The claim made was that "Catholics don't even know what Protestants believe". I've agreed with that statement because when posting to a Protestant, unless you know which flavor they belong to, you don't know just what it is they believe. The primary reason for that is there is no comprehensive doctrinal agreement between denominations.
In which Bible Christians actually show more unity, as well as having the strongest disagreements because they take doctrine seriously.
I'm sure they take doctrine seriously. That's why some denominations are not in full communion with others. Why is it they have the strongest disagreements? Because there is not one set of Protestant doctrine. It's simply a reality, which some here seem to have difficulty admitting.
And then there are those who reject ...
You seen to have the mistaken impression that I'm talking about individuals. I'm not. I'm addressing doctrinal division between denominations, all of whom claim to base their beliefs on Scripture.
Then there are the very liberal members such as publicly reject even modern Catholic moral positions.
I'm sure there are. But that's not what I'm addressing.
Ted Kennedy
There you go again about how individuals practice their faith. Sure there are "bad" Catholics as well as "bad" Protestants, as far as practicing their faith. I don't dispute that. But again, I'm talking about differences in official doctrine/beliefs between the various denominations - which can be confusing for Catholics, and no doubt some Protestants, to know who believes what, especially when there are some here who won't even admit to what group they are a member.
One must be of the faith that effects obedience to be saved.
So, your answer is no.
This is true, and thus "Catholics don't even know" is not a reasonable accusation unless "Protestant" is critically defined. But likewise ascribing all sort of beliefs to "Protestants" is not reasonable unless "Protestant" is critically defined. And typically such a charge relies on such a broadbrush, so wide that you could land a Unitarian Scientology, Swedenborgian Mormon A380 on it, as if anything apart from Rome befits the name Protestantism As a comparison with Rome, only one Protestant church or distinctly defined group should be compared.
The primary reason for that is there is no comprehensive doctrinal agreement between denominations.
Yet the most distinctive major religious group in the West has been evangelicals. But Catholics attack them as being disunified but they and liberals treat them as being unified.
Why is it they have the strongest disagreements? Because there is not one set of Protestant doctrine.
Rather, the disagreements are usually with liberals, as is the case with Traditional Catholics (though on this very thread we saw a devout conservative RC threaten to correct some very traditional RCs for their words against Protestants), while in cases such as Wesley versus Whitefield, their unity was stronger and far more wider in scope that their differences.
And i dare say that there is far more fellowship btwn evangelical Christians in real life than even btwn RC's and EO's, despite differences, from religious broadcasting to multitudinous parachurch ministries to politics.
Yet It is those who take doctrine more seriously that have the strongest unity as well as the most contentious disputes. Both are simply a reality, which some here seem to have difficulty admitting. Thus while we can point to Wesley contending against Whitefield and vice vers over election, in Catholicism you had the unresolved dispute btwn the Dominicans and the Jesuits in the 16th century on the reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom.
However, as both evangelical faith as well as Catholic faith sees increasing declension, so also we see increasing division. But as Paul said, "there must be also sects among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (1 Corinthians 11:19)
It is a far cry from the day which the French Catholic historian Alexis de Tocqueville (1805—1859) testified to in his visit to America.
In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth... There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated..
Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country. (Democracy in America, [New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)
And Franklin (1706—1790. One of the Founding Fathers and a non-Christian deist:
...serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested His approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness by which the different sects treat each other, and by the remarkable prosperity with which He has been please to favor the whole country. (Benjamin Franklin, "Information to those who would Remove to America" In Franklin, Benjamin. The Bagatelles from Passy. Ed. Lopez, Claude A. New York: Eakins Press. 1967; http://mith.umd.edu//eada/html/display.php?docs=franklin_bagatelle4.xml.
You seen to have the mistaken impression that I'm talking about individuals. I'm not. I'm addressing doctrinal division between denominations, all of whom claim to base their beliefs on Scripture. [Ted Kennedy] There you go again about how individuals practice their faith. Sure there are "bad" Catholics as well as "bad" Protestants, as far as practicing their faith. I don't dispute that. But again, I'm talking about differences in official doctrine/beliefs between the various denominations -
However, as said, the determination of what one believes is based on what they do and effect, Y"I will shew thee my faith by my works," (James 2:18) "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20)
Thus when the RCC and even the pope (who sent him a nice letter, with no apparent rebuke) treats a Ted Kennedy as member in communion with Rome, even to granting him a ecclesiastical funeral, it is partially teaching its members what is means as to be considered a Catholic, and even what canon law means which excludes notorious public sinners from have church funerals. And this treatment of proabortion, prohomosexual Ted, is typical of such.
One must be of the faith that effects obedience to be saved.
So, your answer is no.
Why would you say that (though I had to run at the time and did not explain further)? If saving faith is only that which effects obedience, and being baptized is a commandment, then logically being baptized is part of that obedience. Though not as the act itself regenerating the subject as in Catholicism, nor as meaning that until one is baptized that they are not saved, nor that the unbaptized necessarily go to Hell. It is faith which is counted for righteousness, but only a faith that will effect obedience by the Spirit to the known will of God.
And as those who obey evidence they believe, thus the promise of the Spirit is to them who believe/repent and obey, (Acts 2:38) but as it is the faith itself which appropriates the washing of regeneration, thus purification of heart and the Spirit is also promised to those who believe on the Lord Jesus. Even before they are baptized. (Acts 10:43-47; 25:7-9)