As a non-Catholic, this article is well written and respectful, absent much of the vitriol that can fly between our denominations. I have the utmost respect for Catholics. However, respectfully differ on a few points.
1. Catholicism is not the church established by Christ. Romans didn’t recognize Christianity until almost four full centuries after Christ. Neither is any Protestant denomination. The church established by Christ is all believers. To Christ’s church belong the promises. The institution of the church is a man-made organization, with stated beliefs, which often, but not always, agree with scripture, organized for administration and governance. To it do not belong the promises of the church.
2. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone. If one is a true follower of Christ, godly fruit will be evidenced (James 2). Fruit does not gain salvation. If salvation can be lost by works, it can also be gained by works, then grace is no longer grace. We can’t even take credit for the choice of our free will to follow Christ, because even that is a gift of God.
3. Catholics have their internal issues just like Protestants. I could go into detail, but a comment section probably isn’t the right place.
So basically, thanks for the article. I hear you, respect you, but ask you look to Scripture and then to the Holy Spirit to support anything which you feel as a conviction. Otherwise, it’s just divisiveness, which is a distraction from our true work.
@David McCaleb the Catholic Church is most certainly the church that Jesus Christ formed. The term “Catholic,” meaning “universal,” was adopted circa 100 A.D. (I believe St. Iraneus first spoke the term) to apply to those early Christians, not yet named, who were practicing all that Christ had left under his Apostles and their successors; this includes the seven sacraments that are established through Jesus‘s words in the Bible, and how the apostles applied them to Christian living. This is NOT a man-made Church, but the visible Church Christ intended for His believers. Christ is fully God, so you would be insulting Him if you were calling the Catholic Church a man-made religion, you would be calling Christ just a man.
As I recall this article points out that Luther’s “faith alone” and “scripture alone” are man-made, false dogmas (Protestant scholar Alistair McGrath concurs “faith alone” to be a novelty invented by Martin Luther.)
It’s great to know a lot of scripture, put every man is not his own arbiter of the truth. The Catholic Church was instituted by Christ so that we wouldn’t have to question and analyze and dissect scripture for ourselves, quite possibly at a detriment to ourselves. The “man on the street” is not equipped to perfectly interpret all scripture. To do so is to make yourself your own pope. The Catholic Church is protected from misinterpretation by the living majestarium, the catechism,and the guidance of the Pope.
Thanks for commenting. We agree in many ways. However,
1. The catholic church is the true church, not the Catholic Church. I respect the Catholic Church, though we have doctrinal differences.
2. God gave us the Holy Spirit for a reason. He teaches us. Observe how eloquently Peter, a blue-collar fisherman, addressed the crowd in Acts 2. It was not through learning, but through the Holy Spirit. “But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you” I John 2:27. The pope is a man. The Holy Spirit is God.
Please, look to God, not man. Popes can teach an instruct and be an instrument of God. However, the Holy Spirit is Truth, and each one of us can boldly enter the presence of God through the power of the Holy Spirit and sup with him all day, every day.
Thanks for responding, yet firstly, your first statement I believe contains an error, and I’m not sure what you mean to say. Here, you’re saying both the Catholic Church is the true Church, and also that it’s not.
Secondly, in true Protestant fashion, you are interpreting this 1 John passage as a fundamentalist; the Bible is very often nuanced, and needs be read in the context of previous passages, etc. Here is Catholic perspective on the same passage:
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us. 20 But you have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things.
[18] "It is the last hour": That is, it is the last age of the world. Many Antichrists, that is, many heretics, enemies of Christ and his church, and forerunners of the great Antichrist.
[19] "They were not of us": That is, they were not solid, steadfast, genuine Christians: otherwise they would have remained in the church.
[20] "The unction from the Holy One": That is, grace and wisdom from the Holy Ghost.
[20] "Know all things": The true children of God's church, remaining in unity, under the guidance of their lawful pastors, partake of the grace of the Holy Ghost, promised to the church and her pastors; and have in the church all necessary knowledge and instruction; so as to have no need to seek it elsewhere, since it can be only found in that society of which they are members.
21 I have not written to you as to them that know not the truth, but as to them that know it: and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also. 24 As for you, let that which you have heard from the beginning, abide in you. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise which he hath promised us, life everlasting.
26 These things have I written to you, concerning them that seduce you. 27 And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him, that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be confounded by him at his coming. 29 If you know, that he is just, know ye, that every one also, who doth justice, is born of him.
[27] "You have no need": You want not to be taught by any of these men, who, under pretence of imparting more knowledge to you, seek to seduce you (ver. 26), since you are sufficiently taught already, and have all knowledge and grace in the church, with the unction of the Holy Ghost; which these new teachers have no share in.
Catholics are confirmed in Holy Spirit in confirmation; this is also part of the implication of this passage.
You’re anti-pope because you’re Protestant; it’s nice that you say you respect the Catholic Church, better than saying the opposite.
I would refer you to John Bergsma’s St. Paul Center YouTube videos if you might like further understanding of basic differences. A former Protestant pastor, he is very educated and informative on these differences.
That is ridiculous, sorry, not sorry;). The Catholic Church IS The Catholic Church; Protestantism is not included. Protestants have elements of sanctification, luckily, but they are not in communion with, and are not, The Catholic Church. It’s been the problem ever since Martin Luther, that.protestants just make stuff up.
Hopefully if you read the Douay Riemes analysis of the verse you sent in defense of your view to me, you realize that the people the verse is referring to, not to be taught by, are those who have left The Church, known since 110 AD as The Catholic Church. Meaning people like Luther, Calvin, and Protestants.
As Catholics, we honor conscience above all, which we trust by the Holy Spirit to be well informed if we are good Catholics,and if the Pope were to go off the rails at any point and propose heresy, we of well informed conscience know not to follow such instruction.
You may be Catholic. Good. I am not. I also am not Protestant. What I am is a disciple of Christ. I am Christian. I am a part of the catholic church, the one established by Christ. He is my head, and I am His fullness. (Ephesians 1:22-23). Be Catholic if that is how God leads you, but know that denomination has its issues just like every Protestant denomination. Discern. Know scripture, and talk to the Holy Spirit when something doesn’t set well in your spirit. Avoid divisiveness, which tears down, as opposed to exhortation, which builds up. God bless!
On point 1, it's a shallow argument. The Church is not some "invisible" all-believers, whatever that means. Saying the institution is "man-made" is Correct, Jesus made it, Peter, Paul, John, Mark, Andrew, Thomas, all made it. Somehow stating that the "Romans" didn't recognize it for centuries, and then pointing to "Scripture" as if it wasn't also "recognized/cannonized" for centuries is disengenous. The Church was One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic for a Millenium, and only then did the monikers of (Roman) Catholic and (Eastern) Orthodox start getting used to distinguish. The split is generally viewed with great sadness by both, as Christ prayed for us to be one. Did Jesus speak of "other sheep, not of this fold" yes, but that doesn't make the Church some invisible reality.
On point 2, again with the Solas. I agree that "fruit does not gain salvation" - but salvation is not some transaction, it is a relationship. Paul's use of the marriage analogy pertains; no one asks if i had a wedding ceremony, they ask if i'm married. I don't 'know' that i'm married because i remember the details of my wedding and signing some paperwork at the courthouse; i know i'm married because i live with my wife and have a relationship with her. Think again of Jesus' admonition regarding divorce; Paul's "working out your salvation" - a transactional view is too small. Who is trying to take credit for the choice of our free will?? That is a thinly veiled slight at anyone who is not Reformed in their thinking, as i might guess you are at this point.
Look to the Church, the living Bride, the Body of Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit, the repository of the Faith for the last 20 Centuries to support your convictions. Unfortunately for you, many people look only to Scripture, and that is the very reason we have tens of thousands of 'statements of faith' in Protestantism.
OK. Thanks for commenting! But what you say seems to support my point number two. I don’t completely understand what your point is.
I do take small exception to “salvation is not some transaction, it is a relationship.” I propose the “relationship” is sanctification, not salvation. If you follow the marriage analogy, as you suggest, one can go so far as commit adultery, but they are still married. One can be married, then the next day move out and not enjoy the benefit of marriage again, but they are still married. All analogies break down at a certain point, but by adding anything to the simple beauty of salvation misrepresents God. You’re saved? Big deal (hyperbole). That’s only the start. Now, work it out for the rest of your life. That is done through sanctification. The thief on the cross had zero works. None. Zero knowledge of theology. He didn’t ask for forgiveness of his sins, and Christ didn’t even state such. The only thing he did was recognize Christ, and ask for mercy.
As for me, I’m no theologian, and have very little interest in deep theological topics. However, the permanence of salvation is a bondage that castrates believers, making them spiritually impotent. You don’t need to believe me, but I challenge you to take it before the Holy Spirit and wrestle with Him on it, not letting go until you have peace.
Hey David, i am interested in your statement about the 'permanence of salvation' as a bondage. Could you expound on that, please?
to be clear, I'm Orthodox, and we don't view regeneration, justification, and sanctification as sequential, or compartmentalize them as they are often viewed in Western theological systems.
Aside from perhaps viewing the Wedding (Salvation) in legal terms (once you're married, you can move out) your explanation actually fits the analogy. When salvation is viewed as an on-going relationship - Paul's good fight, finishing the race, keeping the faith - then it is the marriage that matters, not so much the ceremony; the relationship can be broken - at least from our end. e.g. Hosea and Gomer, the 99 and the 1 sheep; yet also Matthew 7 - "I never knew you"
We view Salvation as a continuous process of growth and transformation.
We also believe that Adam being ashamed and hiding is a window into what eternity would look like. It is not God that changes from loving to angry - he is always loving - it is our own shame, guilt, and callousness that causes us to recoil from his love, and refuse his forgiveness. In the parable of the sower, the same Sun that causes some seeds to produce a bountiful harvest, also causes some to dry up and wilt. Thus the importance of practicing repentance and confession, learning to receive His forgiveness.
Thanks again for commenting, and great questions. Very thought-provoking. I still sense that we are closer in understanding than we realize. What you call salvation, which is a continual relationship with God, I call sanctification. To me, salvation is the first step in sanctification. It’s God’s adoption of us as His sons. It gets us into the family. It is the thief on the cross, with a lifetime of sin, recognizing Christ and asking for Him to remember him. And that imagery is incredibly profound. Jesus in the middle, one thief cursing Him on one side, the other thief on the other side initially cursing Him but then coming to his senses and asking for mercy. He had no works he could do, nothing he could offer, and even his life was being drained by the nails in his hands and feet. Yet, Jesus said he would be in paradise. That is salvation.
Regarding my comments on salvation lost being a bondage, I’ve experienced this firsthand, though I did not realize it at the time. I spent several formative years of my life in a church that preached salvation can be lost. What that produced in the congregation were believers perpetually hyper-introspective. We are to walk circumspectly, but this introspection was induced by fear. We were continually in bondage of the fear of slipping from our secure position. It led to hyper analysis of what is godly versus otherwise, sending us into a death spiral of not only judging and condemning ourselves, but then applying that same lens to the world around us, ultimately becoming legalistic Pharisees, inwardly focused instead of reaching the world outside of us, the same world to which Christ sent us.
This happened to me still just yesterday. My wife and I were walking in downtown Fort Collins. A homeless man, obvious by his appearance, began to approach me. Immediately, my defenses went up. I started thinking, “He’s going to ask for money. Do I give him money when I know he’s just going to spend it on drugs and alcohol?“ Instead, this man stops five paces before me, stares off beside me and mumbles something, then walks around me and on down the street. It was only later that the Holy Spirit told me, “You were so focused on yourself, on what you should do, that you missed the opportunity to love someone who needed to be set free from a demon.“ Though I consider myself a mature Christian and wholly submitted to God, I missed an opportunity. I pray the next time anyone approaches me on the street, I reach out to them with the love of Christ before we ever exchange words.
Yes David I agree. The key is James 2:18 “I will show you my faith by my works” Not without them or because of them. As my pastor says, the theology is in the prepositions
Maybe??? Possible symantic interpretation? This I know: faith is a gift. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9. Thus, we can’t even take credit for the faith by which we come to Christ. And faith is made complete through works per James. “Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?” James 2:22. So, it seems to me that Faith and works are two separate things, but true faith in Christ is validated through works.
The implicit problem of the western perspective is that it insists on pulling things apart. Thus, Faith becomes something akin to believe, as in - I believe in ghosts, or aliens, i.e. "i think they're real" instead of believe, as in - i believe in you, meaning i know you, and i trust you, and i'm confident you can do it. When the author of Hebrews talks of faith in Chapter 11, he does not tell us what they thought, he gives a long list of what "by faith" Noah did, Abraham did, Sarah did, etc. Saying that you trust a ladder, and yet never climbing it, or worse, refusing to climb it is meaningless, a la James. Re-read all of those verses and substitute "Trust" for Faith, and you will start to get the idea. You have been saved through 'Trust' and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God . . . Likewise, this Sola business has the unfortunate side effect of making things too small. The western tendency towards the transactional misses much of the relational fullness of the writers of the Early Church. It's strangely reductionistic to think God gives us faith, and then we use that faith to think something about his son, who he had to send to earth to kill, so that he could stop being mad at us, and then he forgives our debt, judges us on his son's righteousness, and we can go to heaven instead of hell. Trust is a relational term, that encompasses both thinking and doing.
Hello David, I'm curious what you think of the verse, Luke 17:21 KJV: "For behold the Kingdom of God is within (ἐντός) you"
NIT, ESV, NASD translates ἐντός as "in the midst" However, that changes the meaning of the verse. ἐντός is also used in Matthew 23:26: KJV "Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also." NIT, ESV NASD translates ἐντός as "inside" in this instance.
I'm also curious about how as a Protestant you view various translations and if you observe the degeneration of translation into colloquial English.
Marco, thanks so much for commenting. There are a lot of different ways to answer that question. But if your question is more along the lines of what I think it means for the kingdom of God to be “inside” us, I’m going to say that’s probably a reference to the Holy Spirit. But I really get the sense It’s more than that. John chapter 17 is one of my favorite chapters in the Bible. In it, Jesus prays for unity, and for us to be in Him just as He is in God. I’m still discovering what that means, but it is much more than I have ever thought possible. Ephesians chapter 1 says we are seated in Christ. It also says Christ is the head for His church, which is the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way. How can the church be the fullness of Jesus? Oh my goodness, it is hard to imagine, but it is truth. Our authority and standing in Christ I believe is more than traditionally understood, and certainly more than I will understand in my lifetime.
Regarding the accuracy of scriptures being translated into modern English, I would say it isn’t the first translation. The first translation is taking the very essence of God, and revealing it through the limited written words of language we possess. Then taking that and translating it from the original language into modern language. But that is no different than translating it from the original language into old English, is it? Or the original language into any other language. The fact that scripture is so information dense, so beautifully written, even though it’s not even in the original language, is further proof to me that it is God-inspired. The Holy Spirit is the one who opens our eyes to it, and speaks through it. The ministry of the Spirit - and I’m only now learning this - is difficult to separate from reading scripture. The ministry of the Spirit is too often ignored and not taught. If scripture is Spirit inspired, it also must be Spirit discerned. Considering scripture merely through intellect is like eating a meal with a cold, and unable to taste it.
The Church never was, and never will be, a denomination. It is made up of the Brides of Christ. They are those "whom the Father has given me". No other labels, no other guidelines. His Bride will be made of many denominations and people's and tongues: those whom repented, believed and picked up their cross. The RCC places so many burdens on it's congregants, just like the Judaism that Jesus condemns of the religious leaders he rebuked. Jesus says his yoke is easy and his burden is light. Laying layers of "have to's" on his beloved is neither.
Please explain why the most important church meeting of all time took place in Nicaea, not Rome? Explain the Waldensians?
Why do Catholics worship statues of Mary? My daughter was taken to the back of her Catholic preschool and told to pray to a statue of Mary. Fortunately, she has the Holy Spirit in her heart and just prayed to Jesus instead.
I will never be deceived into trusting Catholicism ever again, believe me.
How dare you try to lecture me about what the Bible is.
Sola scriptura was literally invented by Martin Luther, a novelty no one concurred to be the case in 1500 some years! How do you think the church got by without a printed Bible for 400 years? Are you not aware that a printed Bible was not available for 400 years? Are you aware that the Catholic Church gave you the Canons of the Bible that you read? It was through sacredtradition and the passing down of information that Christians were able to learn the faith— NOT Bible alone:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle [2 Thessalonians 2:14] 15 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace,
[14] "Traditions": See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be received than their epistles.
Who are you to say the church formed in the year 900? What are you going by with this? You’re saying “in its current state”— that means nothing. Of course things are run differently in a modern world than the world without the printing press, etc.! The faith was passed down, with seven sacraments, which you don’t follow, obviously because you’re whatever faith tradition you are, which is not Catholic. Early Christians led by direct descendants of the Apostles formed this same Catholic Church Ignatius is talking about— that’s the whole reason for him to coin the phrase Catholic, because it was too young to even be called by any proper name, so hence the name was given.
You’ve obviously been misled by whoever brought you up in whatever faith it is you claim to be, one of the 50,000 denominations of Protestantism. And don’t say you’re not protestant because you protest the Catholic faith, so therefore you’re Protestant even if you want to call yourself otherwise.
I would invite you to check some YouTube videos by John Bergsma, St. Paul Center. He’s a former Protestant pastor. He’s very eloquent and explains things very well. I’m tired of arguing with you so I will, God willing, end it here.
So you also agree with the Catholic church of the 16th century that persecuted Madame Guyon for writing a book about personal prayer? Do you also not believe that we should pray to God personally?
Before the Council of Nicea in the 4th century, they were using Scripture to teach about Jesus. They wrote many books about the Old Testament and how it pointed to the coming of Jesus as Savior, and they also had the books and letters of the New Testament, which they were passing around. However, it is only in the 4th century that they finally had a meeting, lead by the Holy Spirit, and chose the Canonical books. This meeting was a group of Christians from all over the world, from the universal, invisible kingdom that all true believers are a part of. It was not a meeting of the so-called Catholic church. Sorry.
No, it is the Catholic Church that gave the canon of the Bible at this conference. At least you realize it was given at this council; above you were saying it was “written over 1600 years.”
The Catholic Church is the *visible* institution created by Christ, through Apostolic succession. It is not an invisible network of Christians who believe whatever they want to believe. Hopefully the article I’m attaching here will help you understand this.
We must be as little children to enter the Kingdom of God; the article here that we are posting on, made some great points and I think I have brought up a few things for you to think about, but I don’t know if you’re capable of opening your mind to admit any new notions. You seem to have been indoctrinated to hate the Catholic Church.
We will all have to be of the same mind in the Kingdom of God— that’s the point of this author’s article here. He is reminding us what Christ strongly enforces in John 17:21, “that we all be one.”
That’s insane. And I will pray for you. The Catholic Church was first given the term “Catholic”, meaning “universal,” in 107 A.D. from a father of the Church Ignatius of Antioch. That’s a far cry from 900. Apparently you come from a Catholic hating tradition. How dare you call the Church Christ Himself founded a cult!
The Holy Spirit is definitely not perfectly guiding every person who picks up the Bible. Very presumptuous on your part.
I will pray that God makes these things clear to you.
Just because Ignatius used the word "Catholic" to mean "universal" does not mean that he was referring to a church that officially formed in its current state hundreds of years later. And yes, every believer who believes in Jesus as God's Son who died and rose again, confesses Jesus as Savior, and is baptized. Then asks to be lead by the Holy Spirit will be that is what Pentecost is all about: God sending His Holy Spirit to lead and guide believers. In Luke 11:13 Jesus says, "If you, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"
But we don't believe every spirit because 1 John 4:1 tells us to test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
The Bible is God's written Word. It was written over a period of 1600 years by about 40 authors in 3 different languages with one message: Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, the fulfillment of God's promise to bring a Savior. Not surprisingly, one of the first things that false religions do is to undermine the authority of the Bible so that people believe their lies instead of the Truth. God's Word is the foundation of Truth and the ruler we must use to judge all things.
Protestants do themselves a disservice by interpreting the Bible for themselves, without proper guidance; Catholics have the living majisterium and the Catechism, to aid in proper understanding and each person not having to flounder. The Bible is not easily understandable to the “man on the street,” needing to be taken into context as a whole.
Christ doesn’t need to venerate anyone… He’s God! Are you trying to say Jesus doesn’t love His Mother, whose fiat (Her “yes,”)cooperated with God to bring the Incarnate Word to man? Are you saying He doesn’t honor His mother? That would mean He doesn’t keep His own commandments! So now you’re not only insulting Jesus, but His Mother,too.
You asked for an explanation; I provided. Protestants cut themselves off from tradition and the true Church, then are perplexed about things they would have known had someone in their family/ancestry not walked away from Catholicism (most Protestants are said to be able to trace back to Catholic roots.)
I’ve already given the explanation for Mary mediating to Christ, and Christ mediating to God. Not everything in our faith is cut and dried and can be explained away by a simple Bible verse – we have sacred tradition as well, because that’s the way it was from the early church; the Bible was not in existence until the fourth century! Tradition plays a part, which , as a Protestant, you refuse to accept.
Here’s the explanation for the Bible passage you provided (Matthew 12:46-50,) given by Catholic Answers.com:
“Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?” 1 Corinthians 6:2-3.
I'm actually flabergasted by what you just wrote. If I had any doubts before as to whether the Catholic church is a cult or not, you have now made it very clear that it is. Thank you. I will continue to read the Bible for myself and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, not a church falsely calling itself "the first church," which it was not. The Catholic church in its present form was created during the 900s to 1100s, and there have always been believers outside of this supposed church, who have remained faithful to Jesus and the Word of God. I will pray that God makes these things clear to you. 🙏
@Anna, Catholics do not *worship* Mary, they venerate and honor Her because She is the Mother of God, the Theotokos. In Luke’s gospel She is greeted by Gabriel with, “Hail, full of Grace.” The Greek translation of these words literally means “Hail most transformed by grace one.” Of all humans ever created, She has been chosen by God to be the pure Vessel who brings the Incarnate Word to the world.
As such, She has been granted the highest place of any human, and as close to the Trinity as any human could be. Christ gives Her to us as our Mother from the cross with His next-to-last words, “Son, behold thy Mother.” Hence, She is the Mother of all Christians; even Luther and other “reformers” believed this.
Mary therefore is a mediator for us TO Her Son ( the Son, not God the Father,) and the Son mediates to the Father. Our prayers are incredibly efficacious to Her, as explained by typology referring to Old Testament King David, to whose Mother, the Queen, “he would refuse nothing.” She is the most wonderful gift Her Son chose to give us, and Protestants refuse to accept Her as such, under the misunderstanding that they are taking away honor from Christ. This is not true.
I’m sorry the priest spoke to your daughter in such a way as to confuse her— but it sounds like she’s in a Catholic school, and that’s gonna happen. Your daughter, and you, could only be greatly benefitted if you realize the most gracious gift He has given us in His Mother, our Mother, Mary.
[46] While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. [47] Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” [48] He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [49] Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. [50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Jesus is the only mediator we need:
1 Timothy 2:3-6 NIV
[3] This is good, and pleases God our Savior, [4] who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
My children are no longer at a Catholic school, for obvious reasons.
We see the same language used of Sodom and Gomorrah- are they still burning? No. Eternal in many places is readily understood as ‘age-lasting’. When the job is done, they have finished, so too for the worms until nothing is left.
I’ve been Protestant for all my life but I have lately drifted away from Protestant for some of the reasons you mentioned and more. I cannot decide whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the closer the church God wants on Earth. In the future, could you write an article on that subject, since your thinking on Protestantism is so close to my own?
I would argue it would only happen if Rome unites with the Orthodoxy. A Pope declaring that he is not infallible and reducing his position to a Patriarch seems more likely than every Patriarch becoming Bishops under a single Pope. The Filioque is the other obvious disagreement but I’m too Protestant to really have an opinion on the matter.
I think the more likely path is that individual bishops/metropolitans bring their jurisdictions into communion with Rome gradually, as has happened with the Eastern Catholics. The smaller communion will always be absorbed into the larger one, not the opposite.
How is this not a confession and a compromise? Why would the eastern patriarchs profess anything other than truth? Peter founded the church in Antioch— why should it not also have primacy as a Petrine see? Roman Catholicism devolved into arbitrariness
I think you need to read up on the primacy of Rome in the first millennium. And then ponder why it was that so many Eastern churches joined Rome instead.
The eastern churches wouldn’t contest the primacy of Rome, Rome was the first among equals after all. However, when you talk about primacy, you are referring to the universal jurisdiction of Rome, which has been refuted many times by historians and ancient popes alike. Read the Church and the Papacy by Robert Spencer. Also, the Uniate Churches often converted under the political pressure of the Vatican’s shock troops, ie, the jesuits. Notably, many of them retain their liturgical calendar, replete with saints condemned as heretics by the west (see: Palamite veneration in Catholic Churches) which is fundamentally inconsistent with Catholic teaching, but since they submitted to the geopolitical hegemony of the pope, these inconsistencies are permitted. Tell me how that’s a pursuit of truth over power.
Just hours ago I was reading scripture and I came upon a part in John 9:6, which reinforced my faith in Protestantism. When Jesus spat on the ground to make the clay, this was a direct allusion to the Fence around the Law the Jews built. It occurred to me that this is no special outcome. This is literally the conclusion that every church reaches when it exceeds restraint and the power the entity derives ensnares all.
But I thank you for your love and concern and if I miss salvation because of a Catholic or Orthodox anointment, then that was what God intended for me anyway. You have done your part brother.
I struggle with the way the Catholic Church treated the Jewish followers of Christ. The councils were as unchristian as Luther. We are all free to read Yeshua's condemnation of the church hierarchy. I'm consuming the Word daily seeking and knocking for His Truth and plumbline. Today, in many churches I see man's tradition over God's Holy Law, which is certainly not the true Way.
Jesus of Nazareth never existed. The New Testament was written by the Roman aristocracy in order to keep the slaves from converting to Judaism.
The New Testament is a complete fabrication, from start to finish. It was written by Josephus Flavius, a Jew who went over to the Roman side, in order to undermine Judaism, which was a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire. He wanted to create an alternative religion for people to flock to, in order to prevent people from converting to Judaism, and he succeeded hugely. The alternative religion that he devised (birth in a manger, a last supper, etc.) was based almost entirely on something known as Mithraism.
Reading the title inspired me to write an article on how religions are wrong… then I remember “facts aside, who am I to judge?”, and then I let the idea go the way it came.
the infallibility of the Church, ecumenical councils and the pope
A self-appointed doctrine without biblical mandate. Certainly Peter is at the root of the church, but to reject what he and the others taught about Jesus is not your mandate.
When they preach “faith alone”, they abandon the cruciform path written in Scripture.
While works affirm a faith, scripture has none of the qualifications the church has added to faith. It’s a long list.
Some insist they follow the early Church, yet they reject its marks: bishops, liturgy, fasting, confession, sacred art, and sacred silence.
A few of these are valid.
Jesus, praying to his Father and God, declares Him the only true God. Who is also the God of Jesus as He is the God of all other humans.
The church and state, desperate to rid itself of Jewish roots, abandoned Jesus’ teachings and of the Apostles for their own version of a tri-personal god, scripture rejects.
These are the facts and the truth God has supplied, we do well to question everything—just as we have been forced to do in every area of our lives.
The devil has infected the ‘church’ with lies and deception—scripture makes it plainly evident.
As a non-Catholic, this article is well written and respectful, absent much of the vitriol that can fly between our denominations. I have the utmost respect for Catholics. However, respectfully differ on a few points.
1. Catholicism is not the church established by Christ. Romans didn’t recognize Christianity until almost four full centuries after Christ. Neither is any Protestant denomination. The church established by Christ is all believers. To Christ’s church belong the promises. The institution of the church is a man-made organization, with stated beliefs, which often, but not always, agree with scripture, organized for administration and governance. To it do not belong the promises of the church.
2. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone. If one is a true follower of Christ, godly fruit will be evidenced (James 2). Fruit does not gain salvation. If salvation can be lost by works, it can also be gained by works, then grace is no longer grace. We can’t even take credit for the choice of our free will to follow Christ, because even that is a gift of God.
3. Catholics have their internal issues just like Protestants. I could go into detail, but a comment section probably isn’t the right place.
So basically, thanks for the article. I hear you, respect you, but ask you look to Scripture and then to the Holy Spirit to support anything which you feel as a conviction. Otherwise, it’s just divisiveness, which is a distraction from our true work.
https://open.substack.com/pub/davidmccaleb/p/the-true-work-of-the-church
@David McCaleb the Catholic Church is most certainly the church that Jesus Christ formed. The term “Catholic,” meaning “universal,” was adopted circa 100 A.D. (I believe St. Iraneus first spoke the term) to apply to those early Christians, not yet named, who were practicing all that Christ had left under his Apostles and their successors; this includes the seven sacraments that are established through Jesus‘s words in the Bible, and how the apostles applied them to Christian living. This is NOT a man-made Church, but the visible Church Christ intended for His believers. Christ is fully God, so you would be insulting Him if you were calling the Catholic Church a man-made religion, you would be calling Christ just a man.
As I recall this article points out that Luther’s “faith alone” and “scripture alone” are man-made, false dogmas (Protestant scholar Alistair McGrath concurs “faith alone” to be a novelty invented by Martin Luther.)
It’s great to know a lot of scripture, put every man is not his own arbiter of the truth. The Catholic Church was instituted by Christ so that we wouldn’t have to question and analyze and dissect scripture for ourselves, quite possibly at a detriment to ourselves. The “man on the street” is not equipped to perfectly interpret all scripture. To do so is to make yourself your own pope. The Catholic Church is protected from misinterpretation by the living majestarium, the catechism,and the guidance of the Pope.
Thanks for commenting. We agree in many ways. However,
1. The catholic church is the true church, not the Catholic Church. I respect the Catholic Church, though we have doctrinal differences.
2. God gave us the Holy Spirit for a reason. He teaches us. Observe how eloquently Peter, a blue-collar fisherman, addressed the crowd in Acts 2. It was not through learning, but through the Holy Spirit. “But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you” I John 2:27. The pope is a man. The Holy Spirit is God.
Please, look to God, not man. Popes can teach an instruct and be an instrument of God. However, the Holy Spirit is Truth, and each one of us can boldly enter the presence of God through the power of the Holy Spirit and sup with him all day, every day.
God bless!
Thanks for responding, yet firstly, your first statement I believe contains an error, and I’m not sure what you mean to say. Here, you’re saying both the Catholic Church is the true Church, and also that it’s not.
Secondly, in true Protestant fashion, you are interpreting this 1 John passage as a fundamentalist; the Bible is very often nuanced, and needs be read in the context of previous passages, etc. Here is Catholic perspective on the same passage:
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us. 20 But you have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things.
[18] "It is the last hour": That is, it is the last age of the world. Many Antichrists, that is, many heretics, enemies of Christ and his church, and forerunners of the great Antichrist.
[19] "They were not of us": That is, they were not solid, steadfast, genuine Christians: otherwise they would have remained in the church.
[20] "The unction from the Holy One": That is, grace and wisdom from the Holy Ghost.
[20] "Know all things": The true children of God's church, remaining in unity, under the guidance of their lawful pastors, partake of the grace of the Holy Ghost, promised to the church and her pastors; and have in the church all necessary knowledge and instruction; so as to have no need to seek it elsewhere, since it can be only found in that society of which they are members.
21 I have not written to you as to them that know not the truth, but as to them that know it: and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also. 24 As for you, let that which you have heard from the beginning, abide in you. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise which he hath promised us, life everlasting.
26 These things have I written to you, concerning them that seduce you. 27 And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him, that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be confounded by him at his coming. 29 If you know, that he is just, know ye, that every one also, who doth justice, is born of him.
[27] "You have no need": You want not to be taught by any of these men, who, under pretence of imparting more knowledge to you, seek to seduce you (ver. 26), since you are sufficiently taught already, and have all knowledge and grace in the church, with the unction of the Holy Ghost; which these new teachers have no share in.
Catholics are confirmed in Holy Spirit in confirmation; this is also part of the implication of this passage.
You’re anti-pope because you’re Protestant; it’s nice that you say you respect the Catholic Church, better than saying the opposite.
I would refer you to John Bergsma’s St. Paul Center YouTube videos if you might like further understanding of basic differences. A former Protestant pastor, he is very educated and informative on these differences.
Peace.
Re: the first point, there is no conflict if you notice which words are capitalized, catholic verses Catholic.
God bless!
That is ridiculous, sorry, not sorry;). The Catholic Church IS The Catholic Church; Protestantism is not included. Protestants have elements of sanctification, luckily, but they are not in communion with, and are not, The Catholic Church. It’s been the problem ever since Martin Luther, that.protestants just make stuff up.
Hopefully if you read the Douay Riemes analysis of the verse you sent in defense of your view to me, you realize that the people the verse is referring to, not to be taught by, are those who have left The Church, known since 110 AD as The Catholic Church. Meaning people like Luther, Calvin, and Protestants.
As Catholics, we honor conscience above all, which we trust by the Holy Spirit to be well informed if we are good Catholics,and if the Pope were to go off the rails at any point and propose heresy, we of well informed conscience know not to follow such instruction.
Peace.
You may be Catholic. Good. I am not. I also am not Protestant. What I am is a disciple of Christ. I am Christian. I am a part of the catholic church, the one established by Christ. He is my head, and I am His fullness. (Ephesians 1:22-23). Be Catholic if that is how God leads you, but know that denomination has its issues just like every Protestant denomination. Discern. Know scripture, and talk to the Holy Spirit when something doesn’t set well in your spirit. Avoid divisiveness, which tears down, as opposed to exhortation, which builds up. God bless!
On point 1, it's a shallow argument. The Church is not some "invisible" all-believers, whatever that means. Saying the institution is "man-made" is Correct, Jesus made it, Peter, Paul, John, Mark, Andrew, Thomas, all made it. Somehow stating that the "Romans" didn't recognize it for centuries, and then pointing to "Scripture" as if it wasn't also "recognized/cannonized" for centuries is disengenous. The Church was One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic for a Millenium, and only then did the monikers of (Roman) Catholic and (Eastern) Orthodox start getting used to distinguish. The split is generally viewed with great sadness by both, as Christ prayed for us to be one. Did Jesus speak of "other sheep, not of this fold" yes, but that doesn't make the Church some invisible reality.
On point 2, again with the Solas. I agree that "fruit does not gain salvation" - but salvation is not some transaction, it is a relationship. Paul's use of the marriage analogy pertains; no one asks if i had a wedding ceremony, they ask if i'm married. I don't 'know' that i'm married because i remember the details of my wedding and signing some paperwork at the courthouse; i know i'm married because i live with my wife and have a relationship with her. Think again of Jesus' admonition regarding divorce; Paul's "working out your salvation" - a transactional view is too small. Who is trying to take credit for the choice of our free will?? That is a thinly veiled slight at anyone who is not Reformed in their thinking, as i might guess you are at this point.
Look to the Church, the living Bride, the Body of Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit, the repository of the Faith for the last 20 Centuries to support your convictions. Unfortunately for you, many people look only to Scripture, and that is the very reason we have tens of thousands of 'statements of faith' in Protestantism.
OK. Thanks for commenting! But what you say seems to support my point number two. I don’t completely understand what your point is.
I do take small exception to “salvation is not some transaction, it is a relationship.” I propose the “relationship” is sanctification, not salvation. If you follow the marriage analogy, as you suggest, one can go so far as commit adultery, but they are still married. One can be married, then the next day move out and not enjoy the benefit of marriage again, but they are still married. All analogies break down at a certain point, but by adding anything to the simple beauty of salvation misrepresents God. You’re saved? Big deal (hyperbole). That’s only the start. Now, work it out for the rest of your life. That is done through sanctification. The thief on the cross had zero works. None. Zero knowledge of theology. He didn’t ask for forgiveness of his sins, and Christ didn’t even state such. The only thing he did was recognize Christ, and ask for mercy.
As for me, I’m no theologian, and have very little interest in deep theological topics. However, the permanence of salvation is a bondage that castrates believers, making them spiritually impotent. You don’t need to believe me, but I challenge you to take it before the Holy Spirit and wrestle with Him on it, not letting go until you have peace.
Thanks again for the comments. God bless!
https://open.substack.com/pub/davidmccaleb/p/salvation-cannot-be-lost
Hey David, i am interested in your statement about the 'permanence of salvation' as a bondage. Could you expound on that, please?
to be clear, I'm Orthodox, and we don't view regeneration, justification, and sanctification as sequential, or compartmentalize them as they are often viewed in Western theological systems.
Aside from perhaps viewing the Wedding (Salvation) in legal terms (once you're married, you can move out) your explanation actually fits the analogy. When salvation is viewed as an on-going relationship - Paul's good fight, finishing the race, keeping the faith - then it is the marriage that matters, not so much the ceremony; the relationship can be broken - at least from our end. e.g. Hosea and Gomer, the 99 and the 1 sheep; yet also Matthew 7 - "I never knew you"
We view Salvation as a continuous process of growth and transformation.
We also believe that Adam being ashamed and hiding is a window into what eternity would look like. It is not God that changes from loving to angry - he is always loving - it is our own shame, guilt, and callousness that causes us to recoil from his love, and refuse his forgiveness. In the parable of the sower, the same Sun that causes some seeds to produce a bountiful harvest, also causes some to dry up and wilt. Thus the importance of practicing repentance and confession, learning to receive His forgiveness.
Thanks again for commenting, and great questions. Very thought-provoking. I still sense that we are closer in understanding than we realize. What you call salvation, which is a continual relationship with God, I call sanctification. To me, salvation is the first step in sanctification. It’s God’s adoption of us as His sons. It gets us into the family. It is the thief on the cross, with a lifetime of sin, recognizing Christ and asking for Him to remember him. And that imagery is incredibly profound. Jesus in the middle, one thief cursing Him on one side, the other thief on the other side initially cursing Him but then coming to his senses and asking for mercy. He had no works he could do, nothing he could offer, and even his life was being drained by the nails in his hands and feet. Yet, Jesus said he would be in paradise. That is salvation.
Regarding my comments on salvation lost being a bondage, I’ve experienced this firsthand, though I did not realize it at the time. I spent several formative years of my life in a church that preached salvation can be lost. What that produced in the congregation were believers perpetually hyper-introspective. We are to walk circumspectly, but this introspection was induced by fear. We were continually in bondage of the fear of slipping from our secure position. It led to hyper analysis of what is godly versus otherwise, sending us into a death spiral of not only judging and condemning ourselves, but then applying that same lens to the world around us, ultimately becoming legalistic Pharisees, inwardly focused instead of reaching the world outside of us, the same world to which Christ sent us.
This happened to me still just yesterday. My wife and I were walking in downtown Fort Collins. A homeless man, obvious by his appearance, began to approach me. Immediately, my defenses went up. I started thinking, “He’s going to ask for money. Do I give him money when I know he’s just going to spend it on drugs and alcohol?“ Instead, this man stops five paces before me, stares off beside me and mumbles something, then walks around me and on down the street. It was only later that the Holy Spirit told me, “You were so focused on yourself, on what you should do, that you missed the opportunity to love someone who needed to be set free from a demon.“ Though I consider myself a mature Christian and wholly submitted to God, I missed an opportunity. I pray the next time anyone approaches me on the street, I reach out to them with the love of Christ before we ever exchange words.
Yes David I agree. The key is James 2:18 “I will show you my faith by my works” Not without them or because of them. As my pastor says, the theology is in the prepositions
Maybe??? Possible symantic interpretation? This I know: faith is a gift. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9. Thus, we can’t even take credit for the faith by which we come to Christ. And faith is made complete through works per James. “Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?” James 2:22. So, it seems to me that Faith and works are two separate things, but true faith in Christ is validated through works.
The implicit problem of the western perspective is that it insists on pulling things apart. Thus, Faith becomes something akin to believe, as in - I believe in ghosts, or aliens, i.e. "i think they're real" instead of believe, as in - i believe in you, meaning i know you, and i trust you, and i'm confident you can do it. When the author of Hebrews talks of faith in Chapter 11, he does not tell us what they thought, he gives a long list of what "by faith" Noah did, Abraham did, Sarah did, etc. Saying that you trust a ladder, and yet never climbing it, or worse, refusing to climb it is meaningless, a la James. Re-read all of those verses and substitute "Trust" for Faith, and you will start to get the idea. You have been saved through 'Trust' and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God . . . Likewise, this Sola business has the unfortunate side effect of making things too small. The western tendency towards the transactional misses much of the relational fullness of the writers of the Early Church. It's strangely reductionistic to think God gives us faith, and then we use that faith to think something about his son, who he had to send to earth to kill, so that he could stop being mad at us, and then he forgives our debt, judges us on his son's righteousness, and we can go to heaven instead of hell. Trust is a relational term, that encompasses both thinking and doing.
Agreed. Everything you said seems to align with James 2.
Hello David, I'm curious what you think of the verse, Luke 17:21 KJV: "For behold the Kingdom of God is within (ἐντός) you"
NIT, ESV, NASD translates ἐντός as "in the midst" However, that changes the meaning of the verse. ἐντός is also used in Matthew 23:26: KJV "Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also." NIT, ESV NASD translates ἐντός as "inside" in this instance.
I'm also curious about how as a Protestant you view various translations and if you observe the degeneration of translation into colloquial English.
Looking forward to your response! Thank you!
Marco, thanks so much for commenting. There are a lot of different ways to answer that question. But if your question is more along the lines of what I think it means for the kingdom of God to be “inside” us, I’m going to say that’s probably a reference to the Holy Spirit. But I really get the sense It’s more than that. John chapter 17 is one of my favorite chapters in the Bible. In it, Jesus prays for unity, and for us to be in Him just as He is in God. I’m still discovering what that means, but it is much more than I have ever thought possible. Ephesians chapter 1 says we are seated in Christ. It also says Christ is the head for His church, which is the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way. How can the church be the fullness of Jesus? Oh my goodness, it is hard to imagine, but it is truth. Our authority and standing in Christ I believe is more than traditionally understood, and certainly more than I will understand in my lifetime.
Regarding the accuracy of scriptures being translated into modern English, I would say it isn’t the first translation. The first translation is taking the very essence of God, and revealing it through the limited written words of language we possess. Then taking that and translating it from the original language into modern language. But that is no different than translating it from the original language into old English, is it? Or the original language into any other language. The fact that scripture is so information dense, so beautifully written, even though it’s not even in the original language, is further proof to me that it is God-inspired. The Holy Spirit is the one who opens our eyes to it, and speaks through it. The ministry of the Spirit - and I’m only now learning this - is difficult to separate from reading scripture. The ministry of the Spirit is too often ignored and not taught. If scripture is Spirit inspired, it also must be Spirit discerned. Considering scripture merely through intellect is like eating a meal with a cold, and unable to taste it.
The Church never was, and never will be, a denomination. It is made up of the Brides of Christ. They are those "whom the Father has given me". No other labels, no other guidelines. His Bride will be made of many denominations and people's and tongues: those whom repented, believed and picked up their cross. The RCC places so many burdens on it's congregants, just like the Judaism that Jesus condemns of the religious leaders he rebuked. Jesus says his yoke is easy and his burden is light. Laying layers of "have to's" on his beloved is neither.
Please explain why the most important church meeting of all time took place in Nicaea, not Rome? Explain the Waldensians?
Why do Catholics worship statues of Mary? My daughter was taken to the back of her Catholic preschool and told to pray to a statue of Mary. Fortunately, she has the Holy Spirit in her heart and just prayed to Jesus instead.
I will never be deceived into trusting Catholicism ever again, believe me.
How dare you try to lecture me about what the Bible is.
Sola scriptura was literally invented by Martin Luther, a novelty no one concurred to be the case in 1500 some years! How do you think the church got by without a printed Bible for 400 years? Are you not aware that a printed Bible was not available for 400 years? Are you aware that the Catholic Church gave you the Canons of the Bible that you read? It was through sacredtradition and the passing down of information that Christians were able to learn the faith— NOT Bible alone:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle [2 Thessalonians 2:14] 15 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace,
[14] "Traditions": See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be received than their epistles.
Who are you to say the church formed in the year 900? What are you going by with this? You’re saying “in its current state”— that means nothing. Of course things are run differently in a modern world than the world without the printing press, etc.! The faith was passed down, with seven sacraments, which you don’t follow, obviously because you’re whatever faith tradition you are, which is not Catholic. Early Christians led by direct descendants of the Apostles formed this same Catholic Church Ignatius is talking about— that’s the whole reason for him to coin the phrase Catholic, because it was too young to even be called by any proper name, so hence the name was given.
You’ve obviously been misled by whoever brought you up in whatever faith it is you claim to be, one of the 50,000 denominations of Protestantism. And don’t say you’re not protestant because you protest the Catholic faith, so therefore you’re Protestant even if you want to call yourself otherwise.
I would invite you to check some YouTube videos by John Bergsma, St. Paul Center. He’s a former Protestant pastor. He’s very eloquent and explains things very well. I’m tired of arguing with you so I will, God willing, end it here.
So you also agree with the Catholic church of the 16th century that persecuted Madame Guyon for writing a book about personal prayer? Do you also not believe that we should pray to God personally?
Before the Council of Nicea in the 4th century, they were using Scripture to teach about Jesus. They wrote many books about the Old Testament and how it pointed to the coming of Jesus as Savior, and they also had the books and letters of the New Testament, which they were passing around. However, it is only in the 4th century that they finally had a meeting, lead by the Holy Spirit, and chose the Canonical books. This meeting was a group of Christians from all over the world, from the universal, invisible kingdom that all true believers are a part of. It was not a meeting of the so-called Catholic church. Sorry.
No, it is the Catholic Church that gave the canon of the Bible at this conference. At least you realize it was given at this council; above you were saying it was “written over 1600 years.”
The Catholic Church is the *visible* institution created by Christ, through Apostolic succession. It is not an invisible network of Christians who believe whatever they want to believe. Hopefully the article I’m attaching here will help you understand this.
https://pemptousia.com/2016/02/which-came-first-the-church-or-the-new-testament-4/
We must be as little children to enter the Kingdom of God; the article here that we are posting on, made some great points and I think I have brought up a few things for you to think about, but I don’t know if you’re capable of opening your mind to admit any new notions. You seem to have been indoctrinated to hate the Catholic Church.
We will all have to be of the same mind in the Kingdom of God— that’s the point of this author’s article here. He is reminding us what Christ strongly enforces in John 17:21, “that we all be one.”
Peace.
That’s insane. And I will pray for you. The Catholic Church was first given the term “Catholic”, meaning “universal,” in 107 A.D. from a father of the Church Ignatius of Antioch. That’s a far cry from 900. Apparently you come from a Catholic hating tradition. How dare you call the Church Christ Himself founded a cult!
The Holy Spirit is definitely not perfectly guiding every person who picks up the Bible. Very presumptuous on your part.
I will pray that God makes these things clear to you.
Just because Ignatius used the word "Catholic" to mean "universal" does not mean that he was referring to a church that officially formed in its current state hundreds of years later. And yes, every believer who believes in Jesus as God's Son who died and rose again, confesses Jesus as Savior, and is baptized. Then asks to be lead by the Holy Spirit will be that is what Pentecost is all about: God sending His Holy Spirit to lead and guide believers. In Luke 11:13 Jesus says, "If you, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"
But we don't believe every spirit because 1 John 4:1 tells us to test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
The Bible is God's written Word. It was written over a period of 1600 years by about 40 authors in 3 different languages with one message: Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, the fulfillment of God's promise to bring a Savior. Not surprisingly, one of the first things that false religions do is to undermine the authority of the Bible so that people believe their lies instead of the Truth. God's Word is the foundation of Truth and the ruler we must use to judge all things.
Protestants do themselves a disservice by interpreting the Bible for themselves, without proper guidance; Catholics have the living majisterium and the Catechism, to aid in proper understanding and each person not having to flounder. The Bible is not easily understandable to the “man on the street,” needing to be taken into context as a whole.
Christ doesn’t need to venerate anyone… He’s God! Are you trying to say Jesus doesn’t love His Mother, whose fiat (Her “yes,”)cooperated with God to bring the Incarnate Word to man? Are you saying He doesn’t honor His mother? That would mean He doesn’t keep His own commandments! So now you’re not only insulting Jesus, but His Mother,too.
You asked for an explanation; I provided. Protestants cut themselves off from tradition and the true Church, then are perplexed about things they would have known had someone in their family/ancestry not walked away from Catholicism (most Protestants are said to be able to trace back to Catholic roots.)
I’ve already given the explanation for Mary mediating to Christ, and Christ mediating to God. Not everything in our faith is cut and dried and can be explained away by a simple Bible verse – we have sacred tradition as well, because that’s the way it was from the early church; the Bible was not in existence until the fourth century! Tradition plays a part, which , as a Protestant, you refuse to accept.
Here’s the explanation for the Bible passage you provided (Matthew 12:46-50,) given by Catholic Answers.com:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-puts-mary-in-her-place
“Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?” 1 Corinthians 6:2-3.
I'm actually flabergasted by what you just wrote. If I had any doubts before as to whether the Catholic church is a cult or not, you have now made it very clear that it is. Thank you. I will continue to read the Bible for myself and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, not a church falsely calling itself "the first church," which it was not. The Catholic church in its present form was created during the 900s to 1100s, and there have always been believers outside of this supposed church, who have remained faithful to Jesus and the Word of God. I will pray that God makes these things clear to you. 🙏
@Anna, Catholics do not *worship* Mary, they venerate and honor Her because She is the Mother of God, the Theotokos. In Luke’s gospel She is greeted by Gabriel with, “Hail, full of Grace.” The Greek translation of these words literally means “Hail most transformed by grace one.” Of all humans ever created, She has been chosen by God to be the pure Vessel who brings the Incarnate Word to the world.
As such, She has been granted the highest place of any human, and as close to the Trinity as any human could be. Christ gives Her to us as our Mother from the cross with His next-to-last words, “Son, behold thy Mother.” Hence, She is the Mother of all Christians; even Luther and other “reformers” believed this.
Mary therefore is a mediator for us TO Her Son ( the Son, not God the Father,) and the Son mediates to the Father. Our prayers are incredibly efficacious to Her, as explained by typology referring to Old Testament King David, to whose Mother, the Queen, “he would refuse nothing.” She is the most wonderful gift Her Son chose to give us, and Protestants refuse to accept Her as such, under the misunderstanding that they are taking away honor from Christ. This is not true.
I’m sorry the priest spoke to your daughter in such a way as to confuse her— but it sounds like she’s in a Catholic school, and that’s gonna happen. Your daughter, and you, could only be greatly benefitted if you realize the most gracious gift He has given us in His Mother, our Mother, Mary.
Jesus, himself, doesn't venerate his mother:
Matthew 12:46-50 NIV
[46] While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. [47] Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” [48] He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [49] Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. [50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Jesus is the only mediator we need:
1 Timothy 2:3-6 NIV
[3] This is good, and pleases God our Savior, [4] who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
My children are no longer at a Catholic school, for obvious reasons.
There is no hell as you imagine it!
We see the same language used of Sodom and Gomorrah- are they still burning? No. Eternal in many places is readily understood as ‘age-lasting’. When the job is done, they have finished, so too for the worms until nothing is left.
Now do one on your ism
I’ve been Protestant for all my life but I have lately drifted away from Protestant for some of the reasons you mentioned and more. I cannot decide whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the closer the church God wants on Earth. In the future, could you write an article on that subject, since your thinking on Protestantism is so close to my own?
Here's what swayed me: if reunification of all Christians is possible this side of Heaven, it can only happen by uniting with Rome.
I would argue it would only happen if Rome unites with the Orthodoxy. A Pope declaring that he is not infallible and reducing his position to a Patriarch seems more likely than every Patriarch becoming Bishops under a single Pope. The Filioque is the other obvious disagreement but I’m too Protestant to really have an opinion on the matter.
I think the more likely path is that individual bishops/metropolitans bring their jurisdictions into communion with Rome gradually, as has happened with the Eastern Catholics. The smaller communion will always be absorbed into the larger one, not the opposite.
How is this not a confession and a compromise? Why would the eastern patriarchs profess anything other than truth? Peter founded the church in Antioch— why should it not also have primacy as a Petrine see? Roman Catholicism devolved into arbitrariness
I think you need to read up on the primacy of Rome in the first millennium. And then ponder why it was that so many Eastern churches joined Rome instead.
The eastern churches wouldn’t contest the primacy of Rome, Rome was the first among equals after all. However, when you talk about primacy, you are referring to the universal jurisdiction of Rome, which has been refuted many times by historians and ancient popes alike. Read the Church and the Papacy by Robert Spencer. Also, the Uniate Churches often converted under the political pressure of the Vatican’s shock troops, ie, the jesuits. Notably, many of them retain their liturgical calendar, replete with saints condemned as heretics by the west (see: Palamite veneration in Catholic Churches) which is fundamentally inconsistent with Catholic teaching, but since they submitted to the geopolitical hegemony of the pope, these inconsistencies are permitted. Tell me how that’s a pursuit of truth over power.
Just hours ago I was reading scripture and I came upon a part in John 9:6, which reinforced my faith in Protestantism. When Jesus spat on the ground to make the clay, this was a direct allusion to the Fence around the Law the Jews built. It occurred to me that this is no special outcome. This is literally the conclusion that every church reaches when it exceeds restraint and the power the entity derives ensnares all.
But I thank you for your love and concern and if I miss salvation because of a Catholic or Orthodox anointment, then that was what God intended for me anyway. You have done your part brother.
I do not. Enlighten me if it blesses you
I struggle with the way the Catholic Church treated the Jewish followers of Christ. The councils were as unchristian as Luther. We are all free to read Yeshua's condemnation of the church hierarchy. I'm consuming the Word daily seeking and knocking for His Truth and plumbline. Today, in many churches I see man's tradition over God's Holy Law, which is certainly not the true Way.
So is this a catholic substack?
Christianity itself is wrong.
Jesus of Nazareth never existed. The New Testament was written by the Roman aristocracy in order to keep the slaves from converting to Judaism.
The New Testament is a complete fabrication, from start to finish. It was written by Josephus Flavius, a Jew who went over to the Roman side, in order to undermine Judaism, which was a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire. He wanted to create an alternative religion for people to flock to, in order to prevent people from converting to Judaism, and he succeeded hugely. The alternative religion that he devised (birth in a manger, a last supper, etc.) was based almost entirely on something known as Mithraism.
Since my original comment, I wrote two separate articles that are a pertinent response as a non-Catholic:
1) Scriptural Definition of Christ’s Church:
https://davidmccaleb.substack.com/p/christs-church-is-not-catholic-its
2) No conflicts exist between free will and God‘s sovereignty:
https://davidmccaleb.substack.com/p/calvinism-with-zero-conflicts
Doesn’t really explain why Protestantism is wrong. Would be interested to read a more in-depth, explained version if you write it.
Protestants and Catholics are like a long-divorced couple, each with their own reason for not moving on.
Generic popery.
“Protestants see it as a snack…”
This one most certainly does not.
Reading the title inspired me to write an article on how religions are wrong… then I remember “facts aside, who am I to judge?”, and then I let the idea go the way it came.
Some thoughts.
the infallibility of the Church, ecumenical councils and the pope
A self-appointed doctrine without biblical mandate. Certainly Peter is at the root of the church, but to reject what he and the others taught about Jesus is not your mandate.
When they preach “faith alone”, they abandon the cruciform path written in Scripture.
While works affirm a faith, scripture has none of the qualifications the church has added to faith. It’s a long list.
Some insist they follow the early Church, yet they reject its marks: bishops, liturgy, fasting, confession, sacred art, and sacred silence.
A few of these are valid.
Jesus, praying to his Father and God, declares Him the only true God. Who is also the God of Jesus as He is the God of all other humans.
The church and state, desperate to rid itself of Jewish roots, abandoned Jesus’ teachings and of the Apostles for their own version of a tri-personal god, scripture rejects.
These are the facts and the truth God has supplied, we do well to question everything—just as we have been forced to do in every area of our lives.
The devil has infected the ‘church’ with lies and deception—scripture makes it plainly evident.