Are Protestants Saved?

[Leonius]

You still refuse to reveal the true reason you hate the Church I see. Your comments are on record and all can see your trickery Janet.

 

[ac_claire]

You still refuse to reveal the true reason you hate the Church I see.

I agree, Janet you want to take a stab at answering this?

The closet I’ve seen to an explanation is this:

I do not oppose Christ’s teaching. I do however oppose the catholic church in all those areas where their teaching is not conform with God’s Word. I know what the catholic church teaches and I told others that this teaching is still intact till today. However I disagree with the notion that the described catholic church back then and the catholic church today are in deed the same. I cannot find any better words than to say that this church has diverted from its original course by hanging tradition and their own teachings higher than revealed truth in scripture.

It’s a nice overview but you aren’t explaining how/why you’ve come to any of these conclusions. Carefully considering these questions might help you to see where we’re coming from.

First, in what areas do you see the Church teaching not confroming to God’s Word (ie: the Bible, I’m assuming)?

Second, how did you arrive at the notion that everything must be judged by how it agrees with your personal interpretation of Scripture? A brief history lesson: We know that the Holy Spirit* through the Church* produced the Scriptures that you say you hold so dear. The Scriptures were written by the Church, for the Church, and so can’t be understood properly in any other context except for the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Scriptures and the Church naturally conform to eachother; they are two sides of the same coin, which is the revealed truth of God to His people. This is plainly true and always has been. We take it as a given. The indisputable relationship between the Church and the Scriptures was contested for the first time aproximately 500 years ago during the Protestant Reformation.

Don’t take my word for it, do the research yourself and see what you find.

 

[gabriel22a]

Janet you are a liar and a deceiver, you admitted as much when you revealed that you are not telling us what you really think of the Catholic Church. Such ways are not the ways of God. It is clear you are only here to seek to spread your fathers poison among the faithful, not for the dialogue you claim to be otherwise you would have told us the real reasons you hate the Church so much by now instead of regurgitating the usual protestant drivel that was refuted 400 years ago.

You are wasting your time, your father only has power over those who consent to be his slaves, and cast off the protection of Almighty God voluntarily, you will not find anyone to join you in your corruption here, apage operatur iniquitatem.

Now Janet is a child of the devil? I won’t join Janet in corruption–she has real concerns and wounds that are only magnified by your words to her–but I will agree with her that the level of animosity and lack of charity you show is amazing. The poison must be drawn out? Give me a break. Stop hiding behind “defending the truth” when what you are doing is breaking the commandment of love. If you don’t know this, then perhaps you should more closely examine your Father and see if the way you talk to people is okay with Him.

 

[TristanCross]

Now Janet is a child of the devil? I won’t join Janet in corruption–she has real concerns and wounds that are only magnified by your words to her–but I will agree with her that the level of animosity and lack of charity you show is amazing. The poison must be drawn out? Give me a break. Stop hiding behind “defending the truth” when what you are doing is breaking the commandment of love. If you don’t know this, then perhaps you should more closely examine your Father and see if the way you talk to people is okay with Him.

Agreed.

 

[PRmerger]

You still refuse to reveal the true reason you hate the Church I see.

In my experience those who hate the CC have confused her teachings with her members.

One of my former customers was a non-Catholic married to a Catholic man. While she was slowly considering and investigating the Faith, her husband, who was apparently quite “devout”, cheated on her. Repeatedly and without remorse. And continued going to Mass and receiving the Sacraments.

No one could blame her for feeling antipathy towards a Church which did not supply her husband with enough spiritual food to keep him on the straight and narrow.

Yet, one would presume that a reasonable person could separate the Church and her teachings from those who belong to this Church.

 

[Janet1983]

I agree, Janet you want to take a stab at answering this?

No, because it is a trap. I am in a Catholic Forum and I know how to discern in what I say. Sometimes it is best to say nothing and let others ramble if they want to. I will not go ahead and have him tempt me to say things that will only get me banned.
I will however gladly answer to your post.

It’s a nice overview but you aren’t explaining how/why you’ve come to any of these conclusions. Carefully considering these questions might help you to see where we’re coming from.

First, in what areas do you see the Church teaching not confroming to God’s Word (ie: the Bible, I’m assuming)?

The examples in which the RCC does not conform with Biblical teaching are manifold and the roots partly go back into the 4th century… Some of these teachings are:

• Mary - perpetual virginity even though in the NT brothers and sisters of Jesus are His brothers and sisters and even though cousins are called cousins throughout the NT (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19)
• Mary - Immaculate conception (the Bible does not put her on that pedestal)
  Mary - Without sin… She was in need of a Saviour as much as anybody else. (Luke 1:46-47) Only Jesus is without sin. (Romans 3:10; Romans 3:12; Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:22)
  Jesus Himself did not exalt His mother like that. (Matthew 12:48-50; Luke 11:27-28)
• Indulgences - Our works alone do not save us! (Romans 3:28; Romans 4:3; Romans 4:5; Romans 5:1; Romans. 5:9; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5)
  “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Galatians 2:21).
  The indulgences practice is not a biblical teaching.
• Purgatory
• It is not explicitly found in the Bible.
• It implies that the righteousness of Christ does not cleanse from all sin.
• It implies that justification is not by faith alone.
• It implies that there is something we must do in order to be cleansed of sin.
• The Apocrypha - They contain errors and contradicitons with Scripture and still they are used to establish doctrines.
• In Tobit 6:5-8 we see an angel tell Tobiah to use magic where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away demons.
• Tobit 4:11 and Tobit 12:9 teach that giving alms can deliver from all sin and from death.
• 2 Maccabees 12:43 tells us how money is being offered for the sins of the dead.
• Judith 1:5 and Baruch 6:2 state wrong historical facts.
• Penance - A right relationship with God is achieved through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and not by our works, or combination of our works and God’s grace, because our works are nothing more than filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).
  (Romans 3:28; Romans 4:3; Romans 4:5; Romans 5:1; Romans. 5:9; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5)

 

[adstrinity]

We agree works alone do not save us. That is the position of the Catholic Church: works alone do not save us. Faith + Works save us.

Jesus had nothing but respect for His Mother. Matthew 12:48-50 and Luke 11:27-28 proove this.

Matthew 12:48: “Who is my mother?”… This was not spoken by way of slighting his mother, but to shew that we are never to suffer ourselves to be taken from the service of God, by any inordinate affection to our earthly parents: and that which our Lord chiefly regarded in his mother, was her doing the will of his Father in heaven. It may also further allude to the reprobation of the Jews, his carnal kindred, and the election of the Gentiles."

Jesus (Rabbi/Teacher) was taking this moment to teach. A good teacher can use anything to teach a lesson.

Luke 11:27 is about Him. The compliment is saying His Mother is lucky to have Him. Jesus Christ, always the humble Servant, is taking the focus off of Him in this compliment to teach; He doesn’t want compliments, He wants to ingrain in people to do the work of the Lord, to follow Him.

 

[Janet1983]

A brief history lesson: We know that the Holy Spirit* through the Church* produced the Scriptures that you say you hold so dear. The Scriptures were written by the Church, for the Church, and so can’t be understood properly in any other context except for the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Scriptures and the Church naturally conform to eachother; they are two sides of the same coin, which is the revealed truth of God to His people. This is plainly true and always has been. We take it as a given. The indisputable relationship between the Church and the Scriptures was contested for the first time aproximately 500 years ago during the Protestant Reformation.

The RCC often claims that they were the ones who brought us scripture in arguments where the “sacred tradition” is on the line… Placing this tradition above the teachings of the Bible they try to justify such doctrines as purgatory, penance, indulgences and the veneration of Mary. They do this by claiming that the Bible was given by word-of-mouth and thereby by tradition placing a higher value on tradition. When sacred tradition is claimed to be the thing by which Scripture is given, then tradition is inadvertently the thing that gives blessing and approval to the Bible. Heb. 7:7 says, “But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.” The unfortunate psychological effect of saying that Roman Catholic tradition is what gave us the Bible, is that it elevates their tradition to a level far greater than what is permitted in Scripture. In fact, it is contradicted by scripture:
“And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

Did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible? No, it did not.

1. 
   *]During the first centuries the RCC was not in existence yet. The Christian church was under persecution and gatherings were difficult, if not endangering ones life and a pretty risky business in the Roman Empire. Despite the claims of tracing RC tradition back to Peter Catholicism as an organisation with Rome in it’s center and with a pope did not occur until a while later.
   *]The Christian church did not organize or establish Scripture… it recognized it and discovered what was already authentic.
   “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27)
   *]The RCC did not give us the OT with it’s Scripture… The RCC cannot make the claim of being responsible for giving us the Bible when the OT was in existence long before Jesus was even born. The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.
   *]The Bible was written through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.
   *]The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.
   “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

 

[PRmerger]

They do this by claiming that the Bible was given by word-of-mouth

Do you dispute this, Janet?

and thereby by tradition placing a higher value on tradition.

We do not place a higher value on Sacred Tradition. Both are parts of God’s Word, parts of the Deposit of Faith. We only claim that Sacred Tradition produced the Sacred Scriptures. One cannot argue with the fact that the Bible was firstly given by word of mouth. Sacred Tradition came first, but that does not elevate it over Sacred Scripture. Anymore than Adam being created first elevates him over Eve.

 

[adstrinity]

1. A while later? When? When was this?
2. “Recognized it and discovered” what was already authentic? How? AND…well, no, that’s pretty much it, how?
3. Alright, we’ll give you this one, the Jews did come up with all 50 of the Old Testament Books.
4. It’s not the Roman Catholic Church. It’s the Catholic Church. CATHOLIC. 23 Rites. And, right, no men needed to declare what belongs. It just magically put itself together.
5. The Bible, that the Catholic Church put together and decided that it is relevant, tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit…

And, this doesn’t sound like you, Janet. Did you copy and paste or is this all yours?

 

[Janet1983]

And, this doesn’t sound like you, Janet. Did you copy and paste or is this all yours?

I read a lot… you can copy and paste my text into google and you won’t find much…
Here is my #1:
google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS330US330&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=During+the+first+centuries+the+RCC+was+not+in+existence+yet.+The+Christian+church+was+under+persecution+and+gatherings+were+difficult,+if+not+endangering+ones+life+and+a+pretty+risky+business+in+the+Roman+Empire.+Despite+the+claims+of+tracing+RC+tradition+back+to+Peter+Catholicism+as+an+organisation+with+Rome+in+it’s+center+and+with+a+pope+did+not+occur+until+a+while+later.
My way of expression is usually changing with my overall circumstances…
In some cases I am however influenced by a certain apologetics homepage because I help with the translations into a different language (I am bilingual).

 

[PRmerger]

I read a lot… you can copy and paste my text into google and you won’t find much…

The question is, Janet, are you the author of these words:

The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

If not, what you are doing is plagiarism, intellectuallly dishonest, lazy, non-Christ-like and in violation of forum rules.

If yes, then just say so. A google search does show the exact text on another site, but it’s possible that you’re the author on that site as well.

 

[Janet1983]

The question is, Janet, are you the author of these words:

The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

If not, what you are doing is plagiarism, intellectuallly dishonest, lazy, non-Christ-like and in violation of forum rules.

If yes, then just say so. A google search does show the exact text on another site, but it’s possible that you’re the author on that site as well.

As I said I do a lot of translations and sometimes wordings are just really good… I got the translation into German on my computer and I can express myself better in German if you prefer that…
I do write some things, but in this case you are right… I did not write it, even though I worked with this wording a lot…
That does not make these words wrong or not exactly what I want to say however…
I could have reformulated or paraphrased it but that would be exactly the same as copying it… As I said I worked with those words a lot.
Feel free to question my texts if you wish. This is not a problem of mine. The contents however are exactly what I wanted to express down to the letter…