Catholics vs. Protestants

[Smalcald]

Well the problem is many people don't understand Christian history or their own faith, or even what faith means in many cases. We know that saying that we believe in the bible alone for our guidance is frankly not worth very much in defining who we are. We all claim that, yet we disagree, in addition most heretics

[Bread_of_Life]

pfft, you aint seen a Catholic vs Protestant fight til you've been to Glasgow, or Belfast. We rule sectarian animosity and violence.

However, more seriously, I reckon everyone should get themselves well educated on both sides - using resources from the OTHER side of things. In other words, they should educate themselves about the claims of either side from either side, and after that, they'll probably be more tolerant.

You only have to go to chick.com to find out what a lopsided, biased and inaccurate account of Catholics you can get from protestant sources. I'm pretty sure you get a similarly inaccurate view of protestantism from Catholics. That's why you should learn about Catholicism from Catholics, and Protestantism from protestants, and maybe read some critical texts from neutrals.

[st. Worm]

You simply don't listen Horizon. I have already stated that the ELCA is Lutheran in name only so I really don't think they are Lutherans confessionally and that is the point my original suggestion. If you follow doctrine and enter into accords that violate the Lutheran Confessions, then you are not really Lutheran. I can call myself an apostle but saying that does not make it so.

Further you make another false statement by saying that I said that dividing Christiandom in the fashion I suggested was "black and white". I never said nor implied that in the least. I just said it might be more profitable in most cases than the old Protestant/Catholic divide. Anyone reading what I really said can see that you are implying a lot of things about my statement that are not true.

Now why don't you go stalk someone else but please try and be more honest when you represent what they say?

sw

[Smalcald]

Well this is actually interesting.

There are several divides within the Christian Church. The first and most traditional and probably the oldest which is still ongoing, would be the divide between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians. This emanated and still basically does over issues surrounding the primacy and authority of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

But beyond that we then have the original divide between the Reformers and the Bishop of Rome. The Reformers further split and this eventually led I think as SW pointed out to the divide we see today between confessional Churches and the modern Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. But beyond that is the split which Horizon brings up between the mainline protestant groups, which began in the 1920's, this ripped across Protestantism, resulting in the Lutheran and Presbyterian severe splits, between the Orthodox Lutherans and Presbyterians and the non-traditional liberals.

My personal opinion is that this last divide is the most dangerous. The reason being is that for the first time we see large groups of Christians, denying both the authority of Holy Scripture and the authority of Christian Church tradition, both are rejected at some level in favor of modernism and materialism, a view that our faith is of this world only to be worked out through secular and worldly means. So when I dispute with a Baptist, we both refer to scripture, when I dispute with a Catholic, we both refer to scripture and Church authority, however when I dispute with a liberal Episcopalian we have no basis, he simply says that those sections of scripture are in error or simply not true. Thus we have leaders of these churches questioning things like the physical resurrection of Christ; thus all common ground is now gone.

[Candi770]

We should only worship GOD ALMIGHTY anything else is IDOL WORSHIP!!!

GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD!!!

[st. Worm]

Thanks Smalcald for including those very good points and analysis.

I would go so far as to say that both theoligical liberalism and fundamentalism are twin evils. Although they appear different they are really somewhat connected in that both completely ignore the historical church in arriving at their conclusions.

[st. Worm]

horizon says:

"Who should I believe your opinion or their statement?"

SW says:

Dear soul, that is precisely the point. THEY DON'T FOLLOW THEIR STATEMENT! What you should believe is what their churches teach and believe, not what they state they believe. There is a difference.

[st. Worm]

horizon says:

Again my point

[Smalcald]

As far as the ELCA goes, and I think what is maddening for people like myself and st.worm is their blatant inconsistency and frankly, lack of faith and belief. Go to their website, www.elca.org, go to the frequently asked questions.

Well in those questions are things like, do Lutherans believe in the virgin birth? Well now we know that this is part of our public confession, part of the apostles and Nicene creeds, and I think something all Christians here believe. What is their official answer to that question? They say it is an open question, it is okay to believe either way and both things are believed within the ELCA, they finally get to that after a long winded discussion, but you can see right of the bat that what should be a simple yes or no question, is not going to be answered clearly.

Go to the question do Lutherans believe in the devil? Once again, some do some don't the denomination itself takes no position on the topic. So once again something, which is part of all teachings part of the bible, yet they simply can

[eric]

Ho hum! I'm right and you're wrong. NO, I'm right and you are wrong.

Tess, you have opened a can of worms.