For Christians-Evangelicalism, what's your take on it?

[-Peacemaker-]

Yeah, because evengelicals and protestants don't deem Catholic teachings as heretical. You make it sound so one sided with the heretic labeling.

?

Catholicism is not considered heretical in any way by Evangelicals. It goes back to those definitions I was talking about. Sure there are disgreements between Evangelical and Catholic theologians yet we don't believe your beliefs actually deny the faith even if we believe they are wrong.

 

[Pegg]

Catholicism is not considered heretical in any way by Evangelicals. It goes back to those definitions I was talking about. Sure there are disgreements between Evangelical and Catholic theologians yet we don't believe your beliefs actually deny the faith even if we believe they are wrong.

and that is because the term 'heretic' was construed by the catholic church against all who did not agree with its doctrines

i wonder if that makes the bible a heretic too

 

[JacobEzra.]

Catholicism is not considered heretical in any way by Evangelicals. It goes back to those definitions I was talking about. Sure there are disgreements between Evangelical and Catholic theologians yet we don't believe your beliefs actually deny the faith even if we believe they are wrong.

That is such a lie. Pope as you mentioned, calls evangelicals "separated brothers" while evangelicals call the Catholic church, "whore of babylon" and call Catholics "Mary worshipers", "Idol worshipers", etc. As well as slander the Pope, and spread misleading information about Catholic beliefs that are completely untrue. And then evangelicals go and attack catholic statues and harass Catholics with some crap labeled "the truth". Luckily any intelligent Catholic who actually takes time to read this "truth" about Catholicism, will just laugh and tell you to go learn what Catholics actually believe.

And yet Catholics are bad guys. Right.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Judas was also an original apostle chosen by Christ himself... it didnt make his path right

Makes no sense. You expect me to believe a religion created..how many centuries after Christ, is the true path? Sounds illogical.

 

[Pegg]

Makes no sense. You expect me to believe a religion created..how many centuries after Christ, is the true path? Sounds illogical.

it is illogical to assume that because catholics are apparently the 'original' church, it makes them right

Really the original church was Christ and his apostles. They were the foundation of the church...no one else.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

That is such a lie. Pope as you mentioned, calls evangelicals "separated brothers" while evangelicals call the Catholic church, "whore of babylon" and call Catholics "Mary worshipers", "Idol worshipers", etc. As well as slander the Pope, and spread misleading information about Catholic beliefs that are completely untrue. And then evangelicals go and attack catholic statues and harass Catholics with some crap labeled "the truth". Luckily any intelligent Catholic who actually takes time to read this "truth" about Catholicism, will just laugh and tell you to go learn what Catholics actually believe.

And yet Catholics are bad guys. Right.

I've never heard "whore of Babylon" used to describe the Catholic church but I've heard the others used. I'll put it this way, the consensus among Orthodox Evangelical theologians is that Catholicism is an Orthodox faith. In other words, there is nothing remotely heretical about it. Yes, sometimes an "average Joe" Evangelical will call your church bad things but it's basically never based on actual scholarship. It would be the equivalent of some Catholics calling Evangelicals heretics. It's not based on Catholic scholarship or the Pope's command, it's just people being people.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Before his conversion? When he followed Manichaeism?

I am sure all his studying did not go to waste. However he was interested in more than Manichaeism, and was supported in his journey by his mother, after his fathers death. He was a very deep thinker and much of his Christian work is based on logic developed from simple starting points, as was Calvin's.

Like all of us, we add to our learning, we do not subtract. beliefs are more selective.

 

[Katzpur]

it is illogical to assume that because catholics are apparently the 'original' church, it makes them right

Really the original church was Christ and his apostles. They were the foundation of the church...no one else.

I think it would make sense had the authority Christ gave to His apostles been passed on to successors and the Church continue to function under divinely-authorized leadership and direction. Of course the Catholic Church claims that this did, in fact, happen. They claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (or Pope), and that succession has continued in an unbroken line ever since. Whether Peter was ever a bishop in Rome or not is beside the point. There were bishops all over the place, and a bishop is not the same thing as a apostle. There was never any directive given by Christ to His apostles or any record of a decision by the apostles as a whole making the Bishop of Rome the head of the Church. The truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church was not the Church Jesus Christ established.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Really the original church was Christ and his apostles. They were the foundation of the church...no one else.

Oh? When was that said different? Or as in no one else foundation, you mean they did not start a church?

 

[JacobEzra.]

I think it would make sense had the authority Christ gave to His apostles been passed on to successors and the Church continue to function under divinely-authorized leadership and direction. Of course the Catholic Church claims that this did, in fact, happen. They claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (or Pope), and that succession has continued in an unbroken line ever since. Whether Peter was ever a bishop in Rome or not is beside the point. There were bishops all over the place, and a bishop is not the same thing as a apostle. There was never any directive given by Christ to His apostles or any record of a decision by the apostles as a whole making the Bishop of Rome the head of the Church. The truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church was not the Church Jesus Christ established.

That is where your wrong.

[17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [20] Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

 

[fallingblood]

Yeah, because evengelicals and protestants don't deem Catholic teachings as heretical. You make it sound so one sided with the heretic labeling.

For the most part, no. They do say that Catholics are wrong, but I haven't heard them say it is heretical. That is something that I have seen primarily with Catholics.

Such as?

Galileo, was he not considered a heretic for his ideas? Yep, and now the Catholic church accepts what he said. Just one example. Paul also would have been a heretic as he gave authority to women to preach.

Such as?

Look at Vatican II.

 

[fallingblood]

Makes no sense. You expect me to believe a religion created..how many centuries after Christ, is the true path? Sounds illogical.

And how distant is Catholicism from the original movement? They are not Jews (the followers of Jesus were). Priests can't marry (Peter was, and was suppose to be the first Pope). The OT laws are not followed (as Jesus commanded, and his first followers did). Women can be clergy (even though Paul gave authority to a variety of women).

Those are just a few differences. Catholicism is very well separated from the original movement.

 

[JacobEzra.]

And how distant is Catholicism from the original movement? They are not Jews (the followers of Jesus were).

And if you read the NT you see many Gentiles coming to the faith. And there being no more distinction. Not to mention the Church as spiritual Israel.

Priests can't marry (Peter was, and was suppose to be the first Pope).

Your right. And celibacy did not become a discipline for awhile after. It could still be changed.

The OT laws are not followed (as Jesus commanded, and his first followers did)

Judaizers were spoken against in Acts

.

Women can be clergy (even though Paul gave authority to a variety of women).

Thats bs. Prove it.

Those are just a few differences. Catholicism is very well separated from the original movement.

No because you can go and read and follow it as it grew in history. Your logic sucks, outside of the horrible examples you tried gave. But that seems to be typical of you. Misleading and lieing to suit your ideas.

 

[Katzpur]

That is where your wrong.

No, it is where you're wrong, Jacob. You are interpreting those verses in quite a different way than Jesus meant them and than His own apostles would have understood them. Furthermore, you have not even begun to address the rest of my post -- which is the basis for my rejection of Catholicism (which I'd choose over Protestantism any day of the week).

 

[fallingblood]

And if you read the NT you see many Gentiles coming to the faith. And there being no more distinction. Not to mention the Church as spiritual Israel.

Gentiles were not entering into the original movement though. They were entering into the offshoot by Paul. As doppelganger stated, Paul admits to changing that (well the entry of individuals who do not follow the dietary laws and do not get circumcised).

And right then, there is a split in the movement.

Your right. And celibacy did not become a discipline for awhile after. It could still be changed.

Just pointing out how it differs from the early church. Paul even defended the right of people to marry.

Judaizers were spoken against in Acts

By Paul. However, that ignores what Jesus said, and what the earliest movement was doing.

. Thats bs. Prove it.

I meant can't be clergy, but I don't think that is what you are challenging.

Romans 16:1, 16:3, and 16:7.
1 Corinthians 1:11, 16:3

There could be more, but I think 5 examples should suffice. These are just the ones I am familiar with off the top of my head as those are the books I'm focusing on right now.

No because you can go and read and follow it as it grew in history. Your logic sucks, outside of the horrible examples you tried gave. But that seems to be typical of you. Misleading and lieing to suit your ideas.

Now that was uncalled for. I'm not being misleading, and I'm not lying. I don't call you a liar when you're mistaken. And I don't think I am mistaken here, as you haven't been able to show that.

And if you want to see real changes, just look at Vatican II. There was a huge change after that. And that would suggest that Catholicism today simply is not the same as it was even a hundred years ago, much less the same as the original church (which was Jewish).

 

[JacobEzra.]

Gentiles were not entering into the original movement though. They were entering into the offshoot by Paul. As doppelganger stated, Paul admits to changing that (well the entry of individuals who do not follow the dietary laws and do not get circumcised).

Not even true. It was St. Peter who first witnessed the Holy Spirit coming to Gentiles. Then it was St. Peter who took charge and settled the dispute of the laws and Gentile in Acts. Not St. Paul. In fact St. Paul took second to St. Peter. The first concil of Jerusalem showcased not only St. Peters leadership (which reinforces the qoute I gave Katzpur) but that it was he whole discredited the Judaizers.

Read Acts. 15 for the whole context and issues but here is what St. Peter says in his decision of the matter;
[6] And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. [8] And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; [9] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. [10] Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

And right then, there is a split in the movement.
Just pointing out how it differs from the early church. Paul even defended the right of people to marry.

St. Paul also proposed celibacy and advocated it to people. Your point being?

I meant can't be clergy, but I don't think that is what you are challenging.

Romans 16:1, 16:3, and 16:7.
1 Corinthians 1:11, 16:3

[1] And I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the church, that is in Cenchrae:..................... [3] Salute Prisca and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus, ................ [7] Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

[11] For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you

[3] And when I shall be with you, whomsoever you shall approve by letters, them will I send to carry your grace to Jerusalem

I dont get what the point is your trying to make. Can you clarify?

And if you want to see real changes, just look at Vatican II. There was a huge change after that. And that would suggest that Catholicism today simply is not the same as it was even a hundred years ago, much less the same as the original church (which was Jewish).

Same with Judaism, but can you say Judaism has not been continued from ancient times? Neither is human species, but does that not mean we are original?

 

[JacobEzra.]

No, it is where you're wrong, Jacob. You are interpreting those verses in quite a different way than Jesus meant them and than His own apostles would have understood them. Furthermore, you have not even begun to address the rest of my post -- which is the basis for my rejection of Catholicism (which I'd choose over Protestantism any day of the week).

Whats the evidence to that?

 

[JacobEzra.]

I think it would make sense had the authority Christ gave to His apostles been passed on to successors and the Church continue to function under divinely-authorized leadership and direction. Of course the Catholic Church claims that this did, in fact, happen. They claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (or Pope), and that succession has continued in an unbroken line ever since. Whether Peter was ever a bishop in Rome or not is beside the point. There were bishops all over the place, and a bishop is not the same thing as a apostle. There was never any directive given by Christ to His apostles or any record of a decision by the apostles as a whole making the Bishop of Rome the head of the Church. The truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church was not the Church Jesus Christ established.

So what part did I not comment on?

 

[Katzpur]

Whats the evidence to that?

You and I have had this discussion before, Jacob. At one point, on another thread, I asked you what the phrase "the gates of hell" would have meant. You never actually responded. Instead, you interpreted the entire statement ("the gates of hell shall not prevail against it") and you did so in light of what it means to you personally. I wanted to know what you believe just the phrase, "the gates of hell" to mean? Does it mean the forces of Satan? Does it mean the powers of evil? What does it mean -- that one phrase, "the gates of hell"? What would it have meant to a first-century Jewish follower of Jesus Christ?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I will let someone much wiser than me say it all...

Woke up this mornin', turned on the t.v. set.
there in livin' color, was somethin' I can't forget.
This man was preachin' at me, yeah, layin' on the charm
askin' me for twenty, with ten-thousand on his arm.
He wore designer clothes, and a big smile on his face
sellin' me salvation while they sang Amazin' Grace.
Askin' me for money, when he had all the signs of wealth.
I almost wrote a check out, yeah, then I asked myself

Would He wear a pinky ring, would He drive a fancy car?
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressin' room have a star?
If He came back tomorrow, well there's somethin' I'd like to know
Could ya tell me, Would Jesus wear a Rolex on His television show.

Would Jesus be political if He came back to earth?
Have His second home in Palm Springs, yeah, a try to hide His worth?
Take money, from those poor folks, when He comes back again,
and admit He's talked to all them preachers who say they been a talkin' to Him?

Just ask ya' self, Would He wear a pinky ring,Would He drive a fancy car?
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressing room have a star?
If He came back tomorrow, well there's somethin' I'd like to know:
Could ya tell me, would Jesus wear a Rolex,
Would jesus wear a Rolex
Would Jesus wear a Rolex
On His television show-ooh-ooh?

~ Ray Stevens