Why Every Christian, Not Just Catholics, Should Be Very Worried About The Catholic Sex Scandal

What do all Protestants believe?

***

Name me a denomination and I’ll be able to pull up statements of faith in a matter of seconds, but I guarantee you that 95%+ of them believe in salvation by grace through faith.

For that matter I’ve also read the Roman Catholic catechism.

I’ve met exactly two Catholics who have ever been willing to A: read and study what non-Catholics believe, and B: Actually talk about it reasonably without prejudice, assumptions, or insults.

And those two were my maternal grandparents.

I agree. In light of the humble way of life Jesus and His disciples observed, I don't think ostentatious titles are the way in which He desires we address each other. Peter would have rejected being called Holy Father or Pope, Your Eminence, Most Reverend, etc.

Agreed!

No doubt you would find the same kind of differences in practice and belief among Catholics!

Do you know the percentage of Catholics that believe in the “Real Presence” or Transubstaniation?

?

Most Catholics on FR don’t even know what Protestants believe.

Likewise...

Most Protestants on FR don’t even know what Protestants Protestants believe.

Holy Scripture says you are correct..

That's no damned excuse!

Really; do I need a sarc tag?

I’m sure it can be confusing regarding what Protestants believe because it is really dependent on which of the many denominations being discussed.

Likewise...

I’m sure it can be confusing regarding what Catholics believe because it is really dependent on which of the many writings and teachings over the centuries are being discussed.

Oh; and let's not forget hundreds of apparitional visits; too.

Not one scripture used to 'justify' the disobedience of Christ's command is justified.

Consider yourself reported to the Department of Redundancy Department.

Do you know the percentage of Catholics that believe in the “Real Presence” or Transubstaniation?

Well; if they don't; they sure do a good job of giving it lip service.

Here are just a few examples of where they diverge (I’m sure there are many more):

It is probably based on how close to the Mother Church they are.

No doubt you would find the same kind of differences in practice and belief among Catholics!

I have no idea what that has to do with what I posted. You’re talking about individuals. I’m talking about variations in official doctrine and practices between denominations.

Name me a denomination and I’ll be able to pull up statements of faith in a matter of seconds,

Do you need to pull up different statements of faith for each Protestant denomination?
How many Protestant denominations are there?

but I guarantee you that 95%+ of them believe in salvation by grace through faith.

Arminians Versus Calvinists: Some Surprising Statistics

...

This study looked at various parameters over a period of 10 years from 2000-2010. For the sake of brevity, please assume that Calvinism and Reformed are interchangeable. The same goes for Wesleyan and Arminian. All statistics are from the above Barna article. Please refer to the full article for more in-depth understanding.

Church Size

Calvinist church attendance rose 13%.
Arminian church attendance rose 18%

Church Identity as defined by pastors

-Our church is Calvinist/Reformed
2000: 32%
2010:31%
(Statistically, this group has remained flat)> -Our church is Wesleyan/Arminian
2000:37%
2010:32%
(Statistically this group has had more fluctuation both up and down.)

Does age of a pastor affect the percentage who consider themselves Calvinist versus Arminian?

Ages 27 to 45:
Reformed: 29%
Wesleyan/Arminian: 34%

Ages 46 to 64-Baby Boomers:
Reformed: 34%
Arminian:33%

Ages 65+:
Reformed:26%
Wesleyan:27%
(This group was more likely to eschew labels)

Geographical Location
Reformed churches: Common in the Northeast, least common in the Midwest.
Wesleyan/Arminian churches: Equally likely to appear in each of the four regions.

Types of churches
Mainline Churches (American Baptist Churches, Evangelical Lutheran Churches in America, the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, and United Church of Christ.

Reformed: 29%
Wesleyan/Arminian: 47%

Non-mainline
Reformed: 35%
Arminian: 30%

Traditionally charismatic/Pentecostal
Reformed: 31%
Arminian: 27%
(This was the most surprising outcome since these churches tend to come from the holiness or Wesleyan traditions).

Churches that consider themselves doctrinally liberal

Reformed: 17%
Wesleyan: 13%

Conclusion by Barna:

Calvinists, hold your breath, count to 10…. “Kinnaman, who serves as Barna Group president, concluded, "there is no discernable evidence from this research that there is a Reformed shift among U.S. congregation leaders over. . Whatever momentum surrounds Reformed churches and the related leaders, events and associations has not gone much outside traditional boundaries or affected the allegiances of most of today's church leaders.”

(Digression: Is he saying all those conferences are not making a difference?)

However, Barna expects changes to occur over the next decade. “…most of the nation's 300,000 Protestant churches are in a state of theological flux, apparently open to identities and trends that do not necessarily fall within expected denominational or doctrinal boundaries. Given this profile, we expect that new theological, relational, as well as methodological networks that emerge will redefine the Protestant landscape over the next decade."

From my perspective, these statistics were most surprising. The hype in evangelical circles over the past five years has been about the rising star of the Neo-Calvinist movement, along with it’s supposed “superstar” preachers. However, if these statistics are accurate, there has not been a net trend change in the past decade. Could it boil down to “big hat, no cattle? Time and statistics will tell.

Oh hey, it’s exactly the answer that I expected.

You say that like that’s something to be ashamed of.

Personally, I think the fact that a certain church’s leadership is having cocaine fueled orgies in the Vatican and has been protecting child rapists for decades would be something to be far more ashamed of.

But apparently that’s totally acceptable as long as Catholics can boast about how large their denomination is.

IF you are accusing me of straining, at Christ’s command, then that is on you. HIS WORDS are the only WORDS that count when all is said and done.

I was not accusing you of anything, i was agreeing with you.

The Catholic Church is right on some things but they are plainly wrong when they call each other father, they strain on such simply things that is so clear in scripture.

As Christ warned it would be those coming in His name that would be responsible for the mass deception... in case you have never read.

You must not have read many of my comments as that is what i have been saying all along.

I have very little trust in organized religion, especially those who are called Father, Reverand, doctor, teacher, etc.

I have said that Jesus`s Gospel has been preached all over the world in spite of the religious organizations.

Just a little from here and a little from there is all it takes as i believe in predestination.

Yet there's Paul calling himself, repeatedly, the father of those he brought into the Church (Oneimus, Timothy, Titus and others); and there's Father Abraham.

You might want to explain to me why nobody scruples about somebody being called a "Master" (or the modern equiv. "Mister") or a "Teacher," both there in the same passage under discussion; or why we call things Holy (Holy Bible, Holy Cross for instance) when Jesus -- it seems --- once questioned the propriety of calling even Himself, holy... or even calling Him "GOOD"?

I think there's a deeper meaning here.

Your thoughts?

You might want to explain to me...

I'll explain nothing to you; for you really don't care about 'my' reasonings.

Your Church's say on the matter is ALL you will listen to.

...why we call things Holy (Holy Bible, Holy Cross for instance) …

Ask Rome; for she started it all.

Yet there's Paul calling himself, repeatedly, the father of those he brought into the Church (Oneimus, Timothy, Titus and others); and there's Father Abraham.

This is true, and i have provided such myself, and thus the basic censure of calling anyone a spiritual father is wrong. But using it as a default title for Catholic priests is wrong, for it presumes they all are spiritual fathers, which they are not. For infant baptism simply does not make them children of God, since the Biblical requirement for baptism is repentance and faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)

Moreover, infants are innocent, and are not culpable for sin, or bear guilt of Adam's, while baptism does not remove the nonredeemable Adamic nature (i wish).

But BTW, how is your whomping those ignorant Catholics with your Catechism going?

No doubt you would find the same kind of differences in practice and belief among Catholics!

I have no idea what that has to do with what I posted. You’re talking about individuals. I’m talking about variations in official doctrine and practices between denominations.

Well, Al, think about this...in the first centuries were there people who professed to be Christians but who did not agree with what eventually became "official" Christian doctrine? Athanasius of Alexandria, for example, was a Christian theologian, a Church Father, the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism, and a noted Egyptian leader of the fourth century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria

While it was at the Council of Nicea that the controversy over the deity of Jesus Christ was officially settled, we know that there was still not total agreement among all Christians afterward. Prior to Nicea, Christians COULD have opposing beliefs and not be excommunicated. Even Popes disagreed about some of what would later become Christian dogma. Was the Deity of Jesus an absolute truth before then even if NO ONE believed it? Yes. There were other such doctrines that were disputed and this was back when Catholics assert ALL Christians were Catholic!

Today, we have by the grace of God a clearer understanding and agreement about what constitutes the Biblical and historical rule of faith - a canon. If you looked at the early statements of faith of the various mainline "Protestant" denominations, you would recognize that they DID agree on pretty much every major tenet of the faith as Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy do. Do some of those mainline churches today diverge from those basic beliefs? If not officially, many do in practice. Are there STILL non-Catholic Christians (y'all like to label everyone who isn't Catholic or EO as "Protestant", but it doesn't make it correct) that hold to the same doctrines as those taught by the Apostles from the start? Yes, there are. There are still today false sects and cults - just as there were from the start (wolves among sheep/false teachers/prophets, etc.). How we can know them is by what they teach and believe.

You've heard of the Vincentian Canon? The test of religious truth laid down by Vincent of Lérins (early fifth century) in Adversus profanas omnium novitates haereticorum Commonitorium, an attack on Augustine's predestination teaching. The criterion states “what has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” Vincent maintained that the final ground of truth lies in Scripture; by this threefold test of universality, antiquity, and consent the church can differentiate between true and false traditions. THAT should be the measure - what is professed and taught regarding the major tenets of the Christian faith - not what name a congregation or assembly of believers calls itself. Those churches who call themselves "Christian" should be measured by that same criteria. That is how we know that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are not truly Christian churches because they do not teach the truth about Jesus Christ's deity, among other things. They may be good people, but they are NOT Christian.

Don't you think God knows who are really His sheep?