spence10 said:

---

Full disclosure: I was raised Catholic and no longer consider myself religious. My mom was raised Southern Baptist (converted about a decade ago) so I had the opportunity to attend both Mass and go to Baptist church every week as a kid. While my dad's family is Catholic, my mom's side is mostly Baptist.

Throughout childhood and even into high school, there seemed to be a disdain for the Catholic church from Protestants. I'd always hear snide comments about us such as "worshiping Mary," quips about Communion, etc. from my Mom's side of the family and a few friends - and it carried on throughout high school. The opinions themselves did not bother me, but one thing is absolutely clear from my experience: Protestants in general seem to look down upon the Catholic church, and from personal experience seem to despise it. Even more interesting is the reverse does not seem to be true - and if it is, is MUCH less of a big deal to Catholics.

Again, I'm a neutral and do not feel affiliated to one side or the other. In fact, I don't think there is a "side," only some nuances in interpreting certain aspects of how to best serve God, so the "hating" really seems unjustified in my mind. Would be curious to hear thoughts from the board.

---

Catholics and protestants are natural enemies

k2aggie07 said:

---

One, shiner is not a rock or snake. It is still beer and all beer is good. Some is gooder than others. It's not even the worst beer.

Two, you can't get Yuengling in Texas and it's my favorite and it was my birthday present and I don't wanna share so I don't have to and you can't make me.

---

Quote:

---

11 He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two Yuenglings, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

---

I believe that division of believers on non salvific issues is the work of the devil. And I have heard it from both sides. Being raised in a Baptist Church, I never knew what the Orthodox Church was or who the Church Fathers were until I read on here about them.

I will say this, if a Protestant pastor calls the Pope the Anti Christ or a Catholic priest degrades Protestants, I immediately tune them out. It seems horribly tragic that Christians killed other Christians because of non salvific issues. Hard to find Christ in either sides divisive actions.

dermdoc said:

---

I believe that division of believers on non salvific issues is the work of the devil. And I have heard it from both sides. Being raised in a Baptist Church, I never knew what the Orthodox Church was or who the Church Fathers were until I read on here about them.

I will say this, if a Protestant pastor calls the Pope the Anti Christ or a Catholic priest degrades Protestants, I immediately tune them out. It seems horribly tragic that Christians killed other Christians because of non salvific issues. Hard to find Christ in either sides divisive actions.

---

Amen.

My favorite is still the evangelical mission trips to countries where 99% of people are Catholic

AGC said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

AGC said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

In my opinion/experience, it is largely because there has always been a prots vs RCC divide creating an us vs them mentality. Any time you do that, it's going to stir up resentment and misinformation.

Having lived in a Baptist town as a Lutheran and being very involved in the pro-life community, I've seen animosity from both sides due to the unique place in the spectrum that we hold.

As I have grown up and learned more about different denominations..and the evolution and growth of progressive/non denominational churches (and UMC, ELCA, DoC, all the very "liberal" denominations)... I find that I see a much more practical divide when I segregate the churches by Eucharistic and non-eucharistic practices.

---

I think there are other differences too. Few prots would retreat to Judas as their patron saint when their clergy (to the top) is shuffling abusers around. We are all sinners after all...

---

For sure, but that divide is probably a good idea of where they stand on female clergy, tradition, infant baptism, sexuality, laser light shows etc.

---

Uh...sexuality and female clergy probably don't belong here because they're present pretty equally.

---

What churches that hold the eucharist as true body/blood/more than a symbol or remembrance also embrace female clergy and are progressive on sexuality?

Don't any of you learned fellows worry that you are taking into the same temptation as that of the Pharisees, that is, both the elevation of human tradition over the desires of God and the pride of viewing yourselves as the exclusive people of God instead of spreading his message of Grace, Mercy, Hope, and Love throughout the world?

The faith that is peached in the New Testament seems pretty simple. By God's Grace alone are we saved, remember Christ in communion, keep Christ's message at the center of your worship and life, and don't tolerate immorality in your midst.

It appears to me that we have overcomplicated the heck out of it. The Jews sought justification in their law and tradition (outward piety). Christ taught a message of focus on God in your heart (inward piety). Paul's writings tell us that having God in your heart makes you dead to sin, such that inward piety necessarily results in effortless outward piety. It seems clear to me that we have abandoned that message and sought after those same things as the Jews did.

"At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.""

Matthew 11:25-30 ESV

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

AGC said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

AGC said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

In my opinion/experience, it is largely because there has always been a prots vs RCC divide creating an us vs them mentality. Any time you do that, it's going to stir up resentment and misinformation.

Having lived in a Baptist town as a Lutheran and being very involved in the pro-life community, I've seen animosity from both sides due to the unique place in the spectrum that we hold.

As I have grown up and learned more about different denominations..and the evolution and growth of progressive/non denominational churches (and UMC, ELCA, DoC, all the very "liberal" denominations)... I find that I see a much more practical divide when I segregate the churches by Eucharistic and non-eucharistic practices.

---

I think there are other differences too. Few prots would retreat to Judas as their patron saint when their clergy (to the top) is shuffling abusers around. We are all sinners after all...

---

For sure, but that divide is probably a good idea of where they stand on female clergy, tradition, infant baptism, sexuality, laser light shows etc.

---

Uh...sexuality and female clergy probably don't belong here because they're present pretty equally.

---

What churches that hold the eucharist as true body/blood/more than a symbol or remembrance also embrace female clergy and are progressive on sexuality?

---

I assume you've got Anglicans in there. And of course the catholic clergy seem to be pretty accepting of some stuff.

Definitely not the more traditional proper Anglican sects.

And the catholic thing was a low blow. That's obviously not doctrinal.

99% of people who attribute sacredness to the body and blood also only have Male clergy.

I grew up in the church and never heard anything negative about the Catholic Church.

I grew anti-catholic after reading about their beliefs. They are christians. But they have completely fabricated beliefs.

I was never taught anti-jewish beliefs either. But they have completely false beliefs and reject the messiah.

The difference in my opinion is Catholics do not try to undermine other religions where as the Jewish groups seem too.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Definitely not the more traditional proper Anglican sects.

And the catholic thing was a low blow. That's obviously not doctrinal.

99% of people who attribute sacredness to the body and blood also only have Male clergy.

---

It was a semi-low blow. What is communicated to the laity by priests who don't believe something (or in this case, perhaps not communicated)? What is said in confession? What advice is given? How long will that belief hold? How many Catholics hold it now? How are the priests reacting to the scandal (some well and true, holding to doctrine, others deflecting and ignoring)?

The line you're making is not so clear and established anymore. Just about every denomination has a progressive faction whether they like it or not and western culture is the driving force as it takes place not just in the states but Europe as well.

dermdoc said:

---

I believe that division of believers on non salvific issues is the work of the devil. And I have heard it from both sides. Being raised in a Baptist Church, I never knew what the Orthodox Church was or who the Church Fathers were until I read on here about them.

I will say this, if a Protestant pastor calls the Pope the Anti Christ or a Catholic priest degrades Protestants, I immediately tune them out. It seems horribly tragic that Christians killed other Christians because of non salvific issues. Hard to find Christ in either sides divisive actions.

---

While I agree with you, this opens up a major point of division.

You will get a wide range of views on what is "salvific act" which of course causes the conflict.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

My favorite is still the evangelical mission trips to countries where 99% of people are Catholic

---

I had a patient in the other day who goes to a fundamentalist church whose church was sending a mission trip to the Ukraine. I asked her if she knew that almost all the population were Orthodox Christians. She gave me a dirty look and said that the Orthodox were not "real" Christians and that they were trying to "convert" them. I tried to explain that they were the original Church and had Apostolic succession. She looked at me like I was speaking Greek.

dermdoc said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

My favorite is still the evangelical mission trips to countries where 99% of people are Catholic

---

I had a patient in the other day who goes to a fundamentalist church whose church was sending a mission trip to the Ukraine. I asked her if she knew that almost all the population were Orthodox Christians. She gave me a dirty look and said that the Orthodox were not "real" Christians and that they were trying to "convert" them. I tried to explain that they were the original Church and had Apostolic succession. She looked at me like I was speaking Greek.

---

Thats the stuff that makes me into the monster i am today. How dare she? The Orthodox crafted Christianity, the only shred of truth in her belief structure derives from what was built by ancient Christianity, passed on, and that her sect hasnt "reformed" from.

Also, you seem like a cool guy. Thumbs down not for you

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I believe that division of believers on non salvific issues is the work of the devil. And I have heard it from both sides. Being raised in a Baptist Church, I never knew what the Orthodox Church was or who the Church Fathers were until I read on here about them.

I will say this, if a Protestant pastor calls the Pope the Anti Christ or a Catholic priest degrades Protestants, I immediately tune them out. It seems horribly tragic that Christians killed other Christians because of non salvific issues. Hard to find Christ in either sides divisive actions.

---

While I agree with you, this opens up a major point of division.

You will get a wide range of views on what is "salvific act" which of course causes the conflict.

---

How do they reconcile John 6 47
Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes on Me shall be saved.

Or Romams 10 13
All those who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved

Or Luke 2 10
And the angel said unto them, fear not, for behold, I bring you tidings of great joy which shall be to ALL people.

No wonder Calvin did not like to celebrate Christmas.

And edited to add, why would any Christian want to exclude anybody from salvation? Especially if you believe in an eternal Auschwitz created by the God you worship. I do not want anybody to go to eternal, conscious torment and can not fathom anyone who would. Redemptive punishment by God? Sure. But threatening other BELIEVERSwith Hell impugns the character of God IMHO.

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I believe that division of believers on non salvific issues is the work of the devil. And I have heard it from both sides. Being raised in a Baptist Church, I never knew what the Orthodox Church was or who the Church Fathers were until I read on here about them.

I will say this, if a Protestant pastor calls the Pope the Anti Christ or a Catholic priest degrades Protestants, I immediately tune them out. It seems horribly tragic that Christians killed other Christians because of non salvific issues. Hard to find Christ in either sides divisive actions.

---

While I agree with you, this opens up a major point of division.

You will get a wide range of views on what is "salvific act" which of course causes the conflict.

---

How do they reconcile John 6 47
Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes on Me shall be saved.

Or Romams 10 13
All those who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved

Or Luke 2 10
And the angel said unto them, fear not, for behold, I bring you tidings of great joy which shall be to ALL people.

No wonder Calvin did not like to celebrate Christmas.

---

I wasn't necessarily using the term "salvific act" to mean an actual act, though you are certainly correct.

From this thread alone:

Catholic:

Quote:

---

No bishop no Church, correct?

---

Orthodox:

Quote:

---

Yes. No bishop no church. No Eucharist no church. No laity no church.

---

I don't understand what my quote is an example of?

Honestly, I wish for universalism, though I don't believe in it. I believe in annihilationism, from a plain reading of the Bible. Ultimately, I'll just have to rely on God's Grace as I know I am not worthy. So, yeah, I cringe when others talk about someone having gone to hell. I hope for the redemption of even the most fallen person, but my reasons are selfish.

It goes both ways. I have actually had Calvinist friends say that "all" does not really mean "all". And of course these are the same folks who insist on word for word inerrancy of the Bible.

And on the other side, I see nothing in the Scriptures I posted that stated you need a bishop to be saved. Or do the Eucharist weekly. In fact, I see nothing in the verses I posted that say anything other than simple belief that Christ died for my sins. Pure grace.

That's why I don't understand his quote. I never said you need a bishop to be saved, or weekly Eucharist. It seems like we are taking a topic that is complicated and drawing conclusions from gross oversimplifications.

Quote:

---

It seems like we are taking a topic that is complicated and drawing conclusions from gross oversimplifications.

---

Welcome to TexAgs.

Resistol said:

---

Honestly, I wish for universalism, though I don't believe in it. I believe in annihilationism, from a plain reading of the Bible. Ultimately, I'll just have to rely on God's Grace as I know I am not worthy. So, yeah, I cringe when others talk about someone having gone to hell. I hope for the redemption of even the most fallen person, but my reasons are selfish.

---

I agree with that view. I just do not understand almost the glee that some Christians seem to have that others may suffer forever. Heck, Tertullian said that he could not wait to look down from Heaven at his critics being punished in Hell.

And I still want to know why the King James translators translated the exact same word "Sheol" which means grave, as Hell half the time and grave half the time in the OT.

Or why a word "Hell" was created by the same translators instead of just using Gehenna which was in the original manuscripts(which by the way every church I have ever gone to said that these were inerrant). Anyone who does not see a bias, especially in the OT where Sheol was translated into Hell only when it fir their agenda. Gehenna was a geographic place. Christ was talking to Jews who would know exactly what he meant.

Nobody in that audience would have imagined the Hellenistic "Hell" created primarily by Augustine.

And even if there is eternal conscious torment in a place called Hell, what living creature would have the arrogance or cruelty to almost gleefully send folks who disagree with them there. And can someone find any Bible verse that says that any believers view on Hell jeopardizes their salvation?

I was taught a bunch of non Scriptural stuff in Baptist Sunday School.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I don't understand what my quote is an example of?

---

We were talking about salvific issues vs non-salvific issues.

I thought it was relevant to point out that there are views that without a Bishop there is no Church.

A conclusion from that might be that if you are not part of the Church your salvation is in serious jeopardy.

I don't think this is wrong with respect to Roman based off their own historical statements. If that is not a correct conclusion for the Orthodox than I apologize.

k2aggie07 said:

---

That's why I don't understand his quote. I never said you need a bishop to be saved, or weekly Eucharist. It seems like we are taking a topic that is complicated and drawing conclusions from gross oversimplifications.

---

I think salvation is not complicated based on the Scriptures I posted. I know we disagree with that but I will get you a Yeungling(or something of equal quality)if we get together for a beer.

I don't think salvation is complicated either, but saying the Church is comprised of the bishop (or the presbyters with the chief presbyter) and the laity, particularly in the Eucharistic gathering, is not a statement about salvation. Ecclesiology and soteriology have some coincident points - maybe we could go as far as to say they are two sides of the same coin, i.e., Christ, but they're not the same thing.

As Christians we shouldn't tell people things that are false, like salvation is easy or that it is a one-time thing on our part. The only one-time thing relating to salvation that I know of is the ephapax offering of Jesus Christ (cf Hebrews 10:10). There are direct scriptures refuting both of these, and we don't get to pick and choose which scriptures we use or ignore.

In this exact thread I posted about the nuance and application of this.

You're using the word "church" in the modern sense and I am talking about it in the new testament sense, which is why I said there needs to be caution.

In the NT the Church does not exist in the abstract, it is formed by the assembly of believers, which is what the word itself means. The nation or people of Israel is different than the assembly of Israel, which is no different than the nation or people of Christianity and the Church.

There is no way to be saved other than Christ. To be joined to Christ is to become a member of His Body, which is the Church. But this does not mean that if you never attend a Eucharistic assembly, i.e., a formation of the Church, you have no hope for being saved.

The NT makes a distinction between all believers in an abstract sense (how most people use the phrase "the Church") and the actualized Church as the assembly of the saints.

dermdoc said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

My favorite is still the evangelical mission trips to countries where 99% of people are Catholic

---

I had a patient in the other day who goes to a fundamentalist church whose church was sending a mission trip to the Ukraine. I asked her if she knew that almost all the population were Orthodox Christians. She gave me a dirty look and said that the Orthodox were not "real" Christians and that they were trying to "convert" them. I tried to explain that they were the original Church and had Apostolic succession. She looked at me like I was speaking Greek.

---

Well, duh..she was expecting Ukrainian, or at least Russian.

I laughed.

Quote:

---

And even if there is eternal conscious torment in a place called Hell, what living creature would have the arrogance or cruelty to almost gleefully send folks who disagree with them there.

---

It's not because you disagree with Him, it's because of your unrighteousness. And nobody believes God gleefully sends people to hell.

Edit: Wasn't say you like as in actual you, theoretical to the point you. (Realized it sounded like I was referring to you in hell)

I was not talking about God gleefully sending to people to Hell because Scripture obviously says otherwise. I am talking about Christians taking glee in other Christians going to Hell. And I see that attitude most in Calvinists. And it is not actually glee, it is more of an arrogant assurance.

Frok said:

---

Quote:

---

And even if there is eternal conscious torment in a place called Hell, what living creature would have the arrogance or cruelty to almost gleefully send folks who disagree with them there.

---

It's not because you disagree with Him, it's because of your unrighteousness. And nobody believes God gleefully sends people to hell.

Edit: Wasn't say you like as in actual you, theoretical to the point you. (Realized it sounded like I was referring to you in hell)

---

And the parables of the prodigal son, the lost coin, and the lost sheep tells me all I need to know about how God treats us unrighteous sinners.

I might add that God can do whatever He wants, no man can send some to Hell although from my viewpoint it sure seems like a lot think they can.

Look at Jonathan Edwards sermons and compare them to Paul's. It is very revealing.

Jonathan Edwards described the dreadful reality of hell in hopes to turn people to Christ. His stuff is pretty crazy but that was 18th century preaching. Different time for sure.

Helped start the Great Awakening and led people to Christ though.

Did you know two people committed suicide after that Edward's sermon? Does that sound like Paul's sermons that you read in the Bible?

dermdoc said:

---

Did you know two people committed suicide after that Edward's sermon? Does that sound like Paul's sermons that you read in the Bible?

---

Well paul did cause a guy to fall to his death, he was revived though

He described what he imagined the dreadful reality of hell to be, unless you think he was granted some special revelation.

There's a middle way here. Fear is the beginning of love, and we should fear God so we follow the commandments - and in that obedience we will learn to love Him, we will be able to love Him as we become more aware of His righteousness and our sinfulness. That's the whole purpose of the Law. You can't have just the NT and not the Old, you can't have an understanding of the Incarnation of Christ without understanding the Law and the Prophets. Gods justice frames His mercy and His mercy is utterly just. There's no shortcut, you don't become righteous in a moment. Maybe you do, anyway, but I don't or didn't. It is a struggle, it is a cross, a yoke - but a light one, and a joyful one.

Focusing on mercy to the exclusion of justice or vise versa dilutes both. It's both.