I've noticed an anti-Catholic prejudice in many Christian materials - wondering...

[TracyR]

Okay all. Everyone is totally getting off the original point here of what the OP was asking.

I too am curious. I think it has alot to do with doctorine personally. Protestants aren't going to teach the way to get to Heaven is through obeying the Sacraments and doing good works. Catholics aren't going to teach their children that to get to Heaven they need to be saved. Plain and simple there.

 

If you purchase a book written by someone of the Protestant Faith you are going to get that point of view in the text. Just as if you buy a text from a Catholic Publisher you are going to get a Catholic point of view.

 

When did the thoughts come about? Most likely the Reformation when Luther wrote his 95 Theses. You have to remember that the Catholic church in his time there were many who lived in the lap of luxury and accepted indulgences and there were many other things that were going on in his time that he felt was not right with the church. Luther's purpose was to make the church see these ways they were going about things as wrong in hopes they would change. He never did really want to start a religion. That was started by his followers who believed the same thing he did.

Do I think that is where it all started? No. I think that is where it began. It really all started when one person didn't believe one set of beliefs and went out and started another religion , and then another person didn't believe those beliefs and started another religion, and along the way beliefs became distorted about the beliefs of other religions.

The Baptists are anti-Catholic no way around that. I was born into a Catholic home , attended Catholic schools , and somewhere in my elementary years my mother converted to Protestant and we attended many different types of churches one being Baptist. Went to a Baptist school and was taught the belief that Catholics worshiped false idols because they bow down to statues and how they were condemned to hell because they were not saved. I was subjected to the anti-Catholic attitude by seeing church members of the congregation yell outside our bus window( we were picked up by a bus for church) yelling at Catholics going to Mass on Sunday mornings to " get saved".

So as much as Abeka , and Bob Jones are appealing curriculums for homeschooling families. They believe this type of doctorine and we can't make them believe any differently because it IS what they believe. This is what they will add to their textbooks because their curriculum is geared to Protestants who hold this belief in their faith. No way around it. Even if we all wish harmony and peace in the world by all faiths. Its out there unfortunatley. Who thought this up? I don't think we'll know. But its out there.

 

It took me along time to learn that what I was taught was wrong. That no, Catholics don't worship false idols , that no one really knows the right way to get to Heaven, we can only guess ,and speculate ,and pray and hope that what we are doing to get there is the best way to get there.

[Erica in PA]

 

I am wondering if someone posted beliefs *about their own religion* stating that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God and is the only source for Christian doctrine........if those of you who are Christian and are offended by his statements would be offended by that statement?

 

If someone posted that man is saved by faith alone......would you be offended??

 

I do find a double standard among what is acceptable. I certainly would not be offended by a Protestant posting sola scriptura and sole fide beliefs. Why should I? It is what they believe. It is tantamount to saying I am wrong for believing in the infallibility of the Pope on faith and morals and the role of Tradition.

 

 

 

I agree with you!! This is what I was trying to say above (if I ever even ended posting that-- I may have deleted it; I'm getting sleepy and confused, lol.)

 

But yes, even though I am an evangelical Christian, I agree with you on this point. People should be able to freely express what they believe, without having to apologize for it, *even if* that means implying that someone else is wrong. I am careful with what I say on the board, but I don't believe that every belief is equally valid. I don't think that all paths lead to the same God. I believe it when the Bible says that the road is actually a narrow one. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Me." Etc. When it reaches the point where none of us can express a thought that implies that anyone else might be in error... where does that get us?

 

I don't agree with the theology being discussed here, but I do agree that there is nothing wrong or rude about someone sharing his beliefs, even if I think they are incorrect.

 

Erica

[Laura K (NC)]

Catholics aren't going to teach their children that to get to Heaven they need to be saved. Plain and simple there.

Careful! I'm afraid this just isn't true. If a Catholic parent doesn't teach his child that Jesus is the only Way to heaven, and the Truth and Life, then there are some serious deficiencies going on.

 

But this does demonstrate an error that isn't anti-Catholic, but could be construed as anti-Catholic. Anti-Catholic sentiment is malicious, but very few Protestant textbooks are actually malicious (websites and popular books and tracts, yes, textbooks, not so much). They might present Catholicism incorrectly, but that's not the same thing.

 

With that said, though, incorrect teaching by Protestants should not be read by young Catholics, lest they think that what is said is true. It probably should be read by older Catholic teens, though, along side the Church's own definitions of itself, so the nature of the misunderstanding can be understood... and then corrected when it's prudent to do so. Every Christian should be prepared to know the claims against their faith.

[dangermom]

That caught my eye too. I don't think that's accurate. (I'm Christian, but neither Catholic or Protestant, so I have no stake in this either way.)

 

Is "being saved" being defined as accepting Christ as Savior, and that in itself is enough, without baptism or any sacrament? How exactly is it defined?

 

I think a Catholic might say (I'm guessing, help me out here) that faith in Christ is of course central, but baptism and other sacraments are necessary as expressions of that faith and as, uh, things (need a word here) which convey grace from God to man? They are commanded by God and thus faith in Christ is incomplete without them? (Baptism and communion are both commandments in the NT, is what I mean.) Because if you have faith, then you'll do those things, it's part of the package.

 

I'd like to get that a little clearer, or else I feel like we're just talking past each other. What a Protestant calls 'being saved' might not mean just exactly what I think it does, you know? Since each denomination tends to talk a bit differently I think it can sometimes be hard to understand each other correctly.

 

Gah, I find this all very tricky.

 

 

To address the OP, though, I do sometimes see anti-Catholic statements in some materials, but as I don't use them I probably hear such stuff more often from actual people. They tend to be the same people who tell me I'm not really Christian either, so I figure at least I have some nice company.

[Joanne]

Eh.

 

I've observed in both curriculum and sub-culture a bias against anyone non married once, evangelical, Protestant, Bible literal, spiritually exclusive and politically conservative both from a fiscal and lifestyle standpoint.

 

Over the years I've homeschooled (8 now!!), this has changed. Slightly.

[Laura K (NC)]

It's more than just saying you acceptJesusChristasmypersonalLordandSavior. I think there are very few Christians who believe you don't also have to do something, even if that something involves water and a trinitarian formula (that is, baptism). But then there's the thief on the cross, who was saved without having to do anything but profess faith. His was an extreme case, though, and extreme cases don't generally prove the rules. :)

 

You're asking some pretty deep questions. "What does it mean to be saved?" is a question that all Christians must ask and answer, and the answers will differ depending on the tradition of the Christian. Salvation is surely the goal of most Christians, I would hope! After that, the hows and whats start getting tricky. I've been trying to figure out a short answer from a Catholic POV but I can't seem to make it short enough. A sufficient answer would include a creed like the Nicene creed, but it would also have to include a little something on how to pray (as Jesus taught), on how to act (as Jesus taught), and how to be sustained all through the Christian life (as Jesus taught). (That's essentially the outline of the catechism).

[Colleen]

I did my graduate studies in theology at a Jesuit university. Every main line Protestant denomination was represented there, along with, naturally, the Catholics

 

Remember back when you started the discussion about the term "homosexual lifestyle"? During that conversation, some folks explained that they believe the Bible to be infallible, and that a literal interpretation of God's Word, in their opinion, portrays homosexuality is a sin. (I'm summarizing their pov, of course.) Because I knew about your theological studies and interactions with people from a wide array of faiths, I assumed and stated that you were familiar with their viewpoint. You corrected me and said you aren't familiar at all with that theology.

 

What you mentioned here is why I made my assumption. I'm confused as to how you could have studied with people from every main line denomination and yet never come into contact with what was shared in that other thread. Fodder for another discussion, no doubt, but I was struck by that thought when I opened your post here.

[Michelle in MO]

which was (paraphrased), "How did this bias develop?"

 

I think Patty Joanna's post gives a very plausible reason:

 

Thnk about how homeschooling developed as a phenomenon. In the 50s, people started thinking about how they wanted to educate their children. Catholics, in large numbers, sent their kids to parochial schools. Protestants put a lot into the public school system. When the public school system changed due to court rulings about the presentation of religion in public schools, it was the devoutly Protestant who pulled their kids out first. Many of these people have in their church's statements of faith things that yes, do go back to the Reformation and all that was "protested". THESE are the people who started homeschooling even when it was illegal to do so, because they very much valued their children's religious development. And so you see today the vestiges of this beginning.

 

 

The Catholic church has had its educational system for literally centuries; in America, many Protestants sent their kids to public schools. When the public schools started having serious problems, Protestants started looking for other means of educating their children.

 

I don't know the history of some of the larger publishers, i.e., BJU or Abeka, but I would imagine that much of their educational materials developed around that time. Some of the bias may be simply a Protestant POV, which includes sometimes misrepresentations of Catholic beliefs, and some of the bias may indeed be intentional.

 

At any rate, this to me seems like the most plausible explanation. I hope that this conversation can continue with a tone of mutual respect.

[8filltheheart]

You're asking some pretty deep questions. "What does it mean to be saved?" is a question that all Christians must ask and answer, and the answers will differ depending on the tradition of the Christian. Salvation is surely the goal of most Christians, I would hope! After that, the hows and whats start getting tricky. I've been trying to figure out a short answer from a Catholic POV but I can't seem to make it short enough. A sufficient answer would include a creed like the Nicene creed, but it would also have to include a little something on how to pray (as Jesus taught), on how to act (as Jesus taught), and how to be sustained all through the Christian life (as Jesus taught). (That's essentially the outline of the catechism).

 

This is about the only opportunity I have to sit in front of my computer today, but I totally agree with you Laura.

 

I think the main difference in the term saved as used by Protestants and Catholic POV is that Catholics do not believe once saved, always saved. (though I do believe that not all Protestant denominations believe that as well) We believe "work out your salvation in fear and trembling." I am pretty sure a Catholic interpretation of that line is not going to be the same as a Protestant.

 

We believe one must employ the grace that is freely offered by our Lord to live a holy life. It is not that works provide salvation. Contrary. We believe in salvation through grace. Yet, we were created with free will. If we profess to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and He provides us the grace to live our life for Him, we must. It is really that simple. We are called to attempt to live lives of heroic virtue. (not that we will succeed. But that we even though we internally struggle with our free will, we will try. That we will attempt to live lives reflecting the 4 cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance, as well as the 3 great theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity or love)

 

Yet, we can also use our free will to denounce God, commit horrible crimes, and turn away from the saving grace. God never abandons us, but we believe that we can abandon God. Thus, even though baptized, and once a believer, we can lose our salvation through our own desire to denounce God.

 

Yet, we also believe that all can be forgiven. That is what the sacrament of confession provides. It is our ability to ask God to forgive us for our transgressions, renew us with grace, and repair the damage we have done to our soul. Again.....it takes more than simple confession by our mouth, it takes conviction that we will attempt to go forth and sin no more. A conscience attempt to use our free will to turn toward God and all that is holy.

 

In reference to Laura's description of the salvation of the thief......there are 3 forms of baptism. By water (which most understand), by blood (which is martyrdom), and by desire (a profession of true love for Jesus and sincere desire for His forgiveness for all our transgressions). The thief was saved by baptism of desire.

 

I think that all only ties back to the OP through one simple path......lack of real understanding. Many Protestant materials simply publish information about Catholicism that are not true. I also believe that this is not restricted to Catholicism. I have read distortions about many other faiths as well.

 

Well, I have got to run and actually clean my house and do major grocery shopping. School starts Monday.

 

May the Lord bless all of you today. :)

[Peek a Boo]

It's more than just saying you acceptJesusChristasmypersonalLordandSavior. I think there are very few Christians who believe you don't also have to do something, even if that something involves water and a trinitarian formula (that is, baptism). But then there's the thief on the cross, who was saved without having to do anything but profess faith. His was an extreme case, though, and extreme cases don't generally prove the rules. :)

 

I believe it is two fold: confess w/ your mouth and believe in your heart.

 

that's what's required for salvation.

 

the FRUIT of that salvation is the actions of which most speak.

 

i don't see baptism as having anything to do w/ literal water: Jesus IS the Living Water. We are to be immersed in HIM. Even Philip clarified to the Eunuch that it wasn't about water, but about belief. can a Christian undergo a water baptism? sure. is it necessary for salvatiion? no.

 

While I pretty much agree w/ the Trinitarian formula, I don't believe even THAT is necessary for salvation -- you can still be a Christian and have a misunderstanding of scripture. I think a lot of denominational differences fall under this "personal conviction" category.

[Peek a Boo]

It's not his beliefs that are offensive for me, it IS the tone of his discourse. I am in agreement with his beliefs (assuming he is a practicing, orthodox Catholic, which I gather he is), but because he expresses them in such a flippant, in-your-face manner, he is unnecessarily sewing seeds of discord and resentment. You and some others are not offended--great. But it's not the way Catholics are encouraged to dialog with their brothers and sisters in Christ, and I do believe others--myself included--HAVE found his manner offensive.

 

 

See, i think he took great care in expressing his limitations in expressing himself before proceeding --he made a diligent effort to provide a non-offensive basis for discourse. That one takes a comment to be "flippant" and "in-your-face" doesn't necessarily mean they ARE. I've actually learned quite a bit by his statements because they WERE so clear and not mired in a buncha PC gobbledegook. So maybe the seeds he was sowing weren't meant for YOU, but for others like me so we can have a better understanding of the Catholic faith. Is THAT sowing discourse? Or merely ministering to a different audience that needs to hear the info in a different manner?

[Peek a Boo]

well, Jesus was an evangelist so far as He, uh, evangelized, lol.

 

1 : to preach the gospel to [check.]

2 : to convert to Christianity [uh, check, lol]

 

I'm a bit lost here.. convert to Christianity? Did it exist during Jesus time? Odd, I thought he was a Rabbi? Do the Jews refer to the Old Testament as the Gospel?

 

Jesus instituted a New Covenant at the Last Supper.

He preached the gospel of God's Kingdom.

 

yes, He was Jewish.

The book of Hebrews does a pretty good job explaining Christ as our eternal High Priest and the difference in the Old and the New Covenants.

[Nicole M]

 

Remember back when you started the discussion about the term "homosexual lifestyle"? During that conversation, some folks explained that they believe the Bible to be infallible, and that a literal interpretation of God's Word, in their opinion, portrays homosexuality is a sin. (I'm summarizing their pov, of course.) Because I knew about your theological studies and interactions with people from a wide array of faiths, I assumed and stated that you were familiar with their viewpoint. You corrected me and said you aren't familiar at all with that theology.

 

What you mentioned here is why I made my assumption. I'm confused as to how you could have studied with people from every main line denomination and yet never come into contact with what was shared in that other thread. Fodder for another discussion, no doubt, but I was struck by that thought when I opened your post here.

 

That's a good question and I can see why you would wonder that. A little background about the program: my own denomination was the very last main line Protestant church to agree to accept degrees and ordain ministers from the Jesuit university. It was a very slow process, bringing Protestant denominations on board. But the thing is, up here in the northwest, there aren't any other options for theology programs unless you move to California or BC. So finally, for a variety of reasons, our church jumped on the bandwagon (with about a million stipulations), in part because this is the most unchurched area of the US and membership - in all churches Protestant and Catholic, except the megas, I think - is falling dramatically. This is the cliff notes version; I could be way off.

 

I never thought about it at the time, but I'm assuming that only the most liberal individuals from any given Protestant denomination would even consider attending a Catholic university for their degree. I'm imagining that a more conservative protestant who felt called to ministry would be willing to make any sacrifice to pursue their degree far away - though in reality, the numbers indicate that this puts an enormous strain on marriages and families. So while there were more conservative folks in my classes, I only sensed their conservatism and did not fully understand where they were coming from or what they believed - they were Catholic. I remember a question from a very upset conservative woman in class, and I listened intently to the discussion between her and Father R, the professor, and I came away thinking, My word! He understood exactly where she was coming from and I have pretty much no idea what just happened in that conversation.

 

I guess the bottom line is that I've mainly been hangin' with those bleeding heart liberals. The conservative pov for me has always been one held by those "out there", the other, and dismissed. This board is the first "place" I've encountered real people, people I respect and for whom I feel a great deal of fondness, whose views are so very different from mine, and who are willing to engage in real conversation. I'm very grateful for that. I have said more than once to my irl friends, "Hoo-boy! I'm gettin' me quite the education on that discussion board!"

 

Does this make sense?

[Nicole M]

I think Patty Joanna's post gives a very plausible reason:

 

 

Thnk about how homeschooling developed as a phenomenon. In the 50s, people started thinking about how they wanted to educate their children. Catholics, in large numbers, sent their kids to parochial schools. Protestants put a lot into the public school system. When the public school system changed due to court rulings about the presentation of religion in public schools, it was the devoutly Protestant who pulled their kids out first. Many of these people have in their church's statements of faith things that yes, do go back to the Reformation and all that was "protested". THESE are the people who started homeschooling even when it was illegal to do so, because they very much valued their children's religious development. And so you see today the vestiges of this beginning.

 

The Catholic church has had its educational system for literally centuries; in America, many Protestants sent their kids to public schools. When the public schools started having serious problems, Protestants started looking for other means of educating their children.

 

I don't know the history of some of the larger publishers, i.e., BJU or Abeka, but I would imagine that much of their educational materials developed around that time. Some of the bias may be simply a Protestant POV, which includes sometimes misrepresentations of Catholic beliefs, and some of the bias may indeed be intentional.

 

At any rate, this to me seems like the most plausible explanation. I hope that this conversation can continue with a tone of mutual respect.

 

Thank you. This explanation makes the most sense to me, too.

[Jenny in Atl]

well, Jesus was an evangelist so far as He, uh, evangelized, lol.

 

1 : to preach the gospel to [check.]

2 : to convert to Christianity [uh, check, lol]

 

 

 

Jesus instituted a New Covenant at the Last Supper.

He preached the gospel of God's Kingdom.

 

yes, He was Jewish.

The book of Hebrews does a pretty good job explaining Christ as our eternal High Priest and the difference in the Old and the New Covenants.

 

 

Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree. I have always felt Christians should really be call Paulist (The Church of Paul). He is the reason you are a Christian today. W/o Paul/Saul, Christ's teachings would have stayed among the Jews.

[Staci in MO]

He's just stating his beliefs. I don't happen to agree, but I have no problem with his sharing them.

[laylamcb]

He's just stating his beliefs. I don't happen to agree, but I have no problem with his sharing them.

 

:iagree: Actually, it was an interesting peek into Catholicism for me; I don't know lots and lots about it. I didn't get any sense that I was being denigrated by any statements made or names used; I appreciated his honesty and information. But I understand that others felt differently.

 

:001_smile:

[Laura K (NC)]

1 Corinthians 1:12-13 (New International Version)

 

12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."

 

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

[laylamcb]

1 Corinthians 1:12-13 (New International Version)

 

12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."

 

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

 

I disagree (respectfully) with Jenny's conclusion, but I don't think that this is what she meant. (Please forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, Jenny!) She didn't say that Paul taught believers to follow him; her point was that what we know about Christ and his teachings was brought to "us" (the Gentiles) and explained to us by Paul.

[Laura K (NC)]

What you're calling "salvation" is what I understand as "grace." I'm going to have to investigate more how those two words interact with each other and affect how Protestants and Catholics communicate. This is not unrelated to the OP's point. The more Christians try to figure out ways to communicate with each other and find common ground, the better our kids' textbooks will be. I'm afraid those irenic textbooks won't be ready in time for my kids' use or even my grandkids' (Lord willing) use, though, *sigh*.

[Nicole M]

The more Christians try to figure out ways to communicate with each other and find common ground, the better our kids' textbooks will be. I'm afraid those irenic textbooks won't be ready in time for my kids' use or even my grandkids' (Lord willing) use, though, *sigh*.

 

I guess we'll have to write those texts! Or the discussion guides to go with them, eh?!

[Staci in MO]

And before I get flamed, let me emphasize that the ignorance is on *both* sides.

 

I know many Catholics that don't have a lot of understanding of Catholic teachings. They've just been taught that the protestants are wrong and they are right. There are many things they do because they've been told they're supposed to, but that seems to be where their knowledge ends.

 

In the same vein, while many protestants may be able to point to a few proof-texts that defend their particular denomination's position on a couple of issues, most are woefully ignorant of doctrine.

 

That's where a lot of the trouble starts. When you try to defend a position out of ignorance, it doesn't take long for it to degenerate into back-and-forth name calling.

[Laura K (NC)]

I thought the text was apropos, but I welcome correction. In 2000 years there has not been a sustained movement to use anything but "Christians" to name those who are saved by Christ. I teach my children the gospel, but I don't think they should call their belief "momism." :)

[Jenny in Atl]

I disagree (respectfully) with Jenny's conclusion, but I don't think that this is what she meant. (Please forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, Jenny!) She didn't say that Paul taught believers to follow him; her point was that what we know about Christ and his teachings was brought to "us" (the Gentiles) and explained to us by Paul.

 

Yup, you have it right. And I like that we can disagree. Folks far wiser than I are still debating just who the Gospel was meant for.

[Michelle in MO]

I disagree (respectfully) with Jenny's conclusion, but I don't think that this is what she meant. (Please forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, Jenny!) She didn't say that Paul taught believers to follow him; her point was that what we know about Christ and his teachings was brought to "us" (the Gentiles) and explained to us by Paul.

 

understand Jenny, too. Yes, Paul did indeed become the apostle to the Gentiles, but it's clear from the final chapters of all of the gospels that Christ's intentions were for the gospel to be brought to all people.

 

This is the great unifying statement:

 

1 Corinthians 1:12-13 (New International Version)

 

12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."

 

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

 

So, I believe that's why the name "Christians" has stuck; plus, in the book of Acts, the followers of Christ were first called Christians in Antioch. (But, Jenny, I still understand what you meant. ;) )

[TracyR]

Catholics aren't going to teach their children that to get to Heaven they need to be saved. Plain and simple there.

 

I apologize for not expanding on that. I mean Catholics aren't going to teach their children that once saved always saved and that there has to be no effort put into it after saying a prayer to God to come into their hearts. Protestants believe once you do this you are saved ,and once saved always saved. Baptism , Communion, Confession or any of the other sacraments play no role in being SAVED to a Protestant, because quite a few Protestant religions donot accept confession to a pastor or preacher, communion is only done on Easter , and Baptism is left as an option or not done at all until the child can decide for themselves if they want to be which in most cases they end up not being baptized at all. Nor do Protestants believe that you can get to Heaven by good works , or good works alone ( depending on which faith you belong to.)

 

That one and only prayer that I remember saying as a child and not really understanding by asking Jesus Christ to come into my heart ensured that I was going to Heaven.

 

Catholics donot believe this is the way to Heaven.

 

So through my late night ramblings last night I didn't make myself clear. The definition of being Saved for a Catholic is not the same for a Protestant at all.

[TXMomof4]

This is about the only opportunity I have to sit in front of my computer today, but I totally agree with you Laura.

 

I think the main difference in the term saved as used by Protestants and Catholic POV is that Catholics do not believe once saved, always saved. (though I do believe that not all Protestant denominations believe that as well) We believe "work out your salvation in fear and trembling." I am pretty sure a Catholic interpretation of that line is not going to be the same as a Protestant.

 

We believe one must employ the grace that is freely offered by our Lord to live a holy life. It is not that works provide salvation. Contrary. We believe in salvation through grace. Yet, we were created with free will. If we profess to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and He provides us the grace to live our life for Him, we must. It is really that simple. We are called to attempt to live lives of heroic virtue. (not that we will succeed. But that we even though we internally struggle with our free will, we will try. That we will attempt to live lives reflecting the 4 cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance, as well as the 3 great theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity or love)

 

Yet, we can also use our free will to denounce God, commit horrible crimes, and turn away from the saving grace. God never abandons us, but we believe that we can abandon God. Thus, even though baptized, and once a believer, we can lose our salvation through our own desire to denounce God.

 

Yet, we also believe that all can be forgiven. That is what the sacrament of confession provides. It is our ability to ask God to forgive us for our transgressions, renew us with grace, and repair the damage we have done to our soul. Again.....it takes more than simple confession by our mouth, it takes conviction that we will attempt to go forth and sin no more. A conscience attempt to use our free will to turn toward God and all that is holy.

 

In reference to Laura's description of the salvation of the thief......there are 3 forms of baptism. By water (which most understand), by blood (which is martyrdom), and by desire (a profession of true love for Jesus and sincere desire for His forgiveness for all our transgressions). The thief was saved by baptism of desire.

 

:)

 

 

It's funny, that is how I would explain my faith. God has chosen sinners, we have to choose God, it is through His grace that I am saved, not through my efforts, however, the effect of that grace calls me to live a fruitful life for him. I can choose to leave God, but God will never choose to leave me. I would have to push Him out, choose to live in a manner I know is not pleasing to him - he's not going to just get tired of my trying to live according to his will and not being successful.

 

And I suppose I would be defined as a Protestant.

 

This has been a fabulous discussion. I've learned a lot.

[Colleen]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Nicole.

 

I guess the bottom line is that I've mainly been hangin' with those bleeding heart liberals. The conservative pov for me has always been one held by those "out there", the other, and dismissed. This board is the first "place" I've encountered real people, people I respect and for whom I feel a great deal of fondness, whose views are so very different from mine, and who are willing to engage in real conversation. I'm very grateful for that. I have said more than once to my irl friends, "Hoo-boy! I'm gettin' me quite the education on that discussion board!"

 

Does this make sense?

 

Yes and no. Perhaps this is evidence of the diversity of my own beliefs, or the fact that the worlds in which I steep myself are polar opposites, because I didn't consider any of the views shared in that discussion to be either unusually liberal or extraordinarily conservative. It boiled down to two camps (simplification here, of course): Those who believe Scripture to convey homosexuality as sinful and those who don't. Either of those viewpoints are relatively easy to find amidst the churched population, in my experience.

 

One of these days, my dear, we will chat about this and all manner of other things in person ~ and a long chat it will be, no doubt!:)

[abreakfromlife]

Protestants believe once you do this you are saved and once saved always saved.

The definition of being Saved for a Catholic is not the same for a Protestant at all.

 

That definition isn't the same among Protestants, either. We are not in the OSAS camp, and still have a bit of company. But we're finding ourselves really drawing away from the 'pray this prayer to be saved'.....and it does feel a little bit lonely with that POV in protestant-land. I think 'being saved' is much more of a balance between works/grace than most protestants would like to admit. I think a lot of it has to do with the church using 'believe' in a passive form, instead of using the term 'becoming a disciple' or something similar. Believing in a set of historical facts does not make you a christian for the rest of your life. :001_huh: We really want to emphasize 'counting the cost' for our kids and if you are going to follow Jesus, then actually do it to the best of your ability, or don't bother. Be hot or cold - lukewarm christianity really is only good enough to vomit out.

 

 

 

I don't know why I typed all of that out - just another bunny trail on the thread I guess :lol: Since I'm down the trail, I'm going to add one more thing :tongue_smilie: Earlier in the thread someone mentioned the real first thanksgiving and I just wanted to mention a book. I'm starting to find more unbiased factual information from regular non-fiction books than from textbooks. Even though, I'm sure the authors still have their own bias. But anyways - I just read A Voyage Long and Strange about 'American' history between Columbus and the Mayflower - it follows the spanish conquistidors and everything - very fascinating and enlightening.

[Colleen]

Thnk about how homeschooling developed as a phenomenon. In the 50s, people started thinking about how they wanted to educate their children. Catholics, in large numbers, sent their kids to parochial schools. Protestants put a lot into the public school system. When the public school system changed due to court rulings about the presentation of religion in public schools, it was the devoutly Protestant who pulled their kids out first. Many of these people have in their church's statements of faith things that yes, do go back to the Reformation and all that was "protested". THESE are the people who started homeschooling even when it was illegal to do so, because they very much valued their children's religious development. And so you see today the vestiges of this beginning.

 

I haven't said this very well. I'm sorry. It's been an upsetting day around here (nothing terrible, just things like calls to collision repair shops...pout).

 

Sorry about the upsets, friend. In the face it, though, you managed to be the person who, imo, stayed most on topic and provided the most succinct, reasoned explanation. Glad you replied.

[dangermom]

Catholics aren't going to teach their children that to get to Heaven they need to be saved. Plain and simple there.

 

I apologize for not expanding on that. I mean Catholics aren't going to teach their children that once saved always saved and that there has to be no effort put into it after saying a prayer to God to come into their hearts. Protestants believe once you do this you are saved ,and once saved always saved. Baptism , Communion, Confession or any of the other sacraments play no role in being SAVED to a Protestant, because quite a few Protestant religions donot accept confession to a pastor or preacher, communion is only done on Easter , and Baptism is left as an option or not done at all until the child can decide for themselves if they want to be which in most cases they end up not being baptized at all.

I find that odd, since Christ was baptized himself and says believers should be baptized in the NT. Also the "once saved always saved" idea, since it would seem to me to contradict free will; can one not decide to reject God, even after one has accepted Him?

Nor do Protestants believe that you can get to Heaven by good works , or good works alone ( depending on which faith you belong to.)

If you can find me a Christian denomination that does believe that good works alone will get you into Heaven, I would like to know about it. I do not know of one, though there are many Christians (including many Protestants) who believe that works are part of faith--C. S. Lewis called works and faith the blades of the pair of scissors, for example.

 

So through my late night ramblings last night I didn't make myself clear. The definition of being Saved for a Catholic is not the same for a Protestant at all.

The definition seems to vary between many denominations, that's true. Not only between Catholics and Protestants, though.

 

 

 

--Just my random thoughts on this post which caught my eye.:001_smile:

[Alenee]

I find that odd, since Christ was baptized himself and says believers should be baptized in the NT. Also the "once saved always saved" idea, since it would seem to me to contradict free will; can one not decide to reject God, even after one has accepted Him?

If you can find me a Christian denomination that does believe that good works alone will get you into Heaven, I would like to know about it. I do not know of one, though there are many Christians (including many Protestants) who believe that works are part of faith--C. S. Lewis called works and faith the blades of the pair of scissors, for example.

 

The definition seems to vary between many denominations, that's true. Not only between Catholics and Protestants, though.

 

 

 

--Just my random thoughts on this post which caught my eye.:001_smile:

 

I'm not sure I've ever found a Christian denomination that says "good works alone" however there are many who ADD works to their list of ways to be saved. For instance, obeying the Sabbath or speaking in tongues as evidence of salvation. Then there are those denominations who won't permit you to take communion based on their own set of rules. There are many many many denominations who try to add to the work of Christ, thereby re-defining the only basis for salvation which is faith Christ.

[TXMomof4]

I'm sure you could find most any belief you wanted to under the label of "Protestant". It's easy enough to justify almost anything if you want to badly enough.

[Alenee]

That caught my eye too. I don't think that's accurate. (I'm Christian, but neither Catholic or Protestant, so I have no stake in this either way.)

 

Is "being saved" being defined as accepting Christ as Savior, and that in itself is enough, without baptism or any sacrament? How exactly is it defined?

 

I think a Catholic might say (I'm guessing, help me out here) that faith in Christ is of course central, but baptism and other sacraments are necessary as expressions of that faith and as, uh, things (need a word here) which convey grace from God to man? They are commanded by God and thus faith in Christ is incomplete without them? (Baptism and communion are both commandments in the NT, is what I mean.) Because if you have faith, then you'll do those things, it's part of the package.

 

I'd like to get that a little clearer, or else I feel like we're just talking past each other. What a Protestant calls 'being saved' might not mean just exactly what I think it does, you know? Since each denomination tends to talk a bit differently I think it can sometimes be hard to understand each other correctly.

 

Gah, I find this all very tricky.

 

 

To address the OP, though, I do sometimes see anti-Catholic statements in some materials, but as I don't use them I probably hear such stuff more often from actual people. They tend to be the same people who tell me I'm not really Christian either, so I figure at least I have some nice company.

 

I know we're wayyy off topic here but I have to speak up. I mean this with all due respect. You've just hit my soapbox-button. How would you explain the man on the cross next to Jesus whom He told He would see in Paradise that day? The works you are speaking of are done out of faith but every.single.person who comes to Christ comes to Him at a different place in their life as shown by the man next to Jesus on the cross. He did not need to be baptised, do good works, take sacraments, classes, speak in tongues, obey the Sabbath, NOTHING, except believe and place his faith in Christ. THAT ALONE was his salvation and it is there for the taking for ANYONE who would believe and place their faith in Him.

 

You asked how is it defined: Ephesians 2:8,9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast." IMO, it's not tricky at all and it burns me good when I hear people adding to that.

[PameliaSue]

I feel that the general attempt of the Protestant faith to distance it's self from the Catholic faith is tragic. So much rich heritage and heroes of our faith are just over looked and forgotten by most Protestants. The sacraments are mostly scriptural and Protestants often don't understand what a sacrament is and so they shun it in ignorance. Please take note I am not using absolutes here and I am indeed a Protestant myself. I believe the biggest difference in expressions of faith between the 2 is the Catholics practice of asking the Saints to intercede for them. I side with Protestants on this issue. No where in scripture is this exampled or condoned that I am aware of. However, I know that a lot of Catholics don't practice this and in all honesty I don't fully understand how this came to be a practice of the church.

 

We currently attend a non-denominational church. Though I have attended a number of churches over the years. When I was in YWAM I worked with a Catholic priest in Trinidad, CO who believed in the gifts of the Spirit and openly prayed in tongues. I believe so much rich heritage has been lost that truly is just solid scriptural traditions.

I was raised in a Baptist church though in my teens bounced around a lot exploring the different denominations. I now consider myself charismatic/non-denominational though our family has attended which ever church fits us best where ever we have lived.

 

Over the last 4 years my dh and I have been studying and implementing into our family culture the celebration of the church year: Advent, Christmastide, Epiphany, Lent, etc. This is so much fun!! We really live our faith all year long. I am able to go through the Bible every year this way. Plus we recognize several of the Jewish holidays and even have our own little celebrations when they fit in. We have also started learning the catechism with our children. Our resource is Big Truths for Little Kids. We have studied the sacraments and even the stations of the cross (Though we skip Veronica).

We really have worked to make it a point to understand the different denominations and we take what we like from all of them.

If you look at them and think about it you can group them in modes of the soul. Our soul is our will, mind and emotion. And we all have one that stands out as our strongest soul attribute. It is usually how we deal with life and it affects out processing. A mind person needs to understand and work things out, a will person just gets stuff done no matter what and needs to be doing and productive, and an emotional person is just that, emotional. They are more sensitive than the others and their emotions affect the way they process and deal.

 

The Catholic and Lutheran churches really focus on the will. They have more traditions that they follow and rules. Their faith is often expressed in the will. The Baptist and Methodist are very mind orientated. They work to explain the scriptures, to understand and reason it all out. The Pentecostal and Charismatic are more emotional. They are more open to emotional and less structured expressions of faith. (Though I know there are the Pentecostals that don't wear makeup, jewelry, etc... they would be more will/emotion. They're a little harder to put in a box;).)

 

This is all a VERY broad description but I think pretty accurate in a stereotypical way. (I hope that I haven't offended anyone.) And I think it helps to explain why there are so many different denominations. We as humans are most comfortable expressing our faith in a way that is familiar and applicable to the way we function. And I think that the different denominations is a result of that.

 

This is a subject that I am pretty passionate about. I have experienced great freedom and enrichment in my faith as I have sampled and experimented with traditions from several CHRISTIAN denominations.

[abreakfromlife]

 

I feel that the general attempt of the Protestant faith to distance it's self from the Catholic faith is tragic. So much rich heritage and heroes of our faith are just over looked and forgotten by most Protestants.

I agree. I read the Spiritual Disciplines book by Richard Foster a few years ago and it was so good! It was really neat learning about the ancient traditions and saints. Very inspiring and spiritual.

[Ashleen]

You asked how is it defined: Ephesians 2:8,9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast." IMO, it's not tricky at all and it burns me good when I hear people adding to that.

 

See James, chapter 2. "Faith without works is dead." (2:17) and "Do you still think it's enough just to believe...even the demons believe this...faith that does not result in good deeds is useless." (2:19-20)

 

It goes on to explain that Abraham was justified by what he *did* (place his son on the altar) and Rahab was justified by what she did. It seems to contradict Luther's "faith alone" theory, which is why Luther wanted to leave James out of canon. But in fact I believe James was written because people were already misunderstanding the faith/works thing 2000 years ago and it needed clarified.

[Alenee]

See James, chapter 2. "Faith without works is dead." (2:17) and "Do you still think it's enough just to believe...even the demons believe this...faith that does not result in good deeds is useless." (2:19-20)

 

It goes on to explain that Abraham was justified by what he *did* (place his son on the altar) and Rahab was justified by what she did. It seems to contradict Luther's "faith alone" theory, which is why Luther wanted to leave James out of canon. But in fact I believe James was written because people were already misunderstanding the faith/works thing 2000 years ago and it needed clarified.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that when you have faith, you will show it, however, again I will point you to the man on the cross with Jesus. There are many ways to express your faith, however only ONE way to salvation. Through faith. period.

[dangermom]

I know we're wayyy off topic here but I have to speak up. I mean this with all due respect. You've just hit my soapbox-button. How would you explain the man on the cross next to Jesus whom He told He would see in Paradise that day? The works you are speaking of are done out of faith but every.single.person who comes to Christ comes to Him at a different place in their life as shown by the man next to Jesus on the cross. He did not need to be baptised, do good works, take sacraments, classes, speak in tongues, obey the Sabbath, NOTHING, except believe and place his faith in Christ. THAT ALONE was his salvation and it is there for the taking for ANYONE who would believe and place their faith in Him.

 

You asked how is it defined: Ephesians 2:8,9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast." IMO, it's not tricky at all and it burns me good when I hear people adding to that.

Woah, cool down there. :001_smile: Actually I don't disagree with you on many of those points. But the Bible has more to say on being saved, as far as I can tell. However, I don't really want to get into an argument about my theology here; this thread is quite complex enough without bringing in yet another strand of Christianity.

[Ashleen]

There are many ways to express your faith, however only ONE way to salvation. Through faith. period.

 

Yes. I think the disagreement is in the wording. A lot of Protestants push the "sinner's prayer": just say this formula and you get a free pass to heaven. Then Catholics say that you aren't saved by reciting a prayer, but through an inner process that manifests in works. Then Protestants say that you aren't saved by works but by faith. And people are just talking past each other and probably meaning the same thing. Faith is manifest in our lives. We can't pray one time in college when an evangelist hands us a tract and then go through the rest of life secure in our salvation without having a true relationship with God. I think this argument has been bouncing around since the early church.

[Ashleen]

P.S. Re. the man on the cross: I'm sure Jesus knew that his faith was the genuine thing which would have manifested in works if he'd lived long enough; he had a true conversion and the necessary heart-change. There are many people who say they are waiting until their death-beds to turn to God because they don't want to change the way they live now. I'm not sure reciting a prayer on your death-bed is "salvation insurance" in this case.

[Alenee]

P.S. Re. the man on the cross: I'm sure Jesus knew that his faith was the genuine thing which would have manifested in works if he'd lived long enough; he had a true conversion and the necessary heart-change. There are many people who say they are waiting until their death-beds to turn to God because they don't want to change the way they live now. I'm not sure reciting a prayer on your death-bed is "salvation insurance" in this case.

 

Yes, and this is where I get pithy. Only Jesus knows the heart of a man (or woman).

 

I also want to add what Jesus said when the disciples asked, "What must we do to do the works of God?" Jesus replied, "The work of God is this; to believe in the one He has sent."

[Peek a Boo]

Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree. I have always felt Christians should really be call Paulist (The Church of Paul). He is the reason you are a Christian today. W/o Paul/Saul, Christ's teachings would have stayed among the Jews.

 

well, if it wasn't for all those circumstances where Christ Himself *specifically* preaches to and converts non-Jews, you might have a point ;)

 

John 4:

39Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." 40So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41And because of his words many more became believers.

 

 

Luke 7

Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and turned and said to the crowd that was following Him, "I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith." When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

 

The Good Samaritan -Luke 10-29-37

 

The healed Samaritan leper [Luke 17]

 

Matt 15:

24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

 

 

 

meant to stay among the Jews?

not by non-pauline accounts.

His ministry was STARTED among the Jews, included a specific ministry TO the Jews and maintained in Jewish circles by sheer geography? Yup.

But even the dogs get the crumbs.......

 

i do understand that many still want to debate it, but Christ commending Believing faith in Gentiles is pretty awesome and evident in itself.

[Peek a Boo]

I also want to add what Jesus said when the disciples asked, "What must we do to do the works of God?" Jesus replied, "The wok of God is this; to believe in the one He has sent."

 

 

wow-- Now there's a God Wok! ;)

[Alenee]

wow-- Now there's a God Wok! ;)

 

LOL! I edited!:)

[Peek a Boo]

See James, chapter 2. "Faith without works is dead." (2:17) and "Do you still think it's enough just to believe...even the demons believe this...faith that does not result in good deeds is useless." (2:19-20)

 

It goes on to explain that Abraham was justified by what he *did* (place his son on the altar) and Rahab was justified by what she did. It seems to contradict Luther's "faith alone" theory, which is why Luther wanted to leave James out of canon. But in fact I believe James was written because people were already misunderstanding the faith/works thing 2000 years ago and it needed clarified.

 

 

i kinda agree.

 

faith w/o works is dead.

works w/o faith is dead.

 

Abraham was justified in what he did BECAUSE of his faith. Just placing a kid on the altar won't cut it ;)

 

works prove the faith that is already present.

w/o faith, no work is good enough for God.

[Peek a Boo]

and to get back on topic.....

 

I too have noticed the disparity not just against catholics, but in doctrinal issues.

 

When an A Beka science text tries to prove a "literal 24-hour day" creation by saying that the plants would NEED sunlight ASAP to survive, I scratch my head and say....uh, there WAS light. Just no SUN. And if God created it, He can sustain it.

 

That's just one reason why even as a Christian I prefer to use secular materials and insert my own bias ;). Even the evolution questions bring up WONDERFUL points to discuss scripturally.

[Ashleen]

Abraham was justified in what he did BECAUSE of his faith. Just placing a kid on the altar won't cut it

 

Right.

 

21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. (James 2:21-22)

 

Hebrews has a "hall of faith" and James clarifies that this faith was manifest in works.

[Peek a Boo]

I find that odd, since Christ was baptized himself and says believers should be baptized in the NT. Also the "once saved always saved" idea, since it would seem to me to contradict free will; can one not decide to reject God, even after one has accepted Him?

 

I'm not quite ready to tackle ALL your post, lol, but you can google "anointing of Christ" for more info whether He was baptized for repentance [what John was doing to everyone else] or anointed as a High Priest "to fulfill all righteousness." There's arguments on both sides. interesting reading tho.

 

And yeah, believers should be baptized: in LIVING water. In Christ Himself.

As John said: "i baptize w/ water, but one is coming who will baptize w/ the H.S."

back to my previous post about that......

 

the once saved/always saved/ free will thing is one I'm still considering, for the same reasons. We do have evidence of the HS being removed from people, but I'm not convinced either way.

[Peek a Boo]

I guess the bottom line is that I've mainly been hangin' with those bleeding heart liberals. The conservative pov for me has always been one held by those "out there", the other, and dismissed. This board is the first "place" I've encountered real people, people I respect and for whom I feel a great deal of fondness, whose views are so very different from mine, and who are willing to engage in real conversation.

 

 

This is why i don't call universities "institutions for higher learning." :glare:

 

and they're worried about HOMESCHOOLERS being sheltered, lol!!!