Where Protestants and Roman Catholics Must Agree

[jcr4runner]

It may seem ironic, but the strongest argument that Protestants have against the Roman Catholic Church, stems from where we must agree the most with the Catholic Church.

Protestants must begin by affirming two truths: (1) sola scriptura: that the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of the living God, the only objective rule of faith and worship; that the Bible alone -- not the Roman Catholic Church, the pope, nor church dogma -- is infallible; and (2) catholic orthodoxy: that the God who inspired the Bible has preserved of the correct understanding of His Word in history by means of catholic orthodoxy. By catholic orthodoxy we mean the unifying truths of the Church which are found in the four ecumenical creeds of the patristic Church (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian and Chalcedonian).

Catholicity means literally "unity" or "universality." The term Catholic with an upper-case "C" is used to denote the Roman Catholic Church, while catholic with a lower-case "c" is used in creeds and confessions to denote all Christians. All true believers in Jesus Christ are, in this sense, catholic, because they hold to the univeral faith.

Orthodoxy means literally, "right opinion," and is expressed by the body of biblical doctrines systematized by the creeds of the early Church. Orthodoxy is the basis for unity among Christians of widely different beliefs and practices.

Affirming both sola scriptura and historic orthodoxy at once may seem contradictory, but in actuality, we cannot have one without the other. The Bible itself would not have been passed down to us today had the Church not assembled the canon of Scripture and faithfully preserved the texts written by God's apostles and prophets. We cannot accept the canon of the Bible unless we accept the authority of the Church council which received the canon.

Modern evangelicals are accustomed to hearing that the creeds are "Roman Catholic" and therefore bad. Therefore, the creeds are often neglected and not taught. But if we consider ourselves true Christians, then we must accept the creeds. We must also believe that certain biblical doctrines were faithfully preserved throughout the centuries by the Catholic Church, such as -- original sin; the Trinity; the human and divine natures of Christ; the virgin birth, the death burial and resurrection of Jesus; the Second Coming of Christ; the resurrection and judgment of the dead; and eternal heaven and hell.

In short, Protestants must agree with Roman Catholics in the area of historic orthodoxy.

[Tanja_von_Hannover]

Yaknow, i think that far too many people are under the impression that you have to disagree with each other. Both are bible following, god fearing faiths. both confess JESUS as the son of God. both believe in sin, both believe in redemption. both believe in heaven, both believe in hell. both believe in God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
the list goes on and on.
So why feel the need to point out insignifigent differences? this is a problem especially prevelant in Protestant faiths. group a disagrees with group b so they form their own group. this is why there are only 12 sects to the Catholic Church, and thousands of denominations in Protestant Christianity. I once attended a church that had split over the debate of starting a Christian school or not. this is ridiculious. how can the body of Christ be strong if the Followers cannot stand togeather?

[jcr4runner]

For the answers to your questions, here is the article you will want to read:

http://forerunner.com/orthodoxy/X0007_6._ProtestantsRoman.html

You say there are 12 sects of Catholicism. I have never heard this before. Could you list them? Are you talking about the Eastern Orthodox national churches?

That is another discussion altogether. But suffice it to say that Protestants agree with the Orthodox Church on the issue of salvation by grace through faith alone, not of works, but BOTH Roman Catholics and Protestants disagree with the Orthodox over the "judicial" aspects of salvation: the doctrine of original sin and the substitutionary atonement -- which the Orthodox deny.

That may seem to non-Christians as splitting theological hairs. But these are basic doctrines having to do with what is the nature of sin and how we are saved.

Protestants believe though that since we are saved by grace through faith, that someone might be in error over the doctrine of salvation but still be saved by grace. So while we oppose the doctrines Romanism, we ought to embrace the believers in these churches.

The Protestant Reformers in the 1500s took what they felt was correct in both the Eastern and Western traditions and rejected what they believed were embellishments and errors. In many ways the Reformation was actually a RESTORATION of Catholic doctrine that existed until the fifth and sixth centuries.

I am Protestant, but I recognize that if Catholics and Orthodox believers trust in Christ alone for their salvation, then they are my brothers and sisters.

[Tanja_von_Hannover]

That may seem to non-Christians as splitting theological hairs.

I was a Theologian in the protestant christian faith who also studied Catholicism before converting to Heathenry. So unlike many pagans/heathens whatever, i dont look at the faith with such a narrow viewpoint.

Understandible the catholic faith believes in a lot of things the protestant faith does not. the reasoning behind this is simple when viewed objectively. starting, ohhh two thousand years ago, give or take thirty years, in order to convert more of the 'pagan' tribes to Christianity, the faith representing Christianity (which would evolve into the catholic church) adopted a lot of pagan traditions. that way, instead of worshipping a pagan god in front of an oak tree, lets substitute Christ for the pagan god and call it a christian ritual.
because the catholic faith is so much older than the protestant christian faith, it has adopted so many of these 'compromises' most older faiths are more ritualistic than the newer ones. in fact, from what i have personally seen, the newer the faith, the less ritualistic and more spontanious.
So is ritual wrong?
In some cases of faith, of course. the catholic church is by no means innocent of any wrong doings. HOWEVER, for many catholics, it is that ritual that helps them stay on track. for example, the protestant church says 'Do not forsake the fellowship of the saints", quoting, paul, isnt it? but protestants use this saying as a suggestion. as in you shouldn't. technically, you should go to church.
But catholics view going to church as part of their duty as being a catholic. it is this strict adherience to the rules that gives them something that they can shoot for.
everyone has their own weird twist on the faith. but really, consider this.

In the path i follow, which is Heathenry, I am a Tyrian, meaning i follow the Indo-European God Tyr, who is a God of Justice, the sky, war, etc. so obviously my life is one where correct action, legally, and morally is my first priority.

whereas a Lokean views life completely different. this is one who follows the God Loki, who is a god of Random insanity defined. chaos, and discord. the two gods are almost as violently different from each other as Jesus and Satan are. (please not arguements that satan isn't a god, i'm fully aware of his status in the abrahamic faiths) and yet, the followers of both of these gods are considered Heathens. we are of the same faith, even though we're the followers of two totally, violently different gods.

And Christians/Catholics argue over weither you should say a hail mary or if you're automatically forgiven if you mean it when you ask for forgiveness?

[jcr4runner]

I've heard it said that Christianity is unique of all the religions of the world.

All religions of the world have several common denominators. One is the belief that the world we live in was created by a God or gods. But then something happened and the world we now live in is fallen and corrupted. Now human beings have to do something in order to atone for sin or to appease the gods through some type of sacrifice or living life according to a moral standard.

The Christian Gospel is unique in that it proclaims that people can never do anything to atone for or make up for past wrongs. Only Jesus could do that for us through His perfect life and His atoning death. Therefore salvation is a free gift. Every other major religion of the world allows that man has to DO something in order to EARN salvation. Only Christianity teaches that something has already been done.

[j.]

Tanya_von_Hanover,

What you write about Heathenry and the Roman Catholic Church makes good sense. Roman Catholicism began as a wedding between ancient Roman heathen worship and Christian principles. This wedding was presided over by those church fathers who were willing to go along with the emperor Constantine. Everyone knows this. (There are Christian cults set up specifically in opposition to this wedding, Jehovah’s Witness to mention just one.)

For you to turn to the old heathen ways is understandable. I do not blame you for your choice, (although I want you to know that I am a believer in Christ and feel that you are out of the way). Please forgive me for not embracing your personal beliefs. There is a great dilemma contained in the faith of our Lord that has mitigated many unfortunate circumstances, not the least of which is a continuing disillusionment of this current generation. If you Tanya_von_Hanover are serious about your turning to heathen practices then you must face a different set of problems. If you are serious then you know this to be true. I hope that your time spent away from Christ will be short lived.

Our own dilemma can be witnessed even here at this website. There are two faces to Christianity. The first is dominant; it insists on having its way, forcing others to conform to its brand. This dominant brand is what you have tasted of Christianity that has sent you reeling to another. Do not fear as the dominant is coming to an end.

j.

[jcr4runner]

Roman Catholicism began as a wedding between ancient Roman heathen worship and Christian principles. This wedding was presided over by those church fathers who were willing to go along with the emperor Constantine. Everyone knows this.

When you write: "Everyone knows this," what do you mean? Everyone knows what exactly?

The Roman Catholic church did not begin on a specific date (according to Protestants).

The "conversion" of Emperor Constantine is a controversial item. His compromise was not with heathenism, but with the heresy of the Arians. But even this is disputed.

Also, I don't know which Church Fatherrs "presided over a marriage to heathenism." If you are rejecting the council of Nicea, then you are placing yourself outside of the pale of all historic Christianity. The precepts contained in the Nicene Creed are accepted by all churches.

I'd encourage you to research this further. I began with similar beliefs because there is a misconception in pop theology that makes Constantine the bogey-man of Church history. At one time, I was very sympathetic to the views you state here, but as I have read more from the time period, I have realized that this idea is full of generalizations and errors.

[j.]

jcr4runner,

If the church fathers at the time of Constantine were so thoughtful and devout then why did they join the church with the former heathen rituals such as “Easter” and things of that nature? On the one hand they would tear down the statues of the false gods then on the other they would associate Christian things with those same false gods.

Is this something that you are interested in explaining jcr4runner?

j.

[jcr4runner]

No, I am not interested in explaining this. You do not need a creedal statement from me. Just read your Bible.

The book of Acts records that the discples celebrated on the day of Lord's Resurrection. Easter is not pagan holiday.

[j.]

jcr4runner,

Let’s not misunderstand each other. (We don’t have to read the Bible to get this but a good dose of Bible is very helpful here.) I did not say that Easter is a pagan holiday. My point is that the church fathers working for Constantine were motivated by something. Since you choose not to address this maybe I will.

Constantine offered political power to the church in exchange for the support of the church, (think of it, no more persecution by the state because the church would become the state). The church accepted Constantine’s offer, supporting Constantine’s empire by taking over the bureaucracy of his government. It was their responsibility to keep the peace while at the same time Christianizing the people. It is elementary that the church would exchange or match up pagan holidays for Christian holidays and this was done by force of arms. How hard is that to figure out? Does this surprise you jcr4runner?

I really do not think that this is something that could be termed as cutting edge history. The problem with accepting these facts is that it places the church fathers in a precarious position at best, which leaves the flanks of the church fathers written work open to attack. This is where the real discomfort comes in. Do you sense it jcr4runner?

(I would make one other point here as an aside so that more misunderstanding does not happen between us. Christianizing a people is vastly different from bringing Christ to a people.)

j.

[jcr4runner]

I don't agree with the conspiracy theory about Constantine and the Church Fathers. I am familiar with this idea, I used to believe it, but from study, I've rejected it.

Church history is much more complicated than that. The church didn't "accept Constantine's offer" -- the church didn't "take over the bureaucracy of his government" -- I can understand that you may have been taught this, but don't believe everything you hear and read.

The fact of the matter is that the church existed for 300 years before the reign of Constantine. During that time they established the rule of Christ in society by such things as church courts, mercy ministries and sound theology. They did this in times of favor and during times of persecution.

As the pagan Roman system began to break down, people were attracted to the Christian church. If you were a Christian and had a dispute with a Christian brother, you were more likely to get justice in a church court than in a Roman court. The church courts were efficient and fair. When Constantine legalized the religion of Christianity, the church already had an advantage. Many government officials began to respect Christians even though the church had to deal with ten persecutions under ten Roman Emperors. But after each persectuion, the church thrived even more.

As one church father wrote: "In the blood of the martyrs lies the seed of the Church."

Constantine did not need to "broker a deal." He simply recognized what had been legitimately working for decades -- and will still work today whenever we put biblical principles into practice in civil affairs.

Some Christians have always over-romanticized martydom for this reason. We all better be ready to die for the Lord if He calls us, but we also should be ready to take a postion of authority in civil affairs if He calls us to this as well.

As far as the idea of Christian holidays being based on pagan holidys -- I disagree. The dates of Christmas and Easter are based on events recorded in the Gospels. This has been known from the beginning of the church. I'll explain more on this later.

[j.]

jcr4runner,

Do we now classify Foxe’s Book of Martyrs as a romantic novel? The simple truth is that the Roman Church was founded on the principle of government control, (the church leaders at the time wanted to stop the Roman government sponsored persecutions of the Christians by controlling the government and they accomplished this). So when jcr4runner says that government should be controlled by this or that church that is just the same old Constanian philosophy wrapped in flimsy Protestant garb. It is funny that after the great Constantine the Roman persecutions stopped, but the persecutions themselves intensified. Imagine that.

As far as dates and names of holidays are concerned, I think that you are missing the point entirely. The resurrection of our Lord had nothing to do with the Roman goddess Easter. My point was that the Roman Church linked Christ’s resurrection to the goddess Easter for a reason. You simply ignore this fact as you do all the other facts that go against your presentations here at this site. Convenient is it not?

If a person wants to be taken seriously then they must face any problems that their views may contain. You really need to go back and study history. Constantine’s empire had big problems. And He found a way out.

But really these are not the important issues. Here is one that is-

Separation.

You keep implying that I do not understand things. Do you understand what it means to be separated from the world jcr4runner? You see believers are to imitate Christ. So show me where Christ joined the world at any point, (it does not have to be government as that would simply be to narrow, I give you any subject at your discretion).

j.

[j.]

jcr4runner,

If the word separation is not your cup of tea then here is another-

Syncretism

The Roman Catholic Church promotes syncretism. Only with a new twist on it. The Roman Church had, (and has) the idea that you mix paganism with Christianity then little by little the pagan gives up his pagan ways for Christian ways, (example-the Lord’s resurrection and Easter). This is a false premise. The pagan does not give up his old ways. The old ways linger on. Just look at what Tanja_von_Hannover has written here in this thread. Or maybe sample the horoscopes.

j.

[jcr4runner]

jcr4runner,

So when jcr4runner says that government should be controlled by this or that church that is just the same old Constanian philosophy wrapped in flimsy Protestant garb.

...

But really these are not the important issues. Here is one that is-

Separation.

...

You keep implying that I do not understand things.

I don't state that the church should control the state and neither should the state control the church. There is a godly separation of powers in covenantal theology. You either don't understand what you are talking about or you are intentionally setting up a straw man argument.

[j.]

jcr4runner,

Yes I disagree with you, so if that means that I do not know what I am talking about then so be it. But you will not be able to show the “godly” separation of powers from the Bible, (just your theology). As a matter of fact I can show many ungodly separations of powers from the Bible. Would you like to compare notes on this?

Maybe the problem that we are having is that “covenantal theology/those you call church fathers’ theology/etc.” does not match the Bible. Is this a possibility? As you must know, many Christians separated themselves from the “church fathers” and we continue this separation, living in the wilderness until the Master returns.

j.