As Pope Benedict XVI continues with his highly publicized visit to the United States, some may wonder what the major differences are between Catholicism and Protestantism – the two main Christian bodies in the world.
Perhaps the biggest difference is their views on the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Traditionally, Protestants believe that the Bible alone is sufficient in teaching man all that is necessary for salvation from sin, and contains the standard in which Christians should measure their behavior.
Catholics, however, do not believe that the Bible alone is enough, and instead hold that the Bible and sacred Roman Catholic traditions are equal in authority, as noted by Got Questions Ministries, which provides biblically-based answers on spiritually-related questions in its Web site, GotQuestions.org.
Roman Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying to the saints, veneration of Mary, have little or no basis in the Scripture, but are based on Roman Catholic traditions.
Another major difference is the office and authority of the pope. There is no equivalent position to the pope in Protestantism because of the belief that no human being is infallible and that Christ alone is the head of the church. Protestants believe that the spiritual authority of the church is based on the Word rather than apostolic succession, and that all believers through the Holy Spirit can understand the Word.
For Roman Catholics, on the other hand, the pope is the “Vicar of Christ,” and stands in the place of Jesus as the visible head of the Church. Therefore, his teachings are considered infallible and effective over all Christians.
Because of the emphasis on the authority of the Church over the individual believer, Catholics believe that only the Roman Catholic Church can interpret the Bible. Protestants, on the other hand, believe that all Christians have the authority to interpret the Bible through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The issue of salvation is also a point of contention between the two Christian bodies. Protestants traditionally believe that a person is justified and saved only by faith in Jesus Christ alone. However, Roman Catholics believe it is faith in Christ plus good works that man can be saved. Part of the Catholic salvation process is the seven sacraments: baptism at birth, confirmation, the Eucharist, holy orders, anointing of the sick, matrimony and penance.
"To get access to the grace of God, Catholics have to go through the Catholic Church and the sacraments,” pointed out Tal Davis, interfaith coordinator in the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board (NAMB)’s evangelization group, according to Baptist Press.
“We Southern Baptists think that's unnecessary and, in fact, is a hindrance to God,” Davis said. “We go straight to Jesus Christ for salvation by faith alone. No works are involved. You can't save yourself and you can't add anything to God's plan of salvation."
To Catholics, faith in Christ is only the beginning of salvation, and the individual must engage in good works for eternal salvation. Purgatory, for example, is where man goes after death if he did not sufficiently pay for his sins.
While Protestants recognize the importance of good works, they believe good works is the fruit of their salvation and not part of the process to be saved.
“Simply put, the Roman Catholic viewpoint on salvation implies that Christ’s atonement on the cross was not sufficient payment for the sins of those who believe in Him, and that even a believer must atone or pay for his own sins, either through acts of penance, or time in purgatory,” wrote Got Questions Ministries in its Web site.
Differences aside, Protestants and Catholics do share several core beliefs including the Trinity, the deity of Jesus, and the fact that he was sinless, that he died on the cross for man’s sin and rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
"When you're talking to Catholics, you don't have to convince them to believe in God, Jesus Christ or the Bible," noted NAMB’s Davis.
Still, the divide between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church is clear, as respected theologian Dr. R. Albert Mohler recently reiterated.
“I am convinced that he (the pope) is not right – not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right in understanding the Church,” the seminary president wrote recently in a special column for The Washington Post and Newsweek.
“The Roman Catholic Church believes that evangelicals are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals are concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims,” he added.
“We both understand what is at stake.”
According to the CIA World Factbook, Christians make up one-third of the world’s population, with Roman Catholics making up 17 percent, Protestants 5.8 percent, Orthodox 3.5 percent, and Anglicans 1.3 percent. By comparison, Muslims make up 21 percent, Hindus 13.3 percent and Buddhists 5.8 percent.
Christian Post reporter Eric Young contributed to this article.
Comments
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works – 2Timothy 3:15-17.
Irenaeus,
R.T. France is a liberal Anglican theologian who subscribes to “higher criticism” as a lens to read the scriptures. Donald Guthrie says, “Is the rock therefore to be identified with Peter? It is incredible for Jesus to imply that the future success of Him mission depended upon one man. Peter merely the spokesman for the rest. “This rock” therefore had a wider basis than Peter alone; it referred to Peter as the representative confessor of the true nature of Jesus, without which there could be no church” – END QUOTE (Jesus the Messiah: An Illustrated Life of Christ; section – Testimony and Transfiguration 169).
George Buttrick was a liberal who was in clear violation of his ordination vows; that is rejecting the Bible to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice and also rejecting his church’s Westminster Confession. Craig S. Keener primarily focuses on the social-historical and rhetorical features of the Gospel rather than the texts themselves. He also is in the higher criticism camp which uses extra biblical literature to interpret scripture. Joachim Jeremias was a neo-orthodox German Lutheran who used liberal methods to interpret the Bible; that is he retained a mostly liberal view of the Bible as subject to error. Also, R. T. France’s exposition of Matthew 24, at least through verse 34, is almost exclusively seen as a prophetic depiction of what will happen to “this generation,” that is, the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. He subscribes to the preterist interpretation of prophecy; that is he sees the fulfillment of these and most prophetic events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
These scholars are from the liberal and higher criticism camp which in theory, the intent of Biblical Criticism is to enhance the appreciation of the Bible through fuller understanding of its literary history and message. In practice, however, Biblical Criticism destroys any confidence in the divine origin of the message of the Bible because it presupposes its writings to be merely a human literary production, error-ridden, and entirely conditioned by the culture of the time. The negative impact of Biblical Criticism can be seen in the increasing number of Bible scholars, preachers, and lay-Christians who have lost their confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible. This seems to be a precursor to the great “falling away” spoken of in 2Thessalonians 2.
I personally cannot entertain scholars who contradict the clear teachings of scripture and directly or indirectly undermine its divine authority. They have done this by elevating their own philosophy as the ultimate authority instead of God’s Word. Finally, when the law of non contradiction is applied to statements made by the church’s hierarchy and the scriptures themselves; only the scriptures maintain an unblemished and consistent testimony.
O4H,
“My point is; making a connection between these two passages still does not support your supposition.”
I respectfully disagree. King Hezekiah is a Davidic king and a type of the Messiah. Eliakim is the chief steward and is entrusted with the keys of the house of David; i.e., delegated authority over the kingdom. Matt 16:19 is an allusion to Is 22. Jesus is a Davidic king and the Messiah. Peter is the chief steward (chief, or protos, apostle) and is given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
O4H,
“There are numerous instances to show that in biblical and later Jewish usage handing over the keys implies full authorization. He who has the keys has full authority. Thus, when Eliakim is given the keys of the palace he is appointed the royal steward (Is. 22:22, cf 15). When Jesus is said to hold the keys of Death and Hades (Rev 1:18) or the key of David (3:7), this means that He is, not the doorkeeper, but the Lord of the world of the dead and the palace of God…
"Hence handing over the keys implies appointment to full authority. He who has the keys has on the one side contol, e.g., over the council chamber or treasury, cf. Mt. 13:52, and on the other the power to allow or forbid entry, cf. Rev. 3:7.
“Mt. 23:13 [‘ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men’] leads us a step further. This passage is particularly important for an understanding of Mt. 16:19 because it is the only one in the NT which presupposes an image not found elsewhere, namely, that of the keys of the kingdom (royal dominion) of God.” --J. Jeremias, "Kleis," in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750
O4H,
"What is suspect and problematic is trying to establish a dogma that Scripture does not teach. As far as these references, I will have to look into them and consider what they actually have stated. "
I will give you a couple of these, and then you can study these more at your leisure.
R.T. France says; “these terms (binding and loosing) thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements (i.e. relative to laws not written down in Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them) which are binding on the people of God. In that case, Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in (Matt) 16:19 is not so much that of a doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted, BUT THAT OF THE STEWARD whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.” (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 1989. 247)
R.T. France, in another place says; “’Shall be bound & shall be loosed’ (as stated in Matt 16:16-19) are literally future perfects (i.e. shall have been bound, shall have been loosed), and as future perfect sounds as stilted in Greek as in English, the tense is apparently deliberate. In that case, it is not heaven that will ratify Peter’s independent decisions, but that Peter will pass on decisions that have already been made in heaven.” (The Gospel according to Matthew, an introduction and commentary).
Irenaeus,
“I never claimed that Matthew Henry or John Calvin believed that these passages support the papacy. Of course they believe they don’t, else they would have become Catholic. I merely stated that they made the connection between the two passages as if Jesus was alluding to the Isaiah passage in Matt. 16:19”
My point is; making a connection between these two passages still does not support your supposition.
“These passages support the doctrine of the Trinity and the unity of the human and divine natures in the single divine person of Christ, but these passages do not prove it.”
I respectfully disagree; the Scriptures sufficiently describe who Christ is and his nature.
“So let’s assume everybody is suspect in their scholarship if they believe that Matt 16:19 is alluding to Is 22:22. So do you have a problem with D. Guthrie, too, who makes the connection in his New Bible Commentary? Or George Buttrick The Interpreter’s Bible; Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament; J. Jeremias Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; Keil & Delitzsch, Isaiah; R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher; Lawrence O. Richards, The Revell Bible Dictionary; Barclay, Gospel of Matthew?”
What is suspect and problematic is trying to establish a dogma that Scripture does not teach. As far as these references, I will have to look into them and consider what they actually have stated.
O4H,
"As far as the other references; C.S. Mann was a textual critic, W.F. Albright was predominately an archeologist/textual critic more than a biblical scholar, he also was not a biblical literalist who claims in his book – Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan – that religion of the Israelites evolved from polytheism, F.F. Bruce was also a textual critic who said the book of Daniel had been written AFTER the events written therein took place..."
So let’s assume everybody is suspect in their scholarship if they believe that Matt 16:19 is alluding to Is 22:22. So do you have a problem with D. Guthrie, too, who makes the connection in his New Bible Commentary? Or George Buttrick The Interpreter’s Bible; Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament; J. Jeremias Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; Keil & Delitzsch, Isaiah; R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher; Lawrence O. Richards, The Revell Bible Dictionary; Barclay, Gospel of Matthew?
O4H,
I never claimed that Matthew Henry or John Calvin believed that these passages support the papacy. Of course they believe they don’t, else they would have become Catholic. I merely stated that they made the connection between the two passages as if Jesus was alluding to the Isaiah passage in Matt. 16:19, and this is noted in numerous Protestant translations via footnotes and cross-references. This is what you originally took exception to; that these passages are not related. I even found Matt 16:19 cross-referenced in a KJV family bible dating from the late 1800’s.
“To say that the Scriptures do not give a precise identity of Christ is an inaccurate statement; you may want to re-read those passages that I previously posted again.”
These passages support the doctrine of the Trinity and the unity of the human and divine natures in the single divine person of Christ, but these passages do not prove it.
To say that the Scriptures do not give a precise identity of Christ is an inaccurate statement; you may want to re-read those passages that I previously posted again.
Irenaeus,
Sorry for getting back so late; I had a busy weekend.
“In the very quote you provided from John Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah that you found on the internet, he references Matt. 16:19. Matthew Henry’s commentary on Matthew (not Isaiah) discusses the connection between the two passages albeit with the caveat that this does NOT refer to the papacy – but he still makes the connection. With regard to other commentaries or footnotes or crossreferences, The Anchor Bible: Matthew by W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann; The Hard Sayings of Jesus by F.F. Bruce; the NIV Study Bible; the Schofield Reference Bible; etc.”
If you re-read John Calvin’s quote again, he says. . . “For the same reason Christ calls the office of teaching the Word, (Matt.16:19,) “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. . . “The reason is that ministers, by the preaching of the Word, open the entrance into heaven, and lead to Christ, who alone is “the way” – END OF QUOTE. He then closes by talking about Eliakim and his charge; there is no mention of PETER . . . no mention of a papal charge . . . no mention that Matt.16 pertains to a universal head within the church other than “Christ, who ALONE is “the way”.
Matthew Henry specifically says in his commentary on Matthew 16, “So that this is far from being a proof of such primacy and superiority of Peter above the rest of the apostles, as the Church of Rome ascribes to him. They will needs advance him to be a judge, when the utmost they can make of him, is, that he was but foreman of the jury, to speak for the rest, and that only pro hac vice – for this once; not the perpetual dictator or speaker of the house, only chairman upon this occasion” – END OF QUOTE.
As far as the other references; C.S. Mann was a textual critic, W.F. Albright was predominately an archeologist/textual critic more than a biblical scholar, he also was not a biblical literalist who claims in his book – Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan – that religion of the Israelites evolved from polytheism, F.F. Bruce was also a textual critic who said the book of Daniel had been written AFTER the events written therein took place, and I have already commented on the NIV (paraphrase) notes along with Schofield’s notes as being unreliable.
“All the heterodox views I presented do not deny the divinity of Christ at the complete expense of his humanity nor the other way around. Don’t get me wrong – I completely agree with you with respect to the divinity and humanity of Christ, but scripture is not precise on this matter.”
O4H,
“You can go back and re-read my posts and see that you chose to comment on certain quotations from the church fathers and others you did not…”
I can’t possibly address ever quote you cite, so not addressing a quote is not dismissing. I simply chose certain ones out of several for the sake of brevity, not evasion. If there’s one in particular, then please focus on that one.
“… but the most important issue at hand is Isaiah 22. I pasted Matthew Henry’s and John Calvin’s comments regarding this chapter and they say absolutely nothing about its connection with Matthew 16. The “footnotes” and “commentary” which you are referring to cannot be verified since you gave no specific quotation and reference.”
In the very quote you provided from John Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah that you found on the internet, he references Matt. 16:19. Matthew Henry’s commentary on Matthew (not Isaiah) discusses the connection between the two passages albeit with the caveat that this does NOT refer to the papacy – but he still makes the connection. With regard to other commentaries or footnotes or crossreferences, The Anchor Bible: Matthew by W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann; The Hard Sayings of Jesus by F.F. Bruce; the NIV Study Bible; the Schofield Reference Bible; etc.
“On the contrary; the scriptures “clearly” speak about the divinity of Christ and his human nature; the very title “Son of Man” is used repeatedly and soundly establishes his human nature and his divinity (Daniel 7:13); here are a “few” samples –…”
All the heterodox views I presented do not deny the divinity of Christ at the complete expense of his humanity nor the other way around. Don’t get me wrong – I completely agree with you with respect to the divinity and humanity of Christ, but scripture is not precise on this matter.
Irenaeus,
“You responded by saying that you do recall me dismissing a number of your quotes; please provide an example rather than merely saying, “I do.”
You can go back and re-read my posts and see that you chose to comment on certain quotations from the church fathers and others you did not but the most important issue at hand is Isaiah 22. I pasted Matthew Henry’s and John Calvin’s comments regarding this chapter and they say absolutely nothing about its connection with Matthew 16. The “footnotes” and “commentary” which you are referring to cannot be verified since you gave no specific quotation and reference.
“Scripture does not provide precise definitions in order to determine whether Jesus is fully God and fully man (the orthodox view) . . .”
On the contrary; the scriptures “clearly” speak about the divinity of Christ and his human nature; the very title “Son of Man” is used repeatedly and soundly establishes his human nature and his divinity (Daniel 7:13); here are a “few” samples –
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” – 1Timothy 3:16.
See also Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1, 14, Hebrews 1:8, Colossian 1:15, 19, etc.
“Okay, you still have not answered the question. What if both men have claimed to have done this; namely, examine the canonical context of the entire Bible, the context of the entire book, the context of related paragraphs, and section context of the immediate passage, and still come to opposing positions?”
That is a good question; there are a couple of factors that determine how one understands and interprets scripture. Everyone has preunderstandings and presuppositions that they bring when studying the bible. These include parental influences, culture, family tradition, education, and experience, to mention a few. As Christians, we need to return to the source of absolute truth – the Word of God. So, how does one “objectively” interpret God’s Word? Allowing scriptural passages to speak for themselves without pouring our preconceived suppositions into the text is the best way to come to a sound conclusion. This can be challenging but an important aspect of answering your question is the law of non-contradiction. The Word of God does not and cannot contradict itself, so any attempt to manipulate or misinterpret a text can be reviewed and refuted by simply comparing it with the rest of scripture.
Another key for coming to a sound conclusion is simply doing what God himself has asked us not to do. That is not “ADDING” or “TAKING AWAY” from his Word – Proverbs 30:6, Deuteronomy 4:2, and Revelation 22:18, 19.
Now, the questions have to be asked; have the church fathers and statements by popes throughout history ever contradicted themselves or the scriptures? I say yes
O4H,
"Matthew Henry did not mention anything which connected Isaiah 22 with a papal system nor did John Calvin."
I never claimed that Matthew Henry or John Calvin supported the Catholic Church's teaching on the papacy using any scripture. What I said was that many non-Catholic Christians (especially those who have no sympathy for the papacy) make the connection that Jesus' statement in Matt 16:19-20 was an allusion to Is 22:22, and that this connection is not lost on many conservative Protestant scholars as noted in numerous Protestant commentaries and footnotes.
O4H,
You responded by saying that you do recall me dismissing a number of your quotes; please provide an example rather than merely saying, “I do.”
"There are many passages that 'CLEARLY' expound the doctrines of the Godhead and the 'divine and human nature of Christ.' "
Typically, they only appear to be “clear” when you come to read them after you have already been formed into that thinking, which is why the early church had to continually be more precise in its definitions on the identity of Christ. Although Scripture certainly teaches the truth regarding the Trune God, Scripture does not provide precise definitions in order to determine whether Jesus is fully God and fully man (the orthodox view), or that Jesus is fully God who merely appeared to be a man, or that Jesus is fully man who had God indwelling in him, or that God functions in one place as the Father and in another place as the Son, or various other formulae that have been proposed that appear to agree with scriptures.
“Good will/good intentions are not enough; as in someone can be sincere but sincerely wrong and having faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed – faith in what? Scripture must be read in its “CONTEXT” – that is – don’t isolate a passage from what comes before or after it in the text.
Instead, get the whole picture. To do this you will need to acquaint yourself with the context, the entire body of text surrounding the passage, which sheds light on its meaning. Example, Canonical context of the entire Bible, Context of the Entire Book, Section Context of related paragraphs, and section context of the immediate passage. You cannot isolate one passage and ignore the rest of scripture to build a case.”
Okay, you still have not answered the question. What if both men have claimed to have done this; namely, examine the canonical context of the entire Bible, the context of the entire book, the context of related paragraphs, and section context of the immediate passage, and still come to opposing positions?
Irenaeus,
“Nope… don’t recall dismissing any of these.”
I do.
“So you then are not comfortable in your belief in the Trinity, the hypostatic union of the human and divine natures of Christ, or the incarnation of the Second Person of the Triune Godhead?”
As my previous post already mentioned; “Allowing the passages to speak in their “CONTEXT” has nothing to do with western culture. We cannot read “INTO” the text our own preconceived notions. “Do not get “hung up” whether the explicit word or phrase is not present; sorry, I am not comfortable with establishing a doctrine that scripture does not “CLEARLY” support. We are not to “ADD or TAKE AWAY” from the scriptures – Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelation 22:18, 19.”
There are many passages that “CLEARLY” expound the doctrines of the Godhead and the “divine and human nature of Christ.”
“I would say that justification, sanctification, and glorification are much more than merely connected with the gospel. They all pertain to salvation.”
Your original statement was “defining” the gospel not what is connected to it.
“You tell me? Again, if two men of goodwill and faith disagree upon a fundamental doctrinal teaching with both of them appealing to scripture and the Holy Spirit’s guidance to help them arrive at their opposing conclusions, which one, if any, is correct, and how do you know?”
Good will/good intentions are not enough; as in someone can be sincere but sincerely wrong and having faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed – faith in what? Scripture must be read in its “CONTEXT” – that is – don’t isolate a passage from what comes before or after it in the text.
Instead, get the whole picture. To do this you will need to acquaint yourself with the context, the entire body of text surrounding the passage, which sheds light on its meaning. Example, Canonical context of the entire Bible, Context of the Entire Book, Section Context of related paragraphs, and section context of the immediate passage. You cannot isolate one passage and ignore the rest of scripture to build a case.
Matthew Henry did not mention anything which connected Isaiah 22 with a papal system nor did John Calvin.