Converting to Catholicism

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

Move along troll, your hate isn't going to influence anyone here.

I am not a troll. Catholicism is marred with un-Biblical doctrines which separates believers from God and his salvation. No one should be deceived and join this wicked institution.

It's an interesting doctrine, sola scriptura. It appears nowhere in the Bible itself--how could it? 'The Bible' obviously did not exist as a coherent body at the time that Scripture was written. When the New Testament says 'Scripture' it's generally referring to the Hebrew Bible. Scripture as we know it was compiled by the Church, as part of the series of developments that created the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Scripture and Tradition are not separate sources of authority.

There are many cases in the Bible of God using wicked people to do his will, not the least of which being the Romans involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus. So being involved in the compilation of the Bible proves nothing.
When tradition and doctrines contradict the Bible they can safely be dismissed.

But on what basis?

My point is that accepting the basis on which the Bible is confessed as Scripture necessitates, at the very least, accepting the authority of the early ecumenical councils. Sure, one might just decide to accept the Bible while rejecting and calling 'wicked' the reasoning behind the process by which it took shape, but, again, on what basis?

I don't know how good a claim this is, but I remember my fundamentalist pastor said that the canon was more or less fully developed before the ecumenical councils and that all churches were more or less operating on the same scripture, give or take a few books.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

The problem with Unbiased's reasoning is that it treads awfully close to the line of thinking advocated by King James Only-ism, in which case you get stuff like this.

You can't completely divorce the Bible form the history surrounding it, including its compilation.  One can still be a fundamentalist, Bible-believing, literal Christian and believe that scripture is 100% inerrant, and still study the historical context of the books of the Bible when establishing why they're valid and what they mean.

Arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is certainly good if we're talking about defending the Christian faith generally, but it's not really valid to defending an exact canon, at least in my mind.  

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

The problem with Unbiased's reasoning is that it treads awfully close to the line of thinking advocated by King James Only-ism, in which case you get stuff like this.

You can't completely divorce the Bible form the history surrounding it, including its compilation.  One can still be a fundamentalist, Bible-believing, literal Christian and believe that scripture is 100% inerrant, and still study the historical context of the books of the Bible when establishing why they're valid and what they mean.

Arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is certainly good if we're talking about defending the Christian faith generally, but it's not really valid to defending an exact canon, at least in my mind. 

I am not King James Only.

I am not trying to defend a canon.

Believing that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God necessarily involves defending a canon.  Unless you wouldn't mind also considering the Apocrypha inerrant, but I have a feeling you wouldn't go there.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

The problem with Unbiased's reasoning is that it treads awfully close to the line of thinking advocated by King James Only-ism, in which case you get stuff like this.

You can't completely divorce the Bible form the history surrounding it, including its compilation.  One can still be a fundamentalist, Bible-believing, literal Christian and believe that scripture is 100% inerrant, and still study the historical context of the books of the Bible when establishing why they're valid and what they mean.

Arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is certainly good if we're talking about defending the Christian faith generally, but it's not really valid to defending an exact canon, at least in my mind.  

I am not King James Only.

I am not trying to defend a canon.

Believing that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God necessarily involves defending a canon.  Unless you wouldn't mind also considering the Apocrypha inerrant, but I have a feeling you wouldn't go there.

Whether the Apocrypha is or is not part of the Bible is irrelevant to the point I was making.

You said that the Bible stands on its own, which I can agree with in terms of its themes.  But we still have to come for a justification as to which books are in the Bible and that the process by which it was compiled is legitimate - otherwise, it's hard to argue that the Bible is complete and  fully inerrant (in terms of every book in it) if we can't place some faith in either the ecumenical councils or the early church's general agreement on the canon.  That was the point I was trying to make.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

From a functional perspective, if you're not Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic (not sure if separate from Orthodox), then I think you're de facto Protestant for all intents and purposes, as you would consider scripture your main source of authority (along with perhaps some additional holy text/external source if one is Mormon, JW, etc.).  Virtually all nondenominational Christians are effectively Protestant.

The thing is that if one claims the Catholic Church is un-Biblical, we've got to make a clear delineation of what the Bible is & is composed of.  We can't just use it as an amorphous term - we've got to be precise here.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

As a sidenote, a far more effective angle of attack against the Catholic Church, in my mind, is to challenge the idea of papal infallibility.  Considering that Paul himself rebuked Peter in Galatians 2 in scripture (which the Catholic Church itself deems infallible), then it's clear that the Bishop of Rome isn't always infallible.  Of course, one could argue that since Peter wasn't speaking ex cathedra at the time, it's irrelevant; however, the fact that without Paul's help, Peter would have continued his Judaizing tradition - it certainly calls into question the validity of every tradition of the bishops of Rome, the authority upon which the Catholic Church rests.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

From a functional perspective, if you're not Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic (not sure if separate from Orthodox), then I think you're de facto Protestant for all intents and purposes, as you would consider scripture your main source of authority (along with perhaps some additional holy text/external source if one is Mormon, JW, etc.).  Virtually all nondenominational Christians are effectively Protestant.

The thing is that if one claims the Catholic Church is un-Biblical, we've got to make a clear delineation of what the Bible is & is composed of.  We can't just use it as an amorphous term - we've got to be precise here.

If you want to use Protestant in its absolute broadest sense then yes I guess I am but that in my experience is not how it is used. It is usually linked to a more concrete set of beliefs.

Fair enough.  There's probably also regional differences in use for these terms; my point was just that your attack against the Catholic Church probably isn't the strongest, though there certainly are angles of critique against them.  

But the question remains - how can you say you're a defender of the "Bible" if you're not trying to defend a canon?  You have to have a canon to have a Bible.  I might not be understanding your argument though, so my apologies if that is the case.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

As a sidenote, a far more effective angle of attack against the Catholic Church, in my mind, is to challenge the idea of papal infallibility.  Considering that Paul himself rebuked Peter in Galatians 2 in scripture (which the Catholic Church itself deems infallible), then it's clear that the Bishop of Rome isn't always infallible.  Of course, one could argue that since Peter wasn't speaking ex cathedra at the time, it's irrelevant; however, the fact that without Paul's help, Peter would have continued his Judaizing tradition - it certainly calls into question the validity of every tradition of the bishops of Rome, the authority upon which the Catholic Church rests.

I think this plays into the collegial-ultramontanist dispute within Catholicism more than anything else, honestly; the fact that the collegial position exists within Catholicism kind of blunts it as an attack against the Church (although, granted, one as a Catholic has to explain the collegial position's existence to defend against this attack, and 'if you're explaining, you're losing', as they say).

This is fair, but on the other hand, doesn't it strongly blunt the "Catholicism is one true church because 36,000 Protestant denominations" claim used against Protestants, given the broad variety of differences within the Catholic Church on positions like the one described above?  I just think the claim of papal infallibility (even though only when speaking ex-cathedra) is a hard one to swallow when one considers all of the flaws of the first "pope," Pete, even with a collegial interpretation.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

I attend a congregation of believers.

Describe it.

It is about 120 people plus un-baptized children and teenagers.

I assume it's nondenominational, but are there any doctrinal distinctives y'all have?  Calvinist or Arminian?  Once-saved-always-saved or not? 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

I attend a congregation of believers.

Describe it.

It is about 120 people plus un-baptized children and teenagers.

I assume it's nondenominational, but are there any doctrinal distinctives y'all have?  Calvinist or Arminian?  Once-saved-always-saved or not? 

Don't assume anything.

OK, but still, is there anything fleshed out like a doctrinal statement that y'all have?  Something about your position on say (among other issues) Calvinism v. Arninianism, once-saved-always-saved, communion, evolution, etc.?

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

As a sidenote, a far more effective angle of attack against the Catholic Church, in my mind, is to challenge the idea of papal infallibility.  Considering that Paul himself rebuked Peter in Galatians 2 in scripture (which the Catholic Church itself deems infallible), then it's clear that the Bishop of Rome isn't always infallible.  Of course, one could argue that since Peter wasn't speaking ex cathedra at the time, it's irrelevant; however, the fact that without Paul's help, Peter would have continued his Judaizing tradition - it certainly calls into question the validity of every tradition of the bishops of Rome, the authority upon which the Catholic Church rests.

I think this plays into the collegial-ultramontanist dispute within Catholicism more than anything else, honestly; the fact that the collegial position exists within Catholicism kind of blunts it as an attack against the Church (although, granted, one as a Catholic has to explain the collegial position's existence to defend against this attack, and 'if you're explaining, you're losing', as they say).

This is fair, but on the other hand, doesn't it strongly blunt the "Catholicism is one true church because 36,000 Protestant denominations" claim used against Protestants, given the broad variety of differences within the Catholic Church on positions like the one described above?  I just think the claim of papal infallibility (even though only when speaking ex-cathedra) is a hard one to swallow when one considers all of the flaws of the first "pope," Pete, even with a collegial interpretation.

Well, yeah, it does blunt that claim, but I don't think that claim is a very strong one anyway. I think the stronger claim is, if anything, that Catholicism is capable of holding these sorts of disputes in creative tension without undergoing constant schism--which is a similar claim, but not the same sort of crass 'LOL 1,000,000,000/1 OF US 1,000,000,000/36,000 OF YOU' thing you often see certain types of Catholics using.

That's a good way of phrasing it, and it is a good argument against a lot of fundamentalist Protestants.  The classic example I look to is Independent Fundamental Baptists.  Steven Anderson, Sam Gipp, and Jack Schaap, three well-known figures in the movement, all have had a lot of problems with each other.  Anderson in particular calls churches/people unsaved (and often homosexual, just as an added insult) unless they basically agree with his entire theology/worldview (including KJV Onlyism, once-saved-always-saved, no repentance/turning from sin to be saved, etc.).   It seems very hard to argue that when you have splits over everything that it helps the case for Christianity.

However, for mainline Protestants, most seem to get along just fine anyways.  United Methodists, ECLA, United Church of Christ, PCUSA, etc. all seem to work together a fair amount and have very little animosity between them, so couldn't one argue being separate but congenial is just as good?

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

I will state what I believe which would be consistent with the doctrinal statement.

I believe there is one God the Father
I believe that He created the heavens and the earth at a time close to 6000 years ago.
I believe that that the Lord Jesus is his Son.
I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
I believe in conditional immortality
I believe in bodily ressurection
I believe that the Lord Jesus will return to earth to become king over God kingdom on earth
I believe that baptism is a requirement of God as an act of obedience and is a symbol of the death a resurrection of the Lord Jesus the Messiah.
I believe that the wicked will be punished by death in grave.

I do not believe in the trinity, substitutionary atonement, immortal souls, heaven going, a supernatural devil, hell as a place of torture, evolution, once saved always saved or Calvinism.

Interesting.  I like all of that except the young-Earth creationism part (I have studied this topic pretty extensively as a former YEC and have concluded that a young Earth/global flood model is untenable).

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

I will state what I believe which would be consistent with the doctrinal statement.

I believe there is one God the Father
I believe that He created the heavens and the earth at a time close to 6000 years ago.
I believe that that the Lord Jesus is his Son.
I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
I believe in conditional immortality
I believe in bodily ressurection
I believe that the Lord Jesus will return to earth to become king over God kingdom on earth
I believe that baptism is a requirement of God as an act of obedience and is a symbol of the death a resurrection of the Lord Jesus the Messiah.
I believe that the wicked will be punished by death in grave.

I do not believe in the trinity, substitutionary atonement, immortal souls, heaven going, a supernatural devil, hell as a place of torture, evolution, once saved always saved or Calvinism.

Interesting.  I like all of that except the young-Earth creationism part (I have studied this topic pretty extensively as a former YEC and have concluded that a young Earth/global flood model is untenable).

So believe in an old age kind of creationism with a local flood not a world wide flood?

Yeah.  The big issue with a world-wide flood is that most creationists peg it as having occurred about 4400 years ago.  The issue is that we see many species of plants and animals that are unique to specific islands or nations, such as Madagascar, the Galapagos Islands, and Papua New Guinea.  A global flood model would require one of the following circumstances to take place:
1) Extremely rapid continental drift/activity that there is little geological evidence to substantiate which resulted in the rapid formation of these geographically isolated areas which just happened to contain all of a particular species (example:  kangaroos/koalas only being found in Australia, though this issue extends to many different species)
2.  Extremely rapid speciation post-Flood:  In this scenario, there were only a few species that managed to make their ways on the island, but evolution forces acted so rapidly that those species became markedly different than the ones we see on the nearby mainland of the continent.  The rate of microevolution we observe in different species is far less than one would predict had speciation occurred at the rate that would be suggested by this validation for a global flood model.

If YEC were true, I'd probably have to go with Option 1.  Option 2 makes macroevolution so plausible that it's not really worth believing in.  

Frankly, I think a YEC position would be far more tenable without a global flood, as one could just use the Omphalos Hypothesis to explain distant starlight, radioactive dating, and dinosaur fossils.  But it gets a lot harder when one throws in a global flood that occurred relatively recently.  There are some other issues, but I'll have to wait for tomorrow on it.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

From a functional perspective, if you're not Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic (not sure if separate from Orthodox), then I think you're de facto Protestant for all intents and purposes, as you would consider scripture your main source of authority (along with perhaps some additional holy text/external source if one is Mormon, JW, etc.).  Virtually all nondenominational Christians are effectively Protestant.

The thing is that if one claims the Catholic Church is un-Biblical, we've got to make a clear delineation of what the Bible is & is composed of.  We can't just use it as an amorphous term - we've got to be precise here.

I quibble with your definition here. Protestantism ought to have a more coherent definition than "non-Catholic western Christianity". For all of Protestantism's railing against Catholicism/Orthodoxy, the movement founded in the Reformation can at least assent to the Nicene Creed. Unbiased's views/church denies the creed, and appears to have a view of God closer to the Arians.

Fiddling with definitions of God is sufficient to place oneself in a separate branch of Christianity at minimum, and possibly outside the faith as well.

So you don't consider oneness Pentecostals to be Protestants then?