Understanding The Protestant /Catholic Divide

St. Augustine was.

 

Not unless the Pope admits he and the others are wrong.

 

Mate, you missing the point entirely.

You receive Faith at one point in time by Grace, but each opportunity to Love isn’t given to us all at one instant is it.
The grace to Love is given to us as our daily bread, so it’s ongoing day to day sustenance we ask The Father for in the Lord’s Prayer.
Why because each opportunity to Love is revealed to us day by day moment by moment in time. Do you see dude?

We can’t do anything, we need grace for Faith and grace to Love with good works. It’s all by grace mate, so I don’t see why people have a problem with it.

God’s Love is showering down on us at every moment, we need to receive those graces to Love if we are to give that Love to others.
We need to fill up from the source of Love each day like the mana in the morning, we are really bankrupt because Jesus said it flat out “ Without me, you can do nothing “.

Dudes might have the Faith thing down, but they aren’t receiving the graces to Love or even recognising the opportunities God places in front of them each day.

We need to ask for our daily bread, to remind us of our utter reliance on God. Why do you think God lead Israel into the desert and only gather the days need of mana. So that’s why this reliance on receiving our daily bread, feeds straight back into our faith as well.

Do you see why Faith and Love are essential, those good works are God’s works, and even those who receive those good works are Christ receiving them. “What you did for the least of these you did for me”.

We are rewarded for those good works, because God is gracious, not because we deserve it.

I don’t know how much more I can explain it mate.

 

I may be seriously mistaken, but I was under the impression that a core difference that impacts much of how Catholics and Protestants view ... everything ... is the issue of "how" God saves. Not the "monergist" vs "synergyst" that we argue about but something absolutely bedrock fundamental to the worldview of each camp.

We Protestants are keen on God saving individuals ... individually ... and gathering us together into "the Church". Thus one is part of the "church" because one is saved. (this applies to Calvinists and Arminians, we just argue among ourselves on the details of who does what).

My understanding of Catholicism (which includes the big tent of Roman, Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental) ... right or wrong ... is that God saves the CHURCH and one is saved by being gathered into the Church. (Christ promised to come for His Bride, after all ... not his harem.) This is part of what made "excommunication" such a really big deal back in the day. So I think that for a Catholic, one is saved because one is in the Church.

If I have understood the differences correctly, then being a Protestant and being saved and not attending any church at the moment makes perfect sense ... God saved us and we are part of the "invisible church" whether we fellowship alone or with others. To not fellowship is odd, but not "damnable". To a Catholic, the church is the Church, so not being part of any church places one outside of the Church (the Bride of Christ).

For a Baptist, baptizing an infant is illogical ... they are saved when God calls them into the Church and they repent, then you baptize them into the Church. For a Catholic, baptizing an infant is essential ... they are part of the Church when they are baptized into the Church. It is for them and God to complete the journey IN the Church,

These thoughts are based on many conversations and attempting to understand what other's really believe. I likely have some things wrong and many things are oversimplified (as a necessity when painting with such a broad brush). I just wanted to move beyond the well trod "Calvinist" vs "Arminian" talking points. Catholics really are not "Arminians" ... they have completely different starting assumptions that matter.

"God saves His Church" does seem to be at the core ... almost a 'covenant theology' starting point like my Presbyterian brothers (who are great to discuss Acts 2 with).

 

This is how it works. Paul says believers have Christ's imputed righteousness just as they once had Adam's imputed sin. So we cannot perish. Salvation is out of our hands. But Paul teaches that we have our own wood, hay, stubble works that can merit reward in the resurrection. Or be burnt up leaving us with no righteousness of our own. But he says even if that is the case, we are still saved because of Christ's (God's) very own imputed gift of righteousness. This is the true presentation of OSAS. Christ's imputed righteousness is pure love credited to us even if our works of love fall short.

 

I have documented the Catholic bibical case for justification and sanctification as a continuous process and evangelicals have consintently ducked these texts. So cathode is quite right to stress the practical heart of the matter.

 

There is no Biblical case for Catholicism. So how do you prove the rest of your claim?

 

We do not affirm either infant regeneration, nor effectual saving grace in the water baptism, but Rome affirms both!

 

Justification per bible instant act, performed by God moment one receives Jesus as Savior and Lord!

 

They reverse the process, as they see us needing to reach a sanctified state provided in and by sacramental graces to merit being then Justified by God!

 

Catholicism exists to mislead God's elect and to thus limit the amount of kingdom work that they can accomplish. The Catholic church is a harlot who has cheated on Christ and been unfaithful. She will be dealt with just as an adulterous wife would.

Those few Catholics whom are saved are saved despite Rome's teachings. Rome does not have the Gospel and does not teach the Gospel. Rome has works, traditions, paganism, idolatry and an old Commie in a white hat who supposedly has the ability to speak without sin as God's representative on Earth. Thusly they are entirely lost and need to be evangelized the same as Muslims, JWs or Mormons.

So I would disagree that the main difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is "justification". They're as different as Muslims are and the main difference is Catholicism's lack of the Gospel. We can't even get down to the doctrine level because they don't have the same foundation of Christ.

 

Funny because our major point of contention is that one could be misled, A person can do wrong.

So it only proves you don't even believe what you say you believe.

Its only faith alone, but if they are catholic have to disengage their current activity and do the good work of switching faiths.

Catholic priority is loving God, Not salvation and how to hold leverage over God.

 

Suppose I actually believed in Faith Alone and Once Saved Always Saved:

Nothing I can tell this person or they can do themselves (GOOD WORK) that will lead to their salvation nor is there anything I could say that would jeopardize or prevent their salvation.

And if they are already been saved, how can they be misled at all or lose any salvation if the begin doing the wrong things?

The minute anyone says I should switch faiths else face damnation, They are telling me they don't even believe what they preach.

 

If you go back to the Protestant-Catholic divide, you have the Catholics as the Kingdom of Antichrist. And the Protestants as the visible Kingdom of God.

 

I'm not a synergist or monergist. Those are calvinist terms, even Arminianism comes from Jacob who is a calvinist.

Calvinism is consistent Protestantism, And the extremist like Westboro are the most consistent following it the logical end.

Every protestant would agree there nothing on my part or theirs that we could do to activate another's faith it is on God.

Logically followed Faith Alone implies the total depravity. Faith Alone implies election. If God hits the faith switch on, then you are elect.

Its just levels of poorly thought through understanding of one's own claimed beliefs. I'm pretty confident I can get a non-cal protestant to believe in calvinism, and I can get calvinist to believe more extreme calvinism.

 

I could post these in a different language if you need it.

Canon 1.
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

Canon 2.
If anyone says that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man may be able more easily to live justly and to merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he is able to do both, though with hardship and difficulty, let him be anathema.

Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.

 

I don't mind being called evil. God loves an underdog.

Matthew 10

24“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. 25It is enough for the disciple that he may become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they insult the members of his household!

We just call you brothers and sisters faithful in Christ. Looks to me like we fit the bill.

Maybe folks should leave the misrepresenting, cheap shots and evil doing to us professionals.

See how far you can get just relying on biblical solutions.

2 Timothy 2
24The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, skillful in teaching, patient when wronged, 25with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

 

At the time of the Catholic-Protestant split, the analogy of the Catholic Church to "the antichrist" was more accurate. Even Catholics revolted at the corruption and abuses and the RCC underwent internal reforms (I assume I cannot still use my political influence to buy my son a seat as a Bishop or a Cardinal, and some Cardinals no longer maintain harems).

Which is not to say that Protestantism hasn't had its less-than-glorious moments either. I am just opposed to "revisionist" history. The Protestants of the early Protestant Reformation were not writing in a vacuum; they were responding to real problems that even "The Church" addressed a hundred years or so later.

 

What don't I believe?

I believe a person can do wrong and that all people are totally depraved and can do nothing BUT do wrong until the moment that God's Grace takes ahold of that person's life.

You cannot love God if you do not have Salvation for said person would still be depraved. Submitting to God's design of Salvation does not give you leverage over God, rather it gives God leverage over you.

You cannot prevent their Salvation if it's God's will, but you CAN hinder them, which is what I was saying. Catholicism will hinder God's elect and delay the day of their salvation through its incorrect Gospel.

They are not already Saved. They are in the Catholic Church. Therefore in their unsaved state they are misled by doctrines of salvation through works, which the Catholic Church upholds in their teaching of penance and purgatory and they never hear God's Gospel.

There is not "faiths". There is One Faith. And yes, if you are Born Again you should switch your religion from Catholicism to Christianity just as I did. And I don't care if that Christianity is Mennonite, Amish, Presbyterian, Free Will Baptist, Primitive Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist or Lutheran, but a Saved Christian MUST join a Christian denomination.