Do Protestants consider Catholics to be Christians? [open]

5/16/08 | me

[netmilsmom]

Stemming from this comment

>>I think the RCC doctrines are a product of the enemy<<

Please tell us where we stand here. Examples welcome, but I'm not sure that actual names can be used when quoting another FReeper, so date and thread title may be better.

[annalex]

I rejected that justification that's under the law...I took the free justification resulting from the death of Jesus...

Justification under the Jewish Law is what St. Paul teaches has been replaced under law of grace. It is true that the Christian law is different. But did it abolish the necessity of Good works? Not at all. In the Sermon on the Mount Christ explains the difference:

21 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. 22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5)

The law is different: it is not formal, it now looks into the heart. But it is nevertheless law; violate it and there will be judgement and hellfire. This is what Jesus taught about His law and His judgement:

32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in ...

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink ...

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

Whre is salvation by faith alone in this? We are expected good works and a judged by them.

I am aware, by the way, of Luther's idea that parts of Scripture relate to "law" and parts to "gospel" and that therefore we can ignore the scripture that is about "law". This is worthless garbage that he taught: it is a wholesale contradiction of one Holy Scripture our Lord gave us. If He wanted to give us half the Gospel, He would have given us half the Gospel, -- easier than walking on water and healing paralytics.

[annalex]

Annalex believes differently

I am surprised you asked. Isn't the rule that I am told what I believe rather than allowed to explain what I believe?

I completely agree with "The Church can’t send anyone to hell, only God judges the eternal destiny of man", as Catholic.

[OLD REGGIE]

And she sent me a very nice FReepmail and a post stating that she was wrong.

If I got that from some people here, I'd hyperventilate!

I didn't have a "she" in mind.

[OLD REGGIE]

Eventually, he was brought before the Roman Inquisition and on June 16, 1633, he was censured for “suspicion of heresy” and was told to not even teach the “copernican theory” at all any longer. So censured for “suspicion of heresy” is not condemned for heresy. In fact, one can argue that it was disobedience that he was censured for.

Argue all you want. He lived out his life under house arrest, silenced, and blind.

[OLD REGGIE]

I had a guy tell me when Pope John Paul II died that “the Pope is dead, and taking a billion Catholics to hell with him.”

Are you speaking of one nutty person or are you painting "Protestants" with a broad brush? I don't see your point.

[Dionysius]

Gladly! It isn’t much of a thread where agenda-driven liars can do their dirty work with impunity. God Bless.

[Marysecretary]

Your ‘private’ interpretation, annalex? Smile.

[OLD REGGIE]

My Italian boyfriend’s family was actually Episcopalian. His dad was Catholic and his mom protestant so they decided to go ‘halfway.’

One of my sisters (who had become a Protestant) married a lapsed Catholic Italian. The only faithful Catholic in his family was his mother. They settled on a High Episcopal Church as a compromise. When he died (quite young - cancer) the funeral was held in the Episcopal Church. His aged mother was right at home seemingly unaware it was not "her" Church. (He did have last rights from a Catholic Priest though).

[Marysecretary]

Again, there are none so blind who WILL NOT SEE.

[Marysecretary]

Amen, HarleyD.

[Marysecretary]

Get over it, Petronski. No one here HATES Catholics. We are trying to point out the errors in Catholicism. You may just be projecting your own ‘hate’.

[Petronski]

Nothing was "doctored." Word for word from the RCC catechism.

It WAS doctored: the footnote numbers were removed.

[Marysecretary]

Dr. E. doesn’t doctor documents. Truth is truth. I hope you can see that one day, mom.

[Petronski]

William F. Buckley Jr. did NOT mock scholarly diligence.

[Marysecretary]

Indeed, and it’s not being done by the prottys. LOL.

[Petronski]

If you think this is an incorrect assessment, count the number of times Catholics quote Church fathers verses the number of time they quote scripture.

That's a distinction without a difference. Catholic Church fathers are the ones who wrote the New Testament.

[wagglebee]

Get over it, Petronski. No one here HATES Catholics.

Are you kidding?!

We are trying to point out the errors in Catholicism.

Your OPINION of something DOES NOT make it either truthful or erroneous.

You may just be projecting your own ‘hate’.

Did you miss the part about not making it personal?

[Petronski]

No, Roman Catholics are not Christians.
--forthedeclaration

[netmilsmom]

>>Dr. E. doesn’t doctor documents<<

Compare post 140 that looks like this....
To: AnalogReigns; netmilsmom; Alex Murphy; Lord_Calvinus; Gamecock; OLD REGGIE; Uncle Chip; ...
Perhaps the answer is found in the RCC catechism itself...

“For the Son of man became man so that we might become God. The only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” (page 116, #460)

To post 387

“460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”79 “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”80 “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.81”

Do you see something missing? The numbers.

Either the first quote was lifted from somewhere other than the second quote or it was doctored to remove the Footnote numbers.

Which is it?

[Petronski]

When was it slipped in???

Slipped in? Where'd you get the idea it was "slipped in?"