?
Post Reply
1 of 1
Explain the differences between a Catholic and a Prespertarian
2,882 Views |
9 Replies |
Last: 20 yr ago by
Do you mean Presbyterian?
I am curious as to why you chose to compare these two, of all things?
Its curious, because it turns out there is alot more in common (forget the highly visual pope at the top imagery) than any would have ever guessed. Rome should never have driven them out, and they should never have left.
Its curious, because it turns out there is alot more in common (forget the highly visual pope at the top imagery) than any would have ever guessed. Rome should never have driven them out, and they should never have left.
Also, are you wanting to compare RCC with PCUSA, PCA or OPC? (Miles of difference between PCUSA and the other two, in terms of political orientation of most members)
One difference, just off the top of my head...
A Catholic believes in saying "Grace" before meals.
A Presbyterian believes in saying "Grace" before they were born.
A Catholic believes in saying "Grace" before meals.
A Presbyterian believes in saying "Grace" before they were born.
TULIP
ChrisAg,
Yes, but what is not realized is how close the Presbyterian view is to the Catholic one. As you said, TULIP is the key. Limited Atonement is rejected by most Protestants apparently, not just by RC/OC. But to risk over-simplifying, a four-point Calvinist (leaving aside their rejection of the heirarchy, the form and all that, I mean just the views) is very in line with correct Catholic teaching, and I don't just mean some modern expansion of it.
The Council of Orange in 529 dealt with all this, both Pelagian views (very similar to the modern notion of "tabula rasa" - man born innocent, made evil by events) and Semi-Pelagian (the idea that man's flesh -- human nature, whatnot, the will -- remained "good enough" that no attention from God, no divine Grace was necessary for him to "get the idea" to come to God, so to speak.
Both of these concepts, foreshadowing things that would get very muddled and contested after 1500 by intransigence on both sides, were clearly condemned in 529 and ratified by papal authority as well.
When Presbyterians rail against "semi-Pelagic tendencies and speech" today, they are quite right. What is overlooked is just what the church was really ruling against, and how much they are in agreement.
That said, I know its challenged that Trent abandoned Orange II, but it doesn't look like it.
[This message has been edited by titan (edited 2/17/2005 12:00a).]
Yes, but what is not realized is how close the Presbyterian view is to the Catholic one. As you said, TULIP is the key. Limited Atonement is rejected by most Protestants apparently, not just by RC/OC. But to risk over-simplifying, a four-point Calvinist (leaving aside their rejection of the heirarchy, the form and all that, I mean just the views) is very in line with correct Catholic teaching, and I don't just mean some modern expansion of it.
The Council of Orange in 529 dealt with all this, both Pelagian views (very similar to the modern notion of "tabula rasa" - man born innocent, made evil by events) and Semi-Pelagian (the idea that man's flesh -- human nature, whatnot, the will -- remained "good enough" that no attention from God, no divine Grace was necessary for him to "get the idea" to come to God, so to speak.
Both of these concepts, foreshadowing things that would get very muddled and contested after 1500 by intransigence on both sides, were clearly condemned in 529 and ratified by papal authority as well.
When Presbyterians rail against "semi-Pelagic tendencies and speech" today, they are quite right. What is overlooked is just what the church was really ruling against, and how much they are in agreement.
That said, I know its challenged that Trent abandoned Orange II, but it doesn't look like it.
[This message has been edited by titan (edited 2/17/2005 12:00a).]
what the hell is tulip?
TULIP is the acronym for the basic ideas of classical Calvinism.
T -- total depravity. This doesn't mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one's being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.
U -- unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.
L -- limited atonement. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect.
I -- irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.
P -- perseverence of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time.
T -- total depravity. This doesn't mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one's being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.
U -- unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.
L -- limited atonement. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect.
I -- irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.
P -- perseverence of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time.
There is more to it than TULIP. Since I am lazy, I will place a link from the Catholic Encylopedia about Presbyterianism (a Catholic point of view).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12392b.htm
"Expect great things from God; attempt great things for God." - William Carey
"Every year, nay every moon, we make new creeds to describe invisible Mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we defend those who repent, we anathematise those whom we defend. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves or our own in that of others; and recipocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other's ruin." - St. Hilary of Poitiers, writing to Emperor Constantine
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12392b.htm
"Expect great things from God; attempt great things for God." - William Carey
"Every year, nay every moon, we make new creeds to describe invisible Mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we defend those who repent, we anathematise those whom we defend. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves or our own in that of others; and recipocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other's ruin." - St. Hilary of Poitiers, writing to Emperor Constantine
quote:
Its curious, because it turns out there is alot more in common (forget the highly visual pope at the top imagery) than any would have ever guessed. Rome should never have driven them out, and they should never have left.
There are very few similarities in terms of theology and doctrine. About the only similarities that I can think of is that both are Liturgical and both are Trinitarian.
-Denny Crane-