Catholic vs Calvinist (if you had to choose)

[ALAYMAN]

Yes, I forgot about the Eastern Orthodox Church, and it is pre-Luther. But I still read it split from the Catholic Church in the Great Schism of 1054.

You seem to be implying the Roman Catholic church was the first church (especially in light of your Peter = 1st pope rationale), but it is historically obvious that the Roman Catholic Church did not emerge until the 3rd century under Constantine. That means that the concept of a pure church predates Catholicism. Historicity of ecclesiology aside, what you seem to be struggling with the most is dealing with the quotes that many people have given you showing that Roman Catholicism at its core corrupts the gospel in such a defective manner that it is extremely troubling for anybody to seriously consider it in possession of the true gospel.

 

[abcaines]

You seem to be implying the Roman Catholic church was the first church (especially in light of your Peter = 1st pope rationale), but it is historically obvious that the Roman Catholic Church did not emerge until the 3rd century under Constantine. That means that the concept of a pure church predates Catholicism. Historicity of ecclesiology aside, what you seem to be struggling with the most is dealing with the quotes that many people have given you showing that Roman Catholicism at its core corrupts the gospel in such a defective manner that it is extremely troubling for anybody to seriously consider it in possession of the true gospel.

I am reposting this link here because it goes so well with what you said...

Was Saint Peter the first Pope? - an article from Got Questions Ministries https://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html

 

[Ransom]

You seem to be implying the Roman Catholic church was the first church (especially in light of your Peter = 1st pope rationale), but it is historically obvious that the Roman Catholic Church did not emerge until the 3rd century under Constantine.

There was Catholic Christianity then, along with the evolving primacy of the Bishop of Rome and his strengthened authority following Constantine's legalization of Christianity. The Great Schism essentially ended the church's catholicism; before then, there was the Catholic Church, and there were the heretics.

What we would recognize as modern Roman Catholicism had its origins in the Middle Ages, around the time of Thomas Aquinas.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I am reposting this link here because it goes so well with what you said...

Was Saint Peter the first Pope? - an article from Got Questions Ministries https://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html

I read Gotquestions frequently, but had not read that article before. Good stuff.

 

[ALAYMAN]

There was Catholic Christianity then ...

Just asking for clarification of your meaning. What (timeframe )do you mean by "then"?

Edited to say that I now understand after rereading your answer that you meant Catholic in the sense of "universal", in regards to the early church prior to Constantine's brand of (Roman) Catholicism.

 

[Ransom]

Just asking for clarification of your meaning. What (timeframe )do you mean by "then"?

I'm thinking roughly up to the Great Schism in 1054, before which there was essentially only one church. Notwithstanding such developments as the supremacy of Rome, or the re-integration of insular Christianity such as the Celtic church, which had been isolated from (though not opposed to) Rome, and developed its own traditions.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Historicity of ecclesiology aside, what you seem to be struggling with the most is dealing with the quotes that many people have given you showing that Roman Catholicism at its core corrupts the gospel in such a defective manner that it is extremely troubling for anybody to seriously consider it in possession of the true gospel.

What I’m struggling with the most is the idea that it’s possible that all us Protestants might be in rebellion against true Christianity, and possibly we have been since pre-Lutheran days. I thought it was universally accepted that Peter was the first pope. I’m going to explore ABC’s link further when I have time. It’s odd to me, because Catholic school aside, I haven’t heard this challenge even in Baptist churches, particularly the lineage of the Catholic Church in relation to Protestant schisms.

 

[biscuit1953]

Are you suggesting that the garden variety of Protestant denominations did not come from the Catholic Church? Martin Luther was excommunicated and began Lutheranism in the 1500s. The other denominations spun off from there.

Church history began at the time of Christ. Read Fox's Book of Martyrs and you will realize that God has always had a remnant faithful unto death outside the Greek Orthodox and Catholic churches. The Roman Catholic Church was responsible for many faithful Christians who believed in Christ alone for salvation being martyred. I have heard missionaries in South America talk about how people down there fear the Catholic Church.

 

[ALAYMAN]

What I’m struggling with the most is the idea that it’s possible that all us Protestants might be in rebellion against true Christianity, and possibly we have been since pre-Lutheran days. I thought it was universally accepted that Peter was the first pope. I’m going to explore ABC’s link further when I have time. It’s odd to me, because Catholic school aside, I haven’t heard this challenge even in Baptist churches, particularly the lineage of the Catholic Church in relation to Protestant schisms.

Ok, if you are investigating "true Christianity" and think Roman Catholicism might more closely approximate it then you are in for a rather daunting challenge. Where to start, right? How about beginning with their idea of sacerdotal theology. Here's a good article about the defective nature of mediating God's grace through the priesthood, and limiting that dispensing of salvific grace through the RC church.

 

[illinoisguy]

Don’t we all agree that our ancestry is Catholic?

Nope.

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents." - Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Jarrel, W.A. - Baptist Church Perpetuity or History

www.biblesupport.com

 

[illinoisguy]

I thought it was universally accepted that Peter was the first pope.

Paul didn't seem to accept that Peter was the pope.

"But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person) . . . But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." - Galatians 2:6, 11

Paul's epistle to the Romans contains greetings by name for dozens of members of the church at Rome, but no mention of Peter, who supposedly was in Rome doing his pope thing at that time. Also, Peter was married (Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38, 1 Corinthians 9:5) - not a very good role model for Roman Catholic popes, who were allowed to have mistresses but not wives.

List of sexually active popes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

What I’m struggling with the most is the idea that it’s possible that all us Protestants might be in rebellion against true Christianity, and possibly we have been since pre-Lutheran days. I thought it was universally accepted that Peter was the first pope. I’m going to explore ABC’s link further when I have time. It’s odd to me, because Catholic school aside, I haven’t heard this challenge even in Baptist churches, particularly the lineage of the Catholic Church in relation to Protestant schisms.

With all due respect..trying to understand where you’re coming from…no one who honestly reads and understands Scripture would have struggle over the Catholic Church being true Christianity.
There is NO evidence Peter was the first Pope…he was married…and Catholics can’t abide that.
There is ample evidence, much of it provided from official church doctrine, to show the RCC teaches a false gospel of works.

 

[Ransom]

I thought it was universally accepted that Peter was the first pope.

Presumably, to be pope, Peter would have had to be the bishop of Rome, and there's no strong evidence he ever actually visited Rome.

Peter was part of Jesus's inner circle. But if you read the council in Acts 15, it appears more that James was the de facto leader--after deliberation over the circumcision question, he's the one who spoke for the entire church (15:13). When Paul describes the Pharisees who were disrupting Antioch, he describes them as having come "from James" (Gal. 2:12). Obviously he's not blaming James for trying to impose circumcision on the Galatians--he's clearly a synecdoche for the church at Jerusalem, implying he was seen as the leader there. (And Paul certainly does not regard Peter as the primate of the entire church--in that same passage!)

Peter being the first pope appears to me to be an assumption based on Matthew 16:18: "on this rock I will build my church." That's kind of a long logical leap, though. We might argue, with equal logic, in favour of Johannine priority rather than Petrine, based on John calling himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" multiple times (e.g. John 13:23)--or, based on Acts 15:13ff, for Jacobean.

 

[illinoisguy]

What I’m struggling with the most is the idea that it’s possible that all us Protestants might be in rebellion against true Christianity, and possibly we have been since pre-Lutheran days.

Dr. Huk, can you be a bit more specific about the elements of so-called "true Christianity," as taught by the Roman Catholic Church, that some of us Protestants may have been rebelling against? Should we stop rebelling against:

Baptismal regeneration
Transubstantiation
Invocation of the saints
Papal infallibility
Immaculate conception of Mary
Assumption of Mary
Adoration of Mary
Purgatory
Indulgences

I guess we can leave Limbo off this list, since in 2007 the Roman Catholic Church officially relegated Limbo to the status of a "possible theological hypothesis." In other words, they put Limbo into limbo.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

So whose interpretation is the correct one, and how do you know this?

Or do you just adopt the defeatist attitude of giving up any hope of knowing because people disagree?



You appear to be ignoring that Luther left, and he had reasons. At that point, the fact he was formerly a member of a false religion is far less relevant.

Yes - Luther was excommunicated afterwords. He had legitimate concerns and complaints. However, many (most?) giants of the faith and Christian intelligentsia have belonged to the Catholic Church, from Augustine to Aquinas to Galileo.

Take me and my defeatist attitude out of the equation. It’s difficult to believe that my local IFB pastor with a bachelors degree from Bob Jones or Pensacola is going to get it all correct and yet Aquinas and Augustine got it all wrong.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Yes - Luther was excommunicated afterwords. He had legitimate concerns and complaints. However, many (most?) giants of the faith and Christian intelligentsia have belonged to the Catholic Church, from Augustine to Aquinas to Galileo.

Take me and my defeatist attitude out of the equation. It’s difficult to believe that my local IFB pastor with a bachelors degree from Bob Jones or Pensacola is going to get it all correct and yet Aquinas and Augustine got it all wrong.

The problem with so many IFB types is that they are often anti-intellectual, anti-creedal, and anti-church history and buy into the faulty notion that Baptists somehow existed apart from all the rest of the Church. They adopt a "restorationist" mindset (much like their Church of Christ "water dog" buddies) where they discount the Church Fathers and all the historic creeds and confessions including those of the reformers. They therefore take Sola Scriptura to an extreme that the Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others had never intended! The IFB types who DO NOT fit the above description are often the ones who do not get bent out of shape any time election and predestination come up in an otherwise friendly discussion.

Now, regarding this silly Calvinist/Catholic conundrum here: why not be a BIBLE BELIEVER first and foremost! Put your belief of the Bible into action by actually reading and studying it. If the scriptures show Catholicism to biblically correct, be a Catholic. If the scriptures show Calvinism to be correct, embrace Calvinism and to heck with what anyone else thinks! Same thing if you study the scriptures and discover that Arminianism is the more biblical position!

But DO NOT study the scriptures with the intent to bolster the preconceived position of which you are already entrenched. You may disagree with Calvinism and that is fine so long as you have studied the matter for yourself and have reached this conclusion. You will also find your blood pressure becoming much more stable whenever you encounter some contentious Calvinist who wants to argue with you over what "ALL" means!

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

The problem with so many IFB types is that they are often anti-intellectual, anti-creedal, and anti-church history and buy into the faulty notion that Baptists somehow existed apart from all the rest of the Church. They adopt a "restorationist" mindset (much like their Church of Christ "water dog" buddies) where they discount the Church Fathers and all the historic creeds and confessions including those of the reformers. They therefore take Sola Scriptura to an extreme that the Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others had never intended! The IFB types who DO NOT fit the above description are often the ones who do not get bent out of shape any time election and predestination come up in an otherwise friendly discussion.

Now, regarding this silly Calvinist/Catholic conundrum here: why not be a BIBLE BELIEVER first and foremost! Put your belief of the Bible into action by actually reading and studying it. If the scriptures show Catholicism to biblically correct, be a Catholic. If the scriptures show Calvinism to be correct, embrace Calvinism and to heck with what anyone else thinks! Same thing if you study the scriptures and discover that Arminianism is the more biblical position!

But DO NOT study the scriptures with the intent to bolster the preconceived position of which you are already entrenched. You may disagree with Calvinism and that is fine so long as you have studied the matter for yourself and have reached this conclusion. You will also find your blood pressure becoming much more stable whenever you encounter some contentious Calvinist who wants to argue with you over what "ALL" means!

This is pretty much the conclusion I’ve come to as well. I like to study issues from both sides. Even politically, I like to hear what’s being said on FOX and then check out CNN. I’m intending to do the same with this. I’m going to search for a reputable pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic book, but also, and most importantly, search the Scriptures.

Another thing I plan to do is have a conversation with my pastor and with my local priest. I actually went down this same rabbit hole many years ago and went and spoke to the priest at the nearby Catholic church. I explained my Baptist upbringing and he calmly said it sounds like my heart already knows what to do, but I just have to have the courage to do it. Of course, I didn’t expect him to retort that I should remain a Baptist!

 

[Baptist Renegade]

This is pretty much the conclusion I’ve come to as well. I like to study issues from both sides. Even politically, I like to hear what’s being said on FOX and then check out CNN. I’m intending to do the same with this. I’m going to search for a reputable pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic book, but also, and most importantly, search the Scriptures.

Another thing I plan to do is have a conversation with my pastor and with my local priest. I actually went down this same rabbit hole many years ago and went and spoke to the priest at the nearby Catholic church. I explained my Baptist upbringing and he calmly said it sounds like my heart already knows what to do, but I just have to have the courage to do it. Of course, I didn’t expect him to retort that I should remain a Baptist!

Sounds like that Catholic priest is a good guy all things considered!

Just so you know, I am an ex-Catholic myself and for years, I bought into all of the "Fundamentalist" misrepresentations which drove a huge wedge between myself and my (still) Catholic family. I have learned to evaluate Catholicism based upon its own merits and represent it in a way that a Catholic would find fair and agreeable and from there, express my objections in light of the scriptures. I have had some good conversations recently with my aging mother who is still a devout Catholic.

 

[Ransom]

However, many (most?) giants of the faith and Christian intelligentsia have belonged to the Catholic Church, from Augustine to Aquinas to Galileo.

Augustine was a Catholic, yes. But not a Roman Catholic. The institution we would recognize as the Roman Catholic Church developed in the late Middle Ages, largely due to the influence of Aquinas and other Scholastics.

Take me and my defeatist attitude out of the equation. It’s difficult to believe that my local IFB pastor with a bachelors degree from Bob Jones or Pensacola is going to get it all correct and yet Aquinas and Augustine got it all wrong.

Take your ignorant Bob Jones graduate out of the equation. What about a well-educated Baptist pastor with expertise in church history and patristics? They exist. Do you think that someone would read Augustine's and Aquinas's writings and inevitably come away convinced they should be a Roman Catholic instead? And what would you say if they didn't?

No one is saying Aquinas and Augustine got it all wrong. Neither is anyone saying they got it all right. The Romanists adopted his views of ecclesiology, but not his soteriology; the Reformers did the opposite. The Church fathers aren't infallible, and citing them as authorities doesn't settle the matter.

If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.--Basil of Caesarea, Letter 189 (emphasis added)​