What's it all about?

[Sojourner55]

The recent threads in this forum discussing Catholic dogma are not about Catholics and Protestants criticizing one another. They're about one thing, and one thing only: arriving at the truth. Any belief system that is not in line with fundamental, Bible-based Christianity should be held up to the light of Scripture, to expose its structural cracks and weaknesses, so people are not unwittingly led astray. Catholicism, because of its very questionable doctrines--based on equally questionable evidence instead of solid Scripture--falls into that category. Especially when its adherents claim divine inspiration based on those uncorroborated credentials, and go on to criticize those who reject them of being foolish and rebellious against "the church."

In the Gospels, we have a written account of the life and teachings of Jesus. And in the book of Acts, we have a record of how the Apostles went about fulfilling the Gospel commission Jesus entrusted to them. Between these, the letters of Paul, and the various other writings of the NT, we have documentation of what the early church believed--things did not change after the time of the Apostles. Yet, we have an assortment of odd beliefs that did arise, centuries after they died. Why, and upon whose authority, were they added to the tenets of the Christian faith?

We are supposed to believe that Jesus conferred upon Peter an exalted office, to which all the other Apostles, were subservient--an office tantamount to his being the sole representative of God upon the earth. And we're supposed to believe that that office was ordained by God to be passed along perpetually from generation to generation, over the last 2000 years. We're supposed to believe that this exalted throne entitles the man sitting on it--whoever he happens to be at the time--sits in the seat of Jesus Christ, and is entitled to the same reverence and obedience, and is equally incapable of error in matters of faith.

We are supposed to believe that Mary-- a sinner in need of a Savior lik us--was born without sin, and remained a perpetual virgin; that she ascended bodily into heaven, and now sits upon a glorious throne in heaven, being adored, hearing and answering prayers, and even making appearances upon the earth to her faithful, from time to time.

We're supposed to blindly accept these and many other doctrines--even though there is no corroboration for them in either Scripture or the writings of the church fathers who lived a few generations after the time of the Apostles. That's the problem, here. We're expected to accept these things because those who promote and benefit from them, assure us they are true. We should be skeptical of any belief that arose after the time of the Apostles, because it is a certainty that Jesus left no valid doctrine out when He sent the Apostles forth, telling them to teach among the nations exactly what He had taught them.

Anyone who promotes such beliefs--destitute as they are of valid, impartial corroboration--can reasonably expect to be aggressively challenged to give a better reason why we should believe them than "sacred tradition." Show me where the Apostles believed and taught these things. Or show me these beliefs in the writings of early church fathers who either heard the Apostles themselves, or knew those who did know them. That at least, seems reasonable to me.

People are free to believe anything they want to believe. But don't expect others to accept questionable beliefs that cannot be properly substantiated. Such a dangerous practice has spawned many a cult, and continues to do so today. If Christians would both rely on Scriptural corroboration, and try the spirits--as we are clearly instructed to do, and be led by the Spirit as Jesus instructed, instead of blindly following man made tradition, there would be far less spiritual deception in the world. There would also be far less tragedies like those that occurred under Jim Jones and David Koresh.

[IMINXTC]

This says it. The ecumenical pressure to somehow accept Catholicism as simply another facet of the revealed faith is daunting today - we see and hear less and less challenges to its fallacies.

[Boo]

However, while scrutinizing the Catholics, the Protestants have gone into error on the other side.

It seems Protestants want so very much to call Catholics heretics that they start ignoring things that ARE in scriptures but, since the Catholics follow them, Protestants hold them as untrue.

Where scriptures between both sides are the same, we should hold them the same.

We don't.

Yes, Catholics think that tradition of those who somehow exegeted some kinds of strange and unscriptural actions are inspired or valid, we don't. I don't think we should either.

Neither should we accuse people who accept and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as not being Christians just because they have some errors. If we did, then we should go around accusing each other of being non-christians when we argue bible topics since one or both parties must be in error.

"Catholic" is not a dirty word. Neither is "Protestant."

We should be careful not to call our brother racca.

[Sojourner55]

As I clearly stated in the first sentence, the exchanges are not about Catholic versus Protestant, but about the truth. The point I addressed was the many beliefs within Catholicism that clearly are not evident in the early church--either in the record of the NT writings or the writings of the early Apostolic fathers. I speak of the things that arose centuries after the time of the Apostles--during a period when heresies were sprouting like weeds. This makes such new teachings automatically suspect. Moreover, they have nothing to do with the core Gospel message, so why even believe them?

As I also clearly stated, people are free to believe anything they choose. They may freely believe that the pope is the sole representative of God upon the earth, pray to Mary or others among the dead in Christ, or believe they need a priest as "another Christ" to intercede for them. But when they present beliefs as uncorroborated "sacred tradition," --beliefs which do no more than ascribe to human beings power and reverence that belong only to God and His Christ--they will be challenged. I would hope that most people who read this thread possess sufficient discernment to realize that it was not my intent to attack fellow Christians, but rather to attack contrived, false teaching.

[Boo]

As I clearly stated in the first sentence, the exchanges are not about Catholic versus Protestant, but about the truth. The point I addressed was the many beliefs within Catholicism that clearly are not evident in the early church--either in the record of the NT writings or the writings of the early Apostolic fathers. I speak of the things that arose centuries after the time of the Apostles--during a period when heresies were sprouting like weeds. This makes such new teachings automatically suspect. Moreover, they have nothing to do with the core Gospel message, so why even believe them?

As I also clearly stated, people are free to believe anything they choose. They may freely believe that the pope is the sole representative of God upon the earth, pray to Mary or others among the dead in Christ, or believe they need a priest as "another Christ" to intercede for them. But when they present beliefs as uncorroborated "sacred tradition," --beliefs which do no more than ascribe to human beings power and reverence that belong only to God and His Christ--they will be challenged. I would hope that most people who read this thread possess sufficient discernment to realize that it was not my intent to attack fellow Christians, but rather to attack contrived, false teaching.

Brother, I realize that you took my response as being directed at you. I am sorry that it looks that way, but I was not. I am referring to the overall responses from the past couple weeks, not to your post.

I do agree with your view of the traditions of the Catholic church and how the subscribe to man-made traditions. Jesus was not pleased with the way the Jews held to traditions and ignored the message that God gave them also. Things have not changed much, have they?

[Sojourner55]

Brother, I realize that you took my response as being directed at you. I am sorry that it looks that way, but I was not. I am referring to the overall responses from the past couple weeks, not to your post.

I do agree with your view of the traditions of the Catholic church and how the subscribe to man-made traditions. Jesus was not pleased with the way the Jews held to traditions and ignored the message that God gave them also. Things have not changed much, have they?

I didn't think you were accusing me directly, brother. But the things you alluded to, such as calling Catholics non-Christians, looking for excuses to call them heretics, not believing Scriptural doctrine just because Catholics believe them, and calling them "raca," are not inherent in my post, and therefore, not germane. My concern is that a casual reader could, based on your response, infer a judgmental spirit in my words, which obviously, is a misunderstanding I would seek to avoid. Hence my response. As I said, this is all about truth--nothing more and nothing less.

And yes, man made traditions in Christianity today are just as detrimental as those in ancient Judaism. Those that developed over the centuries in Catholicism, in fact, seek to embellish and customize divine teaching in much the same way the Jews did. Man has a real propensity to add, subtract or modify God's Word, in order to make it more user-friendly. In particular, doctrine that ascribes power and glory to Peter and Mary only serves to detract from Jesus--and that is clearly both unnecessary and unacceptable. God bless.

[Protective Angel]

Man has a real propensity to add, subtract or modify God's Word, in order to make it more user-friendly. In particular, doctrine that ascribes power and glory to Peter and Mary only serves to detract from Jesus--and that is clearly both unnecessary and unacceptable. God bless.

Man has done too much damage already.