Doesn't Catholicm fit the Protestant view of salvation?

[enanneman]

mercygate:

enanneman: As I re-read your original question, I see that one of your main points is the Protestant doctrine of eternal security. When a person leaves a fundamentalist-type Protestant denomination for the Catholic Church, he is often warned that he will lose his salvation. If I were a converting-to-Catholic former fundamentalist, I would counter by noting that since I had been “saved” by accepting Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, and the belief is “once saved always saved,” I could not possibly be losing my salvation.

Of course, that might not be the most politique way of addressing the issue.

Excellent point! I never thought of it that way.

That’s what I love about Catholicism–its unflinching declaration of what is true, even those doctrines that send shivers up the spines of Protestants (the intercession of Mary, Purgatory, Confession, etc.). Catholicism could downplay these doctrines in order to obtain more converts. But it doesn’t. Because they are true.

Peace and God bless!

Eric

 

[Prester_John]

enanneman:

Excellent point! I never thought of it that way.

That’s what I love about Catholicism–its unflinching declaration of what is true, even those doctrines that send shivers up the spines of Protestants (the intercession of Mary, Purgatory, Confession, etc.). Catholicism could downplay these doctrines in order to obtain more converts. But it doesn’t. Because they are true.

Peace and God bless!

Eric

We are what we are: human, fallible, ilogical and often qiute odd. But we are blessed… And may God Bless you both, Amen.

 

[carol_marie]

mercygate:

enanneman: As I re-read your original question, I see that one of your main points is the Protestant doctrine of eternal security. When a person leaves a fundamentalist-type Protestant denomination for the Catholic Church, he is often warned that he will lose his salvation. If I were a converting-to-Catholic former fundamentalist, I would counter by noting that since I had been “saved” by accepting Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, and the belief is “once saved always saved,” I could not possibly be losing my salvation.

Of course, that might not be the most politique way of addressing the issue.

I agree with this post. As a “born again believing once saved always saved, washed in the blood of the lamb, already accepted Jesus as my Savior sort of Christian,” becoming Catholic is a win-win for me. If the Fundamentalists are right, I’m OK because I’ve been born again & I’m saved. If the Catholics are right, I’ve got that base covered also. Can’t lose.

 

[4_marks]

The word Protestant covers a wide range of Christian denominations, groups and sects, many of which, have significant differences with one another. There are some Protestants, like High Church Anglicans, that understand themselves as connected to both Catholic and Orthodox Christians as “branches.” There are others who are openly hostile toward Catholicism and deliberately seek to assail Her teachings and practice whenever possible.

Evangelical Protestants, for the most part, don’t embrace Roman Catholics as “brothers and sisters” in the Lord. Having engaged in forum discussions with them on an Evangelical Protestant sponsored apologetics forum, I have come to realize this to be so. Many believe Catholics need to be “born again” (their definition of the term means something different than what it means to Catholics), and few can fathom why a “born again” person would ever remain a Catholic. Some would permit this in order for that person to “evangelize” Catholics and lead them to become evangelicals.

 

[jc95842]

enanneman:

Excellent point! I never thought of it that way.

That’s what I love about Catholicism–its unflinching declaration of what is true, even those doctrines that send shivers up the spines of Protestants (the intercession of Mary, Purgatory, Confession, etc.). Catholicism could downplay these doctrines in order to obtain more converts. But it doesn’t. Because they are true.

Peace and God bless!

Eric

I think many are backing away from teachings of the Catholic Church because of the idea of hell, purgatory, indulgences, confession and the consequences of sin are not popular among people. 70% of Catholics in New Jersey are pro abortion. John Kerry, a Catholic is running for President and pro abortion. This is not a statement of intergrety among Catholics. I don’t see people flocking into first Saturday devotions at my parish.

 

[michaelp]

Hello all. This is my first post. I have found your forum very helpful and interesting. I thought that I would try to help here in this discussion. I am a Protestant pastor (www.stonebriar.org) and theology teacher (www.theologyprogram.com). I can see that you have some questions concerning the belief of Protestants and their understanding of the salvation of Roman Catholics. It is interesting that both groups (Protestants and Roman Catholics) have those who would be inclusive (allow others who profess Christ to take part in the Gospel of Christ) and those who are exclusivists (would exclude all others who are not a part of their tradition). As I read through the thread it became apparant to me that Roman Catholics have many misconceptions about Protestant theology. I don’t feel as if Protestants are given of fair shake in this thread. That is why I would like to enter and field any of your questions that you might have.

First, we do not believe that everyone who fails confess salvation by faith alone (sola fide) is eternally condemned. We simply believe that all people who trust in Christ are saved by faith and that this salvation is “not of works” (Eph.2:8-9). People who truly love and trust Christ will be with Christ in eternity even if they did not ever understand or believe that it was by faith alone. Therefore, can a Roman Catholic be saved? Of course. None of us are saved by our identification with a denomination, sect, or tradition, but by our identification with Christ.

Hope this helps.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

Michael

 

[JKirkLVNV]

enanneman:

But all sins are barriers between good people and God, and Jesus forgives all sins if you believe in him and accept him as your personal Lord and Savior. Surely if he forgives 10,000 acts of adultery as long as you have faith (as indicated by Luther), he’ll forgive my “vain traditions of men,” right?

I appreciate your tongue-in-cheek humor!

The phrase “personal Lord and Savior” appears nowhere in the New Testament. Believe? “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble” (Epistle of Saint James 2:19). When Protestants say “Sola Fide,” “by Faith Alone,” they forget that the only place in the New Testament in which the words “faith” and “only” appear in the same sentence is in this same Epistle and that it is mentioned NEGATIVELY: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” Where upon, our Protestant brethren ask if we think we can buy our way into Heaven, by works, to which we must reply that we are saved by grace, through faith, and justified by love working in us. We can offer God nothing save the Passion, Death, and Resurection of Jesus. As for “vain traditions of man”, much of what was handed down by the Apostles is not written in the New Testament, and this is implied in the NT itself by either St. Peter or St. Paul (I can’t remember which) when they speak of “that which was handed down to me.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mercygate:

enanneman: As I re-read your original question, I see that one of your main points is the Protestant doctrine of eternal security. When a person leaves a fundamentalist-type Protestant denomination for the Catholic Church, he is often warned that he will lose his salvation. ***If I were a converting-to-Catholic former fundamentalist, I would counter by noting that since I had been “saved” by accepting Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, and the belief is “once saved always saved,” I could not possibly be losing my salvation. ***

Of course, that might not be the most politique way of addressing the issue.

We call this our Southern Baptist Fire Insurance Policy!

 

[kidderdoc]

As I read through the thread it became apparant to me that Roman Catholics have many misconceptions about Protestant theology. I don’t feel as if Protestants are given of fair shake in this thread. .

Michael, welcome! But I wonder which one of the protestant theologies are you referring to? There are over 30,000! Certainly, you will find many who will flat out tell you that Catholics are going to hell and that the RCC is the whore of Babylon. Also, I wonder if you realize that many who posted are converts from protestantism. Now, the original question for this thread is excellent and many have failed to catch the subtlety of it…because I have asked this very question before (in other forums) and it has always been misunderstood as well.

“Saved by grace” is actually what the Catholic Church teaches, working in faith through love, or charity. Faith, hope and love…and the greatest of these is love!

 

[michaelp]

Ouch, a jab in the stomach. 30,000 huh? I agree that it is sad that Protestants are not united more, but as I read through the treads here one interesting thing that I find we have in common is that you all are not very united either. Especially the thread about whether or not Protestant are brethren. Who do you go with? Those on the thread? Trent? Vatican II. I don’t see the unitedness that RCs so often like to claim.

But at the same time, I do appreciate your zeal for unity, something that I think the Protestant church lacks. But at the same time, certian denominations do have a polity that helps. Maybe we will find a Pope to unite us! Just kidding!

Back to the topic. I cannot speak for the laity of Protestantism, for most of them, like Roman Catholics, do not know what they believe and why (we both have this problemhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif), but what I can say is that Protestants have traditionally interpreted the Scriptures to say that a person is saved or condemned, not by an identification with an institution, but by an indentification with Christ or lack thereof. If a Protestant does not understand this, he or she does not understand their own tradition.

 

[kepha1]

Amen. Love is a work, an act of the will.
If you have the faith to move mountains and don’t have love, what does it amount to?
Zip.

 

[michaelp]

kepha1:

Amen. Love is a work, an act of the will.
If you have the faith to move mountains and don’t have love, what does it amount to?
Zip.

If the division between us comes down to something as simple as this, we have no problems. It is an issue of semantics. I concede! We are united once again!

(But I don’t think it is quite as simple as thishttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif).

 

[kidderdoc]

**

michaelp:

Ouch, a jab in the stomach. 30,000 huh? I agree that it is sad that Protestants are not united more, but as I read through the treads here one interesting thing that I find we have in common is that you all are not very united either. Especially the thread about whether or not Protestant are brethren. Who do you go with? Those on the thread? Trent? Vatican II. I don’t see the unitedness that RCs so often like to claim.

**

Michael,

The Church has always taught solidly on matters of faith and morals down from the time of the Apostles. Now, if people in the Church do not agree with something on faith and morals that the Church teaches, please do not mistake that to mean we all disagree on everything hence we are in the same predicament as the Protestant denominations. The official Church teachings have never waivered. The dissenter within the Church is merely, what I call, a protester…a protestant! (No offense meant). I hope that helps. (Actually, I think the latest count is over 33,000 according to some refernce book on the matter.)

Kidder

 

[JKirkLVNV]

michaelp:

but what I can say is that Protestants have traditionally interpreted the Scriptures to say that a person is saved or condemned, not by an identification with an institution, but by an indentification with Christ or lack thereof.

Michael,
I’m sure there are Roman Catholics who might say," Of course I’m saved, I’m Catholic!" I’m sure there are some who would say,“Of course I’m saved, I’ve had all my sacraments!”, as though the Sacraments are merit badges and if you get enough, you make Eagle Scout. But I’ve also heard Protestants say,“Of course I’m saved, I went down to the front during the altar call at the James Robinson revival at the church!” (which is what I did at the age of seven) or “I’m saved because I prayed the Sinner’s Prayer.” I don’t think I’m saved because I’m a Roman Catholic, I think I’m saved because of what Jesus did for me on the Cross and because I put all my faith/life/love in that, it was put in that for me at my baptism, and my life/faith in Jesus is confirmed and renewed each time I rec. Him in Holy Communion and in Confession. I’m a Roman Catholic because I believe that the fullness of Grace resides in the RCC. While other churches are centers or place with grace and truth, I believe that she alone possess Christ’s mandate to be the Church on Earth and that, most esp. in matters of dispute/disagreement, which have plagued the Church from the beginning, Peter and those who hold Peter’s office after him are the final arbitrators and that they lead the Church… I think part of the problem between C’s and P’s is semantic. We could believe Sola Fide if what Protestant’s meant by that is a FAITH THAT WORKS, a faith that transforms and changes us, the New Birth Our Savior spoke of. Often, for Protestants, justification by faith means a simple juridicial pardon from God (Luther’s dung hill covered in snow). For Catholics, it is the same, only the dung hill is made, in fact, into something else entirely, something fit for the Presence of God. And it is all done by His Grace, but it requires our active participation (works). May Christ hold you in the depths of His Most Sacred Heart. John

 

[enanneman]

michaelp:

Hello all. This is my first post. I have found your forum very helpful and interesting. I thought that I would try to help here in this discussion. I am a Protestant pastor (www.stonebriar.org) and theology teacher (www.theologyprogram.com). I can see that you have some questions concerning the belief of Protestants and their understanding of the salvation of Roman Catholics. It is interesting that both groups (Protestants and Roman Catholics) have those who would be inclusive (allow others who profess Christ to take part in the Gospel of Christ) and those who are exclusivists (would exclude all others who are not a part of their tradition). As I read through the thread it became apparant to me that Roman Catholics have many misconceptions about Protestant theology. I don’t feel as if Protestants are given of fair shake in this thread. That is why I would like to enter and field any of your questions that you might have.

First, we do not believe that everyone who fails confess salvation by faith alone (sola fide) is eternally condemned. We simply believe that all people who trust in Christ are saved by faith and that this salvation is “not of works” (Eph.2:8-9). People who truly love and trust Christ will be with Christ in eternity even if they did not ever understand or believe that it was by faith alone. Therefore, can a Roman Catholic be saved? Of course. None of us are saved by our identification with a denomination, sect, or tradition, but by our identification with Christ.

Hope this helps.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

Michael

Michael, I’ll add my own to the chorus of greetings to you.

I think the main difference between Catholicism and the majority of Protestant denominations is the fact that Catholics believe we will be judged by what we do in this world. It isn’t so much that we can “work our way to Heaven” than we can “work our way to Hell.” In other words, we can be saved by what we believe, but we can be delivered unto Hell by what we do or fail to do.

Matthew 25:30-46 clearly shows the final judgment. Christ assembles all the nations and judges each on what they do and don’t do. He doesn’t assemble a third group who had faith and spares them from judgment.

And, as Catholics, we are called to follow the direction of St. Paul when he says “So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12).

Are we saved as Catholics? We won’t know until the end of our lives. And, I for one believe the same is true of our Protestant brothers. I don’t believe they’re any more or less likely than Catholics to be saved, and I believe in the eternal mercy of God.

But, if Christ set up a church and gave us the sacraments to help us on our way, I would be a fool not to do what he requested of us.

Peace and God bless!

Eric

 

[michaelp]

I agree Kirk. I think that its faith alone that saves, but the faith that saves will not be alone. Indeed, there are Scripture that give me trouble with regards to faith alone such as the Parable of the Wicked Servant (Matt. 18), but I must follow by the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture and always interpret the obscure with the obvious. I cannot find anything more clear teaching salvation by faith alone than what is found in both Romans (for the whole book is an arguement for this). Roman three in particular: read Romans 3:20-28.

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

If verse 28 does not say that man is justified by faith alone, you have to read your own theology into the text (eiegesis) rather than get your theology out of the text (exegesis). For me to believe in savation by works and faith I would have to do the same thing with Eph. 2:8-9.

I do understand that James says that salvation is NOT by faith alone. This is very difficult. But, if you want to be intellectually honest, Paul is EXTREMELY difficult for you. How do I handle James? First, James was not written to give the Gospel message as both Romans and Ephesians were. It is more of a practical book. Therefore, in pivitol matters of doctrine, Paul is going to speak more clearly about justification–not James. The Bible is not a book of proof-text. We should not ever have someone pull out their proof text and I will pull out mine, as if the Bible can be interpreted that way. All writings have a purpose, an author, a situation, a writing style, an attitude of the author, a personality of the author, and an audience. All of these must be considered. James is passionately writing to a situation in which people say that have faith, but have not works. He asks if this is true faith, making the argument that faith is vendicated (shown to be true) by its works. With this I agree. If someone says that have faith, but does not have works, this faith cannot save them because it is not true faith.
I think that this must be the way to interpret James.

Now Paul, on the other hand, was not writing to any particular situation in Romans of Ephesians, therefore, his arguments would not be bent on a problem in either place. Therefore, when he speaks about salvation, it is more objective and easy to interpret. James’s situation is more subjective and pastoral. You see, it is not as easy as pulling some “proof-texts” and winning an arguement. You must create a systematic theology.

So, that I how a Protestant would view salvation by faith alone.

 

[michaelp]

Michael,

The Church has always taught solidly on matters of faith and morals down from the time of the Apostles. Now, if people in the Church do not agree with something on faith and morals that the Church teaches, please do not mistake that to mean we all disagree on everything hence we are in the same predicament as the Protestant denominations. The official Church teachings have never waivered. The dissenter within the Church is merely, what I call, a protester…a protestant! (No offense meant). I hope that helps. (Actually, I think the latest count is over 33,000 according to some refernce book on the matter.)

Kidder,

Whether it is denominations or individuals, it makes little difference. Unity is the principle and unity is violated. Which is more important, to have a confession of unity or an actual unity? Of course it is that we are actually unified.

And, I disagree, If you objectively study church history, you are not going to find the unity that RCs like to claim. But we can agree to disagee. But I would challenge any of you to study the issue. And don’t just study RCs who are bent on their presupposistion. Read more widely. Read Hans Kung on the issue. Read some Protestants. Read some liberals. Then make your decision. But don’t believe something without justification.

Be strong in the Lord. Love Him with all you Mind.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

michaelp:

Michael,

The Church has always taught solidly on matters of faith and morals down from the time of the Apostles. Now, if people in the Church do not agree with something on faith and morals that the Church teaches, please do not mistake that to mean we all disagree on everything hence we are in the same predicament as the Protestant denominations. The official Church teachings have never waivered. The dissenter within the Church is merely, what I call, a protester…a protestant! (No offense meant). I hope that helps. (Actually, I think the latest count is over 33,000 according to some refernce book on the matter.)

Kidder,

Whether it is denominations or individuals, it makes little difference. Unity is the principle and unity is violated. Which is more important, to have a confession of unity or an actual unity? Of course it is that we are actually unified.

And, I disagree, If you objectively study church history, you are not going to find the unity that RCs like to claim. But we can agree to disagee. But I would challenge any of you to study the issue. And don’t just study RCs who are bent on their presupposistion. Read more widely. Read Hans Kung on the issue. Read some Protestants. Read some liberals. Then make your decision. But don’t believe something without justification.

Be strong in the Lord. Love Him with all you Mind.

Michael

Kidder,

Whether it is denominations or individuals, it makes little difference. Unity is the principle and unity is violated. Which is more important, to have a confession of unity or an actual unity? Of course it is that we are actually unified.

And, I disagree, If you objectively study church history, you are not going to find the unity that RCs like to claim. But we can agree to disagee. But I would challenge any of you to study the issue. And don’t just study RCs who are bent on their presupposistion. Read more widely. Read Hans Kung on the issue. Read some Protestants. Read some liberals. Then make your decision. But don’t believe something without justification.

Be strong in the Lord. Love Him with all you Mind.

Michael

 

[JKirkLVNV]

michaelp:

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

So, that I how a Protestant would view salvation by faith alone.

But, Michael, this must surely mean the Old Testament/Judaic Ritual Law? I won’t argue with you, we aren’t justified by that. I don’t think Paul was talking about “works” as believed by the RCC. But let’s say for a moment that he was. Set what the Savior Himself said against Saint Paul by recalling the passage (I don’t have my Bible in front of me) where He sits in judgement and says to some,“Depart from me, ye accursed, into everlasting darkness prepared for thee. For I was hungry, and you failed to feed me, thirsty, etc.” Sorry, I hate mangling scripture. It seems from this and many other passages that our works, done by God’s grace acting in us, in love, contribute to our justification. Those who failed in charity (love) in this passage were sent away from Him. In Christ, John

 

[Exporter]

The theme of this thread,“Does Catholicism fit the Protestant view of salvation?”

I have no earth-shaking rhetoric to agree or disagree with the premise of the question. But the question and subsequent posts do raise some questions for me.

1. I have heard debates between a Jesuit Priest and an Evangelical Preacher on the question of “:Is Faith alone sufficient for salvation?” Of course the Catholic will say that faith will produce “:works”.
2. There is a problem with the Protestant use of the word, “saved”.Saved is past tense. That means that the person who has been ( past tense) saved is NOT now “unsaved”. Therefore, Protestants Do Not have to ask forgiveness for their sins! 1st John 1: 9 says we will be forgiven if we ask. There is a problem with once saved …always saved.
3. “Saved” is not a Catholic concept, it is a Protestant invention.
   How many Protestants confess their sins (in any manner)? In my many years of going to Mass, I have not heard a Priest ,during the sermon, tell us that we are “saved”.
4. Just like soap makes grease disolve in water. (an emulsifier),
   The original question needs an “emulsifier” to make the question answerable.:yup: