I Have A Question!

[Katholikos]

What's the difference between a Presbyterian Church & a Catholic Church in terms of belief? I know some basics...like no saints...and an elected presbytery, but other than that...i'm pretty much confused? Help anyone?

Being as detailed as possible would be nice lol

Presbyterian "distinctives" can be summed up by the acronym TULIP:

Total depravity (Mankind is totally depraved; sin permeates his entire being including his mind and will so that man cannot save himself)

Unconditional election (God chooses to save people unconditionally; i.e., they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit; some are destined for heaven, some for hell.)

Limited atonement (Jesus didn't die for everyone, but only for the "elect.")

Irresistible grace (When God has chosen to save someone, he will. If you are "elected" you can't help yourself; if you are not "elected" you're headed for hell and there's nothing you can do about it.)

Perserverance of the saints (another way of saying Once Saved, Always Saved)

This is also known as 5-point Calvinism.

[Katholikos]

Because God sees everything at the same time, the word "predestines" is interchangable with the other tenses (past and present), correct? If so I don't think this should be called deemed the undefined Catholic predestination doctrine. It's more like a clear understanding of God and time.

Maybe I'm just sensitive to this topic because when I was much much younger I had a youth minister at a protestant church tell me I didn't have a choice in whether or not I went heaven because I was either predestined or not. It just kinda freaked me out at the time.

Yes, "predestines" is another way of saying that God knows from all eternity who will be saved and who won't, because the past, present, and future are apprehended by Him all at once in the eternal NOW. Time is the measure of change. There is no time in eternity where God is, because there is no change.

We experience life moment by moment, but God apprehends the past, present, and future all at once. He KNOWS from all eternity where we will spend eternity.

[Katholikos]

Likos,

So does that mean that the Church does teach a kind of predestination, I'm actually fairly certain She does. I just ain't certain what it is.

I'm scatter-brained.  If I'm wrong write you're wrong in big letters.

Yes, it is called "predestination" by the Church, but it means that God knows where we will spend eternity from all eternity. It does not mean that God wills only certain people to be saved. God wills everyone to be saved and provides everyone with sufficient grace for salvation; it's up to us to accept or reject it.

Yes, the Church teaches predestination as defined in Ott. She condemns the "double predestination" of John Calvin and the Presbyterians and others.

[jasJis]

I used to have quite a bit of trouble understanding this. I think the following (which is solely my personal opinion) explains it.

Catholic "PREDESTINATION" is more 'Foreknowledge of the future outcome'. Imagine that you give 50 people in NewYork the same car, with a full tank of gas and a credit card and sent them to San Francisco. Everyone has the ability to make it, but some will wander off, get lost, take the back roads, etc. No body knows when they're supposed to get to SF, but they know they are supposed to get there. They don't know when they're supposed to get there, but they know at a certain point time is up. If they don't get there, they lose.

Also imagine that even though everyone has the same ability to get to SF, you also know some will choose to dwaddle and delay and will run out of time. You might meet these people during their journey and remind them they have a credit card to buy gas and maps and eventually time will run out. Again, you leave it up to them to choose what to do.

Since you knew the outcome before the journies started and still sent them all, we would say that's predestination. The key is some would say that the drivers had no choice in the matter, Catholics say the drivers had sufficient choice. Either way, God knows the outcome and wanted and enabled everyone to successfully complete the journey.

[mustbenothing]

(dUSt) Presbyterians trace their history to the 16th century and the Protestant Reformation. Their heritage, and much of what they believe, began with the French lawyer John Calvin (1509-1564), whose writings crystallized much of the Reformed thinking that came before him.

Presbyterians are distinctive in two major ways: they adhere to a pattern of religious thought known as Reformed theology and a form of government that stresses the active, representational leadership of both ministers and church members.

Some of the principles articulated by John Calvin remain at the core of Presbyterian beliefs. Among these are the sovereignty of God, the authority of the scripture, justification by grace through faith and the priesthood of all believers.

I often wonder why one Protestant denomination isn't another, as they all seem to have the same core set of beliefs. Why the different names? It's always baffled me.

(Me) Excellent description (I am a conservative Presbyterian), dUSt! Many thanks.

I'll try to outline a few of the Presbyterian distinctives from Roman Catholics, then the Presbyterian distinctives from other Protestants. If anyone is extremely interested, our basic beliefs are meticulously outlined in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I am discussing conservative Presbyterians, like the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) or Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). The PCUSA has gone extremely liberal, and has little unity in its views after denying the Bible's position as our infallible rule of faith.

Generally --

By "Reformed Theology," we mean:

1. A doctrine of salvation known as Calvinism. This is an advanced form of the view of salvation held by the late Augustine. It teaches that:

a) due to the fall, all men deserve condemnation and will refuse to repent unto Christ as powerfully as they can

B) Before the foundations of the Earth, the Father chose to definitely save many of these sinners, and leave the rest to their justly-earned condemnation

c) Christ died to accomplish the redemption of the elect (those chosen)

d) the Holy Spirit calls, regenerates, and grants faith to (i.e., converts) all the elect some time during their lifetime

e) God will cause all the elect to persevere in faith and good works, such that no saint is lost

2. A view known as Covenant Theology. This teaches that the Bible provides the history of redemption in such a manner that everything builds upon itself; the New Covenant is the consummation or completion of all the progressive covenants made previously in the Bible. It's hard to express how important a view this is, but I'll just say that we believe it.

3. Reformed ecclesiological doctrines usually include:

a) a Presbyterian form of Church government. This places true Church authority in the hands of deacons and (a plurality of) elders at the local level, along with a hierarchy of representational authority within the denomination

B) Sacramentology which affirms that true grace is presented in both sacraments; and that baptism is to be administered to infants, as members of the covenant household

4. For more, see the Systematic Theologies of Berkhof, Hodge, Dabney, or Reymond. Turretin's Elentic Theology and Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion are also helpful. Reymond's is the current Reformed standard; Berkhof's was prior to his.

Other distinctives against Roman Catholics:

The two most important are Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. The former teaches that the Scripture alone is our infallible rule of faith; the latter teaches that faith alone is the instrument of justification. Our definition of justification differs from the Catholic Church (as we believe that it is a once-for-all legal declaration of righteousness), and we deny the Roman doctrines of the Eucharist/Mass.

Distinctives against other Protestants: I'll outline a few.

Anglicans/Episcopals -- The Anglican Church was originally almost identical to the Reformed Churches, except that it had a slightly more Roman view of baptism and Church government. However, it has since changed substantially. There is much less doctrinal unity. The liberal Anglicans/Episcopals are obviously quite different. The conservatives disagree with us, mostly, on Church government (which we consider a more or less moot disagreement, and have no problem communing with them), and some hold differing views on salvation (generally, a more Arminian -- i.e., anti-Calvinist -- view of salvation).

Baptists -- we baptize children, and sprinkle/pour instead of immerse. I'll just look at the conservative Baptists. All the Reformed affirm Calvinism; some Baptists are Calvinists, but most reject it heartily. Baptists hold purely symbolic views of the sacraments, while the Reformed see them as being truly efficacious. Baptists often hold to a view called dispensationalism, the eschatology of which you can see in the Left Behind series. Baptists nearly reject church authority outright.

Methodists -- American Methodism formally rejects Calvinism in favor of Wesleyanism. Many Methodists reject the infallibility of the Scriptures. Methodists allow women to be ministers, while we do not. They reject Presbyterian Church government (everything does but the Presbyterians), but still have a good amount of church authority/hierarchy.

Charismatics/Pentecostals -- of those who can be said to be in the pale of orthodoxy at all, all the disagreements of Baptists with Presbyterians apply. Additionally, this movement formally affirms Wesleyanism (as opposed to Calvinism), though a few are Calvinists (this is very rare). They believe that the "miraculous" gifts of the Holy Spirit (tongues, prophecy, etc.) are still operative, while we believe their function was completed in the apostolic era. They stress emotion and experience; we stress the Word of God.

Lutherans -- the ELCA is fairly liberal, and is similar to the other Presbyterians and Episcopals in that it is quite unlike historic Protestantism proper. The Missouri Synod is much more conservative. There are only two absolute disagreements. One is on the sacraments, but the distinctions here are generally minor and not really worth discussing. The other is the Law and Gospel. Luther put the Law and Gospel in tension with each other, while Calvin placed the Gospel as the consummation/fulfillment/completion of the Law. The latter view can vary among Missouri Synod members. The basic difference here is that MS members have less homogeneous views -- for instance, some are Calvinists (regarding salvation), some are not. They have a system of Church government more similar to a monarchy, while ours more closely resembles a representative republic.

Hopefully that helps some of you

(hyperdulia again) Catholics believe in a vague kind of predestination, the dogma hasn't taken shape yet. yes i know trent condemned one form of predestination.

(Me) Trent condemned the kind of predestination espoused by Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Thomists (after Thomas Acquinas), who are Roman Catholic, hold a doctrine similar to the Reformed doctrine of Predestination. They make some strange and philosophically difficult distinctions in order to try to affirm both Unconditional Election, more-or-less efficacious grace, and not contradict Trent.

(hyperdulia again) St Paul taught it. To blanketly deny it which the Catholic Church doesn't do would be to deny scripture.

It doesn't all have to be that terrifying Calvinistic/Augustinian pre-destinnation.

(Me) I would contend that Calvin's, Augustine's, and Luther's predestination was that of Paul, based on primarily on Romans 8-9 and Ephesians 1-2, along with a mountain of supplementary texts. Would you like to start a thread on it?

(hyperdulia again) and whate'er the Church says about it won't deny free-will.

(Me) If by "free-will" you mean "the ability to act as you want," or "the ability to act as you choose," Calvin, Luther, and Augustine will not disagree.

[hyperdulia again]

I'd be very interested in a thread on predestination, it'd provide me with the incentive to go and find out from the Bride's mouth what She teaches about it. I'm a nerd, an excuse to study! woot!(people've been saying that a lot recently. I'm trying to look B))

[Katholikos]

(Me) I would contend that Calvin's, Augustine's, and Luther's predestination was that of Paul, based on primarily on Romans 8-9 and Ephesians 1-2, along with a mountain of supplementary texts.  Would you like to start a thread on it?

mustbenothing,

Original Christianity was not based on the Bible. Period. The NT and the Bible didn't exist as we know them until the Catholic Church was nearly 400 years old. The doctrines of the Catholic Church came from the Apostles and not from a Book. The Book confirms Catholic beliefs, but many beliefs are mentioned only obliquely (e.g., predestination, purgatory, and others) and are not treated fully in writing. The NT was written by believers, to believers, for believers. It was not written to persuade or teach.

The New Testament is not an instruction book in Christianity. Jesus didn't leave us a Book, he left us a Church as our teacher. The Church produced the Book.

Your task is to show that the entire Revelation of God is contained in the written Word. You have two problems: neither the table of contents, nor the concept of Sola Scriptura are in the Bible. Not everything the Apostles taught was written down and declared to be Scripture by the Catholic Church. The Church teaches us what Scripture is (the inspired Word of God) and what is Scripture (the writings that belong in the Bible). She is God's agent in writing, preserving, canonizing the NT Scriptures, and in preserving and canonizing the OT.

So a Reformed believer and a Catholic are coming at this and other questions from a very different perspective. The Catholic argument is not merely what the Bible says but what the Apostles taught. The Reformed argument is what the Bible says (as they interpret it).

Since you limit your beliefs to what can be proven in Scripture, you first have to prove to me that everything I need to know about a particular doctrine is contained in the Scriptures. Since your "Scriptures" are abbreviated, we'd first have to define what we mean by "Scripture."

Catholics and Protestants have different books in mind when the word "Bible" is used.

Nice to meet you. Welcome to phatmass.

Have you read Scott Hahn?

[PedroX]

Just FYI, Presbyterians are so called for the structure of hierarchy. The word we Catholics translate as Bishop (presbyturous?) they translate as elder. They have two forms of elders, Teaching Elder (pastors and such) and Ruling Elders (lay men). Just thought you might be interested.

[mustbenothing]

(PedroX) Just FYI, Presbyterians are so called for the structure of hierarchy. The word we Catholics translate as Bishop (presbyturous?) they translate as elder. They have two forms of elders, Teaching Elder (pastors and such) and Ruling Elders (lay men). Just thought you might be interested.

(Me) The term 'Presbyterian' only identifies our form of church government directly. We have deacons and elders at the local level, then groups of elders at higher levels. It's sort of like having city councils for each city, then groups of cities being under one state congress, then all the states being under one national congress.

Your explanation here is almost entirely correct. The only slight error regards bishops. The Bible speaks of overseers/bishops and presbyters/elders. Presbyterians believe that the offices of bishop and elder are one and the same. Therefore, our elders serve a comparable function to Roman Catholic bishops, except for the fact that we have groups of elders instead of a single bishop.

[mustbenothing]

(Katholikos) Original Christianity was not based on the Bible. Period.

(Me) Peter's sermon at Pentecost was preached from Joel. That pattern (being based in the Scriptures) follows through the rest of the Apostles' preaching and writing.

(Katholikos) The NT and the Bible didn't exist as we know them until the Catholic Church was nearly 400 years old.

(Me) They existed before 100 AD, as they existed when they were written. There was not a standardized canon list until later on, no. However, they existed before 100 AD, and there were general agreements throughout the Church on what was canon and what was not.

(Katholikos) The doctrines of the Catholic Church came from the Apostles and not from a Book.

(Me) I would contend otherwise, for Rome's views seem to contradict the Apostles' teachings. For instance, Paul teaches justification by faith alone in Romans 4, while Rome denies it.

The Bereans were praised for checking the Apostles' teachings by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11).

(Katholikos) The NT was written by believers, to believers, for believers. It was not written to persuade or teach.

(Me) Off the top of my head, here are a few examples that seem to suggest otherwise:

John 20:31

but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Jude 1:3

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

(Katholikos) Your task is to show that the entire Revelation of God is contained in the written Word.

(Me) It's not. Sola Scriptura does not maintain that.

(Katholikos) You have two problems: neither the table of contents, nor the concept of Sola Scriptura are in the Bible.

(Me) Table of Contents -- if you'll take the Bible, then read the title of each book, you have the Table of Contents. It's not too difficult of an inference.

Sola Scriptura -- I've been arguing otherwise on this forum. Perhaps this argument should be reserved for those places.

(Katholikos) Not everything the Apostles taught was written down and declared to be Scripture by the Catholic Church.

(Me) Of course not. How is this relevant?

(Katholikos) The Church teaches us what Scripture is (the inspired Word of God) and what is Scripture (the writings that belong in the Bible). She is God's agent in writing, preserving, canonizing the NT Scriptures, and in preserving and canonizing the OT.

(Me) Except for the canonization of the Scriptures, you are absolutely correct. The only error there is that God canonizes, while the Church recognizes canon.

(Katholikos) So a Reformed believer and a Catholic are coming at this and other questions from a very different perspective.

(Me) Certainly. That's why the most appropriate way to discuss this is by arguing over the difference in methodology -- Sola Scriptura, or Sola Ecclesia?

(Katholikos) The Catholic argument is not merely what the Bible says but what the Apostles taught.

(Me) I would maintain that the Bible includes a deposit of apostolic teaching, and Rome contradicts those teachings; therefore, the Roman Catholic position must not be what the Apostles taught at all.

(Katholikos) The Reformed argument is what the Bible says (as they interpret it).

(Me) The New Testament a once-for-all completed deposit of apostolic teaching/revelation. Therefore, by being grounded in the Scripture, we are grounded in the Apostles.

(Katholikos) Since you limit your beliefs to what can be proven in Scripture, you first have to prove to me that everything I need to know about a particular doctrine is contained in the Scriptures.

(Me) "All Scripture is breathed out by God, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Thus, we have the infallible foundation (the Scripture) and the fallible mediators (teaching, rebuking, etc.) that enable to man of God to "be competent, equipped for every good work." So, all you need to know about any particular doctrine is contained in the Scriptures -- you just have to be somehow connected to it.

(Katholikos) Since your "Scriptures" are abbreviated, we'd first have to define what we mean by "Scripture."

(Me) As a rough and ready definition -- The written works breathed out by God through apostles and prophets to remain as an enduring deposit of revelation for His Church.

(Katholikos) Catholics and Protestants have different books in mind when the word "Bible" is used.

(Me) This is true.

(Katholikos) Nice to meet you. Welcome to phatmass.

(Me) Thank you.

(Katholikos) Have you read Scott Hahn?

(Me) I know that he was an OPC pastor who converted to Roman Catholicism, and now writes "convert-a-Protestant" books. I've had a little bit of experience with his work. It seems to be very effective at countering the idiocy of Protestants like Jack Chick, but I don't think he really gets to the arguments of the good Protestant scholars.

Edited July 30, 2003 by mustbenothing

[rachael]

oy vey