Catholic and Protestant Beliefs

[Philthy]

jpete79:

1261 CCC
See this is where I have an issue…if the Bible and the Catechism are in disagreement what do you believe? One says baptism is essential for salvation (according to your quote from john) and one says it isn’t…1281 CC.

Here’s how I would respond to your statement:

The Bible and the Catechism are never in disagreement. When someone comes to the conclusion that they are, then one of two things is true:

They misunderstand the Catechism or they misunderstand the bible.
I haven’t looked at the sections you’ve quoted and I am totally confident that you have, unintentionally, misrepresented either a biblical teaching or a catechism teaching. I’ll start with the catechism and return…

Phil

 

[hurst]

jpete79:

So we both agree that access to God is permitted through Jesus Christ…Good.

That is stated generically enough to agree with.

jpete79:

Now the third question
… if they truly were free from the battle between will and flesh, they would not have been able to be deceived.

You are mistaken by casting the will in opposition to the flesh. Even now, it is the spirit versus the flesh, not the will versus the flesh.

The fact is that they were free, and they chose to believe that the good of the fruit was better than the good of obedience to God.

This decision can be made even without someone to instigate it. For example, who tempted the devil to disobey God? No one, because they was no devil before him. He simply chose a natural good over God. And angels have no body or flesh to be deceived with.

jpete79:

Now I agree that all mankind falls short of the glory of God (they are born into that sin-which you call original sin).

Ok.

jpete79:

Now, I agree in a sense on this next point. We need re-birth to absolve us from sin. I agree with the first step becoming a child of God. How to get there, we will disagree on as I don’t believe in infant baptism.

Are you saying you agree we need baptism? If you don’t believe in “infant baptism”, then you don’t believe in baptism. Protestants don’t believe in baptism except as a symbol of their faith, for they avoid any notion of works to be saved, and they generally consider baptism to be a “work”. Thus, since they believe they must be saved by faith, they require one to have faith before being baptised. Thus, they do not believe in the power of baptism.

Catholics believe baptism - regardless of one’s age or intelligence, is precisely what gives supernatural Faith. The life of grace in faith is a gift given by God. Baptism can be administered by an unbaptised, non-believing pagan, and it is still valid as long as they have the use of reason and merely intend to do what the Church does in any baptism. Baptism is an act of God in conjunction with our action of water and words.

Let me state it this way: would you believe in baptism of the handicapped or elderly who cannot talk or understand the teachings of the faith clearly, etc.?

jpete79:

You have a belief in original sin which I agree with but what absolves us from sin…it is the blood of Jesus correct?

When it is applied to us…

jpete79:

So to be absolved from sin is to come to Christ.

To be absolved means to be loosed, freed.

jpete79:

At that point, when a person comes straight to Christ that is when the Spirit is upon them.

What? The pharisees went straight to Christ, but remained in sin. Other people went to Him, but the Spirit was not upon them. The Spirit was upon Christ. Later, He sent the Spirit to His faithful. Also, the Spirit can act through someone who is not in grace.
This statement is too vague.

jpete79:

This is the re-birth (and the wording of when you hear someone say I was reborn that day).

Are you defining what you mean when you say re-birth? That it means coming to Christ with the Spirit on you, and by which you are absolved from your sin(s)?

jpete79:

I believe the way to get there is through sanctification. After the Spirit comes upon us we have to live for God. We will still sin (due to being man and constantly battling our flesh) which is why we still must confess but we should live Godly lives.

Get where? To the rebirth?

jpete79:

So salvation is accepting Christ and sanctification is bettering ourselves (which we can do due to the Spirit).

You are simplifying something, but then using that simplification as a sort of dogma by which you deny doctines of the Church.

Salvation is more of a being rescued. Your assertion that one must have gone to certain lengths before being able to be reborn is in conflict with Catholic teaching. So I guess this is where the common beliefs end. The ironic thing is that protestants often say salvation is not by works, but you just established that it is.

hurst

 

[Della]

jpete79:

I admit to not being a Church historian (when I try to look up information I like to be on neither side and go to a generic encyclopedia or resource-though that seems really tough).

On this post though, I am only looking for similarities and not to argue Sola Scriptura vs. Magisterium…

I am trying to stay out of the debate area and start on the agreement area.

Of course, but if you want to talk about similarities, then you have to understand that the only reason there are similarities is because various Protestant churches retained beliefs held by the Catholic Church for centuries. You can’t turn a blind eye to history and pretend that every Christian denomination exists in a vacuum of equality, because they don’t. The Orthodox, as I understand it, are the closest to Catholic of all non-Catholic Christian bodies. The Anglican/Episcopalians next in line and then perhaps Lutherans. And yet, all these bodies disagree on various points of theology, even though, at one time the Church was ONE and that Church was and is the Catholic Church. If you can’t see that then no amount of pointing out what we have in common will be of any value. Indifferentism is just as bad as outright theological differences, but more insidious because it lulls people into a false sense of security and keeps them from pursuing the WHOLE of the truth instead of what makes sense to them or what they want to believe.

 

[jpete79]

hurst:

That is stated generically enough to agree with.

You are mistaken by casting the will in opposition to the flesh. Even now, it is the spirit versus the flesh, not the will versus the flesh.

The fact is that they were free, and they chose to believe that the good of the fruit was better than the good of obedience to God.

This decision can be made even without someone to instigate it. For example, who tempted the devil to disobey God? No one, because they was no devil before him. He simply chose a natural good over God. And angels have no body or flesh to be deceived with.

Ok.

Are you saying you agree we need baptism? If you don’t believe in “infant baptism”, then you don’t believe in baptism. Protestants don’t believe in baptism except as a symbol of their faith, for they avoid any notion of works to be saved, and they generally consider baptism to be a “work”. Thus, since they believe they must be saved by faith, they require one to have faith before being baptised. Thus, they do not believe in the power of baptism.

Catholics believe baptism - regardless of one’s age or intelligence, is precisely what gives supernatural Faith. The life of grace in faith is a gift given by God. Baptism can be administered by an unbaptised, non-believing pagan, and it is still valid as long as they have the use of reason and merely intend to do what the Church does in any baptism. Baptism is an act of God in conjunction with our action of water and words.

Let me state it this way: would you believe in baptism of the handicapped or elderly who cannot talk or understand the teachings of the faith clearly, etc.?

When it is applied to us…

To be absolved means to be loosed, freed.

What? The pharisees went straight to Christ, but remained in sin. Other people went to Him, but the Spirit was not upon them. The Spirit was upon Christ. Later, He sent the Spirit to His faithful. Also, the Spirit can act through someone who is not in grace.
This statement is too vague.

Are you defining what you mean when you say re-birth? That it means coming to Christ with the Spirit on you, and by which you are absolved from your sin(s)?

Get where? To the rebirth?

You are simplifying something, but then using that simplification as a sort of dogma by which you deny doctines of the Church.

Salvation is more of a being rescued. Your assertion that one must have gone to certain lengths before being able to be reborn is in conflict with Catholic teaching. So I guess this is where the common beliefs end. The ironic thing is that protestants often say salvation is not by works, but you just established that it is.

hurst

Hurst: salvation is by faith alone…however; that faith will produce works. I’m not saying deeds are absent but it is faith alone which produces those deeds in the first place

 

[jpete79]

Della:

Of course, but if you want to talk about similarities, then you have to understand that the only reason there are similarities is because various Protestant churches retained beliefs held by the Catholic Church for centuries. You can’t turn a blind eye to history and pretend that every Christian denomination exists in a vacuum of equality, because they don’t. The Orthodox, as I understand it, are the closest to Catholic of all non-Catholic Christian bodies. The Anglican/Episcopalians next in line and then perhaps Lutherans. And yet, all these bodies disagree on various points of theology, even though, at one time the Church was ONE and that Church was and is the Catholic Church. If you can’t see that then no amount of pointing out what we have in common will be of any value. Indifferentism is just as bad as outright theological differences, but more insidious because it lulls people into a false sense of security and keeps them from pursuing the WHOLE of the truth instead of what
makes sense to them or what they want to believe.

Then I guess I have no business learning about anything anyone has to say here because I believe the one Church is the body of Christ and the household of God…I will pursue truth on my road and I pray that you do the same on yours…

 

[Mickey]

jpete79:

Hurst: salvation is by faith alone…

Correction. Grace alone.

 

[Philthy]

jpete79:

OK, so we disagree here…let’s leave it at that and not linger because I am looking for similarities…

now what does everyone think about the role of sanctification?

OK, you want to leave it? OK. But lets be clear: we determined that all people are born with the separation of grace through original sin.
Catholics believe that that may have an eternal consequence on infants and it may not but that it can definitively be removed through Baptism entirely by the Grace of God.
You believe the separation of grace through original sin doesn’t come into play until they reach the age of reason and actually sin.

You need to define sanctification if you want an intelligent discussion - do you have a definition from the bible or a tradition-based definition, or whatever?

Phil

 

[Mickey]

jpete79:

Mickey:
The Gospels and later were filled with “belief and baptism,” or “repent and baptism” both means someone has to have the capacity to believe and/or repent.

Do you think the references to entire households excluded infants? Do you think that the Lord would exclude infants because they were incapable of making a verbal statement. This is common sense.

That is my last comment on this.

 

[jpete79]

Mickey:

Correction. Grace alone.

Grace alone by God without our Faith will not lead us to salvation…

 

[Mickey]

jpete79:

I believe the one Church is the body of Christ and the household of God…I will pursue truth on my road and I pray that you do the same on yours…

You are being saved through Christ and His Church–the Catholic Church. You just don’t know it yet.

 

[Della]

jpete79:

Then I guess I have no business learning about anything anyone has to say here because I believe the one Church is the body of Christ and the household of God…I will pursue truth on my road and I pray that you do the same on yours…

I truly believe you are missing my point–no doubt due to my own lack of communications skills.

I am NOT saying you have no business learning about anything anyone has to say here, but just the opposite. I am saying that if you want to understand what Catholics believe and why they believe it you have to understand that Catholics see the Church as the Catholic Church to which all other Christian bodies are imperfectly connected. The Church is indeed the body of Christ and the household of God. This Church is the Catholic Church to Catholics with all other Christians being Christians because of their trinitarian baptism but separated because they broke away and rejected certain doctrines and dogmas of the Church which they did not want to accept. That is historical fact from which there can be no escape no matter what secular source you might read–the Catholic Church is the mother Church and IS the body of Christ and the household of God.

 

[Mickey]

jpete79:

Grace alone by God without our Faith will not lead us to salvation…

How can you have faith without God’s grace?

 

[Mickey]

Della:

I truly believe you are missing my point–no doubt due to my own lack of communications skills.

I am NOT saying you have no business learning about anything anyone has to say here, but just the opposite. I am saying that if you want to understand what Catholics believe and why they believe it you have to understand that Catholics see the Church as the Catholic Church to which all other Christian bodies are imperfectly connected. The Church is indeed the body of Christ and the household of God. This Church is the Catholic Church to Catholics with all other Christians being Christians because of their trinitarian baptism but separated because they broke away and rejected certain doctrines and dogmas of the Church which they did not want to accept. That is historical fact from which there can be no escape no matter what secular source you might read–the Catholic Church is the mother Church and IS the body of Christ and the household of God.

Thanks for explaining it better than me Della!

 

[jpete79]

Mickey:

Do you think the references to entire households excluded infants? Do you think that the Lord would exclude infants because they were incapable of making a verbal statement. This is common sense.

That is my last comment on this.

Since you asked I will answer but when today ends I think I will be done with this board.

There are references to households in I believe 3 instances (possibly 4 or 5 but I am not looking them all up now).

You say it is common sense that households include children. There is nothing that says this was the case…There is not a SINGLE instant in the Bible where the original Greek uses the word baptizo in conjunction with infants. There are numerous times where it uses it with adult believers (in Acts and the Gospels). You are making an assumption and you said it was based on Scripture; yet it is based on what you are adding to Scripture.

Also, just so you know the Greek Baptizo means to submerge…I don’t see infants being baptized in the Catholic Church I see them being sprinkled (I believe Raptizo is the word for this and is only found in 2 places but never in conjunction with the idea of baptism)…

Do I think that the Lord would hold salvation from somene who can’t make a capable decision? No I don’t. God loves children but I think by us saying we are giving the children Salvation by baptizing them, we are changing the rules of the game. I think its a matter that we in our finite knowledge should leave to the infinite wisdom of God.

 

[Della]

jpete79:

Do I think that the Lord would hold salvation from somene who can’t make a capable decision? No I don’t. God loves children but I think by us saying we are giving the children Salvation by baptizing them, we are changing the rules of the game. I think its a matter that we in our finite knowledge should leave to the infinite wisdom of God.

Salvation is indeed given to children (and the mentally defective) via baptism because they are incapable of deliberate sin. The sin baptism removes from the innocent is original sin, not actual sin. When a child reaches the age of reason then he is capable of committing actual sin and so needs to confess that sin, either in the penitential rite at the beginning of every Mass and/or, if the sin is serious (mortal) in the confessional. Or, if he has attained the age of reason, his baptism does remove all the sins he has committed, but he is still responsible for any new sins he might commit. No one is saying salvation is guaranteed once and for all for those who are baptized if they commit further sins and are unrepentant.

 

[Mickey]

jpete79:

You say it is common sense that households include children. There is nothing that says this was the case…

It does not say that they did not include children. Yes it is common sense that some of these households had infants.

jpete79:

There is not a SINGLE instant in the Bible where the original Greek uses the word baptizo in conjunction with infants. There are numerous times where it uses it with adult believers (in Acts and the Gospels). You are making an assumption and you said it was based on Scripture; yet it is based on what you are adding to Scripture…

When the NT was being written, adults were being converted to Christianity. The Bible was not written as a manual. There is no direct evidence that infants are not to be baptized and there is implicit evidence that they are. Then we look at history and see that infants were baptized for 2000 years. Why have you turned from the true teachings and adopted the revisionist theology of the fringe reformers?

jpete79:

Also, just so you know the Greek Baptizo means to submerge…I don’t see infants being baptized in the Catholic Church I see them being sprinkled (I believe Raptizo is the word for this and is only found in 2 places but never in conjunction with the idea of baptism).

You know not of what you speak. Roman Catholics pour or immerse, (see didache), and Eastern Catholics, (that’s me), use immersion.

jpete79:

Do I think that the Lord would hold salvation from somene who can’t make a capable decision? No I don’t. God loves children but I think by us saying we are giving the children Salvation by baptizing them, we are changing the rules of the game. I think its a matter that we in our finite knowledge should leave to the infinite wisdom of God.

God gives them salvation–not us! Where do you get this stuff?

 

[Chris_W]

jpete97,

Already we are getting ahead of ourselves here. The dialogue will always turn into a jumping around whirlwind if we do not stick to a single point and reason it out. So when you skip #2, as yo put it, it has consequences. We must understand what happened in Original Sin to understand the overall understanding of sancitifcation and justification. That’s why I stopped where I did and sked you if you had any objection or question.

It seems we dpart on our understanding of what we call “Sanctifying Grace”…something A&E had, and something they could not pass on to the rest of us. It comes to us again in Baptism initially and then again in Reconciliation (but that is farther down the path you described in the beginning).

You will not agree about infant Baptism until you understand about sanctifying grace. If you understood about sanctifying grace, you would say “of course we should baptize infants”.

These specific topical points of disagreement, or misunderstanding as I prefer to look at it, have an impact. Faith is built on each of these points. We cannot skip the foundation and then discuss why walls are built as they are…it won’t work. We must discuss the foundation first.

Let me give you an example on a related topic which has come up both in this thread and your initial thread: Salvation by faith alone:

The issue of “salvation by faith alone” versus “salvation by faith and works” is one of the biggest issues that divide Christians, and it is based in part, on a communication problem. Catholics say that we need both faith and good works to achieve salvation. Many other Christian churches teach salvation occurs at the time of accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. This is a belief called “Sola Fide” meaning “faith only.” What appears to be a flat out contradiction is actually somewhat of a misunderstanding.

Most Christians agree on two things; (1) that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation, and (2) that we are absolutely commanded to do good works. Both of these points are unmistakably clear in Scripture. The problem is that the terms of the dispute are used in different senses. When Catholics say that we are “saved” by good works as well as faith, we mean by “salvation” the whole process by which God brings us to our eternal destiny. This process includes repentance, faith, hope, and charity (the works of love). Whereas, Protestants (non-Catholics) typically mean by the word “salvation”, being put right with God.

The word “faith” is also used in two different senses. Protestants use it in a broad sense of a person’s acceptance of God’s call to salvation, as it is used by St. Paul in Romans. But Catholics use it in the sense that Paul used it in 1 Cor 13, as one of the three theological virtues; with hope and charity being separate. In this sense, faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, because we also need hope and charity.

Catholics are describing faith as existing separate from actions. The Catholic Church describes faith as “an act of the intellect, prompted by the will, by which we believe what has been revealed on the grounds of the authority of God, who revealed it.” This is why St. James could say (of Abraham) “Can’t you see? His faith and his actions worked together: His faith was made perfect through his actions” (James 2, 22).

With a clear definition of terms, both Protestants and Catholics say basically the same thing. Protestants say “faith (which must include hope and charity) is sufficient for salvation”, whereas Catholics say, “faith (without hope and charity) is not sufficient for salvation”.

This miscommunication will frequently happen, reulting in “irreconcilable differences” if we do not follow a logical pattern of discussion. We cannot simply say “lets agree to disagree” if we hope to find some unity among Christians

 

[hurst]

jpete79:

What happens to someone who isn’t baptized?

They stay spiritually dead.

hurst

 

[jpete79]

Mickey:

It does not say that they did not include children. Yes it is common sense that some of these households had infants.

When the NT was being written, adults were being converted to Christianity. The Bible was not written as a manual. There is no direct evidence that infants are not to be baptized and there is implicit evidence that they are. Then we look at history and see that infants were baptized for 2000 years. Why have you turned from the true teachings and adopted the revisionist theology of the fringe reformers?

You know not of what you speak. Roman Catholics pour or immerse, (see didache), and Eastern Catholics, (that’s me), use immersion.

God gives them salvation–not us! Where do you get this stuff?

So then you are saying there are two different sects of Catholicism?

 

[hurst]

jpete79:

Also, if you can die again by turning away than why be baptized in the first place? I feel this is a fair question

We are baptized in the first place to obtain supernatural life again.

Your question is tantamount to asking God why He created Adam and Eve in grace in the first place if they were able to die by turning away.

We can only be baptised once to be restored to the life of grace, but if we turn away, we can be restored again by repenting and going to the priest to be reconciled with God and the Church, and restored to grace.

hurst