My Understanding

[Diamond]

I just wanted to discuss something. It's an issue on which I trust my understanding to be faulty.

From what I can discern (based on conversations with a Catholic priest), a fundamental difference between Protestantism (in general) and Catholicism is their views on the human condition. The Catholic Church tends to take a much more positive view of what humanity can achieve that Protestants do. Luther himself believed (or so I hear) that man was so fallen that we were totally reliant on God's grace. I was told that the Catholic view of humanity was different in that man has some powers of his own.

Is this correct? If not, could you refine my understanding?

I think this distinction is pivotal. It in large part explains why Protestants are so untrusting of any Church with a central authority and sort of "monarch."

It also explains why Catholics can trust a man to lead them.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

[beatty07]

Thanks for asking Diamond. Is that Lewis in your signature block?

A lot of what you have written is almost right, but sometimes that's the most dangerous thing of all! Yes, the generalization is fair that Catholics take a higher view of human potential that Protestants (I'm speaking mainly of confessionally Lutheran and Reformed traditions, and most evangelicals. "Mainline" Protestants are a different story; I know UCC members who seem to think the only sin is not being a liberal Democrat. Everything else is fair game.)

However, Catholics absolutely believe that man is totally reliant on God's grace! We are created from nothing, so what can we claim as our own apart from God? The difference is not our independence from grace, but rather whether grace really touches us or not. Luther and Calvin and their descendants see humanity as so rotten that very little of God remains. Catholicism has always taught that the life of grace is possible, that by grace our actions can be pleasing to God. We could go in to much more depth about this if you like, but I'll hold up for now.

Also, it's not so much that we trust a man to lead us, as that we trust Christ who said that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church. In the Scriptures, He established that Church on the Apostles with Peter in the center. That doesn't mean that the Pope can never be wrong or even that he can't be the worst sort of scoundrel (some were). It does mean that if we remain always in that Church which was established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, we can trust that not even the gates of Hell will prevail. All the other teachings about authority and infallibility etc., flow from that assurance of Christ.

[homeschoolmom]

I know I am going to make a mess of this because I have a jillion other things on my mind... but I think that Luther called man a dung heap and that God's grace covered us like snow. But that underneath, still a dung heap. I think that the Catholic view is that rather than cover us, God's grace, like snow, seeps into us and changes us into good, rich... fertilizer? Anyway... we change by grace and are not merely hiding under it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Diamond' post='1144635' date='Dec 17 2006, 11:18 PM']
I just wanted to discuss something. It's an issue on which I trust my understanding to be faulty.

From what I can discern (based on conversations with a Catholic priest), a fundamental difference between Protestantism (in general) and Catholicism is their views on the human condition. The Catholic Church tends to take a much more positive view of what humanity can achieve that Protestants do. Luther himself believed (or so I hear) that man was so fallen that we were totally reliant on God's grace. I was told that the Catholic view of humanity was different in that man has some powers of his own.

Is this correct? If not, could you refine my understanding?

I think this distinction is pivotal. It in large part explains why Protestants are so untrusting of any Church with a central authority and sort of "monarch."

It also explains why Catholics can trust a man to lead them.

Thoughts?

Thanks.
[/quote]
There are so many protestant and evangelical and fundamentalist and non-denoms to choose from, and they vary tremendously in their viewpoints, so its hard to answer the first part of your question. The gamut runs from total depravity to the 10 commandments as recommendations.
The second part is easy. Catholics rely on Christ, and his representative here on earth - the Pope. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church. So when the Pope and Church speak on faith and morals it is infallible teaching. Cooperation with grace leads to a life of grace.

I love your picture of the Great One.

[Diamond]

Thanks for the help.

As for the fact that there are so many sects of Protestantism to make generalizations, you're most certainly right. The priest explaining this to me was referring to Luther and my prain automatically processed his statements into a generalization.

I suppose these sorts of arguments are semantics compared to the pivotal question: What did Jesus mean when he told Peter: "What you loose will be loosed..."?

How do Protestants explain this? (as non-biased as possible, please, but I'll understand)

The problem with anything less than an air-tight explanation is this: the more I read and study Scripture, the more it appears to me that everything Jesus says has profound meaning. He doesn't waste words.

So, if anyone could help me out, that would be great.

And yes, that's Lewis. I love his stuff.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Diamond' post='1145186' date='Dec 18 2006, 07:42 PM']
question: What did Jesus mean when he told Peter: "What you loose will be loosed..."?

How do Protestants explain this? (as non-biased as possible, please, but I'll understand)[/quote]

Maybe some of the Protestant on this board will tell you how they understand it.

From the Catholic POV, the Church did not read the NT and then decide what to believe and teach. The Catholic Faith comes to us from the Apostles. The NT is based on the living, teaching Church that wrote it. The Church is much older than the NT and the Bible -- by almost 400 years.

Jesus' words were "I will give you [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and [i][b]whatever[/b][/i] you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and [i][b]whatever[/b][/i] you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Later, the authority to bind and loose was given to the rest of the Apostles, but the keys are exclusively Peter's. (He's the boss.)

That "whatever" authorizes the Church (the bishops, successors to the Apostles) to do anything necessary to carry out her mission. He further emphasized this by saying to the leaders of the Church, the Apostles, "He who hears you hears me . . ." Luke 10:16. Christ founded the Church for the salvation of the world.

I'm sure you'll get other comments.

[cowsgomoo]

[quote name='Diamond' post='1144635' date='Dec 17 2006, 08:18 PM']
I just wanted to discuss something. It's an issue on which I trust my understanding to be faulty.

From what I can discern (based on conversations with a Catholic priest), a fundamental difference between Protestantism (in general) and Catholicism is their views on the human condition. The Catholic Church tends to take a much more positive view of what humanity can achieve that Protestants do. Luther himself believed (or so I hear) that man was so fallen that we were totally reliant on God's grace. I was told that the Catholic view of humanity was different in that man has some powers of his own.

Is this correct? If not, could you refine my understanding?

I think this distinction is pivotal. It in large part explains why Protestants are so untrusting of any Church with a central authority and sort of "monarch."

It also explains why Catholics can trust a man to lead them.

Thoughts?

Thanks.
[/quote]

It depends on what kind of Protestant you ask. I myself am Presbyterian, and we believe that everyone is saved through God's grace, instead of having to work to maintain a healthy standing in God's eyes. I don't know what other Protestant churches believe, but this is the fundamental idea that separates Presbyterians from others. It is true, we believe that man has no power over what he does, but instead does God's will through whatever way he wishes (in other words, god owns and directs us like a puppet).

Hope this helped.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='cowsgomoo' post='1145559' date='Dec 19 2006, 01:25 PM'](in other words, god owns and directs us like a puppet).
[/quote]



So, it's like God's playing Barbies with us?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1145563' date='Dec 19 2006, 12:39 PM']


So, it's like God's playing Barbies with us?
[/quote]
See why I couldn't be Presbyterian?

The Catholic description of man's relationship with God is so much more vibrant.

[beatty07]

Dude, are you calling my Mom a puppet?

[cowsgomoo]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1145563' date='Dec 19 2006, 11:39 AM']


So, it's like God's playing Barbies with us?
[/quote]

Not to that extent. It's more that we couldn't do the things we do (i.e., like I play a musical instrument, and I couldn't be able to without God's help) without him.

Of course we aren't accepting puppetry, but he's more like the back muscles used to swim.

And beatty07, of course not, that'd be demeaning to myself and her.

Edited December 20, 2006 by cowsgomoo

[Sojourner]

[quote name='cowsgomoo' post='1145759' date='Dec 19 2006, 07:25 PM']
Not to that extent. It's more that we couldn't do the things we do (i.e., like I play a musical instrument, and I couldn't be able to without God's help) without him.

Of course we aren't accepting puppetry, but he's more like the back muscles used to swim.

And beatty07, of course not, that'd be demeaning to myself and her.
[/quote]
back muscles? That's never how I heard it described all the years I was a Presbyterian ... much more like the puppet analogy.

[beatty07]

Just playin'. Seriously, I appreciate concern for maintaining our absolute dependence on grace, the absolute sovereignty of God. Those are important. And we can use images even though they aren't perfect...that is actually the ONLY way we can say ANYTHING about God. I do think "puppets" as an image obscures more than it helps. C.S. Lewis frequently uses the figure of the play and the playwright. He asks, for example, did Othello kill his wife because he wanted to, or because Shakespeare wrote it that way? It's a silly question because it equivocates two realities that can't be compared. Shakespeare and Othello aren't competing for control, and neither are God and we competing for control of our actions. So our freedom doesn't take anything from God's sovereignty. This image, too, limps - because Othello can never "sin" against Shakespeare's will like we can. Maybe that's precisely where we disagree too. But I like it as an image.

Diamond, I'm afraid this digression doesn't have much to do with your question about "binding and loosing." Basically, the Church has always related this passage to the authority Christ gave the Apostles to act in His name...especially with regard to the forgiveness of sins and the governance of the Church. However, the Church doesn't define things in Scripture absolutely, because the Word of God is inexhaustible. There's always "more to say." That applies here too. Did you have any thoughts about it?

Edited December 20, 2006 by beatty07

[cowsgomoo]

[quote name='beatty07' post='1146483' date='Dec 20 2006, 08:35 AM']
Just playin'. Seriously, I appreciate concern for maintaining our absolute dependence on grace, the absolute sovereignty of God. Those are important. And we can use images even though they aren't perfect...that is actually the ONLY way we can say ANYTHING about God. I do think "puppets" as an image obscures more than it helps. C.S. Lewis frequently uses the figure of the play and the playwright. He asks, for example, did Othello kill his wife because he wanted to, or because Shakespeare wrote it that way? It's a silly question because it equivocates two realities that can't be compared. Shakespeare and Othello aren't competing for control, and neither are God and we competing for control of our actions. So our freedom doesn't take anything from God's sovereignty. This image, too, limps - because Othello can never "sin" against Shakespeare's will like we can. Maybe that's precisely where we disagree too. But I like it as an image.

Diamond, I'm afraid this digression doesn't have much to do with your question about "binding and loosing." Basically, the Church has always related this passage to the authority Christ gave the Apostles to act in His name...especially with regard to the forgiveness of sins and the governance of the Church. However, the Church doesn't define things in Scripture absolutely, because the Word of God is inexhaustible. There's always "more to say." That applies here too. Did you have any thoughts about it?
[/quote]

That's probably a better analogy...it's a rather confusing subject, anyways :/