The $100,000 Roman Catholic Question.

Eliyahu:

"However, in case of Roman Catholics, they have so many theoretic human traditions like Threefold hat for the Pope, Ankh Cross, Purgatory, Maria's Ascension, Indulgence, Extreme Unction ( anointing at the deathbed), confession to the Priest ( while there is no priest system in NT), Hierchy system of Clergy, Black gowns for the priests which were worn by Idol worshipping priests ( Chemarim in Zephania 1: 4), Lent ( common practice in Babylonian goddess worship), compulsory celibacy, nuns, etc.
What are the human tradition in Protestants comparable to the above mentioned RC traditions?"

GE:

Kindly help us out, Eliyahu -- because it seems we others are not able, or perhaps too scared, to think of what could -- and tell us yourself? Maybe then we'll strike the topic head-on.

 

Or do you want us to believe, Eliyahu, that Christianity outside the Roman Catholic Church, owes Roman Catholicism nothing, and has nothing to be ashamed of over against the RCC? That the rest of Christianity is absolutely pure in both doctrine and tradition? Do you insinuate that, with this your last question?

 

Take the Anglican Church, for example. They retained much of RC 'tradition' in form and liturgy, e.g., yet they adhere to the Westminster Confession, which to the RCC is arch heresy.

 

A discussion or debate on doctrne is not tradition. There was a split in the Baptists over doctrine. There have been many such splits. One of the most recent has resulted because of the KJVO movement. This is not tradition. It is doctrine. And it doesn't affect salvation. It is a matter of soul liberty.
Purgatory is not found in the Bible and it does affect salvation. It is extrabiblical doctrine coming from tradition, not the Bible. It affects the very doctrine of justification of faith. It denies that Christ paid the penalty for our sins, else why should we have to pay the penalty also, in a place called purgatory.
Having soul liberty to disagree on Biblical doctrine is far different than the extrabilblical doctrine or tradition that is founded solely on tradition and affects salvation.

 

None of the practice of oral tradition was written down until the Bible began to be written. Salvation was in Jesus Christ several years before the writing of James (the first book of the NT) and the gospels.

 

I am still waiting for my check...

 

RE Quote: Originally Posted by Ps104_33
OK, I'll dig that tome up and read it this evening. The Church Fathers arent inspired and you have to sift through alot of heresy. I have my own sources on the fathers and I have read enough to know that it is not a good source for church doctrine.

2nd Request.

Ps104_33, Please clarify your response. Thank you.

CA

 

HP: Why would you ask this question? If the answer was “I am sorry I cannot” what in your estimation would it prove?

 

Indeed.

They (Solo Scripturists) all seem to agree that the Bible is all that is needed for faith and practice, yet they disagree on which doctrines purportedly found in the Bible are necessary for faith and practice.

For example, Lutherans and COCers believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation while others do not. Some think that in the Eucharist we participate in the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore Communion is "necessary for faith and practice"; others don't and treat the Lord's Supper as an optional ceremony. Some say just accepting Christ as Savior is all that is needed, while others state one must submit to Him as LORD as well (ie some say works aren't necessary, some say that they are). Examples can be multiplied, but the point is that contrary combinations of doctrines which are deemed "necessary for faith and practice" are as numerous as the groups who claim to be going "only by the Book". So even when one limits those dogmas necessary for salvation to what can be found in the Scriptures (which I agree with), the problem of interpretation--and thus coming up with a consistent authoritative list of necessary doctrines--remains.

 

Mike (D28GUY) just shredded this argument on another thread. You throw it out. But the truth is that the Catholic Church has more doctrinal differences in it and is more disorganized than evangelical Christianity does. We are more united in our message than the Catholics are.
The gospel: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is preached by all of us. It is a message of salvation that is to be received by faith and faith alone. Salvation is by grace through faith, and not of works as the Catholic Church preaches. We are united in this great message of salvation. We are united in the great fundamentals of the faith concerning salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ.

You mention the COC which in my mind is a cult and outside the true realm of Christianity, just as the J.W.'s are. They believe in baptismal regeneration just as the RCC does. Those that distort the message of salvation so, fall into that category, and others fall into the category of liberal churches--denying the very fundamental doctrines of the Bible such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the existence of heaven and hell. We are speaking of the unity of evangelical Christianity as opposed to the RCC faith. You have a false misconception, and even a misconception or perhaps a deceiving lie about the RCC organization itself with all of its schisms and doctrinal differences from within.

 

I won't deny that there are those with doctrinal differences within the Roman Communion and that Rome is not entirely the monolith of uniform truth that some of her apologists claim her to be, but it's just a little hyperbolic to claim that Rome is MORE disorganized than "evangelical Christianity" (however you may define that entity). Do you have any facts and figures to back that up?

Again an assertion. Now how about some real proof?

And is believed by all historic churches-Roman, Byzantine, Anglican, Coptic, Syrian, etc--as well

The faith "alone" part is the problem as it contradicts explicit Scriptures (James 2:24 for starters) and the consistant teaching of the historic Apostolic Church until Martin Luther.

Yet one is not saved without works which is what the Bible and the Historic Churches teach.

Which message--that Jesus died for all or only the elect? that one only need receive Him as "Savior", or also as "LORD"? That repentence is necessary or isn't?

Not so, as I pointed out above. Also, Oneness Pentecostals, just "going by the Book" deny the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. They would deny the Trinity is "fundamental"--who are you to say otherwise other than just another private interpreter of Scripture? Who breaks the tie when you or another "solo Scripturist" come up with a different list of "the great fundamentals of the faith"?

(Ah...you're mind)

As does Luther, and the Anglicans, all the historic Church down until the time when some Radical "Reformers" denied this biblical truth.

You mean the "message of salvation" as you interpret it.

Indeed, and such apostates can be found, unfortunately, officially on the roles of both Protestant and Catholic Churches.

 

Sheesh!

10 pages and still not one clear answer.

That figures since the RCC adhereants do not even know what their own organization stands for.

 

Its a miracle huh.

 

My post in other thread could cover this question partly.
There are many, many Catholic minded denominations and people even among the protestant groups.
I consider Church of England is a kind of deviation from RCC, created by Henry 8 so that he might divorce and marry again, even though the later development brought them a lot of reformation imitating the protestants reformations ( Henry 8 found some reason for the divorce in the Bible as he found he should not marry his brother's ex-wife), Presbyterian came out of Roman Catholic ( Calvin was grown by Catholic, had the infant baptism, killed the people who refuse the infant baptism), See this article ( His Ashes cry out against Calvin :
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm ), Methodists came out of COE as Wesley remained as the priest of COE.
But John Wesley did very well in establishing the church organizations after he was saved by listening to the gospel preached by Peter Boehler and Moravians ( 1738), and the Wesleyans were split from Methodists before Civil War (around 1843) because of their objection to Slavery system.
Today's Lutheran get along very well with Roman Catholic, which is contrary to their ancestors.
Basically those leading groups of Protestants are mostly Catholic minded, and they are ready to return to their mother church, Roman Catholic, if RCC succeed in integration of all the pagan religions in the world.

This week it was reported that Bruce Metzger died who was the chair for translating NRSV and RSV, the professor of Princeton. If you read the report, you can find how closely RCC and Presbyterians are working, and the people who oppose KJV are closer to Roman Catholic.
Read this article.

http://www.ptsem.edu/NEWS/pr-bin/2006-2007/brucemetzgerobituary06.php

I don't think all Presbyterians will join the united church of the world led by RCC, and there must be many, many faithful Christians who refuse the union with RCC ( thru something like Ecumenical Movement etc).
Those true believers among Baptists( though there will be many apostates even among the Baptists and Brethren), Brethren, Wesleyan, Menonites, Moravians will refuse the obedience to the World Pope, but remain faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ who will eventually conquer the rebellious pagan followers.

As you may know, Baptists and Brethren are not from Roman Catholic, they or their ancestors existed before the Reformation, they were persecuted by RCC, but RCC deviated from the true Christianity as we read 1 John 2:19, and read thru the true Church history. Throughout the history, there have been true churches other than RCC all the time, let alone the Eastern Church in Middle East and East Asia ( Mongolia, China, Korea, Japan, and Central Asia like Samarcand area)

As for church history, I mentioned in other thread, Pilgrim Church by EH Broadbent

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/PC-B-001.HTM

 

Psalm 104_3:

""I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites in his opponents" Churchill "

GE:

A Protestant is to be judged by the animosities he excites in his opponents!

 

Eliyahu, you said, "What are the human tradition in Protestants comparable to the above mentioned RC traditions?", and you gave one specific: 'baptism'.
I agree one might test the accuracy of your allegation by the Scriptures.

The rest of what you have said is vague, except perhaps that it (the 'compare-ability') all boils down to the Scriptures, whether it really is considered of Final Authority by the various church-groupings.
So let's accept that as specific number two.

Does your finding stop here?

If yes, then I don't think it says much, because what could be brought in against the one might just as well be brought in against the other, by your own rule of, "What are the human tradition in Protestants comparable to the above mentioned RC traditions?"

It's a matter of "human tradition" against The Scriptures (preferably the KJV, according to your plea above).

Then I must think of other 'deviations' Christianity in general which in this thread it is not permitted to be mentioned.