Are protestant chuches Christian churches?

[AZeitung]

This is in response to that other thread on this board.

Of course, the official position of the Catholic church is that yes, they are, and I would agree with that position. But I would like to show that by looking more closely at the properties of protestant churches, it is quite easy to make a very strong case that no, they are not.

First off, many protestant churches allow divorces. But what does the bible have to say about this?

Mark 10:9-12
"Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter.
So He said to them, "Wheover divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her."
"And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultry."

In addition, protestant churches seem more than willing to fraction off into new groups and churches every time there's the slightest bit of internal strife, so that they can follow their own ideologies when they disagree with something. They completely ignore the fact that members of the Christian church make up the body of Christ here on earth, and are willing to tear it to pieces on a whim.

Christ talks about rennouncing worldly goods. Many Catholic priests take a vow of poverty, and those who do not usually live very simply. The priests at my church in Champaign live in a fairly good sized building (about the size of a moderate frat house), but they all share it, and there are quite a few of them living there. Protestant ministers generally live better and have more worldly possessions, and sometimes are even fairly wealthy.

Furthermore, many protestants refuse to acknowledge passages from the bible that say things like "faith without works is dead", and believe that it is possible to have faith without doing good deeds.

Finally, individual protestant sects make up only an insignificant percentage of Christians world wide. Although combining all of the various individual groups leaves you with a percentage comparable (but not equal) to that of the Catholic church, it is important to remember that this group is divided amoungst itself. If they differ on so many theological points, what is the likelyhood that any of them are right?

[Kwajman]

Your right on most all of those points. But doesn't the catholic church allow divorce? I know a lot of catholics who have gotten divorced and then remarried in the church? I didn't realize that was a point of contention. Also, what about contraception? I thought that catholics were supposed to be against that.

[spiff]

Did you know that up until recently the Protestant religion did not view RCism as Christianity? yeh, kind of strange, especially seeing as they splintered from the RC church.

I don't really think any of the organised versions of Christianity out there can really be 100% Christian, because they use a Holy Book that does not include all the Gospels that were written. Indeed, many of the Gospels they left out were older than those they left in. To get the full picture all the original Christian texts should probably be read, I wonder what God made of it when he saw all these different Gospels being left out of the Bible? Did he get annoyed? Or did he not really care because the message was in there and that's what mattered? I would love so much to be able to pick his mind, find out what He thinks about things like that. It would be fascinating.

Roman Catholics are against conception other than the rhythm method. That is the main reason I really dislike the RC Church. Because of that doctrine millions of children (particularly in South America) have been born into lives of poverty, struggling agonisingly from one day to the next. The world is over-populated as it is, and it is time for the RC church to finally do something good for the world and stop giving such a contribution to the size of the world's population.
Roman Catholics cannot get divorced, but they can have their marriage annulled. However, not all Catholics are Roman Catholic (e.g Henry VIII was Catholic until the day he died. Just not RC) and so some Catholics may get divorced. But I'm still not sure about their views on contraception.

[AZeitung]

To answer Kwajman, yes, Catholics are supposed to be against contraception, as well as a lot of other things that many so-called Catholics do anyway. However, people who engage in these things either do so because they are ignorant of the teachings of the church, or because they refuse to accept them, which is a more serious problem.

But no, the Catholic church doesn't allow divorces. It does on rare occasions grant annullments, but basically, it has to be ruled that your marriage was never valid in the first place. I'm not sure about remarriage afterwards, but I would assume that it's ok.

As for Spiff, on the subject of Gospels, I don't see why every gospel ever written should be in the Bible. The ones in the Bible were written in the first, or early second centuries AD, within living memory of Christ. There Gospels written hundreds of years after the death of Christ which we have no reason to assume are accurrate. I mean, I could write a Gospel if I wanted. That doesn't mean it would be true.

I don't know how you or Henry VIII would get off saying he was Catholic, since he basically started his own religion so that he could divorce and kill his wives. If he wants to call that Catholocism instead of Anglican(ism?) he is free to do so, but that doesn't mean it bares any more relation to the catholic church than any other protestant church.

As for birth controll - first of all, the Catholic church does not allow premarital sex. I can't imagine why anyone would think premarital sex is ok, but not birth control, since I think the first issue is generally more serious than the second. Within marriage, you should be prepared to have children, and second of all as a rational human being, you should be able to show some restraint. If you're not using birth control, you should understand that sex will eventually bring about a birth, and act accordingly if you can't afford to bring another child in this world. I know a lot of people would like to take the easy way out, but the easy way out isn't always the right way out. Allowing abortion would also help prevent the overpopulation problem, but I have a feeling that there are fewer people who would believe that to be an acceptable method of population control.

Birth control is a recent invention (at least, working birth control, anyway), not some God given right that people have been practicing through the ages.

[Kinjiro Tsukasa]

But no, the Catholic church doesn't allow divorces. It does on rare occasions grant annullments, but basically, it has to be ruled that your marriage was never valid in the first place. I'm not sure about remarriage afterwards, but I would assume that it's ok.
Remarriage after an annulment is allowed, as is marrying again after the death of a spouse. A man with an annulment can become a priest, if he has the calling.

By the way spiff, the "rhythm" method pretty much went out with the horse-drawn buggy. The system in use today is called Natural Family Planning (NFP), and it is supposed to be a lot more effective than "rhythm". Just saying. ;)

[spiff]

I don't know how you or Henry VIII would get off saying he was Catholic, since he basically started his own religion so that he could divorce and kill his wives. If he wants to call that Catholocism instead of Anglican(ism?) he is free to do so, but that doesn't mean it bares any more relation to the catholic church than any other protestant church.

No, what Henry did was he broke with Rome and allowed the Bible to be published in English. That was all. He didn't change the general ideology of the religion in any way apart from making himself head of the church. While Henry was still king the English church still preached transubstantiation, which is a very Catholic belief. And Henry is known to have had a certain disregard for Protestants - he viewed them as boring people.
Henry always insisted he was Catholic, to be Catholic one does not have to be Roman Catholic.
The break with Rome was for several reasons, but the two major ones were simple: greed and desire. He desired Anne Boleyn (and who could blame him, she was like Diana compared to Catherine's Camilla) and at the time everyone in the nation had to pay tithes to the Church, and Henry fancied a bit of that pie. Not to mention the fact that the RC Church was the single biggest landowner in the country at the time, having more land than the King himself. Add to that the corruption that at the time was rampant in the RC Church and the logic behind Henry's actions becomes clear. In some ways he was a monster, but he was also a highly intelligent man who ALWAYS got his own way and God save whoever tried to prevent him. As Wolseley found out to his expense.

[AZeitung]

No, what Henry did was he broke with Rome and allowed the Bible to be published in English. That was all. He didn't change the general ideology of the religion in any way apart from making himself head of the church.


And any history textbook will tell you that the *reason* he broke from the church was so he could get a divorce. This isn't something I learned in church or from a catechism, this is what history records.


While Henry was still king the English church still preached transubstantiation, which is a very Catholic belief. And Henry is known to have had a certain disregard for Protestants - he viewed them as boring people.
Henry always insisted he was Catholic, to be Catholic one does not have to be Roman Catholic.


Insisting you're Catholic doesn't really mean anything. The word Catholic just means "universal". If you're not part of the Roman Catholic church, you are free to call your church "universal", but it doesn't mean you have some special property that no other protestant churches have.

What in your opinion makes a church "Catholic"?


The break with Rome was for several reasons, but the two major ones were simple: greed and desire. He desired Anne Boleyn (and who could blame him, she was like Diana compared to Catherine's Camilla)


And because he wanted heirs.


and at the time everyone in the nation had to pay tithes to the Church, and Henry fancied a bit of that pie. Not to mention the fact that the RC Church was the single biggest landowner in the country at the time, having more land than the King himself. Add to that the corruption that at the time was rampant in the RC Church and the logic behind Henry's actions becomes clear. In some ways he was a monster, but he was also a highly intelligent man who ALWAYS got his own way and God save whoever tried to prevent him. As Wolseley found out to his expense.

What does any of this have to do with wheter or not you should call the Anglican church "Catholic"? Especially if it's basically confined to England?

[Kinjiro Tsukasa]

Actually, the Bible was available in English long before Henry VIII, starting with large portions of it being translated into English by Caedmon (a monk from Whitby) in the latter portion of the seventh century. Even at the time of Henry VIII, though, the few people who could read could probably read Latin, so it was most likely a moot point.

Incidentally, the correct term for the church is the "Catholic Church", not "Roman Catholic". Not all Catholics are Western Rite ("Roman") -- there are Eastern Rite Catholics as well -- Byzantine Catholics, Maronite, Melkite, Ukranian, Syriac, Assyrian Chaldean, Armenian, Coptic -- just to name a few -- all in communion with Rome. If your (Christian) church isn't in communion with Rome, then it is a Protestant church (still Christian, though :) ).

[AZeitung]

I always thought they were just called Orthodox. I did hear someone use the word "Greek Catholic" once to describe the Greek Orthodox church, but he wasn't Catholic, so I didn't think too much of it.

As far as I can tell, though Henry VIII's church doesn't fit this description, thuogh.

[Kinjiro Tsukasa]

I always thought they were just called Orthodox. I did hear someone use the word "Greek Catholic" once to describe the Greek Orthodox church, but he wasn't Catholic, so I didn't think too much of it.

As far as I can tell, though Henry VIII's church doesn't fit this description, thuogh.
Nope, Eastern Rite Catholic and Orthodox are two different things -- the former are in communion with Rome; the latter are not. For example, the Greek Catholic (Melkite) and Greek Orthodox churches are two different churches.

You're right about Henry VIII; his church is neither Orthodox nor Catholic (Western or Eastern Rite).

Gets confusing, doesn't it? ;)

[LilBunnyRabbit]

First off, many protestant churches allow divorces. But what does the bible have to say about this?
"Wherever two are gathered in my name, there I am." Couldn't give you the exact passage, and I believe that the Catholic church has labelled the scrolls it came from as being heretical anyway.

In addition, protestant churches seem more than willing to fraction off into new groups and churches every time there's the slightest bit of internal strife, so that they can follow their own ideologies when they disagree with something. They completely ignore the fact that members of the Christian church make up the body of Christ here on earth, and are willing to tear it to pieces on a whim.
Evidently neither the church or the Bible have ever heard of the term 'competition and co-operation' with reference to the cells in a human body.

Many Catholic priests take a vow of poverty, and those who do not usually live very simply.
Have you ever seen the inside of a Catholic church? So much for a vow of poverty.

Protestant ministers generally live better and have more worldly possessions, and sometimes are even fairly wealthy.
I can't speak for Protestants as such, but my grandfather was an Anglican priest. Trust me, he wasn't wealthy. The majority of the possessions he had were the property of the Anglican church, to provide for whoever happened to be the local vicar.

Furthermore, many protestants refuse to acknowledge passages from the bible that say things like "faith without works is dead", and believe that it is possible to have faith without doing good deeds.
I'm not sure how you decided that many protestants refuse to acknowledge things like this, but to be honest I've met plenty of Catholics who don't seem to think it applies to them, so that's nothing special.

Finally, individual protestant sects make up only an insignificant percentage of Christians world wide. Although combining all of the various individual groups leaves you with a percentage comparable (but not equal) to that of the Catholic church
What's that got to do with anything? If two people decide to follow Christ's supposed word in a different interpretation to anyone else, does that mean that they're not Christian. What do numbers of people have to do with it?

If they differ on so many theological points, what is the likelyhood that any of them are right?
Higher than that of a church that refuses to accept any other viewpoints on its theology, instead demanding that every single one of its priests accept exactly the same interpretation, as set out by a council of old men in funny hats.

Roman Catholics are against contraception other than the rhythm method.
"I'd like to thank the Catholic church for the rhythm method, without which I wouldn't be here today." - Billy Connely.

Always thought that one was a bit odd. Supposedly its because the rhythm method doesn't interfere with gods will, but I doubt an omnipotent god would have much problem with a tiny bit of latex.

"Every sperm is sacred..." - Monty Python, Meaning of Life

As for birth controll - first of all, the Catholic church does not allow premarital sex. I can't imagine why anyone would think premarital sex is ok, but not birth control, since I think the first issue is generally more serious than the second.
Different issue entirely, I thought this was to do with protestant and catholic churches? As far as I know there are very few or no protestant churches that condone premarital sex.

And any history textbook will tell you that the *reason* he broke from the church was so he could get a divorce. This isn't something I learned in church or from a catechism, this is what history records.
Yes, any basic school-level history textbook will tell you that. Check some of the more in-depth ones sometime, we actually have quite a lot of history and politics over here in England you know. Suprisingly enough we tend to know the in-depth bits of it slightly better than people in a foreign country.

As far as I can tell, though Henry VIII's church doesn't fit this description, thuogh.
Just because it's not catholic does not prevent it from being Christian. Stop changing the goalposts, are you trying to argue that its not Catholic, or that it's not Christian?

[Kinjiro Tsukasa]

"Wherever two are gathered in my name, there I am." Couldn't give you the exact passage, and I believe that the Catholic church has labelled the scrolls it came from as being heretical anyway.
Heretical? Hardly. This is from Matthew, chapter 18 (verse 20). Every Bible I know, Catholic or otherwise, has the book of Matthew.

Have you ever seen the inside of a Catholic church? So much for a vow of poverty.
Cute. But 1) Not every Catholic church is "rich" looking, 2) It's the priest who takes the vow, not the building. And technically, parish priests do NOT take a vow of poverty; it's those in the religious orders (like monks) who do so, and 3) The priest doesn't pay for the construction of the church out of his own pocket. In the case of my church, it was paid for by parishioners selling their jewelry (true story).

[AZeitung]

"Wherever two are gathered in my name, there I am." Couldn't give you the exact passage, and I believe that the Catholic church has labelled the scrolls it came from as being heretical anyway.


What are you talking about? That's in the Bible, and I've never heard of that passage being referred to as heretical. What exactly are you trying to say?


Evidently neither the church or the Bible have ever heard of the term 'competition and co-operation' with reference to the cells in a human body.


Is that where you cut off your hand, then start chopping it into smaller pieces to try to make it into something better? If not, it's a bad analogy.


Have you ever seen the inside of a Catholic church? So much for a vow of poverty.


I go to a Catholic church every Sunday. First of all, priests don't live in the church. Second of all, there's nothing in the church that would really be of use to a priest either. It doesn't have a fancy car, or a big screen TV, or reclining chairs.

My dad went to a catholic highschool. He wasn't even allowed to give the priests Christmas gifts (small things like you might give a teacher) because of their vow of poverty.

Some churches are nicer than others. On average, I would say that most Catholic churches aren't any nicer on the inside, or more expensive, than protestant ones that I've seen. Of course, that's excluding the famous ones.


I can't speak for Protestants as such, but my grandfather was an Anglican priest. Trust me, he wasn't wealthy. The majority of the possessions he had were the property of the Anglican church, to provide for whoever happened to be the local vicar.


No, their not all wealthy. I wouldn't even say that a good percentage are wealthy. But there are wealthy ministers, even if they're a minority.


I'm not sure how you decided that many protestants refuse to acknowledge things like this, but to be honest I've met plenty of Catholics who don't seem to think it applies to them, so that's nothing special.


Because, as a matter of fact, that's a fundimental issue that Catholics and protestants differ on. I didn't decide that - it's common knowledge.


What's that got to do with anything? If two people decide to follow Christ's supposed word in a different interpretation to anyone else, does that mean that they're not Christian. What do numbers of people have to do with it?


The point is, they can't seem to form a stable coherent doctrine if they keep splintering as much as they seem to.

Besides, does it really make sense that every time there's a point of contention you should go off and start a new church? If it's really something that serious, both groups of people can't be right, so either the ones who broke of, or the others, are wrong. If there's so much disagreement amongst protestants, a lot of them, by definition, have to be wrong.


Higher than that of a church that refuses to accept any other viewpoints on its theology, instead demanding that every single one of its priests accept exactly the same interpretation, as set out by a council of old men in funny hats.


That sounds like the answer of someone who doesn't believe in absolute truth. If however, you believe that an answer can be either fundimentally right or wrong, it does you no good for everybody to believe whatever he wants without any regards for truth.


"I'd like to thank the Catholic church for the rhythm method, without which I wouldn't be here today." - Billy Connely.


Haha


Always thought that one was a bit odd. Supposedly its because the rhythm method doesn't interfere with gods will, but I doubt an omnipotent god would have much problem with a tiny bit of latex.


First of all


By the way spiff, the "rhythm" method pretty much went out with the horse-drawn buggy


And second of all, it's kind of hard to tell people that they *have to* have sex at a certain time.


"Every sperm is sacred..." - Monty Python, Meaning of Life


Yes, Monty Python - now there was a funny crowd. Did you ever hear the lumberjack song in German?


Different issue entirely, I thought this was to do with protestant and catholic churches? As far as I know there are very few or no protestant churches that condone premarital sex.


This in particular had to do with overpopulation.


Yes, any basic school-level history textbook will tell you that. Check some of the more in-depth ones sometime, we actually have quite a lot of history and politics over here in England you know. Suprisingly enough we tend to know the in-depth bits of it slightly better than people in a foreign country.


Then, I'll have to ask you and all other people in Britain to refrain from commenting on American polotics or history.

Besides, "deeper" issues are basically irrelevant here. He wanted an annulment, the church said no - whatever its reasons - they vary depending on what you read. For this reason, and other less significant factors, he decides he may as well go start his own church.


Just because it's not catholic does not prevent it from being Christian. Stop changing the goalposts, are you trying to argue that its not Catholic, or that it's not Christian?

Anglicanism? Not Catholic of course, or didn't you read any of Spiff's posts claiming that it *was* Catholic? If you're going to comment on something, at least have the decency to find the context it comes from so that you don't go around sounding foolish.

[Eero]

I always thought they were just called Orthodox. I did hear someone use the word "Greek Catholic" once to describe the Greek Orthodox church, but he wasn't Catholic, so I didn't think too much of it.


It is an official term and widely used so maybe you could look it up from some church history books.

(Edit) It seems I was somewhat mistaken.

[Eero]

My stupid teacher in high school told me wrong. It seems Kinjiro Tsukasa is right or almost right. I had always been taught in school that the Greek Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are the same thing. Now I learned that they are almost the same thing.

Well in Finland the Greek Catholic and Orthodox are often used as synonums even though there are some differences. I have to visit my local Orthodox Church and ask them about this. My hometown is one of the biggest Orthodox centres in Finland. We even have this well known Orthodox museum in Kuopio. I'm sure they would know more about this.

[choconutjoe]

As always, the catholic encyclopedia is a wealth of information on the subject: Article (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm). The general gist of the article seems to be, yes protestantism is a form of christianity, but it's a bad thing that is detrimental to the teachings of christ and society in general. Here's an intersting quote:

...the much-vaunted Protestant principles only wrought disaster and confusion where they were allowed free play; order was only restored by reverting to something like the old system: symbols of faith imposed by an outside authority and enforced by the secular arm. No bond of union exists between the many national Churches, except their common hatred for "Rome", which is the birthmark of all, and the trade-mark of many, even unto our day.

[megk]

First off, many protestant churches allow divorces. But what does the bible have to say about this?

Yes, many liberal protestant churches are quiet on the issue of Divorce. There are many conservative Protestant churches that are teaching against Divorce.



In addition, protestant churches seem more than willing to fraction off into new groups and churches every time there's the slightest bit of internal strife, so that they can follow their own ideologies when they disagree with something. They completely ignore the fact that members of the Christian church make up the body of Christ here on earth, and are willing to tear it to pieces on a whim.
I agree with you that this practice of division is dangerous. Frankly it is the enemies greatest victory in the church. A house divided can not stand. Unfortunately, this has no bearing on whether these people believe that Jesus was and is the Son of God. That is indeed the definition of a Christian is it not?




Christ talks about rennouncing worldly goods. Many Catholic priests take a vow of poverty, and those who do not usually live very simply. The priests at my church in Champaign live in a fairly good sized building (about the size of a moderate frat house), but they all share it, and there are quite a few of them living there. Protestant ministers generally live better and have more worldly possessions, and sometimes are even fairly wealthy.

I also agree that there are far too many Pastors running around with way too much "bling, bling" on. But take a look at the way the Catholic Bishops live. How many black Lincoln Towncars does the archdioces of Chicago need. I've never been to Rome but I can imagine that they are living pretty high on the hog over there. IMO this is a theological argument...the "renouncing wordly wealth"

Furthermore, many protestants refuse to acknowledge passages from the bible that say things like "faith without works is dead", and believe that it is possible to have faith without doing good deeds.

I don't know a single Protestant church that believes that you can have faith w/o works. I might need a specific example on this one. Are you getting at the contention that we are not saved by works, but infact we are saved by Faith in Jesus Christ. That could be a good theological debate if you want to go there.


Finally, individual protestant sects make up only an insignificant percentage of Christians world wide. Although combining all of the various individual groups leaves you with a percentage comparable (but not equal) to that of the Catholic church, it is important to remember that this group is divided amoungst itself. If they differ on so many theological points, what is the likelyhood that any of them are right?

AZeitung, My Dad is still considered a Catholic and he hasn't been to church in 30 years. Numbers mean nothing. Listen, I would venture to say that the majority of Catholics, lets say 55% of professing Catholics, are actually faithfully practicing there Faith. And I think 55% is a highball number. I think it is probably somewhere around 30%.
With that being said, the same thing goes for the Protestant churches. Out of 100 professing Christians maybe 20 regularly attend church. The titheing nummbers are even less. Maybe 15 out of the 100 actually tithe ten percent. I am sure that goes for the Catholic church as well.

Heres the point :

Mt 7:13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." --Jesus' words to his disciple

It is a heart issue, not a number issue or wealth issue. I respect you and your Catholic Faith. I have not been given authority to judge whether or not you are a Christian, nor have you been given authority as to whether or not I am a Christian. There are bad apples in every bunch, there are stupid man made doctrines in each Faith. If you know Jesus Christ as the savior of your life, you will find that narrow gate.

[spiff]

And second of all, it's kind of hard to tell people that they *have to* have sex at a certain time.

I'm not sure but it seems to me like you are trying to say that the RC Church does not condemn the use of contraception? I didn't really see the need to find proof that they condemn all "unnatural" contraception, I'm too lazy for that, but here's something for you. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4226489.stm.

Anglicanism? Not Catholic of course, or didn't you read any of Spiff's posts claiming that it *was* Catholic? If you're going to comment on something, at least have the decency to find the context it comes from so that you don't go around sounding foolish.

from the Catholic Encyclopedia: )http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07222a.htm)

"Meanwhile, Henry, though taking advantage of the spirit of religious innovation now rife among the people whenever it suited his purpose, remained still attached to the sacramental system in which he had been brought up. In 1539 the Statute of the Six Articles enforced, under the severest penalties, such doctrines as transubstantiation, Communion under one kind, auricular confession, and the celibacy of the clergy."

If he says he is Catholic and still follows the almost all of the basic tenets of Catholicism does that not make him Catholic?
If you continue to insist that Henry VIII is not Catholic purely because he did not see the Pope as the final authority then I respectfully demand that you start insisting the Catholic church is not Christian because the Pope and his cardinals all have lovely clothes and cars despite them being, theologically speaking, leading a life of poverty.

The titheing nummbers are even less. Maybe 15 out of the 100 actually tithe ten percent. I am sure that goes for the Catholic church as well.

WOW, that's a lot more than give full tithes in the UK.

I agree with your points about figures regarding the numbers of believers being pretty much pointless statistics.

[choconutjoe]

If he says he is Catholic and still follows the almost all of the basic tenets of Catholicism does that not make him Catholic?By definition, no. Having a tail does not make you a cat.

[spiff]

So a dog that has had it's tail chopped off is not a dog? Cutting off the Pope is like cutting off a limb, not a changing of ideology.

[Kinjiro Tsukasa]

Cutting off the Pope is like cutting off a limb, not a changing of ideology.
Sorry, but that's not a good analogy. It is a change in ideology.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Is that where you cut off your hand, then start chopping it into smaller pieces to try to make it into something better? If not, it's a bad analogy.
No, its accepting that your body is made up of lots of little cells, which actually differentiate by competing with one another for resources until they arrive at a point suitable for their purpose, which is to serve the whole of the body. Advanced biology.

What are you talking about? That's in the Bible, and I've never heard of that passage being referred to as heretical. What exactly are you trying to say?
Oh I do apologise, I was sticking with the issue presented in the title of the thread. My mistake for assuming that it was still on-topic.


No, their not all wealthy. I wouldn't even say that a good percentage are wealthy. But there are wealthy ministers, even if they're a minority.
And of course we all know there are no wealthy Catholic priests. Nope, not a one. No sirree.

Because, as a matter of fact, that's a fundimental issue that Catholics and protestants differ on. I didn't decide that - it's common knowledge.
Strange how when I did go to church they always seemed to be encouraging us to live good lives then. Pity they weren't up to date on the whole faith without works thing. I guess all protestants must agree on this one, even if they do agree on other things. Thanks for correcting me on my past experience actually being an elaborate scam set up to persuade me that my church did actually believe that living a good life was an integral part of having faith.

If it's really something that serious, both groups of people can't be right, so either the ones who broke of, or the others, are wrong. If there's so much disagreement amongst protestants, a lot of them, by definition, have to be wrong.
If one protestant sect is right though, then the Catholic church is wrong. And there are more of them, and they have more points of view.

That sounds like the answer of someone who doesn't believe in absolute truth. If however, you believe that an answer can be either fundimentally right or wrong, it does you no good for everybody to believe whatever he wants without any regards for truth.
Nope, I don't believe in absolute truth. However even if I did I think I'd struggle with the idea that a church responsible for so many human tragedies somehow holds it. When exactly are they supposed to have found it? Was it before or after their various wars, slaughters, and various other sins?

Then, I'll have to ask you and all other people in Britain to refrain from commenting on American polotics or history.
You don't quite seem to get it. My point was that it may just be possible that natives to this country know a little more about their own home country than you do, and saying that they're completely wrong because an elementary text book of a foreign country says so could be considered as mildly arrogant to say the least. Incidentally many people believe that the divorce thing was just an excuse for Henry.

And second of all, it's kind of hard to tell people that they *have to* have sex at a certain time.
And yet the Catholic church still tries. Oh well.

[GB-UK]

In regards to the anglican church they certainly think they are catholic, but are not roman catholic. Have a look in their prayer books it's written in each one.
As someone has already said, catholic means universal, all professing christians belong to the universal (i.e. catholic) church of christ but not all christians are roman catholics.

[AZeitung]

No, its accepting that your body is made up of lots of little cells, which actually differentiate by competing with one another for resources until they arrive at a point suitable for their purpose, which is to serve the whole of the body. Advanced biology.


So, in other words, a bad analogy.


Oh I do apologise, I was sticking with the issue presented in the title of the thread. My mistake for assuming that it was still on-topic.


What? You quoted a passage from the bible and then claimed that it was declared heretical, which it wasn't.


And of course we all know there are no wealthy Catholic priests. Nope, not a one. No sirree.


Name one, then.


Strange how when I did go to church they always seemed to be encouraging us to live good lives then. Pity they weren't up to date on the whole faith without works thing. I guess all protestants must agree on this one, even if they do agree on other things. Thanks for correcting me on my past experience actually being an elaborate scam set up to persuade me that my church did actually believe that living a good life was an integral part of having faith.


Justification by faith alone vs. by faith and works. Justification by faith alone has been a long standing tradition of protestant churches. Nobody ever said protestants think you *shouldn't* do good deeds.


If one protestant sect is right though, then the Catholic church is wrong. And there are more of them, and they have more points of view.


So, if you're conducting an experiment, which would you expect to be true: the anomalous results that pop up every so often and continuously give different answers, or the consistant result that comes up most of the time?


Nope, I don't believe in absolute truth.


I find that very odd, since I never figured you for a liberal arts major. So you think that multiple mutually exclusive answers to the same question can somehow be correct?


However even if I did I think I'd struggle with the idea that a church responsible for so many human tragedies somehow holds it. When exactly are they supposed to have found it? Was it before or after their various wars, slaughters, and various other sins?


I guess nobody knew anything about God until the 16th century, then.

edit: and as an answer to your next question, the Jews. If you don't have a next question, disregard this.


You don't quite seem to get it. My point was that it may just be possible that natives to this country know a little more about their own home country than you do, and saying that they're completely wrong because an elementary text book of a foreign country says so could be considered as mildly arrogant to say the least. Incidentally many people believe that the divorce thing was just an excuse for Henry.


Unless you lived in the 16th century, you're probably not that much closer to the issue than I am.

But that aside, my comment about US politics and history still stands. I don't see you complaining when foreigners (of the US) try to comment on it.


And yet the Catholic church still tries. Oh well.

Now you're saying it tries to *force* people to *have* sex?

[AZeitung]

I agree with you that this practice of division is dangerous. Frankly it is the enemies greatest victory in the church. A house divided can not stand. Unfortunately, this has no bearing on whether these people believe that Jesus was and is the Son of God. That is indeed the definition of a Christian is it not?


Again, as I stated at the very beggining of this thread, which I think some people (like LilBunnyRabbit) haven't read, I don't disagree with that. I just think that if anyone is trying to make a case against Catholics being Christian, he should realize that it's at least as easy to make the same case for protestants.




I also agree that there are far too many Pastors running around with way too much "bling, bling" on. But take a look at the way the Catholic Bishops live. How many black Lincoln Towncars does the archdioces of Chicago need. I've never been to Rome but I can imagine that they are living pretty high on the hog over there. IMO this is a theological argument...the "renouncing wordly wealth"


I've never been to Rome either, so I can't comment on exactly how they live.



I don't know a single Protestant church that believes that you can have faith w/o works. I might need a specific example on this one. Are you getting at the contention that we are not saved by works, but infact we are saved by Faith in Jesus Christ. That could be a good theological debate if you want to go there.


Partly. My claim is that no one can claim to have faith without doing good works.


With that being said, the same thing goes for the Protestant churches. Out of 100 professing Christians maybe 20 regularly attend church. The titheing nummbers are even less. Maybe 15 out of the 100 actually tithe ten percent. I am sure that goes for the Catholic church as well.


So percentage wise, I would assume that the ratios of Catholics to protestants works out to about the same 1:1 that I originally stated.


I'm not sure but it seems to me like you are trying to say that the RC Church does not condemn the use of contraception?

Where do you get that? I said the chuch doesn't tell people that they have to have sex.

So a dog that has had it's tail chopped off is not a dog? Cutting off the Pope is like cutting off a limb, not a changing of ideology.

More like cutting off a head. And cutting off a head does stop you from living.

[Kinjiro Tsukasa]

I agree with you that this practice of division is dangerous. Frankly it is the enemies greatest victory in the church. A house divided can not stand. Unfortunately, this has no bearing on whether these people believe that Jesus was and is the Son of God. That is indeed the definition of a Christian is it not?
Yes! I imagine the non-believers are chuckling with glee over Catholics and Protestants arguing over who is Christian. Both Catholics and Protestants are Christians, as long as they belive that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God.

Regarding the so-called wealth of priests, bishops, etc. -- evidence, please? And don't tell me about all the artwork in the Vatican -- that is held for the common good -- instead of being hoarded away in private collections (and never seen again), it is out there for anyone to enjoy. And selling all of it (even assuming one individual person actually owned it and had the authority to sell it) would not end poverty. Jesus tells us we will always have the poor with us.

I don't want to hear about the precious-metal chalices, either -- those are often given as a gift to a new priest by his parents or by other family members -- the priest is not pulling huge wads of cash out of his pocket (or from the collection plate) to pay for those.

If any one of us could trade places with a priest (or a bishop or a cardinal), we'd probably be surprised at how simply most of them live. They have cars, yes -- well nowadays, that is a better way to get around than, let's say, a donkey cart. ;)

Re. faith vs. works. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. We do good works (hopefully) because we are saved, not to get saved.

[AZeitung]

Re. faith vs. works. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. We do good works (hopefully) because we are saved, not to get saved.

I think it's important to remember, though, the emphasis that the Catholic church places on passages from the bible about faith without works being dead faith. Works are a necessity because unless due to something like a medical condition, you're unable to do good works, real faith means actually going out and doing good works. The kind of faith where you just sit in your room, praying to God and never actually trying to do real good is meaningless. Faith only becomes meaningful when you use it to try to make a difference in this world. It doesn't have to be anything major, but it has to affect your outward actions, as well as your inward ones.

I don't think it's a bad thing if someone just kind of sits aruond praying for a while and calls that faith. But I think ultimately, it's not that meaningful, and isn't enough to claim real faith. I think it becomes infinitely more meaningful if in addition to praying, someone goes out and actively engages in what the bible tells us to do. So, say, in addition to praying, that person goes out and volunteers at a soup kitchen for a couple of hours because he wants to help God's people, I think that's worth a lot more than only saying "Oh Lord, I have faith in you, please hear my prayers."

Works are an obligation of the faithful, not something nice that can be tacked on.

[aikiMac]

Um, what is a "Christian" anyway? Or, what is the religion "Christianity" ? What is a "Christian" church?

We can't very well decide that such-and-such is, or is not, Christian if we don't know what Christian is.

[Kinjiro Tsukasa]

I think it's important to remember, though, the emphasis that the Catholic church places on passages from the bible about faith without works being dead faith. Works are a necessity because unless due to something like a medical condition, you're unable to do good works, real faith means actually going out and doing good works. The kind of faith where you just sit in your room, praying to God and never actually trying to do real good is meaningless. Faith only becomes meaningful when you use it to try to make a difference in this world. It doesn't have to be anything major, but it has to affect your outward actions, as well as your inward ones.

You're right, of course. I was just giving the "Reader's Digest" version. :D

The "works" one does will depend on the individual. A retired person in good health will have a lot more free time than a working-age person with a houseful of kids. We each have to "do" according to our station in life, and our own situation. The person who is ill and housebound may not be able to do anything more than pray -- and I'm sure that God is perfectly happy with that.

James 2:14-18

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.

[megk]

Well said... If we have to do good works to attain salvation then the work Christ did on the cross was done in vain. If there is some formula in regards to how much we have to do then his blood was shed for no reason. Listen our righteousness is as filthy rags to God. We can not ever be good enough or do enough. Salvation comes from the one who hung on that cross and then was raised from the dead. He did enough. If you have true Faith, you will have works. Galations...the fruit of the spirit. "They will know you by your fruit".

There was a Catholic priest here in Chicago who was arrested for embeseling a ton of money from his little catholic church on the south side. Greed is the issue. Don't pretend that all Catholic Priests are humble, modest living, saints. I won't pretend that all Pastors are humble modest living saints. It is a heart condition not a wealth condition.

Shall we get beyond the "my dad can beat up your dad" argument yet. :D

[aikiMac]

Um, what is a "Christian" anyway? Or, what is the religion "Christianity" ? What is a "Christian" church?

We can't very well decide that such-and-such is, or is not, Christian if we don't know what Christian is.
Alrighty, I'll attempt to answer my own question. Proposed definition:

As essential and necessary points of doctrine, a Christian believes the following (in no particular order):
1) The Apostles Creed
2) The Nicene Creed
3) The chidren's song "Jesus Loves Me."
Excerpt: "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so"
4) The verses Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, and Romans 10:9-10. (Other Bible passages present the same teachings, but these three selections are conveniently succinct.)

Yes, no, maybe so?

[Kinjiro Tsukasa]

Alrighty, I'll attempt to answer my own question. Proposed definition:

As essential and necessary points of doctrine, a Christian believes the following (in no particular order):
1) The Apostles Creed
2) The Nicene Creed
3) The chidren's song "Jesus Loves Me."
Excerpt: "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so"
4) The verses Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, and Romans 10:9-10. (Other Bible passages present the same teachings, but these three selections are conveniently succinct.)

Yes, no, maybe so?
1) Definitely
2) Definitely
3) I'm not so sure about that, where is that song mentioned in the Bible? ;)
Just kidding! :D
4) Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23, yes; Romans 10:9-10 yes, as long as you don't misinterpret it or interpret it too literally -- mute people can be saved, too -- no?
Of course, if you really want to be succint, just go to John 3:16.

[aikiMac]

Okay, let's swap Romans 10:9-10 for John 3:16, and leave the rest unchanged. Is this list now complete?

As far as I know, Catholics and Protestants alike agree with this list. Therefore, if the list is now complete, then Catholics and Protestants alike are Christian. But someone else said Catholics are not Christians.

We could add a belief in the existence of heaven and hell as real places.
We could add a belief that Jesus will return to earth someday.
I'm certain that Christians believe both.

What I'm getting at is this: what is the complete list of items that a person must believe in order to be a Christian? Note that I said "complete" and "must." If there are 10 things that a person must believe, let's list all 10, and not stop at 7. But if there are only 7, let's list those 7 and not go any further.

Right now I'm honestly thinking that my list of four is the complete list. But I could be wrong. What do you think?

[GB-UK]

Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

[aikiMac]

Elaborate please, Darth. I assert that Romans 10:9 is insufficient by itself.

[Stuart H]

This is in response to that other thread on this board.

Of course, the official position of the Catholic church is that yes, they are, and I would agree with that position. But I would like to show that by looking more closely at the properties of protestant churches, it is quite easy to make a very strong case that no, they are not.

First off, many protestant churches allow divorces. But what does the bible have to say about this?

Mark 10:9-12
"Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter.
So He said to them, "Wheover divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her."
"And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultry."

In addition, protestant churches seem more than willing to fraction off into new groups and churches every time there's the slightest bit of internal strife, so that they can follow their own ideologies when they disagree with something. They completely ignore the fact that members of the Christian church make up the body of Christ here on earth, and are willing to tear it to pieces on a whim.

Christ talks about rennouncing worldly goods. Many Catholic priests take a vow of poverty, and those who do not usually live very simply. The priests at my church in Champaign live in a fairly good sized building (about the size of a moderate frat house), but they all share it, and there are quite a few of them living there. Protestant ministers generally live better and have more worldly possessions, and sometimes are even fairly wealthy.

Furthermore, many protestants refuse to acknowledge passages from the bible that say things like "faith without works is dead", and believe that it is possible to have faith without doing good deeds.

Finally, individual protestant sects make up only an insignificant percentage of Christians world wide. Although combining all of the various individual groups leaves you with a percentage comparable (but not equal) to that of the Catholic church, it is important to remember that this group is divided amoungst itself. If they differ on so many theological points, what is the likelyhood that any of them are right?

You have made some very fair points. I think the major issue with the Protestant institutions you are describing is that they have attempted to distance themselves from Catholicism, and as a result have discarded some aspects of Catholic doctrine that are actually valid.

The "faith without works" was really in response to the corruption of Catholicism with regards to indulgences. Both Catholic and Protestant can agree that you cannot buy forgiveness. But in splintering from the Catholic Church, the Protestant church has tried to take an opposing view - that you can have faith and not do any good works.

In reality, you cannot separate faith and works. Of course salvation is dependent on faith, but by true faith we will honour our Lord by doing good works as we are instructed to. Works are the fruit of faith.

[GB-UK]

Elaborate please, Darth. I assert that Romans 10:9 is insufficient by itself.

Well you cannot get more plain than that verse. To be a Christian you have to beleive that Jesus was the Son of God and that he was raised from the dead. There is also mentioned confession of that belief. Why would it be insufficent? It doesn't say Rom. 10:9 plus these other things, it just says how you can be saved. Which I beleive is the most important bit in becoming a Christian.

To live as a Christian is something different altogether, then you get into the realms of doing good works etc. But these are the type of things that you would do anyway as a direct result of your faith.

[aikiMac]

Well you cannot get more plain than that verse. To be a Christian you have to beleive that Jesus was the Son of God and that he was raised from the dead. There is also mentioned confession of that belief. Why would it be insufficent?
The trinity is missing. Sin is missing. I rather think they are important.