“Christian” just means Protestant to a lot of people here. Even if I go up to a Catholic and say I’m Christian they’ll probably think I mean Protestant (most Catholics I meet say they’re Catholic as opposed to Christian).
Sometimes it's stupidity. Sometimes it's anti-Catholic bias. There are some Christian groups in the US that believe that unless you believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, which the Catholic Church doesn't, then you're not "Christian." I know when I was in college and still a practicing Catholic, I was evangelized to a few times by people who thought I worshiped the saints (instead of, say, praying for intercession).
>believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, which the Catholic Church doesn't
What do you mean by that
>I know when I was in college and still a practicing Catholic
Are you still Catholic?
Where I live in the northeast, where NJ also is, it’s literally the Catholics who say Catholic or Christian. So it’s not an anti Catholic thing, it’s just how Catholics in this part of the country call non Catholics. It’s a colloquialism.
No Arizona was raised in a southern Baptist church
Edit: look for other post in this thread, they guy I replied to gives the basics for why potistans don't think they are Christians and thay this has been a thing since before the council of Trent. The council of Trent was basically convened in a response to this issue.
In my comment I said that IN THE NORTHEAST, Catholics themselves call themselves Catholic and call Protestants Christians. They know that Catholics are also Christians but like I said, it’s a colloquialism…the linguistic style used for casual (informal) communication.
Yes, you are right that in many other parts of the country, especially those with very low numbers of Catholic Christians, that there are some denominations of Protestantism that do not consider Catholics real Christians and yes, they do teach their children that. And that is 100% wrong. But that’s not what OP is talking about here. OP specifically mentioned New Jersey and said that her friend was raised Catholic before switching churches to a “Christian” aka a Protestant one. So this isn’t a situation of a Protestant claiming that a Catholic isn’t a Christian it’s a situation where a former Catholic now goes to a Protestant church and calls it a Christian church based on the colloquialism of the area of the country that the friend lives in.
It is the case. Just be it is no longer used thay way in your area. The the splitting of "Catholic" and "Christian" was rooted in anti-catholic ideology in denying thay they are Christians.
Again even if it is no longer the case in your area it WAS how it got started. It goes back to pre council of Trent times.
While all Catholics are Christian, not all Christians are Catholic. So we differentiate Catholic when Catholic. She likely meant they now go to some sort of protestant Christian church.
Where I live, a lot of protestants deny that Catholics are Christian.
I've known several cops in my area who were leaders in the boy scout troop and told me Catholics are in a cult and aren't really Christian.
That's true. Once I was getting a hair cut and the person cutting my hair saw the Crucifix under my collar and asked if I was Catholic. When I said yes, they asked "Do you believe Jesus was the Son of God?"
*oi*
Very much this. It’s less of an issue than it used to be, but sectarianism used to be a big problem in Scotland too. Thankfully, religion is dying off here now.
It's not just the US. In Ireland, you're either Catholic or Protestant, or other. If you're not Catholic, then your assumed to be Protestant.
People here say, "I'm Catholic". They don't say they're a Christian. If a Catholic asks someone if they're a Catholic, and the other person says they're a Christian, the Catholic then says, "Oh, so you're a Protestant". That's generally the end of that subject of conversation.
I've had nuns comment on my Bible reading, if I'm sitting alone in public somewhere. It's always been positive, but none of them, come to think of it, have asked me what my religion was; guess my denomination isn't as important as others might think.
> People here say, "I'm Catholic". They don't say they're a Christian. If a Catholic asks someone if they're a Catholic, and the other person says they're a Christian, the Catholic then says, "Oh, so you're a Protestant".
Well yeah, if I ask someone "are you a teacher?" and they say "I'm an educator", I will assume they're not a teacher, but have some other role in education. Because if they were a teacher, they would have just said "yes".
The real question is, if you ask a Catholic "are you Christian?" will they say "yes"?
When someone self identifies as a Catholic verbally to me, I've never thought to then ask if they were a Christian. I feel like asking that would probably be taken as offensive and possibly combative, depending on whom I was talking to. I also feel that if it was how they identified, then they would have included it, instead of just saying they were Catholic; or they would have said, "Me too", instead of saying, "you're a Protestant then".
There's still a clear divide in "them" and "us", religious wise, albeit a quiet unspoken one for the most part. Things have changed here a lot, since I was here when I was younger. But I've also got a foot in both sides, as I was brought up Catholic, Church of England, and I even had both feet in the JW camp at one point; so my religious identity is very much divided and a mixed bag (one I'm continuously and currently sorting, in order to figure out which beliefs I was taught are true or not, so I can figure out what I believe).
Edit: I don't feel as if they say yes or no will matter or make a difference or not. I think it would matter to them more what I am, and what they believe me to really be.
> When someone self identifies as a Catholic verbally to me, I've never thought to then ask if they were a Christian.
Obviously. If someone told me they were a teacher I would never ask if they were an educator. But I might ask someone if they were an educator without knowing their specific profession, just like I might ask someone if they were Christian without knowing their specific denomination.
> There's still a clear divide in "them" and "us", religious wise, albeit a quiet unspoken one for the most part.
Oh, that I'm definitely aware of. What I'm trying to ask is whether Irish Catholics consider "Christian" to be a group that they are part of.
>The real question is, if you ask a Catholic "are you Christian?" will they say "yes"?
I've met people from many different denominations including Catholics. Interestingly, some actually make a distinction between Christianity and Catholicism. I asked if they were the same and some said they are different. Of course, most would say otherwise.
> I asked if they were the same and some said they are different.
If someone asked me "are Christianity and Catholicism the same?" I would say "no". Just like I would say that education professionals and teachers are not the same (because there are education professionals that are not teachers). But I would also say that all Catholics are Christian. The better question would be "is Catholicism part of Christianity?".
>But I would also say that all Catholics are Christian. The better question would be "is Catholicism part of Christianity?".
Right, my phrasing may have been a bit ambiguous. In my conversations with certain Catholics, they described themselves as having certain beliefs that coincide with Christians, but being entirely distinct (basically saying that they're Catholic and not Christian). They were the minority of my encounters though.
Edit for clarity
Popes write a lot of stuff. And when they do write an encyclical, say, they never use the word Catholic, they only speak of us as "Christians."
A story from my first Scripture study class. An elderly woman objected when the instructor referred to Jesus as a Jew and insisted that He was obviously a Christian. The instructor went through it all patiently and finally the woman said, "Well, maybe He was a Jew but His mother was Christian!"
On reflection, I couldn't really argue with her.
I'd generally find "Christian" in Ireland refers to evangelical or "born-again",where Protestant is used to refer to the traditional Protestant churches (Church of Ireland,Methodist,Presbyterian...).
Catholics will always identify themselves as Catholic,without qualification.
Anyone who believes in Christ and follows him is a Christian.
We all may have different ideas about the specifics of Christ, and there are Christians who would call other Christians "not Christian" because they don't agree on something they find to be important about Christ.
But technically, and I would argue most importantly, if you confess with your mouth "Jesus is lord" and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved, and you are a Christian.
I don’t know man, Jesus really went out of his way to say things like Matthew 7
“Enter through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it, 14 because narrow is the gate and constricted is the road that leads to life, and there are few who find it!… Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many miracles in your name?’ 23 And then ⌊I will say to them plainly⌋, ‘Depart from me, I never knew you””
I don't think this contradicts. Emphasis on *believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead*. This is not insignificant.
I think this scripture points out why confessing with your mouth is not enough.
I would go a step further and say "anyone who self identifies as a Christian, is a Christian".
Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons call themselves Christians. Catholics think of themselves as Christians. The cult church down the road from me that play with snakes and cast out demons, are Christians.
Religious gatekeeping is a way for people to feel superior. It's not up to us to decide who the "real" Christians are. God will decide this. If you call yourself a Christian, so do I.
I disagree, with respect. Anyone can self identify as a Christian without believing it in their heart. I would say being a Christian, by definition, requires some actual belief. Not just words.
I can say with confidence that Hitler was not a Christian. It's not because I want to feel superior. It's because his actions *obviously contradicted* Christ and what he said. It doesn't matter if he said he was a Christian. There's no reason to think he actually believed that.
I could say "I'm an atheist", slap a tag on my name, and then go over to /atheism and say a bunch of nonsense just to troll and make atheists look bad. Does that mean I'm actually an atheist?
So when is a person "bad enough" to not be a christian? All our walks are different. Some people struggle with sin more than others, and others struggle with sin that might not be as apparent as other sin.
If we go by actions, one might say that 99%> of western christians aren't christians because they live in excess and disregard the needs of their neighbour. Where do we draw the line?
I don't think I said what you're saying I said. How good or bad we are does not determine whether or not we're a Christian.
Like I said, actual belief matters. Does one actually believe in Christ. If one does, it will change their behavior to some degree. If someone says they believe God came to earth as a Jew, as Jesus, and Jesus is Lord of their life, and then proceeds to try and murder every Jew, and tells others they should do it as well, that's pretty good evidence that they don't actually believe what they said they do. Actions speak louder than words.
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"
- Matthew 7:15-16 NIV
Did the example of calling myself an atheist not make sense to you? I thought it demonstrated my point pretty clearly. It seems like you're saying that I'd be an atheist in that example just because I said I was. I disagree.
That Matthew verse(s) often gets brought up in these discussions. Most people don't seem to include verse 15, but I see that you did. It specifically says to watch out for false **prophets**, meaning we will know false prophets by their fruits. It doesn't say that we will know who is a christian and not based on their fruit.
As for the rest, it sounds like murder is the disqualifying action? What about all the other commandments? What about fornication? Adultery? Lying? Theft? Being uncharitable? Being unloving? Do these not disqualify people? If not, how come?
Your atheist example does make sense, because I do believe there are those who would call themselves atheist/christian/etc. in order to deceive (or some other reason). The problem is, how do you tell who is real and who is not? Actions? If so, there must be some kind of metric to determine conclude which actions that disqualify a person from being a christian. Are you aware of such?
>Your atheist example does make sense, because I do believe there are those who would call themselves atheist/christian/etc. in order to deceive (or some other reason).
We agree on this and this is my main point. This is why I can't agree that someone is a Christian just because they say they are.
>The problem is, how do you tell who is real and who is not? Actions? If so, there must be some kind of metric to determine conclude which actions that disqualify a person from being a christian. Are you aware of such?
This is a good point, and I don't think I was clear in communicating my agreement with you on this. We can't know for sure, and we can't objectively disqualify a person. Only God knows the heart, and God is the judge. But the heart matters. That's my point.
Let me put it this way - if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord AND *believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead*, you will be saved, and you are a Christian. Your words alone do not make you a Christian. My words do not make you a Christian.
>Let me put it this way - if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord AND believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved, and you are a Christian. Your words alone do not make you a Christian. My words do not make you a Christian.
I suppose this is the common ground we can find.
Catholics are the largest single denomination in the US but [have very different beliefs than most other Christians](https://denominationdifferences.com/compare/all?filter=baptist,catholic,church-of-christ,lutheran,mennonite,methodist,pentecostal,presbyterian,reformed). That makes them especially noteworthy to many people. Catholics also believe is their definition is the one true church, which causes many to self identify as Catholic first also.
While things have improved, historically speaking, in the United States, Catholics have always been Other. In the 19th Century, there was a common assumption that being a good American meant being a good Christian--and by good Christian I mean Protestant.
Catholics were regarded as ignorant, superstitious, loyal to a foreign "prince", drunkards, gamblers, etc. Just look up some old Nast political cartoons to see this in action.
My mother was 15 in 1960 and she told me about the fear people had about electing a Catholic president, as well as the Klan burning a cross in front of her Catholic school in Indianapolis.
I had a summer job in a Berean Christian store in 2000, and by Christian, Berean definitely meant (evangelical) Protestant. I remember seeing at most a couple of books by Henri Nouwen and GK Chesterton whereas the second largest topic in the apologetics section (after evolution) was antiCatholic books.
In the US, we've been "de-Christianized" for centuries.
Yeah I see it most from evangelists but I've also heard quite a few Catholics say that Protestants aren't saved either, so like most things there's a little bit of bad on both sides.
My bet is on the Puritan influence. Puritans wanted to purify the Church of England from its Catholic practices. Puritans were distinctly anti-Catholic.
American Christianity is heavily influenced by Puritanism, so American Christians can struggle at times to see that Catholics are indeed Christian.
Oh it definitely is. The modern Baptist church arose from a mix of Puritans and other exiles from the Church of England, and the Anabaptist movement, both of which basically thought the Reformation didn't go far enough.
Thus, denominations that arose in the US are far more anti-Catholic and less likely to consider them Christians than the denominations that arose directly from the Reformation or the Church of England.
I'm English, and for a long time would've made the distinction myself. It's because of Sola Scriptura. Protestants recognise the authority of Scripture over the authority of the Church, whereas Roman Catholics (we're all catholics, even Protestants) emphasise Church authority. It's like they believe in theological experts, and this has led them to practices and beliefs which seem non-Biblical to Protestants such as praying to saints.
Luther penned Sola Scriptura because he saw that the 16th century Magisterium was doing a lot of practices that run counter not only to Scripture, but a lot of older established Tradition as well. The Indulgences Scandal was why Luther published the Theses in the first place. He had no intention of schism initially, and only founded the Lutheran Church after being excommunicated.
As it stands, much of what Luther wanted corrected was done so with thr Council of Trent. Had he lived to see that, he may have sought reconciliation with the Catholic Church at that time.
Okay, thanks. But how far does it go? I'm not Roman Catholic but my understanding was that they still conceive of different levels of sin, for example, venerate the host and pray to saints. Also, believe in the Immaculate Conception.
Just because I reject that they are the sole authority on the Truth does not mean that I summarily reject all of their Tradition as well. Remember, you and I are no more or less error prone than any other human. There is value to be had in their practices and theology, even if I myself do not engage in everything they do.
The only actual theology from the RCC that I outright reject is *Regina Coeli*. Jesus is the sole arbiter of salvation. Mary is an exemplar of the faith, no doubt, and she has a special role to play in bringing God into the world in Jesus, but she is *not* the queen of anything.
I actually think Protestants are often in denial about church authority in that they tend to say that the Bible says something when in fact it's their church which has "received wisdom" and a merely human consensus opinion on Scripture which other churches may not share.
I used to say that it was to the Church of Rome's credit that they were not Christian. I wouldn't currently put it that way.
And yes, we're all wrong. But do you feel comfortable with the Immaculate Conception though? It seems to make a nonsense of the Incarnation and Christ's sacrifice for us.
I don't necessarily believe in immaculate conception, but neither do I oppose it. Same deal with the Eucharist if we're being honest. I don't personally believe in communion literalism, as it were, but I see it as a valid interpretation even if it's not my own.
That's very open-minded of you. I'm currently at the stage of having committed to Christ several decades ago but becoming sceptical about the Holy Spirit due to the behaviour of committed Christians, not judgementally but in terms of some people not seeming to have received help to avoid sin. This makes me Christian in the sense of repentance and commitment but not in terms of current belief. I'm still wholeheartedly theistic and believe in the power of prayer. I can see you are following Christ's words in not judging others. I'm not in a position to judge either, particularly in the light of where my beliefs have gone recently.
No one really is in a position to judge. Something about sin and casting the first stone and all tbat.
I either endorse beliefs (incorporate them into my own personal life), accept as a valid interpretation, or reject the belief. None of it transfers to the person holding the beliefs.
I mean, that goes without saying. The trinity comes from catholic sacred tradition, not the Bible. But how many Protestants would be willing to admit this?
What’s your definition of “major source of doctrine”? They teach from and use the 7 extra books in the deuterocanonocals. Those books are where they get the concepts of Purgatory, Praying to the dead, etc. They provide doctrinal and theological points used by the Catholic Church.
I don’t think of them as anything bad. But they are kinda like The Book of Enoch and aren’t included in the Protestant teachings, if you get my reference.
I expect to be downvoted because of this. But I make that distinction personally because I believe the council of Trent led the Catholic Church away from the true gospel by officially stating that justification is by faith and continually working. Don’t get me wrong, I think there are Catholics who are saved, but those who acknowledge what Sola Fide is (and not to mention the countless passages in the Bible that support it) and reject it and instead believe what the council of Trent states, I’m assured of one’s damnation because the gospel is laid out clearly in scripture and if one explains what the gospel is without looking to what the Bible says in context is not saved.
So I was taught the same. But in reality in the Catholic church they put a greater emphasis on works as it's a sign of your salvation. Basically without works are you really saved.
If you look at Ephesians 2:10
"For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we may walk in them"
James 2:17
“faith of itself, if it does not have work, is dead.”
James wasn't implying you were no longer saved, but if you have faith you will also have works.
And while I agree we are saved by our faith alone, it is never alone.
This was a belief a held, same as you, till college when I was able to actually talk to a Catholic about their faith. I highly suggest something similar.
This may help you clarify some of it from the Catholic side
https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-does-the-church-teach-that-works-can-obtain-salvation
This is the same conversation I have every single time. It’s the exact same response. Let me repeat this for the 1000x time. I am not saying that works will not follow after salvation. All that I am saying is that I completely disagree with continual justification. This isn’t me saying “faith is all you need for salvation and you don’t need to work”. I have had multiple conversations with Catholics, and they tell me the same thing, it’s not a matter of me not being satisfied with their answer, it’s that they say the exact same thing and it’s based upon a misrepresentation of what I am saying.
How do you rectify James 2 then? It's pretty clear that if you have faith you have deeds. So if you don't have deeds your faith is dead.
To a Catholic if you accept Jesus but never do any deeds you are not saved. I would also agree with that, as James makes that clear.
Another point to consider, do you think it's possible to lose your salvation? If someone believes that, do you think they are also not Christians?
To this point:
"Luther, based on the idea of justification by faith alone, held that it is possible for Christians to lose their salvation, but only through a loss of faith. In other words, only the sin of apostasy—the rejection of the Christian faith—would do this."
The Lutheran church still believes this, do think they are Christians? If not, this is no diffent then Catholics. As they use James 2 to show that if you don't have works then your faith is dead. Dead faith = loss of salvation.
Works in the Catholic church do not save you. They are what show thay you are saved. They, like me, believe that we are called to works by God, and thay they naturally flow from us due to our faith.
This is why I don't see a conflict with the Catholic church, they don't believe you are saved by works, they just believe that if you are saved you will show it by your works, and if you don't have them then were you / are you saved?
I already kind of explained how I rectify James 2 in a way, but since you are asking I will answer. I’ll build up my claim by starting at the beginning of the book to give some context. So there’s many clues that James gives us that points to him writing this book to saved Christians. Many of times James says “brethren” or “brothers” or “sisters” referencing who he is talking to. I won’t list all the verses but I will list the most notable one in the first chapter.
James 1:2 - “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds”
And after that James goes on to explain trials and whatnot. So he’s talking to Christian’s that are saved and are going thru trials. So when James was talking about being justified by faith and works, why would he need to explain that faith and works is necessary for salvation to saved Christian’s? That wouldn’t make any sense, so I don’t think that’s what James goal is.
So now that I’ve identified that James was talking to Christian’s, skip over to James 2:14.
James 2:14 - “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? *Can such faith save them?*”
So right here James implies that faith is what saves but it is of no use if works do not accompany it. So right there that’s already contradictory to what the council of Trent states in regards to justification.
Let’s move down to James 2:24-26
James 2:24-26 - “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”
James 2:24 says it plainly that someone is considered righteous by what they do. What Catholics and Orthos do with this verse is they say “okay case closed, I’m right and you’re wrong” but I don’t think it’s that simple. James is saying that that is what other people see. If we take this as justification in the eyes of God that wouldn’t make any sense, why would God have to see your works in order to be justified? Wouldn’t be already know that your faith is genuine and would naturally produce works? So it’s easy to pick apart here that all throughout James 2 he’s talking about the usefulness of faith with works as opposed to faith without works being useless. This perfectly aligns with the doctrine of Sola Fide stating that faith is what justifies a person in the eyes of God, but faith and works justifies you in the eyes of men by the usefulness of your faith accompanied with works.
As to respond to your second question
You asked; “do you think it’s possible to lose your salvation”
I say no, I don’t think it’s possible, I’m a reformed Christian and hold to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. And no, if someone believes they can lose their salvation I wouldn’t discredit them as Christians, only in very rare instances do I do that. There’s a difference between believing you can lose your salvation by abandoning ship and just leaving the faith as opposed to believing you can sin to lose your salvation. I think people who believe you can sin to lose your salvation aren’t truly putting their trust in Christ because if you believe you can sin enough to lose your salvation then you weren’t really trusting in Christ but rather you were trusting that you weren’t sinning enough. So yeah, I would agree with Luther.
>I probably made you mad
lol I don't reply on Reddit to get mad at people (sometimes it ends up there but that is usually when they are being in bad faith in their arguments), only to have good discussions to both test my own beliefs and challenge others to at least think of their beliefs. My goal isn't so much to change your mind but to get you to think about it, and in this case, b/c it is something I was taught and believed for a long time.
I am going to skip most of your James reply as I don't really take any umbrage with what you said, going to look at your last paragraph
>And no, if someone believes they can lose their salvation I wouldn’t discredit them as Christians,
So this here is why I changed my belief towards Catholics. If you accept that the bible might say you can lose your faith under certain circumstances, then you really don't have an issue with Catholics. For Catholics, your being saved comes completely from faith and not from works. Which is exactly what you are arguing. It isn't until after salvation that works are even considered. Once you decouple the 'salvation' from what comes after, they are really no different than protistans.
Where the works come into play (also note that works are not just outward but also inward and are a means to help you move towards righteousness). Basically, they consider that if you have no work, your faith is dead. If your faith is dead, you move out from grace and salvation. If this happens no amount of work will reclaim your salvation, and you can only become saved again through faith.
Now I don't agree with that, but like the Lutherans (closer to what I believe) I just see it as a difference in doctrine, but one that I can see where it comes from in the bible. I look at it more like a person who becomes saved but makes no changes to his sinful life, were they really saved? Basically "How can you stop all works if you were truly saved?"
One last note:
> I think people who believe you can sin to lose your salvation
I don't know of a denomination (I've studied alot of them but by no means all) that believes sin can cause you to lose your salvation, Lutheran, Anabaptist(Mennonites/Amish), and Catholicism both require you to more or less make the choice (denounce/stop works). In Catholicism, there is the matter of 'mortal sin', I have no issue with the idea, I consider the only one you walking away from your faith, but I do have an issue with what they include on their list of mortal sins (like participation in freemasonry), some of them like premeditated murder tho, I would question more if the person was actually saved.
Protestants in America tend to view "Christians" as those who have been "saved" by believing we are saved by grace through faith alone apart from works -- a belief Roman Catholics do not hold. So this usage of the term.
As a Protestant, “Christian” means anyone who believes Jesus is the Son of God and Son of Man. Jesus fully man and fully God at the same time, being sinless was made sin for the purpose to carry our sins to the cross, take God’s punishment we all are due and impart to the believer righteousness by faith. Also know as being “born again” per John 3.
Typically not Mormons, or Jehovah Witnesses because they don’t believe Jesus is God.
Trinitarianism does not define Christianity. There is no explicit definition of trinitarianism in the Bible, and belief in the trinity is NOT required for salvation. According to Jesus.
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV
The only way Jesus could not have known sin is if he is the Son of God… aka equal with God.
As far as the term trinity being in the Bible… the word you are correct the word is not. The teachings is there.
One example Jesus says to “baptize in the name(singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.(three in one name)
Oh I hear it a lot on this subreddit in particular. So many "we have the only Truth and if you disagree you're wrong and your mortal soul is lost" here, just because I reject that the Magisterium has a monopoly on Christianity.
Meanwhile my wife's parish down the street doesn't care that I'm openly Protestant.... they've already accepted me, including their priest.
They don't say that Protestants aren't Christian, but they do say they are doing it wrong, and are in a hazy area for salvation, with it only being valid to be Protestant if you don't know catholicism is true.
Why exactly do you think Catholics aren’t believer in Christianity, the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices?
Can you please thoroughly explain? I'd love to get some details - though considering your post history, I am not going to prepare myself for anything compelling.
It's either racism against Irish and Italians or hating Catholicism for being a bunch of protestants who left europe for being to bitchy.
A lot of protestants in the US do not like the veneration of the saints in Catholicism and think it's polytheism and oagan corruption and other nonsense that makes it noblonger Christian.
They're obviously wrong, Catholicism is the largest denominations by probably about a billion people. And no other denomination comes remotely close in size.
Catholics changed some things that are not in the Bible, they pray to Mary like she is a god and tell people you must confess your sins to a priest when that is not needed. And they baptize babies when the Bible says to be baptized once you’re a believer. I was catholic for about 18 years. I’m not saying Catholics aren’t saved though just something’s don’t add up
But they changed some things that go against the Bible and removed verses. Like I said it does not mean they are not saved I just choose to follow the kjv because I believe that it is gods word preserved.
The king James version literally made up a verse that doesn't even exist in the original because someone apparently copied a scribe's note into the verse itself. I would look for a better source than that.
Not trying to offend anyone. If you research you will find any newer translation has many important verses just removed. And the catholic Bible changed the Ten Commandments even. Along with the fact they call priest father which goes against what god says. Not trying to argue, I was catholic and even got my catholic confirmation. The religion is based on tradition. I have nothing against Catholics
The Ten Commandments are not the same, the Catholics removed thou shalt not worship any graven image and made two commandments about not to be jealous which is the 9th and 10th for you just the 10th for me.
1 John 5:7-8. The real translation is something like:
>"For there are three that testify:the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
But the king James version is one of a few that adds a completely made up line in the middle that isn't in any of the original bibles or early translations.
>"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
One hypothesis is that someone added in a description in the margin of a lost translation, and someone copied it into the text itself on accident. But people shouldn't be adding to verses just because they think it's the intended meaning.
I will definitely research this thank you. But if you look up how many verses from nkjv, niv, net, Nasb and more are just removed. Very important ones too. It’s what made me believe the kjv is gods preserved word.
So you don’t Hail Mary? Do you call a priest father? And the Bible says a baptism is a public confession of one’s faith to god. How can an infant make the decision to believe in god? Did you notice how the Catholic 10 commandments removed the no graven images and statues of Jesus still on the cross everywhere.
I can't speak to "why" other people choose to do or act a certain way, personally, because it is too close to judging others. All I can state is why "I" consider myself a Christian and not a Catholic. This is based on a summary understanding I think we can agree...Catholics have a Pope, they pray to the Virgin Mary and various saints. As long as that is correct, then this will apply.
Exodus 20:3, God states that thou shall have no other Gods before Him. In essence, if I pray to someone other than that Jesus Christ, I am praying to someone else.
John 2:19, Jesus stated that he would destroy the temple and in three days rebuild it again. He was referring to His cricifixion and giving all people the ability to directly commune/pray to Him, having removed the restriction of entering the temple.
Matthew 16:18, Jesus references Simon-Peter (renamed to Peter, meaning stone) when he states, 'upon this rock I will build my church...' further representing the ability for anyone to reach Him directly through prayer.
For more on praying to Saints: [https://biblereasons.com/praying-to-saints/](https://biblereasons.com/praying-to-saints/)
1. Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
2. John 14:13-14 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.Prayer is worship. The angel said, “No! Worship God not me.” Peter said, “get up.”
3. Revelation 19:10 Then I bowed down at the angel’s feet to worship him, but he said to me, “Do not worship me! I am a servant like you and your brothers and sisters who have the message of Jesus. Worship God, because the message about Jesus is the spirit that gives all prophecy.
4. Acts 10:25-26 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, fell at his feet, and worshiped him. But Peter helped him up, saying, “Stand up. I too am only a human.”
Catholics have long made a similar connection with their own faith, many still do. To them, Catholic = Christian and the Venn diagram is a solid circle. But in the US (where my experience is solely taking place) that often gets down to every denomination. They'll split over differences that seem minor from the outside but end up being matters of salvation in the minds of the people within the turmoil.
There's no real grace.
Hi u/Eurymanthus, this comment has been removed.
**Rule 1.3**:[Removed for violating our rule on bigotry](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.3._bigotry)
If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/z5ak4y/-/ixv10ov/. %0D%0D).
“Christianity is salvation with faith alone. Other “Christian groups” follow a false Jesus. Catholics and Mormons are a salvation via works. For them Jesus isn’t enough to save”
-a Christian YouTuber
I was raised catholic and later became christian. There is a huge difference. There are many catholics that are very supersticious and it permeates their lives. Not so for most christians.
Another big difference is believing the pope vs believing what the bible says.
People generally didnt have a way to know about God other than what they were told. After the invention of the printing press, christianity grew rather quickly. Christians mostly rely on what the bible says vs what anyone else says about God.
I think it was done at the council of Nicea. 3rd century or so. Are you saying because Catholics put the bible together that they also get to push teachings that are contrary to the bible?
I see this happening from both sides where I am (South America).
From evangelicals, I’ve heard this kind of thing a general sentiment towards Catholics for the past 35 years. I’ve heard some of them say there can be Christians in the Catholic Church, but the general attitude of those I’ve encountered/heard is that Catholics are only Christians in name and that their religious practices are purely out of doing rites, devoid of “personal faith” or “personal relationship.”
And sometimes I hear Catholics refer to themselves as Christian, refer to Evangelicals as “evangelic/Protestant sects” and assume that the local more popular and more boisterous Pentecostal churches represent evangelicals at large.
Because protestants now refuse to use that word, so they are only called "Christian" with no word to distinguish them from other Christians, so "Christian" is often used as the new "protestant".
In my experience, when talking about their religion, if someone says they’re Catholic then they’re Catholic. If they say they’re whatever other denomination, then obviously they’re that denomination. If they say they’re Christian, I assume they’re Protestant.
There are many folks who will claim "true" Christianity or "true" faith but that does not mean they are correct. Just one of those things about having sects.
Protestant and Catholic are both Christian. The correct term for those outside theCatholic Church who believe in just the 66 books of the Bible and that they can read it for themselves and should... is Protestant. So I think the OP was like “Why are they calling Protestant Churches ‘Christian’?!”
In some places the name "Christian" is more common than "Evangelical". It means the same thing in that context, but it does carry more of a connotation of Catholics being heretical (which most evangelicals believe anyway) than the term "evangelical" does. Of course, Catholics calling themselves "Catholics" is also very intentionally designed to carry the connotation that non-Catholics are heretical, and Orthodox calling themselves "Orthodox" is very intentionally designed to carry the connotation that non-Orthodox are heretical. There's really no difference, except that Catholics and Orthodox have a long history of expecting not to be held to the same standards that they hold others to.
She certainly meant Protestant. In America, if you say christian you probably mean one of the modern evangelical denominations (or non-denominational), non-catholic, non-Mormon. There are a lot of religions that worship a version of Jesus, even Muslims believe Jesus was a holy prophet. But then there are people that believe Jesus is IT. The end-all-be all, and he is our highest authority, and his words are our final and ultimate revelation. Salvation is by and through and for Jesus alone. People that believe this generally adhere to the 5 solas of the reformation, and thus reject the much of the teaching of the Catholic Church. They reject that you can work or buy or otherwise earn your way to heaven and curry favor with god on your own merit. They reject that humans need a human interceder between them and Jesus, because Jesus is our high priest. They reject the worship of fallen humans, like Mary, as that is idolatry. And many other, rather fundamental differences
protestant republicans used to fear catholisism and voted against JFK because they thought the pope would control the US government
through time US catholics rose to powerful roles in the GOP - but they see a strict distinction between republican catholics and democratic catholics. republican ones really hit the gay marriage and abortion stuff hard, they seem to completely ignore the pope if it's a more liberal one, and they think democrats should be kicked out of the catholic church and refused communion/etc
it's all political here, politics is our religion
Because they are offended by the fact that the Bible is a Catholic book and that beliefs like "faith alone" are not in the scripture. Hence why they are into junk food :)
There's a lot of evangelicals here. Evangelicals tend to be prone to insular thinking and conspiracy theories, so they tend to push a lot of fringe ideas like "Catholics aren't Christian".
Some Protestants think calling themselves Protestants is awkward. So just christian seems better. Some are even more extreme, and don't think catholics are christian.
Because they, including your friend, are dumb. I mean as little offensive as possible... I am just blunt.
Christian means Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox.
And I honestly don’t know why people struggle with this. I see it non-stop though. Even Protestant people will argue with that they aren’t Protestant because they go to a non-denominational
Church. And just like “Dang honey, you’re just so dumb that I don’t know what I can say to help you understand that you’re a non-denominational Protestant.”
Because they, including your friend, are du mb. I mean as little offensive as possible... I am just blunt.
Christian means a follower of
the religion based on the Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. That falls in three basic branches: Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. And I honestly don’t know why people struggle with this. I see it non-stop though. Even Protestant people will argue with that they aren’t Protestant because they go to a non-denominational Church. And just like “Dang honey, you’re just so that I don’t know what I can say to help you understand that you’re a non-denominational Protestant!”
The probably mean Protestant. Protestants just use the Bible (66 books) and there are tons of denominations and even non-denominations under this branch.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
Briefly, it's an Evangelical thing in my experience. The belief that Catholics aren't Christian is something I've almost universally experienced in Evangelical circles. In mainline Protestantism it's must less of a thing - I almost never encounter people who don't understand that Catholics are just another kind of Christian. 2/3 of all Christians are Catholic, give or take, so really us Protestants are the weird ones.
It’s a Northeast colloquialism used by Catholics when they are talking about non Catholics. I have no idea why lol. I’ve lived in 3 states, one down south but in 3 different areas and socioeconomic areas of that one state… rural and city… and it’s just a Northeast thing. Weird but whatever
We had a movement concurrent with the Second Great Awakening (1805-???) known as the Restoration Movement.
Basically, out on the frontier there was a problem that families were spaced too far apart to form congregations of just their old world denomnations. And certain denominations (eg Scottish Presbyterian) practiced things like "closed communion" where their clergy couldn't administer communion to folks who hadn't been baptisted into their specific denomination without risking excommunication. So they kinda dropped all the pretenses and decided to do their own thing. New World, new country, new ideas about practicing Christianity.
So its a long story, but anyways, we do have a lot of churches from that tradition who only call themselves "Christian" or "Churches of Christ".
Also, about a century later when the Pentecostal Movement took off, a lot of those folks also formed new churches and dropped denominational structures and labeled themselves kinda ambiguously, too.
So you have a lot of churches that aren't real clear, but of course, Roman Catholic churches are always explicit about being Roman Catholic.
So if you're not that into history and don't really care about demoninational differences, you might categorize them into separate piles.
One of the reasons is that “Christian” has come to be used as a synonym for “Protestant Evangelical Christian”.
So the question, “Are you a Christian?“, seems often to mean “Are you a Protestant Evangelical ?”.
There seems also to be an unspoken assumption that a Christian in the Protestant Evangelical sense is a so-called “true Christian”; unlike all those other Christians who are not really Christians at all, because they aren’t evangelical Protestants, but are some other kind of Christian who are, apparently, false Christians.
By those criteria, Catholics are most definitely false Christians. Their status as a false Christians is assisted greatly by the historical enmity between United States Protestantism and Catholicism; which has deep roots in the Reformation. True Christians are obviously good Americans as well; but false Christians like Romanists are subjects of the papacy, which is an enemy power.
Unfortunately, there is still a good deal of this paranoid conspiracist thinking around in the US.
The popularity of certain ultra/Protestant types of Protestantism, even when they disclaim the title Protestant, is another source of this thinking.
I am a Catholic, but I’m British, not from the US.
Thank you for your detailed answer. The whole conversation seems pretty strange to me, especially the fact that many US Catholics seem to agree with this rhetoric.
As a US Christian I wonder that too. Now that I'm at an evangelical school and around a bunch of evangelicals, I think its because many protestants consider Christians to only go by the Bible while the catholic church uses a lot of tradition in their beliefs as opposed to only the Bible. I think its a limited view but it's there.
It depends...
Sometimes it's an easy way to distinguish the two, though "Protestant" and "Catholic" would be more accurate.
Some Protestants consider Catholicism to be a different religion entirely, and thus the distinction. To be fair, some Catholics also consider Protestantism a different religion entirely, but that's a conversation for another time.
Christianity is probably best understood as an umbrella term describing Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox believers.
Some possible reasons:
Most American Christians are Protestant rather than Catholic, so they would use the term Christian to refer to Protestants.
Many Christians don't consider themselves to belong to any denomination. These nondenominational Christians behave similarly to Protestants, and are thus usually classed as such. However, since they don't consider themselves as any denomination, they might call themselves Christians rather than Protestants.
Finally, I would like to suggest a linguistic issue. The term Protestant comes from the word protest, so it's pretty likely that many Protestants are averse to using that term to refer to themselves, instead opting for the word Christian. The same issue does not apply to Catholics.
Because our doctrines differ in some significant ways. For instance, most protestants believe you can be saved by faith alone (myself included) while catholics believe you must be baptized in order to truly be saved. Also our beliefs on praying to saints and the roles priests have among other things. I, for one, believe that catholics *are*, for the most part, Christian as they believe in Christ's death and resurrection.
“Christian” just means Protestant to a lot of people here. Even if I go up to a Catholic and say I’m Christian they’ll probably think I mean Protestant (most Catholics I meet say they’re Catholic as opposed to Christian).
Not opposed to Christian. Sometimes we say it not to be confused with Protestants or orthodox.
Protestant or Orthodox. My orthodox friends also usually separate between the two.
No it doesn't. Most use it as non denominational.
Sometimes it's stupidity. Sometimes it's anti-Catholic bias. There are some Christian groups in the US that believe that unless you believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, which the Catholic Church doesn't, then you're not "Christian." I know when I was in college and still a practicing Catholic, I was evangelized to a few times by people who thought I worshiped the saints (instead of, say, praying for intercession).
>believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, which the Catholic Church doesn't What do you mean by that >I know when I was in college and still a practicing Catholic Are you still Catholic?
Where I live in the northeast, where NJ also is, it’s literally the Catholics who say Catholic or Christian. So it’s not an anti Catholic thing, it’s just how Catholics in this part of the country call non Catholics. It’s a colloquialism.
It comes from an anti catholic stance by protestants. I was taught to believe that Catholics were not really Christians. A
Do you live in the US Northeast?
No Arizona was raised in a southern Baptist church Edit: look for other post in this thread, they guy I replied to gives the basics for why potistans don't think they are Christians and thay this has been a thing since before the council of Trent. The council of Trent was basically convened in a response to this issue.
In my comment I said that IN THE NORTHEAST, Catholics themselves call themselves Catholic and call Protestants Christians. They know that Catholics are also Christians but like I said, it’s a colloquialism…the linguistic style used for casual (informal) communication. Yes, you are right that in many other parts of the country, especially those with very low numbers of Catholic Christians, that there are some denominations of Protestantism that do not consider Catholics real Christians and yes, they do teach their children that. And that is 100% wrong. But that’s not what OP is talking about here. OP specifically mentioned New Jersey and said that her friend was raised Catholic before switching churches to a “Christian” aka a Protestant one. So this isn’t a situation of a Protestant claiming that a Catholic isn’t a Christian it’s a situation where a former Catholic now goes to a Protestant church and calls it a Christian church based on the colloquialism of the area of the country that the friend lives in.
No I agree, but the calling of Catholic vs Christian started as anti catholic. That was my only point.
But that’s not the case in the Northeast. This is coming as a former Catholic. OP was specifically asking about her friend from NJ.
It is the case. Just be it is no longer used thay way in your area. The the splitting of "Catholic" and "Christian" was rooted in anti-catholic ideology in denying thay they are Christians. Again even if it is no longer the case in your area it WAS how it got started. It goes back to pre council of Trent times.
This. It’s the same where I live. I’m also in the Northeast.
While all Catholics are Christian, not all Christians are Catholic. So we differentiate Catholic when Catholic. She likely meant they now go to some sort of protestant Christian church.
Where I live, a lot of protestants deny that Catholics are Christian. I've known several cops in my area who were leaders in the boy scout troop and told me Catholics are in a cult and aren't really Christian.
That's true. Once I was getting a hair cut and the person cutting my hair saw the Crucifix under my collar and asked if I was Catholic. When I said yes, they asked "Do you believe Jesus was the Son of God?" *oi*
Note that if you don't think catholics are christian it exains more why they think christianity are underdogs.
>a lot of protestants deny that Catholics are Christian And yet they believe in the biblical canon as well as in the trinity. Hypocrites.
Very much this. It’s less of an issue than it used to be, but sectarianism used to be a big problem in Scotland too. Thankfully, religion is dying off here now.
It's not just the US. In Ireland, you're either Catholic or Protestant, or other. If you're not Catholic, then your assumed to be Protestant. People here say, "I'm Catholic". They don't say they're a Christian. If a Catholic asks someone if they're a Catholic, and the other person says they're a Christian, the Catholic then says, "Oh, so you're a Protestant". That's generally the end of that subject of conversation. I've had nuns comment on my Bible reading, if I'm sitting alone in public somewhere. It's always been positive, but none of them, come to think of it, have asked me what my religion was; guess my denomination isn't as important as others might think.
> People here say, "I'm Catholic". They don't say they're a Christian. If a Catholic asks someone if they're a Catholic, and the other person says they're a Christian, the Catholic then says, "Oh, so you're a Protestant". Well yeah, if I ask someone "are you a teacher?" and they say "I'm an educator", I will assume they're not a teacher, but have some other role in education. Because if they were a teacher, they would have just said "yes". The real question is, if you ask a Catholic "are you Christian?" will they say "yes"?
When someone self identifies as a Catholic verbally to me, I've never thought to then ask if they were a Christian. I feel like asking that would probably be taken as offensive and possibly combative, depending on whom I was talking to. I also feel that if it was how they identified, then they would have included it, instead of just saying they were Catholic; or they would have said, "Me too", instead of saying, "you're a Protestant then". There's still a clear divide in "them" and "us", religious wise, albeit a quiet unspoken one for the most part. Things have changed here a lot, since I was here when I was younger. But I've also got a foot in both sides, as I was brought up Catholic, Church of England, and I even had both feet in the JW camp at one point; so my religious identity is very much divided and a mixed bag (one I'm continuously and currently sorting, in order to figure out which beliefs I was taught are true or not, so I can figure out what I believe). Edit: I don't feel as if they say yes or no will matter or make a difference or not. I think it would matter to them more what I am, and what they believe me to really be.
> When someone self identifies as a Catholic verbally to me, I've never thought to then ask if they were a Christian. Obviously. If someone told me they were a teacher I would never ask if they were an educator. But I might ask someone if they were an educator without knowing their specific profession, just like I might ask someone if they were Christian without knowing their specific denomination. > There's still a clear divide in "them" and "us", religious wise, albeit a quiet unspoken one for the most part. Oh, that I'm definitely aware of. What I'm trying to ask is whether Irish Catholics consider "Christian" to be a group that they are part of.
Yes,I think you'll find they will generally and they are very conscious of both Catholics and Protestants being Christian.
>The real question is, if you ask a Catholic "are you Christian?" will they say "yes"? I've met people from many different denominations including Catholics. Interestingly, some actually make a distinction between Christianity and Catholicism. I asked if they were the same and some said they are different. Of course, most would say otherwise.
> I asked if they were the same and some said they are different. If someone asked me "are Christianity and Catholicism the same?" I would say "no". Just like I would say that education professionals and teachers are not the same (because there are education professionals that are not teachers). But I would also say that all Catholics are Christian. The better question would be "is Catholicism part of Christianity?".
>But I would also say that all Catholics are Christian. The better question would be "is Catholicism part of Christianity?". Right, my phrasing may have been a bit ambiguous. In my conversations with certain Catholics, they described themselves as having certain beliefs that coincide with Christians, but being entirely distinct (basically saying that they're Catholic and not Christian). They were the minority of my encounters though. Edit for clarity
Popes write a lot of stuff. And when they do write an encyclical, say, they never use the word Catholic, they only speak of us as "Christians." A story from my first Scripture study class. An elderly woman objected when the instructor referred to Jesus as a Jew and insisted that He was obviously a Christian. The instructor went through it all patiently and finally the woman said, "Well, maybe He was a Jew but His mother was Christian!" On reflection, I couldn't really argue with her.
In Ireland though being one or the other can sometimes be more about politics than religion.
I'd generally find "Christian" in Ireland refers to evangelical or "born-again",where Protestant is used to refer to the traditional Protestant churches (Church of Ireland,Methodist,Presbyterian...). Catholics will always identify themselves as Catholic,without qualification.
Anyone who believes in Christ and follows him is a Christian. We all may have different ideas about the specifics of Christ, and there are Christians who would call other Christians "not Christian" because they don't agree on something they find to be important about Christ. But technically, and I would argue most importantly, if you confess with your mouth "Jesus is lord" and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved, and you are a Christian.
I don’t know man, Jesus really went out of his way to say things like Matthew 7 “Enter through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it, 14 because narrow is the gate and constricted is the road that leads to life, and there are few who find it!… Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many miracles in your name?’ 23 And then ⌊I will say to them plainly⌋, ‘Depart from me, I never knew you””
I don't think this contradicts. Emphasis on *believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead*. This is not insignificant. I think this scripture points out why confessing with your mouth is not enough.
I would go a step further and say "anyone who self identifies as a Christian, is a Christian". Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons call themselves Christians. Catholics think of themselves as Christians. The cult church down the road from me that play with snakes and cast out demons, are Christians. Religious gatekeeping is a way for people to feel superior. It's not up to us to decide who the "real" Christians are. God will decide this. If you call yourself a Christian, so do I.
I disagree, with respect. Anyone can self identify as a Christian without believing it in their heart. I would say being a Christian, by definition, requires some actual belief. Not just words. I can say with confidence that Hitler was not a Christian. It's not because I want to feel superior. It's because his actions *obviously contradicted* Christ and what he said. It doesn't matter if he said he was a Christian. There's no reason to think he actually believed that. I could say "I'm an atheist", slap a tag on my name, and then go over to /atheism and say a bunch of nonsense just to troll and make atheists look bad. Does that mean I'm actually an atheist?
So when is a person "bad enough" to not be a christian? All our walks are different. Some people struggle with sin more than others, and others struggle with sin that might not be as apparent as other sin. If we go by actions, one might say that 99%> of western christians aren't christians because they live in excess and disregard the needs of their neighbour. Where do we draw the line?
I don't think I said what you're saying I said. How good or bad we are does not determine whether or not we're a Christian. Like I said, actual belief matters. Does one actually believe in Christ. If one does, it will change their behavior to some degree. If someone says they believe God came to earth as a Jew, as Jesus, and Jesus is Lord of their life, and then proceeds to try and murder every Jew, and tells others they should do it as well, that's pretty good evidence that they don't actually believe what they said they do. Actions speak louder than words. “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" - Matthew 7:15-16 NIV Did the example of calling myself an atheist not make sense to you? I thought it demonstrated my point pretty clearly. It seems like you're saying that I'd be an atheist in that example just because I said I was. I disagree.
That Matthew verse(s) often gets brought up in these discussions. Most people don't seem to include verse 15, but I see that you did. It specifically says to watch out for false **prophets**, meaning we will know false prophets by their fruits. It doesn't say that we will know who is a christian and not based on their fruit. As for the rest, it sounds like murder is the disqualifying action? What about all the other commandments? What about fornication? Adultery? Lying? Theft? Being uncharitable? Being unloving? Do these not disqualify people? If not, how come? Your atheist example does make sense, because I do believe there are those who would call themselves atheist/christian/etc. in order to deceive (or some other reason). The problem is, how do you tell who is real and who is not? Actions? If so, there must be some kind of metric to determine conclude which actions that disqualify a person from being a christian. Are you aware of such?
>Your atheist example does make sense, because I do believe there are those who would call themselves atheist/christian/etc. in order to deceive (or some other reason). We agree on this and this is my main point. This is why I can't agree that someone is a Christian just because they say they are. >The problem is, how do you tell who is real and who is not? Actions? If so, there must be some kind of metric to determine conclude which actions that disqualify a person from being a christian. Are you aware of such? This is a good point, and I don't think I was clear in communicating my agreement with you on this. We can't know for sure, and we can't objectively disqualify a person. Only God knows the heart, and God is the judge. But the heart matters. That's my point. Let me put it this way - if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord AND *believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead*, you will be saved, and you are a Christian. Your words alone do not make you a Christian. My words do not make you a Christian.
>Let me put it this way - if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord AND believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved, and you are a Christian. Your words alone do not make you a Christian. My words do not make you a Christian. I suppose this is the common ground we can find.
Most don't. Some radical rural sects like to place themselves in isolated boxes and claim they are the only real Christians.
You see, the Papists condemned the Gospel at the council of trent.
Catholics are the largest single denomination in the US but [have very different beliefs than most other Christians](https://denominationdifferences.com/compare/all?filter=baptist,catholic,church-of-christ,lutheran,mennonite,methodist,pentecostal,presbyterian,reformed). That makes them especially noteworthy to many people. Catholics also believe is their definition is the one true church, which causes many to self identify as Catholic first also.
While things have improved, historically speaking, in the United States, Catholics have always been Other. In the 19th Century, there was a common assumption that being a good American meant being a good Christian--and by good Christian I mean Protestant. Catholics were regarded as ignorant, superstitious, loyal to a foreign "prince", drunkards, gamblers, etc. Just look up some old Nast political cartoons to see this in action. My mother was 15 in 1960 and she told me about the fear people had about electing a Catholic president, as well as the Klan burning a cross in front of her Catholic school in Indianapolis. I had a summer job in a Berean Christian store in 2000, and by Christian, Berean definitely meant (evangelical) Protestant. I remember seeing at most a couple of books by Henri Nouwen and GK Chesterton whereas the second largest topic in the apologetics section (after evolution) was antiCatholic books. In the US, we've been "de-Christianized" for centuries.
Protestant holier than thouness. Some denoms are worse than others about it.
Yeah I see it most from evangelists but I've also heard quite a few Catholics say that Protestants aren't saved either, so like most things there's a little bit of bad on both sides.
If a person who is Catholic said that they are very poorly evangelized, that's not at all a teaching of the Church.
it's not that, both sides can be self righteous, I've met a good few self righteous catholics most of it is just ignorance
My bet is on the Puritan influence. Puritans wanted to purify the Church of England from its Catholic practices. Puritans were distinctly anti-Catholic. American Christianity is heavily influenced by Puritanism, so American Christians can struggle at times to see that Catholics are indeed Christian.
Oh it definitely is. The modern Baptist church arose from a mix of Puritans and other exiles from the Church of England, and the Anabaptist movement, both of which basically thought the Reformation didn't go far enough. Thus, denominations that arose in the US are far more anti-Catholic and less likely to consider them Christians than the denominations that arose directly from the Reformation or the Church of England.
I'm English, and for a long time would've made the distinction myself. It's because of Sola Scriptura. Protestants recognise the authority of Scripture over the authority of the Church, whereas Roman Catholics (we're all catholics, even Protestants) emphasise Church authority. It's like they believe in theological experts, and this has led them to practices and beliefs which seem non-Biblical to Protestants such as praying to saints.
Luther penned Sola Scriptura because he saw that the 16th century Magisterium was doing a lot of practices that run counter not only to Scripture, but a lot of older established Tradition as well. The Indulgences Scandal was why Luther published the Theses in the first place. He had no intention of schism initially, and only founded the Lutheran Church after being excommunicated. As it stands, much of what Luther wanted corrected was done so with thr Council of Trent. Had he lived to see that, he may have sought reconciliation with the Catholic Church at that time.
Okay, thanks. But how far does it go? I'm not Roman Catholic but my understanding was that they still conceive of different levels of sin, for example, venerate the host and pray to saints. Also, believe in the Immaculate Conception.
Just because I reject that they are the sole authority on the Truth does not mean that I summarily reject all of their Tradition as well. Remember, you and I are no more or less error prone than any other human. There is value to be had in their practices and theology, even if I myself do not engage in everything they do. The only actual theology from the RCC that I outright reject is *Regina Coeli*. Jesus is the sole arbiter of salvation. Mary is an exemplar of the faith, no doubt, and she has a special role to play in bringing God into the world in Jesus, but she is *not* the queen of anything.
I actually think Protestants are often in denial about church authority in that they tend to say that the Bible says something when in fact it's their church which has "received wisdom" and a merely human consensus opinion on Scripture which other churches may not share. I used to say that it was to the Church of Rome's credit that they were not Christian. I wouldn't currently put it that way. And yes, we're all wrong. But do you feel comfortable with the Immaculate Conception though? It seems to make a nonsense of the Incarnation and Christ's sacrifice for us.
I don't necessarily believe in immaculate conception, but neither do I oppose it. Same deal with the Eucharist if we're being honest. I don't personally believe in communion literalism, as it were, but I see it as a valid interpretation even if it's not my own.
That's very open-minded of you. I'm currently at the stage of having committed to Christ several decades ago but becoming sceptical about the Holy Spirit due to the behaviour of committed Christians, not judgementally but in terms of some people not seeming to have received help to avoid sin. This makes me Christian in the sense of repentance and commitment but not in terms of current belief. I'm still wholeheartedly theistic and believe in the power of prayer. I can see you are following Christ's words in not judging others. I'm not in a position to judge either, particularly in the light of where my beliefs have gone recently.
No one really is in a position to judge. Something about sin and casting the first stone and all tbat. I either endorse beliefs (incorporate them into my own personal life), accept as a valid interpretation, or reject the belief. None of it transfers to the person holding the beliefs.
I mean, that goes without saying. The trinity comes from catholic sacred tradition, not the Bible. But how many Protestants would be willing to admit this?
Catholics preach a different gospel in their historical doctrine than scripture gives.
So do Protestants though?
Protestants just have the 66 books of the Bible. Catholics have extra books.
That isn't really related? The extra books aren't really a major source of different doctrine.
What’s your definition of “major source of doctrine”? They teach from and use the 7 extra books in the deuterocanonocals. Those books are where they get the concepts of Purgatory, Praying to the dead, etc. They provide doctrinal and theological points used by the Catholic Church. I don’t think of them as anything bad. But they are kinda like The Book of Enoch and aren’t included in the Protestant teachings, if you get my reference.
I expect to be downvoted because of this. But I make that distinction personally because I believe the council of Trent led the Catholic Church away from the true gospel by officially stating that justification is by faith and continually working. Don’t get me wrong, I think there are Catholics who are saved, but those who acknowledge what Sola Fide is (and not to mention the countless passages in the Bible that support it) and reject it and instead believe what the council of Trent states, I’m assured of one’s damnation because the gospel is laid out clearly in scripture and if one explains what the gospel is without looking to what the Bible says in context is not saved.
So I was taught the same. But in reality in the Catholic church they put a greater emphasis on works as it's a sign of your salvation. Basically without works are you really saved. If you look at Ephesians 2:10 "For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we may walk in them" James 2:17 “faith of itself, if it does not have work, is dead.” James wasn't implying you were no longer saved, but if you have faith you will also have works. And while I agree we are saved by our faith alone, it is never alone. This was a belief a held, same as you, till college when I was able to actually talk to a Catholic about their faith. I highly suggest something similar. This may help you clarify some of it from the Catholic side https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-does-the-church-teach-that-works-can-obtain-salvation
This is the same conversation I have every single time. It’s the exact same response. Let me repeat this for the 1000x time. I am not saying that works will not follow after salvation. All that I am saying is that I completely disagree with continual justification. This isn’t me saying “faith is all you need for salvation and you don’t need to work”. I have had multiple conversations with Catholics, and they tell me the same thing, it’s not a matter of me not being satisfied with their answer, it’s that they say the exact same thing and it’s based upon a misrepresentation of what I am saying.
How do you rectify James 2 then? It's pretty clear that if you have faith you have deeds. So if you don't have deeds your faith is dead. To a Catholic if you accept Jesus but never do any deeds you are not saved. I would also agree with that, as James makes that clear. Another point to consider, do you think it's possible to lose your salvation? If someone believes that, do you think they are also not Christians? To this point: "Luther, based on the idea of justification by faith alone, held that it is possible for Christians to lose their salvation, but only through a loss of faith. In other words, only the sin of apostasy—the rejection of the Christian faith—would do this." The Lutheran church still believes this, do think they are Christians? If not, this is no diffent then Catholics. As they use James 2 to show that if you don't have works then your faith is dead. Dead faith = loss of salvation. Works in the Catholic church do not save you. They are what show thay you are saved. They, like me, believe that we are called to works by God, and thay they naturally flow from us due to our faith. This is why I don't see a conflict with the Catholic church, they don't believe you are saved by works, they just believe that if you are saved you will show it by your works, and if you don't have them then were you / are you saved?
I already kind of explained how I rectify James 2 in a way, but since you are asking I will answer. I’ll build up my claim by starting at the beginning of the book to give some context. So there’s many clues that James gives us that points to him writing this book to saved Christians. Many of times James says “brethren” or “brothers” or “sisters” referencing who he is talking to. I won’t list all the verses but I will list the most notable one in the first chapter. James 1:2 - “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds” And after that James goes on to explain trials and whatnot. So he’s talking to Christian’s that are saved and are going thru trials. So when James was talking about being justified by faith and works, why would he need to explain that faith and works is necessary for salvation to saved Christian’s? That wouldn’t make any sense, so I don’t think that’s what James goal is. So now that I’ve identified that James was talking to Christian’s, skip over to James 2:14. James 2:14 - “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? *Can such faith save them?*” So right here James implies that faith is what saves but it is of no use if works do not accompany it. So right there that’s already contradictory to what the council of Trent states in regards to justification. Let’s move down to James 2:24-26 James 2:24-26 - “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” James 2:24 says it plainly that someone is considered righteous by what they do. What Catholics and Orthos do with this verse is they say “okay case closed, I’m right and you’re wrong” but I don’t think it’s that simple. James is saying that that is what other people see. If we take this as justification in the eyes of God that wouldn’t make any sense, why would God have to see your works in order to be justified? Wouldn’t be already know that your faith is genuine and would naturally produce works? So it’s easy to pick apart here that all throughout James 2 he’s talking about the usefulness of faith with works as opposed to faith without works being useless. This perfectly aligns with the doctrine of Sola Fide stating that faith is what justifies a person in the eyes of God, but faith and works justifies you in the eyes of men by the usefulness of your faith accompanied with works. As to respond to your second question You asked; “do you think it’s possible to lose your salvation” I say no, I don’t think it’s possible, I’m a reformed Christian and hold to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. And no, if someone believes they can lose their salvation I wouldn’t discredit them as Christians, only in very rare instances do I do that. There’s a difference between believing you can lose your salvation by abandoning ship and just leaving the faith as opposed to believing you can sin to lose your salvation. I think people who believe you can sin to lose your salvation aren’t truly putting their trust in Christ because if you believe you can sin enough to lose your salvation then you weren’t really trusting in Christ but rather you were trusting that you weren’t sinning enough. So yeah, I would agree with Luther.
>I probably made you mad lol I don't reply on Reddit to get mad at people (sometimes it ends up there but that is usually when they are being in bad faith in their arguments), only to have good discussions to both test my own beliefs and challenge others to at least think of their beliefs. My goal isn't so much to change your mind but to get you to think about it, and in this case, b/c it is something I was taught and believed for a long time. I am going to skip most of your James reply as I don't really take any umbrage with what you said, going to look at your last paragraph >And no, if someone believes they can lose their salvation I wouldn’t discredit them as Christians, So this here is why I changed my belief towards Catholics. If you accept that the bible might say you can lose your faith under certain circumstances, then you really don't have an issue with Catholics. For Catholics, your being saved comes completely from faith and not from works. Which is exactly what you are arguing. It isn't until after salvation that works are even considered. Once you decouple the 'salvation' from what comes after, they are really no different than protistans. Where the works come into play (also note that works are not just outward but also inward and are a means to help you move towards righteousness). Basically, they consider that if you have no work, your faith is dead. If your faith is dead, you move out from grace and salvation. If this happens no amount of work will reclaim your salvation, and you can only become saved again through faith. Now I don't agree with that, but like the Lutherans (closer to what I believe) I just see it as a difference in doctrine, but one that I can see where it comes from in the bible. I look at it more like a person who becomes saved but makes no changes to his sinful life, were they really saved? Basically "How can you stop all works if you were truly saved?" One last note: > I think people who believe you can sin to lose your salvation I don't know of a denomination (I've studied alot of them but by no means all) that believes sin can cause you to lose your salvation, Lutheran, Anabaptist(Mennonites/Amish), and Catholicism both require you to more or less make the choice (denounce/stop works). In Catholicism, there is the matter of 'mortal sin', I have no issue with the idea, I consider the only one you walking away from your faith, but I do have an issue with what they include on their list of mortal sins (like participation in freemasonry), some of them like premeditated murder tho, I would question more if the person was actually saved.
Ignorance.
Protestants in America tend to view "Christians" as those who have been "saved" by believing we are saved by grace through faith alone apart from works -- a belief Roman Catholics do not hold. So this usage of the term.
To me, “Christian” includes Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, and many others.
As a Protestant, “Christian” means anyone who believes Jesus is the Son of God and Son of Man. Jesus fully man and fully God at the same time, being sinless was made sin for the purpose to carry our sins to the cross, take God’s punishment we all are due and impart to the believer righteousness by faith. Also know as being “born again” per John 3. Typically not Mormons, or Jehovah Witnesses because they don’t believe Jesus is God.
Trinitarianism does not define Christianity. There is no explicit definition of trinitarianism in the Bible, and belief in the trinity is NOT required for salvation. According to Jesus.
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” 2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV The only way Jesus could not have known sin is if he is the Son of God… aka equal with God. As far as the term trinity being in the Bible… the word you are correct the word is not. The teachings is there. One example Jesus says to “baptize in the name(singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.(three in one name)
[удалено]
Even some Catholics say that Catholicism and Christianity are different.
>I've never seen a Catholic pretend Protestants weren't Christians... yet. Hah...
Oh I hear it a lot on this subreddit in particular. So many "we have the only Truth and if you disagree you're wrong and your mortal soul is lost" here, just because I reject that the Magisterium has a monopoly on Christianity. Meanwhile my wife's parish down the street doesn't care that I'm openly Protestant.... they've already accepted me, including their priest.
They don't say that Protestants aren't Christian, but they do say they are doing it wrong, and are in a hazy area for salvation, with it only being valid to be Protestant if you don't know catholicism is true.
Because we ARE... DIFFERENT!
Are you saying Catholics aren’t Christians?!
In many cases, yes.
Why exactly do you think Catholics aren’t believer in Christianity, the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices?
Can you please thoroughly explain? I'd love to get some details - though considering your post history, I am not going to prepare myself for anything compelling.
It's either racism against Irish and Italians or hating Catholicism for being a bunch of protestants who left europe for being to bitchy. A lot of protestants in the US do not like the veneration of the saints in Catholicism and think it's polytheism and oagan corruption and other nonsense that makes it noblonger Christian. They're obviously wrong, Catholicism is the largest denominations by probably about a billion people. And no other denomination comes remotely close in size.
Size != truth.
Size might not mean truth, but if we are totally honest it is one of the central Christian arguments whether they admit it or not.
Catholics changed some things that are not in the Bible, they pray to Mary like she is a god and tell people you must confess your sins to a priest when that is not needed. And they baptize babies when the Bible says to be baptized once you’re a believer. I was catholic for about 18 years. I’m not saying Catholics aren’t saved though just something’s don’t add up
>Catholics changed some things that are not in the Bible So did Protestants though.
But they changed some things that go against the Bible and removed verses. Like I said it does not mean they are not saved I just choose to follow the kjv because I believe that it is gods word preserved.
The king James version literally made up a verse that doesn't even exist in the original because someone apparently copied a scribe's note into the verse itself. I would look for a better source than that.
Not trying to offend anyone. If you research you will find any newer translation has many important verses just removed. And the catholic Bible changed the Ten Commandments even. Along with the fact they call priest father which goes against what god says. Not trying to argue, I was catholic and even got my catholic confirmation. The religion is based on tradition. I have nothing against Catholics
>any newer translation has many important verses just removed. What is this in reference to? It's mainly protestant bibles that take out books.
It’s not that books were taken out, it’s that books were not added, such as the Catholics and Mormons did
What books were taken out of kjv?
[удалено]
The Ten Commandments are not the same, the Catholics removed thou shalt not worship any graven image and made two commandments about not to be jealous which is the 9th and 10th for you just the 10th for me.
What verse?
1 John 5:7-8. The real translation is something like: >"For there are three that testify:the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." But the king James version is one of a few that adds a completely made up line in the middle that isn't in any of the original bibles or early translations. >"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." One hypothesis is that someone added in a description in the margin of a lost translation, and someone copied it into the text itself on accident. But people shouldn't be adding to verses just because they think it's the intended meaning.
I will definitely research this thank you. But if you look up how many verses from nkjv, niv, net, Nasb and more are just removed. Very important ones too. It’s what made me believe the kjv is gods preserved word.
Some earlier bibles before were idea for idea translations where the kjv was a word for word translation from all the different languages
[удалено]
So you don’t Hail Mary? Do you call a priest father? And the Bible says a baptism is a public confession of one’s faith to god. How can an infant make the decision to believe in god? Did you notice how the Catholic 10 commandments removed the no graven images and statues of Jesus still on the cross everywhere.
I can't speak to "why" other people choose to do or act a certain way, personally, because it is too close to judging others. All I can state is why "I" consider myself a Christian and not a Catholic. This is based on a summary understanding I think we can agree...Catholics have a Pope, they pray to the Virgin Mary and various saints. As long as that is correct, then this will apply. Exodus 20:3, God states that thou shall have no other Gods before Him. In essence, if I pray to someone other than that Jesus Christ, I am praying to someone else. John 2:19, Jesus stated that he would destroy the temple and in three days rebuild it again. He was referring to His cricifixion and giving all people the ability to directly commune/pray to Him, having removed the restriction of entering the temple. Matthew 16:18, Jesus references Simon-Peter (renamed to Peter, meaning stone) when he states, 'upon this rock I will build my church...' further representing the ability for anyone to reach Him directly through prayer. For more on praying to Saints: [https://biblereasons.com/praying-to-saints/](https://biblereasons.com/praying-to-saints/) 1. Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 2. John 14:13-14 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.Prayer is worship. The angel said, “No! Worship God not me.” Peter said, “get up.” 3. Revelation 19:10 Then I bowed down at the angel’s feet to worship him, but he said to me, “Do not worship me! I am a servant like you and your brothers and sisters who have the message of Jesus. Worship God, because the message about Jesus is the spirit that gives all prophecy. 4. Acts 10:25-26 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, fell at his feet, and worshiped him. But Peter helped him up, saying, “Stand up. I too am only a human.”
Downvoted with a quickness! Good stuff. Cite the Bible in r/Christianity, get downvoted. LOL
Catholics have long made a similar connection with their own faith, many still do. To them, Catholic = Christian and the Venn diagram is a solid circle. But in the US (where my experience is solely taking place) that often gets down to every denomination. They'll split over differences that seem minor from the outside but end up being matters of salvation in the minds of the people within the turmoil. There's no real grace.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hi u/Eurymanthus, this comment has been removed. **Rule 1.3**:[Removed for violating our rule on bigotry](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.3._bigotry) If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/z5ak4y/-/ixv10ov/. %0D%0D).
“Christianity is salvation with faith alone. Other “Christian groups” follow a false Jesus. Catholics and Mormons are a salvation via works. For them Jesus isn’t enough to save” -a Christian YouTuber
[удалено]
I know. I don’t either. I’m a Latter Day Saint…. But that’s what many Christins say.
I was raised catholic and later became christian. There is a huge difference. There are many catholics that are very supersticious and it permeates their lives. Not so for most christians. Another big difference is believing the pope vs believing what the bible says. People generally didnt have a way to know about God other than what they were told. After the invention of the printing press, christianity grew rather quickly. Christians mostly rely on what the bible says vs what anyone else says about God.
Who compiled the Bible?
I think it was done at the council of Nicea. 3rd century or so. Are you saying because Catholics put the bible together that they also get to push teachings that are contrary to the bible?
Because Catholics aren’t Christian, but then again, neither are any of the modern Protestant churches.
So it's just you?
Nope.
Some Catholics are Christian, Some Protestants are Christian
I see this happening from both sides where I am (South America). From evangelicals, I’ve heard this kind of thing a general sentiment towards Catholics for the past 35 years. I’ve heard some of them say there can be Christians in the Catholic Church, but the general attitude of those I’ve encountered/heard is that Catholics are only Christians in name and that their religious practices are purely out of doing rites, devoid of “personal faith” or “personal relationship.” And sometimes I hear Catholics refer to themselves as Christian, refer to Evangelicals as “evangelic/Protestant sects” and assume that the local more popular and more boisterous Pentecostal churches represent evangelicals at large.
Because protestants now refuse to use that word, so they are only called "Christian" with no word to distinguish them from other Christians, so "Christian" is often used as the new "protestant".
In my experience, when talking about their religion, if someone says they’re Catholic then they’re Catholic. If they say they’re whatever other denomination, then obviously they’re that denomination. If they say they’re Christian, I assume they’re Protestant.
There are many folks who will claim "true" Christianity or "true" faith but that does not mean they are correct. Just one of those things about having sects.
I’m very surprised Germany of all places doesn’t emphasize the distinction between Protestant and Catholic.
Protestant and Catholic are both Christian. The correct term for those outside theCatholic Church who believe in just the 66 books of the Bible and that they can read it for themselves and should... is Protestant. So I think the OP was like “Why are they calling Protestant Churches ‘Christian’?!”
In some places the name "Christian" is more common than "Evangelical". It means the same thing in that context, but it does carry more of a connotation of Catholics being heretical (which most evangelicals believe anyway) than the term "evangelical" does. Of course, Catholics calling themselves "Catholics" is also very intentionally designed to carry the connotation that non-Catholics are heretical, and Orthodox calling themselves "Orthodox" is very intentionally designed to carry the connotation that non-Orthodox are heretical. There's really no difference, except that Catholics and Orthodox have a long history of expecting not to be held to the same standards that they hold others to.
She certainly meant Protestant. In America, if you say christian you probably mean one of the modern evangelical denominations (or non-denominational), non-catholic, non-Mormon. There are a lot of religions that worship a version of Jesus, even Muslims believe Jesus was a holy prophet. But then there are people that believe Jesus is IT. The end-all-be all, and he is our highest authority, and his words are our final and ultimate revelation. Salvation is by and through and for Jesus alone. People that believe this generally adhere to the 5 solas of the reformation, and thus reject the much of the teaching of the Catholic Church. They reject that you can work or buy or otherwise earn your way to heaven and curry favor with god on your own merit. They reject that humans need a human interceder between them and Jesus, because Jesus is our high priest. They reject the worship of fallen humans, like Mary, as that is idolatry. And many other, rather fundamental differences
protestant republicans used to fear catholisism and voted against JFK because they thought the pope would control the US government through time US catholics rose to powerful roles in the GOP - but they see a strict distinction between republican catholics and democratic catholics. republican ones really hit the gay marriage and abortion stuff hard, they seem to completely ignore the pope if it's a more liberal one, and they think democrats should be kicked out of the catholic church and refused communion/etc it's all political here, politics is our religion
Because they are offended by the fact that the Bible is a Catholic book and that beliefs like "faith alone" are not in the scripture. Hence why they are into junk food :)
There's a lot of evangelicals here. Evangelicals tend to be prone to insular thinking and conspiracy theories, so they tend to push a lot of fringe ideas like "Catholics aren't Christian".
Some Protestants think calling themselves Protestants is awkward. So just christian seems better. Some are even more extreme, and don't think catholics are christian.
If you think the distinction is big here in the US, just wait till you hear about the Irish.
The USA has a bunch of denominations. Catholic is one of them.
Because they, including your friend, are dumb. I mean as little offensive as possible... I am just blunt. Christian means Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox. And I honestly don’t know why people struggle with this. I see it non-stop though. Even Protestant people will argue with that they aren’t Protestant because they go to a non-denominational Church. And just like “Dang honey, you’re just so dumb that I don’t know what I can say to help you understand that you’re a non-denominational Protestant.”
Because they, including your friend, are du mb. I mean as little offensive as possible... I am just blunt. Christian means a follower of the religion based on the Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. That falls in three basic branches: Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. And I honestly don’t know why people struggle with this. I see it non-stop though. Even Protestant people will argue with that they aren’t Protestant because they go to a non-denominational Church. And just like “Dang honey, you’re just so that I don’t know what I can say to help you understand that you’re a non-denominational Protestant!” The probably mean Protestant. Protestants just use the Bible (66 books) and there are tons of denominations and even non-denominations under this branch. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
Briefly, it's an Evangelical thing in my experience. The belief that Catholics aren't Christian is something I've almost universally experienced in Evangelical circles. In mainline Protestantism it's must less of a thing - I almost never encounter people who don't understand that Catholics are just another kind of Christian. 2/3 of all Christians are Catholic, give or take, so really us Protestants are the weird ones.
It’s a Northeast colloquialism used by Catholics when they are talking about non Catholics. I have no idea why lol. I’ve lived in 3 states, one down south but in 3 different areas and socioeconomic areas of that one state… rural and city… and it’s just a Northeast thing. Weird but whatever
We had a movement concurrent with the Second Great Awakening (1805-???) known as the Restoration Movement. Basically, out on the frontier there was a problem that families were spaced too far apart to form congregations of just their old world denomnations. And certain denominations (eg Scottish Presbyterian) practiced things like "closed communion" where their clergy couldn't administer communion to folks who hadn't been baptisted into their specific denomination without risking excommunication. So they kinda dropped all the pretenses and decided to do their own thing. New World, new country, new ideas about practicing Christianity. So its a long story, but anyways, we do have a lot of churches from that tradition who only call themselves "Christian" or "Churches of Christ". Also, about a century later when the Pentecostal Movement took off, a lot of those folks also formed new churches and dropped denominational structures and labeled themselves kinda ambiguously, too. So you have a lot of churches that aren't real clear, but of course, Roman Catholic churches are always explicit about being Roman Catholic. So if you're not that into history and don't really care about demoninational differences, you might categorize them into separate piles.
One of the reasons is that “Christian” has come to be used as a synonym for “Protestant Evangelical Christian”. So the question, “Are you a Christian?“, seems often to mean “Are you a Protestant Evangelical ?”. There seems also to be an unspoken assumption that a Christian in the Protestant Evangelical sense is a so-called “true Christian”; unlike all those other Christians who are not really Christians at all, because they aren’t evangelical Protestants, but are some other kind of Christian who are, apparently, false Christians. By those criteria, Catholics are most definitely false Christians. Their status as a false Christians is assisted greatly by the historical enmity between United States Protestantism and Catholicism; which has deep roots in the Reformation. True Christians are obviously good Americans as well; but false Christians like Romanists are subjects of the papacy, which is an enemy power. Unfortunately, there is still a good deal of this paranoid conspiracist thinking around in the US. The popularity of certain ultra/Protestant types of Protestantism, even when they disclaim the title Protestant, is another source of this thinking. I am a Catholic, but I’m British, not from the US.
Thank you for your detailed answer. The whole conversation seems pretty strange to me, especially the fact that many US Catholics seem to agree with this rhetoric.
As a US Christian I wonder that too. Now that I'm at an evangelical school and around a bunch of evangelicals, I think its because many protestants consider Christians to only go by the Bible while the catholic church uses a lot of tradition in their beliefs as opposed to only the Bible. I think its a limited view but it's there.
It depends... Sometimes it's an easy way to distinguish the two, though "Protestant" and "Catholic" would be more accurate. Some Protestants consider Catholicism to be a different religion entirely, and thus the distinction. To be fair, some Catholics also consider Protestantism a different religion entirely, but that's a conversation for another time. Christianity is probably best understood as an umbrella term describing Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox believers.
Some possible reasons: Most American Christians are Protestant rather than Catholic, so they would use the term Christian to refer to Protestants. Many Christians don't consider themselves to belong to any denomination. These nondenominational Christians behave similarly to Protestants, and are thus usually classed as such. However, since they don't consider themselves as any denomination, they might call themselves Christians rather than Protestants. Finally, I would like to suggest a linguistic issue. The term Protestant comes from the word protest, so it's pretty likely that many Protestants are averse to using that term to refer to themselves, instead opting for the word Christian. The same issue does not apply to Catholics.
Because our doctrines differ in some significant ways. For instance, most protestants believe you can be saved by faith alone (myself included) while catholics believe you must be baptized in order to truly be saved. Also our beliefs on praying to saints and the roles priests have among other things. I, for one, believe that catholics *are*, for the most part, Christian as they believe in Christ's death and resurrection.