ECT CATHOLIC CHURCH & PROTESTANT SECTS: What's the Difference?

ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!

WakeUp.jpg



Post #41
 
CabinetMaker

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
I have observed that churches tend to fall under one of two major types. Type a is a rules based church. It is all about rules and doctrines. Do this and that, don't do tose and these and your place in paradise is assured. These types of churches tend to be very popular as adherents don't have to think much, just follow the rules and everything is great. They are also popular because it allows for people a way to judge others for their behaviors and feel like they have the authority to do so. Members of these churches may or may not be Christian. That depends entirely on their relationship with Christ. Prime examples of these churches are the RCC, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovas Witness and more.

The second type of church is a relationship church. It is focused less on rules and doctrines and more on developing a relationship with God. These churches require that adherents spend time prayerfully studying the bible and being open and available to God. These churches tend to be much smaller. Members of these churches may or may not be Christian. That depends entirely on their relationship with Christ.

As always, there is a spectrum between these two end points. Which one is better? Depends on the person. Some people do very much better with rigid rules while others do better in a relationship. But if one prefers rules then the leaders are placed in a precarious position as they are the ones laying down the rules. If they lead their congregation astray they will be judged more harshly.
 
Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
CM forgot the church where we believe we cannot fall out of a relationship because we are sealed by the Holy Spirit and baptized into Christ.
 
H

HisServant

New member
brewmama said:
The real question is why you would question something that has been unanimously believed in the Church for 2000 years.

Total Unanimity

Peter had to die and be buried somewhere; and the OVERWHELMING CHRISTIAN TRADITION has been in agreement, from the EARLIEST TIMES, that it was actually in Rome that Peter died. F. J. Foakes-Jackson, in his book Peter: Prince of Apostles, states "that the tradition that the church [in Rome] had been founded by...Paul was well established by A.D. 178. From hence forth there is NO DOUBT whatever that, NOT ONLY AT ROME, but throughout the Christian church, Peter's visit to the city was an ESTABLISHED FACT, as was his martyrdom together with that of Paul" (New York, 1927. P. 155.).

Historian Arthur Stapylton Barnes agrees:

The strong point in the evidence of the [church] fathers is their UNANIMITY. It is QUITE CLEAR that no other place was known to them as claiming to have been the scene of St. Peter's death, and the repository of his relics. -- St. Peter in Rome, London, 1900. P. 7.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge corroborates this by saying:

Tradition seems to maintain that Peter went to Rome toward the end of his life and there suffered martyrdom UNDER NERO. NO SOURCE describes the place of Peter's martyrdom as other than Rome. It seems most probable, on the whole, that Peter died a martyr's death IN ROME TOWARD THE CLOSE OF NERO'S REIGN, sometime AFTER the cessation of the general persecution. -- Article, "Peter."

John Ignatius Dollinger claims that the evidence "St. Peter worked in Rome is a FACT SO ABUNDANTLY PROVED and so deeply imbedded in the earliest Christian history, that whoever treats it as a legend ought in consistency to treat the whole of the earliest church history as LEGENDARY, or, at least, QUITE UNCERTAIN" (The 1st Age of Christianity and the Church, London. 1867. P. 296).


As author James Hardy Ropes states:

The tradition, however, that Peter came to Rome, and suffered martyrdom under Nero (54-68 A.D.) either in the great persecution which followed the burning of the city or somewhat later, rests on a different and FIRMER basis....It is UNQUESTIONED that 150 years after Peter's death it was the COMMON BELIEF at Rome that he had died there, as had Paul. The "trophies" of the two great apostles could be seen on the Vatican Hill and by the Ostian Way...a firm local tradition of the death at Rome of both apostles is attested for a time NOT TOO DISTANT FROM THE EVENT. -- The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism. New York. 1908. Pp. 215-216.

The belief that Peter was martyred in Rome was NOT due to the vanity or ambition of the LOCAL Christians, but was ADMITTED, at an early date, THROUGHOUT THE CHURCH. No testimony later than the middle of the 3rd century really needs to be considered; by this time the Roman church claimed to have the body of the apostle and NO ONE DISPUTED THE FACT.

It is more than interesting to realize that there IS NOT ONE SINGLE PASSAGE or utterance to the contrary in ANY of the literary works dealing with the foundations of Christianity -- until AFTER the Reformation.
Click to expand...

If you only want to believe Romanists, you have a point.

But to me, what you are doing is expecting me to take the word of a criminal that he didn't do the murder..

Your reasoning is very circular and totally based on hearsay... very few people questioned tradition or anything else the Romanist Church did prior to the reformation because their lives would be in jeopardy... The Romanist Church also systematically destroyed anything it could possible get its hands on that even hinted on questioning its authority.... and killed many people to maintain its authority.

So.... evidence please.

Something from Paul perhaps indicating Peter was in Rome... maybe a letter from Peter naming a successor?... anything tangible that we have evidence for instead of myth and legend.

The fact that Rome cannot produce anything tangible that would extinguish these arguments in a heatbeat... and has to rely on man made tradition, legend and myth of support its claims shows that it is telling falsehoods.

In the end, your entire church is based on one obscure verse that is contained in only 1 of the 4 gospels.... a verse not important enough to be included in all 4 witness gospels. The simple fact that that verse is all you have to go on is pathetic. Not to mention that the translation of that passage is very suspect. It seems to not be important to God at all, or he would have repeated it and made it clear as day.
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
CabinetMaker said:
I have observed that churches tend to fall under one of two major types. Type a is a rules based church. It is all about rules and doctrines. Do this and that, don't do tose and these and your place in paradise is assured. These types of churches tend to be very popular as adherents don't have to think much, just follow the rules and everything is great. They are also popular because it allows for people a way to judge others for their behaviors and feel like they have the authority to do so. Members of these churches may or may not be Christian. That depends entirely on their relationship with Christ. Prime examples of these churches are the RCC, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovas Witness and more.

The second type of church is a relationship church. It is focused less on rules and doctrines and more on developing a relationship with God. These churches require that adherents spend time prayerfully studying the bible and being open and available to God. These churches tend to be much smaller. Members of these churches may or may not be Christian. That depends entirely on their relationship with Christ.

As always, there is a spectrum between these two end points. Which one is better? Depends on the person. Some people do very much better with rigid rules while others do better in a relationship. But if one prefers rules then the leaders are placed in a precarious position as they are the ones laying down the rules. If they lead their congregation astray they will be judged more harshly.
Click to expand...

I don't really see this at all. You don't seem to have any clue about ancient churches.
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
HisServant said:
If you only want to believe Romanists, you have a point.

But to me, what you are doing is expecting me to take the word of a criminal that he didn't do the murder..

Your reasoning is very circular and totally based on hearsay... very few people questioned tradition or anything else the Romanist Church did prior to the reformation because their lives would be in jeopardy... The Romanist Church also systematically destroyed anything it could possible get its hands on that even hinted on questioning its authority.... and killed many people to maintain its authority.

So.... evidence please.

Something from Paul perhaps indicating Peter was in Rome... maybe a letter from Peter naming a successor?... anything tangible that we have evidence for instead of myth and legend.

The fact that Rome cannot produce anything tangible that would extinguish these arguments in a heatbeat... and has to rely on man made tradition, legend and myth of support its claims shows that it is telling falsehoods.

In the end, your entire church is based on one obscure verse that is contained in only 1 of the 4 gospels.... a verse not important enough to be included in all 4 witness gospels. The simple fact that that verse is all you have to go on is pathetic. Not to mention that the translation of that passage is very suspect. It seems to not be important to God at all, or he would have repeated it and made it clear as day.
Click to expand...

But He did. You're the one not listening. You've proved my initial assessment of you.
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
CabinetMaker said:
I have observed...
Click to expand...
In order for your doctrinal opinions to carry any weight whatsoever, please go ahead and demonstrate that your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15). Please post your proof now.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top