Theological differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholic Church

JoChris

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,238
This is in response to Davidson's claim in another thread.

Protestantism is nothing more than reformed Catholicism, as is Evangelicalism.
1563606962653.png

They clearly contradict each other.
Please provide factual evidence for your claim, Davidson.

Saying they are both descendants from the original (little c) catholic church is one thing.
Saying Protestantism is a descendant of the Roman Catholic Church (of the middle Ages) is quite another.
 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
12,040
This is in response to Davidson's claim in another thread.



View attachment 23959

They clearly contradict each other.
Please provide factual evidence for your claim, Davidson.

Saying they are both descendants from the original (little c) catholic church is one thing.
Saying Protestantism is a descendant of the Roman Catholic Church (of the middle Ages) is quite another.
I believe the word is “revisionist” history @JoChris !
 

JoChris

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,238
I believe the word is “revisionist” history @JoChris !
I am sure if there is historical evidence to support Davidson's position he can find it.
There would be a lot of contradictory material out there online e.g. whether writer is Catholic, Protestant, atheist etc.

Sifting out what is fact and what is opinion can be hard at times, especially in areas like history from many centuries ago!
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,693
This is in response to Davidson's claim in another thread.



View attachment 23959

They clearly contradict each other.
Please provide factual evidence for your claim, Davidson.

Saying they are both descendants from the original (little c) catholic church is one thing.
Saying Protestantism is a descendant of the Roman Catholic Church (of the middle Ages) is quite another.
Of course the reformed churches were an offshoot of the RCC. I guess our opinion depends on how drastic we think the reforms of the 16th century were. From your meme I'd say these slight differences are insignificant compared to the Ecumenical Creeds that the majority of modern Christian denominations share today: the Nicene, Apostolic, and Athanasian Creeds. Here's part of the Athanasian Creed to be clear about your core beliefs:

"Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

I still can't fathom what this has to do with the teachings of Jesus. Sitteth on the right hand of the father? I guess we're drawn to the Most High through different understandings. I'm fulfilled by parables about the Kingdom, whereas others seem to need their imagination stimulated through imagery and theology.

This is a interesting topic and I'm curious what others have to say. What are the similarities between the Roman and modern churches? How do they both differ from the apostolic churches and the ante-nicene era? These little blurbs from the wiki entry is what really interests me:

"The earliest followers of Jesus were apocalyptic Jewish Christians. Some Early Christian groups were strictly Jewish, such as the Ebionites and the early Christian community in Jerusalem, led by James, the brother of Jesus. According to Acts 9:1–2, they described themselves as 'disciples of the Lord' and [followers] 'of the Way'..."

"The development of doctrine, the position of orthodoxy, and the relationship between the various opinions is a matter of continuing academic debate. Since most Christians today subscribe to the doctrines established by the Nicene Creed, modern Christian theologians tend to regard the early debates as a unified orthodox position against a minority of heretics. Other scholars, drawing upon distinctions between Jewish Christians, Pauline Christianity, and other groups such as Marcionitesand Montanists, argue that early Christianity was always fragmented, with contemporaneous competing beliefs.

We know that Arianism was more popular in the Christian "world" than Orthodox, up until the 5th century.

The Ebionite topic has been mentioned at VC (I've searched it :)). It deserves it's own thread. So little is known about that time period but I hope to learn more about the apostolic and ante-nicene history.

Thanks as always for the discussion.
 

JoChris

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,238
Of course the reformed churches were an offshoot of the RCC. I guess our opinion depends on how drastic we think the reforms of the 16th century were.
From a bible-believing Christian perspective, what appears minor to outsiders is extremely major.

The Catholic Church went from:
Bible ONLY ---- > Bible only + Early Church Fathers --- > bible + Early Church Fathers + developing traditions i.e first specifically Roman Catholic teachings -----> Roman Catholic doctrine + bible.

The Protestant/Lutheran/ Baptist churches have all attempted to return to what they believe the first church taught.
Some more literally than others.
Baptists have a very strong bible ONLY policy, but inevitably personal interpretations are involved in reading it
Presbyterians pastors I have listened to are extremely focused on theology, some more on theology than the bible.

Lutherans seem to be a lot closer to the Catholic Church in style and substance than they would care to admit, despite
Luther being total opposite in his Faith ONLY (in Jesus Christ) position for salvation (and excommunicated for that teaching by the RCC).

From your meme I'd say these slight differences are insignificant compared to the Ecumenical Creeds that the majority of modern Christian denominations share today: the Nicene, Apostolic, and Athanasian Creeds.
The main denominations agree about core doctrines about Jesus, God, Trinity etc.
The adding of church teachings and traditions changed the belief system gradually until the nature of the faith itself was changed.
Belief in a church does not equal faith in Jesus. The Roman Catholic church teaches there is no difference, that faith in RCC itself is Christian faith.

I still can't fathom what this has to do with the teachings of Jesus. Sitteth on the right hand of the father? I guess we're drawn to the Most High through different understandings. I'm fulfilled by parables about the Kingdom, whereas others seem to need their imagination stimulated through imagery and theology.
I will try to translate some of that, using the bible. It was probably easy language in their opinion at the time.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 3:16 [Jesus said] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world.

John 6:39 [Jesus said] And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person.

2 Peter 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

John 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. https://www.gotquestions.org/I-AM.html


For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead.

Acts 2:36 [Peter said to crowd ]Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Acts 4:10 [Peter said] Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. [From account of paralyzed man's healing Acts chapter 4]

[Stephen's stoning Acts 7] Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."


Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


This is a interesting topic and I'm curious what others have to say. What are the similarities between the Roman and modern churches? How do they both differ from the apostolic churches and the ante-nicene era? These little blurbs from the wiki entry is what really interests me:

"The earliest followers of Jesus were apocalyptic Jewish Christians. Some Early Christian groups were strictly Jewish, such as the Ebionites and the early Christian community in Jerusalem, led by James, the brother of Jesus. According to Acts 9:1–2, they described themselves as 'disciples of the Lord' and [followers] 'of the Way'..."

"The development of doctrine, the position of orthodoxy, and the relationship between the various opinions is a matter of continuing academic debate. Since most Christians today subscribe to the doctrines established by the Nicene Creed, modern Christian theologians tend to regard the early debates as a unified orthodox position against a minority of heretics. Other scholars, drawing upon distinctions between Jewish Christians, Pauline Christianity, and other groups such as Marcionitesand Montanists, argue that early Christianity was always fragmented, with contemporaneous competing beliefs.

We know that Arianism was more popular in the Christian "world" than Orthodox, up until the 5th century.

The Ebionite topic has been mentioned at VC (I've searched it :)). It deserves it's own thread. So little is known about that time period but I hope to learn more about the apostolic and ante-nicene history.

Thanks as always for the discussion.
For that section I am asking any Christians who know about Ebionites to discuss.

P.S. I am an ex-Catholic - it was through reading the bible in primary school I learned that so much was not taught to us in RE lessons. A Christian church should be teaching the Gospel - not traditions, Mary, the Saints, Purgatory, the Sacraments, the Pope.

I never learned about Christianity in a strict religious Catholic schools. I was amongst the last generation to have many nuns in Australian primary schools doing the RE lessons.

I learned about Jesus outside the Catholic Church. Protestants have our own issues, separating over relatively minor theological doctrinal disputes at times, but we have aimed to believe the Bible first ALWAYS. The Bible is where we learn about Jesus. No faith in the Bible inevitably means no faith In Jesus. The Bible leads to Jesus.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
12,040
@DavidSon

I have come across “Ebionism” as a narrative on a few occasions without having a name for it, so thanks for filling in the blanks...

Question: "What is Ebionism?"

Answer: Ebionism was a false view of the nature of Jesus Christ that arose in the second century. Ebionites (or Ebioneans) denied Jesus’ divinity and believed that Jesus was the Son of God only by virtue of His being “adopted” by God; according to Ebionism, Jesus was a descendant of David and a gifted man, but nothing more. They rejected the epistles of Paul—for whom they held a special animus—and only accepted one gospel (Matthew’s) as containing some truth. Ebionism also taught the necessity of keeping the Jewish law. On many levels, Ebionism was heretical.

The origins of Ebionism are obscure, but the heresy most likely traces back to the earliest days of the church. The first Christian writer to mention them by name was Irenaeus in the late second century. Other writers who wrote against Ebionism include Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Tertullian. The Ebionites were the heirs apparent of the Judaizers who stirred up trouble in the apostolic age (see Acts 15:1; Galatians 1:6–9; 2:16, 21). One theory explaining the source of the word Ebionism is that it comes from an Aramean word meaning “poor” or “lowly.” If this theory is true, then Ebionites considered themselves the “poor ones,” i.e., “humble” followers of Jesus.

The Ebionites crafted their own “gospel” by revising the Gospel of Matthew; they called their book “The Gospel According to the Hebrews.” This book, which presents Jesus as a mere human, divides Jesus’ life into two parts: pre-baptism and post-baptism. According to Ebionism, at Jesus’ baptism there appeared a bright light and a voice from heaven said, “This day have I begotten thee.” In that moment, Jesus “became” Christ, according to Ebionism, and was imbued with power to fulfill the Messiah’s mission—although He remained a man, not God, throughout His ministry. According to Tertullian, the Ebionites considered Jesus to be a wise and gifted person, on the level of Solomon, but not as great as Moses.

Since Ebionites rejected the divinity of Christ, they also rejected the virgin birth. In their glorification of the Law of Moses, they believed that Jesus Himself was justified by keeping the Law. According to Ebionism, if one could just follow Jesus’ example and keep the Law perfectly, then he could also become a “christ” and be justified by God.

The works-based salvation taught in Ebionism is explicitly condemned in Scripture, most notably in Paul’s writings: “A person is not justified by the works of the law. . . . By the works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16). “No one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law” (Romans 3:20). Because of Paul’s countering of their doctrine, the Ebionites accused him of being a Gentile and denied his apostolic credentials, saying he had never been called by God. They also attacked his personal character, calling him deceitful, proud, and bitter.

The early form of Ebionism is sometimes referred to as Pharisaic Ebionism to distinguish it from a later form known as Essene or Gnostic Ebionism, which was a more ascetic and separated form of the original. The latter form of Ebionism was closely related to the Essene movement.

Ebionism is clearly refuted in the Bible. The truth about Jesus Christ is that He is the pre-existent Son of God; He did not “become” the Son through adoption, nor was He “imbued” with “Christ power” at His baptism. He was and is the eternal Second Person of the Trinity. “About the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom’” (Hebrews 1:8, quoting Psalm 45:6). “In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

Ebionism lasted about two hundred years but eventually petered out. The Ebionites either chose to return to full-fledged Judaism, rejecting Christ altogether, or they moved into a more orthodox version of Christianity.

Source
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
3,259
Protestants practice idolatry too, they worship the Bible.

Let’s not pretend they are any better or that the reformation was worth it. While Luther did whatever he wanted while writing on the toilet because of chronic constipation he betrayed peasants and allowed them to be slaughtered. He reduced Europe to cannibalism and his vile anti-semitism set the stage for the Holocaust.

As an institution the Catholic Church is extremely corrupt and evil, but the laity are often far better examples of Christians than Protestants.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
12,040
Protestants practice idolatry too, they worship the Bible.

Let’s not pretend they are any better or that the reformation was worth it. While Luther did whatever he wanted while writing on the toilet because of chronic constipation he betrayed peasants and allowed them to be slaughtered. He reduced Europe to cannibalism and his vile anti-semitism set the stage for the Holocaust.

As an institution the Catholic Church is extremely corrupt and evil, but the laity are often far better examples of Christians than Protestants.
I think you make [some] fair points here in identifying the fact that some of Luther’s attitudes and doctrines were objectionable.

Where people fail to understand the nature of the Reformation is that they picture it as an event rather than a movement. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli et al are credited with being “reformers”, yet, like many Christians, they were all “works in progress”

Inasmuch as a person who identifies as a Christian is genuinely born again, reflects the character of Jesus and lets the “word of Christ dwell in them richly”, they are they are true disciples and followers of “The Way”.

Judging bad doctrine of misled (or misleading) denominations is separate from judging individual people. I hope you understand the spirit in which I say this.
 
Last edited:

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,917
There may be some differences but not as many as there used to be. Protestantism is reverting back to Catholicism. There is now more unity between Catholicism and Protestantism than there ever was before. The ecumenical movement is proof of that. Now Catholics and Protestants are all about what unifies them. They are putting aside their differences and focusing on conformity rather than strong doctrine.


A Call for Unity or Conformity?
At a recent gathering in Phoenix, a special video message from Pope Francis was delivered to members of the “John 17 Movement,” which describes itself as “a contagious call to all professing Christians to relate together properly, beckoning us to embrace the final prayer of Jesus.” The pope used this occasion to call for unity among Christians of all denominations and said that division is the work of the “Father of Lies” and the “Father of Discord,” who does everything possible to keep the church divided.

“I feel like saying something that may sound controversial, or even heretical,” he said in the video. “But there is someone who ‘knows’ that, despite our differences, we are one. It is he who is persecuting us. It is he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with (the blood of) martyrdom.” The devil, he said, “knows that Christians are disciples of Christ, that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic … he doesn’t care! They are Christians.” [1]

In the video, produced by the Vatican, Pope Francis adds that a “division is a wound in the body of the church of Christ. And we do not want this wound to remain open.”

“Ecumenism” is the aim of promoting unity among the Christian churches of the world. While some organizations, like the World Council of Churches, have made positive contributions in the world and promoted clearer dialogue among different faith groups, there are various aspects of these movements that are not in harmony with Scripture and God’s purposes for His church at the end of time.

Unity is often held among these groups in such high esteem that anything perceived as causing separation is deemed wrong. Doctrinal differences are minimized, and a push for one giant church is encouraged. Such a view is held in contrast to Scripture. The Bible not only describes God’s end-time church as being a remnant, but it also describes true believers as those “keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 12:17). Even Christ’s prayer for unity is set in the context of the disciples who “have kept Your word” (John 17:6).

The basis for true unity is not simply conformity, but a call to faithfulness to the Bible. Many in the ecumenical movement do not see Scripture as authoritative; experience is held above sound theology. Prophecy is almost completely absent as is any focus on the second coming of Christ. There is a push to see evangelism strictly in terms of saving people from social ills, but not pointing out sin or judgment. The movement also pushes strong involvement in political issues.

The Bible predicts a false religious movement will arise in the last days to enforce the world to follow after unbiblical teachings cloaked in the forms of Christianity. It will present itself as the one true church, though John says it will be mortally wounded,” but this “deadly wound was healed” (Revelation 13:3). Furthermore, most of the world will marvel and follow this beast power. Is this the type of unity a true believer will choose?

God’s people believe in unity based on Scripture and following “the Lamb wherever He goes” (Revelation 14:4).


https://www.amazingfacts.org/news-and-features/af-blog/article/id/11797/t/a-call-for-unity-or-conformity-
 

A.J.

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
1,245
Of course the reformed churches were an offshoot of the RCC. I guess our opinion depends on how drastic we think the reforms of the 16th century were. From your meme I'd say these slight differences are insignificant compared to the Ecumenical Creeds that the majority of modern Christian denominations share today: the Nicene, Apostolic, and Athanasian Creeds. Here's part of the Athanasian Creed to be clear about your core beliefs:

"Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

I still can't fathom what this has to do with the teachings of Jesus. Sitteth on the right hand of the father? I guess we're drawn to the Most High through different understandings. I'm fulfilled by parables about the Kingdom, whereas others seem to need their imagination stimulated through imagery and theology.

This is a interesting topic and I'm curious what others have to say. What are the similarities between the Roman and modern churches? How do they both differ from the apostolic churches and the ante-nicene era? These little blurbs from the wiki entry is what really interests me:

"The earliest followers of Jesus were apocalyptic Jewish Christians. Some Early Christian groups were strictly Jewish, such as the Ebionites and the early Christian community in Jerusalem, led by James, the brother of Jesus. According to Acts 9:1–2, they described themselves as 'disciples of the Lord' and [followers] 'of the Way'..."

"The development of doctrine, the position of orthodoxy, and the relationship between the various opinions is a matter of continuing academic debate. Since most Christians today subscribe to the doctrines established by the Nicene Creed, modern Christian theologians tend to regard the early debates as a unified orthodox position against a minority of heretics. Other scholars, drawing upon distinctions between Jewish Christians, Pauline Christianity, and other groups such as Marcionitesand Montanists, argue that early Christianity was always fragmented, with contemporaneous competing beliefs.

We know that Arianism was more popular in the Christian "world" than Orthodox, up until the 5th century.

The Ebionite topic has been mentioned at VC (I've searched it :)). It deserves it's own thread. So little is known about that time period but I hope to learn more about the apostolic and ante-nicene history.

Thanks as always for the discussion.
Off shoot? In a literal sense, sure, but I don’t like that verbiage
Drastic? Very. God always has somebody rise up to preserve truth throughout the centuries. Look up any legit church history account
 

Vytas

Star
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
1,911
Protestants practice idolatry too, they worship the Bible.
Because we believe what it says literally ? That includes 2Timothy 3 which tells what is Bible purpose and how it should be used. No worship mentioned. So either we do not worship it because we do not believe In 2tim3 or we do not worship it because we aren't told to do so..It's a tool. As one protestant wrote "bought myself a mini Bible, couldn't read it letters too small, burns well though". Quite famous blogger in my country.
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,917
The Fall of Protestantism

Summary: The line has been drawn for Protestant churches: follow the Catholic Church in doctrine and practice, or follow the Bible.

There was a time when Protestants had the courage to say that the little horn of Daniel 7, the Antichrist, is the Papacy. But today they are silent. There was a time when Protestants believed that God created the earth in six literal days, but many have adopted the theory of evolution like Rome. Many Protestant churches have rejected the Flood and Creation accounts of Genesis, calling them myths.

When the truth of God’s holy Sabbath was brought to the Protestant world and its leaders, they rejected it and clung to the tradition of Sunday worship; a tradition of the Catholic Church. And through the ages, the churches of the world have continued to reject the truth of God’s Sabbath. The reformer Melancthon was one such man who did not understand the Sabbath message, saying this:

"The Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath, teaching that all Mosaic ceremonies may be omitted, since the gospel has been preached."

Today, Protestantism as a whole is dead. Although individual Christians within each denomination may be walking according to all the light they have received, Protestantism itself, as a whole, is no longer what it used to be. The lines have become blurred.

"The man who thinks he can be a Protestant and yet reject the Bible or some portion of it, is making a profound mistake…true Protestantism cannot only be anti-Catholic…it must also be anti-modernist, anti-evolutionist, and against every evil that is sapping the life of the Christian churches of today. At the same time it must be in favor of every good thing—prayer, Bible study, and all that is meant by Christian service. That is the Protestantism that is so sorely needed." Arthur S. Maxwell, Protestantism Imperiled (Warburton, Australia: SIGNS Publishing): 5.

In spite of the rejection of truth by the formal churches, God has a special invitation for His honest, sincere children. God does not want His children to remain in this fallen state of Babylon. He appeals to them in Revelation 18:4:

"Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues."

God wants us to identify the Antichrist and to be acquainted with its sinister workings, so that we don’t participate in its crimes against God. He knows that many have no idea how wide and deep the Antichrist system works today. That’s why He has given us prophecy in the Bible. With the Word, we can inform ourselves and be aware and principled about what we believe and do.

In Isaiah 1:18, God shows us that he wants us to use our intellect to make informed choices about who we serve and how:

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

The Reformation drew a line between the Roman system and God’s people, and at the end of time, that line will again be drawn more clearly and distinctly than ever before.


amazingdiscoveries.org
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
Protestants practice idolatry too, they worship the Bible.
The Bible is where we get our doctrine from...it’s necessary to faith.

Let’s not pretend they are any better or that the reformation was worth it. While Luther did whatever he wanted while writing on the toilet because of chronic constipation he betrayed peasants and allowed them to be slaughtered. He reduced Europe to cannibalism and his vile anti-semitism set the stage for the Holocaust.
The reformation was worth it, though Luther didn’t go very far from catholicism.

Do you really think like this? Haha, amazing.
How did he reduce Europe to cannibalism and he set the stage for anti semitism...how many centuries later? Umm...ok?

As an institution the Catholic Church is extremely corrupt and evil, but the laity are often far better examples of Christians than Protestants.
Though they don’t know who Jesus really is and what He really wants them to do because they don’t read the Bible but follow their church?
 

DUSTY

Established
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
265
The Catholic Church went from:
Bible ONLY ---- >
.
The Catholic church was never 'bible only'. The bible wasn't established until almost 400 AD and the Catholic church was around long before then. The first use of the written term 'Catholic church' was by Ignatius of Antioch who wrote in about 107. The Catholic church started as oral teaching and tradition. Then, after it put the bible together, it included the bible in those oral teachings and traditions. It has never been 'bible only'.
 
Top