that confirmation was a ritual which is undertaken by pre-adolescents who are too young to make a commitment? I will find the quote it you need it. Now it sounds like you got stuck on the definition again. In confirmation a person 'confirms' that they wish to be part of the church. No human is qualified to do that?

There are a number of interpretations of John 3:5 that I've heard before in reference to being born of water. Being born of water is said to mean:1. the first, natural birth
2. being washed with the word of God
3. being washed (or born of) by the Holy Spirit
4. baptismGiven that there are many legitimate intrepretations why do you feel that number 4 is the proper understanding. Also, what version of the Bible do you use? Because you quoted John 3:5 as saying"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he can not enter the kingdom of God'." (my bold).After a quick search of 10 or 12 different versions of the Bible I was unable to find any that included the word "again". They all read as versions of "Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit he can not enter the kingdom of God". That's a significant difference with the 'again' the implication seems to be natural birth - whereas, with the 'again' included the interpretation of natural birth would be precluded. Sure, it's a great example of Jesus' compassion but it's dangerous to treat such an example as this as being normative - especially in the face of clear doctrinal teaching that nowhere allows for one person's faith to gain salvation for another...

That's correct. My Greek/English interlinear does not have the "again" in the Greek text. Also the "again" is not in the Greek in John 3:3. The manuscripts say "from above," implicating a spiritual birth from God's Holy Spirit. Verse five answer's Nicodemus's question in verse four. It implies the physical birth via womb water and the spiritual via the HS.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28