If Protestants wrote the Bible...humorous

  • Thread starter Thread starter SimonArizona
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
beeper said:
So in general…do protestants go to heaven?
Click to expand...
"The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics" (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).-Augustine

"…yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).-Cyprian of Carthage

**
“Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”-Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD**
 
beeper said:
So in general…do protestants go to heaven?
Click to expand...
Of course. Protestants in general don’t really understand, through no fault of their own, what the Catholic Church really teaches. There is grace when ignorance is not willful. That is the Churches position. But if you spend too much time studying this out, you could get yourself in trouble. The Church also teaches that if someone comes to the understanding the Church is what it says it is, and rejects it, well, it won’t go so well for that person.

There are some cantankerous Protestants. I mean, there are some Protestants that really, really protest. I’ve met them. Some are in my extended family. I live near them. They thrive on divisive speech and rancor. I’m talking mean spirited discourse. The Scripture warns us against people that wrangle over words and ruin people’s faith. Some of these people seem to get off on doing just that. I know a guy (not personally) that spends way too much time making anti-Catholic videos for youtube and for his own site (where he sells books). This guy is so bent out of shape (he happens to be Calvinist) I can hardly picture him as someone moved by the love of Christ. Only the Lord knows, but man, this guy sure seems to be showing his cards, and they don’t look good.

I know a scholar that is well respected by Protestants that literally gets unglued when he mentions the word Catholic. He changes personality and inflects his speech with dripping derision, relishing every mocking adjective he can muster when he speaks about Rome or the Pope. It’s astonishing.

I was schooled by some Baptists to be argumentative. The first “fellowship” I ever had in the Protestant churches I went to was a video night of Protestant “scholars” debating each other. There was a clear favorite on the video, and I was taught to root for him. I was taught to “love and be gentle, but when it comes to defending the faith, to take the gloves off”. What a sad joke and commentary. A bunch of schoolboy “know it alls” that read books by “scholars” that debate amongst themselves as if it was going to amount to anything at all. All these “scholars” do is draw disciples to themselves and sell really bad books. They get degrees from schools that don’t teach critical thinking or history, but rather only the repetition of their denominational party line, because it’s the “truth”.

It’s those kinds of guys I’m not sure about. It’s those kind of guys Peter warns us about. They really mess with people lives and create discord. They have to, or they can’t pay their bills. They might have to get a real job if they were to promote unity based on historical teaching and tradition. But no, they are “called”, they have a “special revelation”, they have a job to do, they are “annointed” by the people that sell the same kinds of books and “teaching resources” that they themselves sell.

I was in this circle for 20 years. I’ve done high church Anglican down to home church of 8 (on a good day) and just about everything inbetween at least once. I’ve led people to the Lord, a few of which are Protestant pastors to this day (one Baptist and one Pentecostal).

With increase of wisdom comes increase in sorrow, the teacher says. Beware then what you study if you are not prepared to change your mind. The most dangerous thing a Protestant can do is read about Catholicism from a Catholic perspective. If you think you have died to things in the past, and you as a Protestant start reading reasonable, honorable history, you’ll soon discover you really didn’t know what dying to yourself was all about.

Essentially, the safest thing to do is stop reading these forums and move on, or be open to changes sent by the Lord. If you stay, be tentative. It will soften the blows.

For the record, I know a virulent anti-Catholic who became a Catholic (at least took the very first steps) this past Monday. Two weeks ago “I’ll never, ever, ever go to Rome”. This week, he bought a Catechism. It happens every day…
 
dbonneville said:
For the record, I know a virulent anti-Catholic who became a Catholic (at least took the very first steps) this past Monday. Two weeks ago “I’ll never, ever, ever go to Rome”. This week, he bought a Catechism. It happens every day…
Click to expand...
It is the virulent anti-Catholics such as myself that get converted, because we are forced to realy study the Faith. Once that happens its over from there. I tell people in all seriousness, If you are going to keep asking me questions why I’m a Catholic Christian you will soon be seen in Mass. Haha
 
Someone should make a poll:

Were you a virulent anti-Catholic who now attends mass regularly and defends the honor of Mary? If so, rate your virulency, 1 being milque-toast and 10 being lunatic.

1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

…and see what the poll reveals 🙂
 
dbonneville said:
Someone should make a poll:

Were you a virulent anti-Catholic who now attends mass regularly and defends the honor of Mary? If so, rate your virulency, 1 being milque-toast and 10 being lunatic.

1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

…and see what the poll reveals 🙂
Click to expand...
9because I go to confession a lot, pray the rosary often, read Catholic Books a lot, etc
 
CentralFLJames said:
Agree - sarcasm through conspicuous contradiction to make a point is usually too subtle for most in these forums. 😉

I understood her… “Love trumps all” - even poor polemics and dogged committment to protestant ‘scripture-spin’…

Let’s love em all into heaven - its their best chance…

James
Click to expand...
1.) Yes, I was being Sarcastic. I’m a Catholic and was just going with the OP’s flow…

2.) I’m a dude 😉
 
🙂
dbonneville said:
Yes. I was one for the last 20 years. I thought that at first, but as I grew in my understanding of Judaism, I changed. I learned from good sources what was Jewish and what was not. The worst place to learn about Judaism is from Protestants, and the worst place to learn about Catholicism is from Protestants, which goes without saying. Jewish understanding of faith and works led me to Catholicism, via the Anglican Church. I was up until recently in the ordination track for becoming an Anglican priest.

It’s a common understanding that Christians believe that ancient (and current) Jews believe they are saved by works. Toss the Catholics in there. Jews, nor Catholics, ever believed this, but this is the generic Protestant understanding. It’s the biggest Protestant misunderstanding about the Law, and is all pervasive. They love to quote Eph 2:8-9, though you never hear that much about vs10, which said that God himself ordained good works is the “walk of life” for believers. The corollary is “no good works, no salvation”. This is painfully simple unless you have Luther-isms sitting on your shoulder saying “no, it doesn’t say that” though it says it right there.

Protestants ubiquitously emphasize that you don’t need good works to be saved. It’s a stereotype of a Protestant, rather an archetype, who says “You don’t have to do good works to be save, it’s by grace. The Catholics believe you just do good works to get in heaven.”

I’ve had countless “chats” with Baptist and other friends and family over the years that are adamant that salvation is a one-time event, a legal transaction, and no works are needed, lest the cross of Christ is profaned. So, again, Yes, I know lot’s of people that believe this with a passion and get all kinds of spittle in the corner of their mouth when you suggest they might be wrong. That is not a joke either, it’s very real and very sad, and it’s a teaching that ruins lives, lives of people I personally know. But it’s the people without good works, real good works, that get the most nutty. Watch out for those ones.
Click to expand...
I too was a Protestant who believed false teachings about the church that JESUS established.
When the gospel was shared with me, I believed it with my whole heart but that wasn’t going to save me-I had to respond by either accepting or rejecting what JESUS was offering me.
So I bowed down to JESUS and cried out for His mercy. If that’s not a work, I don’t know what else is.

But if you love GOD,what’s wrong with being required to do at least one good work of saying yes to GOD’s call of salvation by grace through faith??? The good work of saying YES does not save you just as the negative work of saying NO
certainly does not save you nor does the non work of no response save you.
I think this clearly shows that it takes a work to apply the precious Blood of JESUS to your life.
This should be no problem for a Christian.
Once you have said yes to JESUS, you have entered into a state of grace, which is how we are saved,but we don’t lose our free will and must respond to the HOLY SPIRIT’S conviction by repentance as required to restore us to the state of grace if and when we need to.
THIS IS A VERY SMALL PRICE FOR ETERNITY IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE

IF JESUS TURNED THE WATER INTO WINE,
why couldn’t He turn the wine into His real blood and the bread into His real body like He said in John 6 ???

Since He said if you don’t eat His flesh and drink His blood you can NOT be His follower-----
anyone who loves JESUS with their whole heart should ask the HOLY SPIRIT whether or not JESUS was speaking of a symbolic remembrance
or the Miracle of Miracles which seperates the Catholic mass from all other Christian church services.
Two years ago the HOLY SPIRIT led me to find out for myself the truth about the catholic faith, I soon left the “Me and JESUS only” church and converted to the “We and JESUS church” which is truly my family by blood-THE BODY and BLOOD of JESUS"

I guess you could say I am a “Protestant Protestant”🙂
 
BEEPER ASKS:
So in general…do protestants go to heaven?

DBONNEVILLE RESPONDS:
Of course. Protestants in general don’t really understand, through no fault of their own, what the Catholic Church really teaches. There is grace when ignorance is not willful.

DBONNEVILLE COMMENT ON JAMES:
But you insist that faith alone saves. I beg to differ. In fact, you can’t be saved by faith alone as I just quoted. In fact:

“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?”

The answer is no. Where is the artful dodging? This is a devastating blow to Protestant theology,

BEEPER ASKS:
I am really curious…Do you talk to a lot of protestants that honestly think they can just say “I believe” and forget about works?

DBONNEVILLE RESPONDS:
Yes.

Some other quotes:

The Catechism of St. Pope Pius X (1910)
“If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.”

(Anathemas condemning anyone that accepts the idea of Justification by Faith Alone)

“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON IX

“If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON XII

I am only writing this in love and hope you can at least see where I am coming from. As you read thru your own statements above and some quotes from Rome, I hope you can see why I don’t buy Rome’s definition on Justification, and your or any other Catholic’s intrepretation on James 2, or Matthew 25, Romans 4 etc. As you can see, Rome does not preach 1 gospel. There are multiple ways to heaven under a multitude of different situations. If you take James 2 you need works to be justified. But then if you are Protestant that verse doesnt apply at all since you admitted Protestants in general are saved. It also does not apply to the paralytic or the theif on the cross. In fact, if you follow all the rules on invinicible ignorance in the church you don’t necessarily need “faith in Jesus” if you are doing your best with love and charity. So according to Rome…sometimes you can be justified by faith, sometimes faith + works, sometimes just works. So you run into all kinds of rules and regulations when it comes to salvation. So I would like to be a fly on the wall in a Catholic bible study when James 2 or Matthew 25 is discussed. I can imagine a Catholic priest getting up and saying…"see…you need works to be saved!!..Well let me take that back…well sometimes you need works… but, its best if you do have works… but actually you can be saved without either one… but sometimes you can have one or the other…But yes you must be baptized, but if not, and your own your way its ok…but really you don’t necessarily need it to be saved…Come on, either James must have been losing his mind wrote the Book of James, or he didn’t really mean what he said, or someone is misintrepreting it. I know you jump all over Lutherans and Calvinists for having circular reasoning, but you give them a run for their money on this one. To me it is a psychological rollercoaster filled with all kinds of rules and regulations that ultimately has no consistency. I love Catholics, I just don’t love the false gospel(s) that are accepted by the church. I agree, people that yell and cuss at Catholics for what they believe need a talking to. But for me, I get upset only because I feel Catholics (if they truly adhere to all the teachings of the church) are on the wide road that leads to destruction and not on the narrow road that leads to life. …Your loving thoughts?
 
There is no problem with any of the quotes here. Your conscience is bound by what it is aware of. In that case, yes, salvation may differ from one person to the next. God is just and merciful. If you are taught and schooled and correctly understand, there is no excuse for you. If you are not taught or schooled through no fault of your own, you are less culpable. This is not only the position of the Catholic church, but the position of Judaism before the Church.

What Protestants teach is not the complete or accurate Gospel, though you may think it is. Yes we need faith in Jesus - the foundation. Does James 2 need any expositing at all? Why is this so hard? It’s like 4th grade reading level. Surely you understand at face value exactly what it’s saying. But, like most Protestants, you have to put a filter on James 2 and say something like “well, he’s referring to justification before men” or some other bizarre mechanism to avoid the plain meaning of the verses.

I challenge you to explain James 2 without using the term “justification before men” or something like it. I’d be impressed i you can make some sense out of it. Perhaps there are other ways to “explain” it, but I’ve not heard them. The standard Protestant way I’m quite familiar with always starts with that “before men” dichotomy that isn’t present.

The quotes from the catechism and canons make it very clear the issue of conscience is paramount and no small matter. It’s not like you found a glaring error. It looks like an error if you don’t have a clue what it’s talking about. This is a fundamental part of Paul’s teaching about conscience from Roman 14 (the meat sacrificed to idols) and Galatians (observance of days).

The canons are harsh on someone that knows better and for some bent out of shape reason insists that he, all by himself, is right, over and against all of Church history.

Are you really prepared to say that all of Church history is wrong and that Judaism is wrong in regards to justification? Did the truth really get buried out of the starting gate and lose it’s way for 1500 years, all the while growing from 50,000 in the year 100AD to 20 million by 400AD? That the martyrs were mistaken? That the Trinity is wrong And along the way, it produced the NT and accepted the canon of the OT? Are you prepared to say that the Church was right on all this but wrong on salvation? If you are prepared to say that in full knowledge and understanding of the facts of history, man, there just isn’t much to work with. Your brain may have seized up a wee bit. Why are you on the forums then?

That just doesn’t make any sense, unless you come up with myths about Church history that take as much faith as believing in blind evolution. In fact, “blood line” theories and evolution are bed fellows!

I believe that for you, this is an issue of authority. It’s the same for all questioning Protestants. It’s like God puts the kibosh on analytical thinking skills until one comes to the place where they realize that 1) they don’t have all the answers 2) the can’t possibly get all the answers and 3) they couldn’t possibly understand everything even if they could get the answers.

Faith is required. You have to come to a place where you have to have FAITH in God that he actually preserved something from the beginning, because he said he would preserve it. It takes no faith to believe in your own understanding now does it?

How is it faith to believe what you determine is truth? This is what Eve did, and is Luther’s fatal flaw. You can’t determine what truth is. Why can’t you see that Protestant understandings are so varied and that the “system” of read-it-yourself is a big scam? You see that no Protestants agree. That should be proof that Sola Scriptura is just stupid. It’s willfully ignorant of basic reality. If it were true, the Catholic Church no doubt would have been vanquished. Instead, we see Protestant denominations vanquishing themselves. Look at the Anglican Communion in 2008 (of which I was a part until July this year). It’s over. The 500 year experiment resulted in…more division. And that’s all Protestantism can ever do. It divides and divides and divides.

The Bereans first believed Paul’s preaching and were considered noble for it. They later checked it from the OT and backed up there new belief. It was not the other way around.

Apply the idea of justification and good works to Protestantism. If it was really good or “saved” or comprised of first-rate “saved” people (no doubt many are saved, btw), it would yield good works that humiliate the Catholic Church. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you are so concerned about fruit, why not look no further than Luther who wanted to kill Jews, and Calvin who burned his enemy, as slowly as possible, at the stake? I suppose we all make mistakes, but trading one set of mistakes (bad policies of bad Popes around 1500, a few other rough spots that are inexcusable and evil) for bad theology and it’s consequences (Peasant Wars, endless division and rancor) doesn’t get you anywhere.

It takes faith to do what you are told, and what to believe, otherwise it’s not faith. Jesus tells Peter he will be taken one day where he doesn’t want to go. I pray that you are led likewise, with humility, to Rome. After some pain, you will have joy. But death comes first.

I appreciate your tone by the way! It’s a pleasure to chat back and forth with you.
 
"The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics" (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).-Augustine

**
“…yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).-Cyprian of Carthage**

"Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."-Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD
 
dbonneville said:
There is no problem with any of the quotes here. Your conscience is bound by what it is aware of. In that case, yes, salvation may differ from one person to the next. God is just and merciful. If you are taught and schooled and correctly understand, there is no excuse for you. If you are not taught or schooled through no fault of your own, you are less culpable.

You tossed a lot at me so I don’t intend to dodge any of what you said. I understand you completely don’t agree with Lutherans or Calvinist, but I’m not saying I hold them up as my poster children either. I would also say that I don’t think the church began at the year 1500ad. Moving on, I am assuming this will be a “yes”, but do you believe that it is possible to be justified before God by Faith alone, Faith plus works, and/or just works? I gathered that you did, and from the studies I have done on RCC this would absolutely be the case…but still I don’t want to assume anything.----Before I go further… for anyone who is just jumping in…I do believe works are absolutely necessary for the Christian life (some have posted things that assume I could care less about them). If this is the case and the RCC is correct in believing all three ways are possible for justification, I still don’t get how the RCC can say that James 2 says you need works to be justified and then can turn right back around and say they are not (like in the case where a Protestant is saved)? I know you think it is because of God’s love and mercy but I will get back to that… To me, James 2 leaves no room for any other positions (Faith alone, or works alone—which both are possible if you adhere to RC). James makes no mention in James 2 about all kinds of other options to be justified by. For the most part, Rome would have a greater arguement if they stood by what most Catholics think James 2 says instead of adding all the other possiblities in addition to it. But they don’t and in some ways the multiple positions completely contradict each other and even downplay the necessity of Jesus (especially when considering all the rules regarding invincible ignorance). So to accept all 3 positions is hard to comprehend in light of Galatians 1 when Paul states there is 1 gospel…Anyway, back to your response which states all these positions are ok based on God’s love and mercy. If this is true, can you find me a verse or even a chapter in the bible that allows for all 3 positions based on God’s love and mercy? I find the opposite (see Romans). Also, what is the point of the Great Commission if people are truly saved because of their ignorance? The disciples would not be bring the Gospel of Hope, they would be bringing the Gospel of condemnation. The person is better off not hearing the Gospel at all. If God could have redeemed his people to the extent that Rome uses invincible ignorance, then you would have it spelled out all over the Bible…but it isnt…especially not in James. Jesus came to save an already condemned world (John 3:16-18). It was that love and that mercy that mankind doesnt deserve that God gave anyway. But we still need Jesus to get back to the Father. Anyway, to let someone believe that they may go to heaven based on Rome’s view of invincible ignorance is just cruel…and is completely inconsistant with God’s perfect judgment.---------I know you are just dying to hear my understanding of James 2…It is coming. I agree, its not that complicated. Thanks for the discussion.
Click to expand...
 
If Protestants wrote the Bible
  • it would have come with a Table of Contents and not had to have the canon of the Bible defined by the Catholic Church
  • it would have an introduction, in which it would spell out explicitly the doctrine of sola scriptura (in reality, that doctrine is nowhere in the Bible)
  • there would be 30,000 different editions of the Bible, one for each Protestant sect, and they’d all say different things
 
Though this thread is suppose to be humorous, looking at what the JW’s have done to their bible in all of the verses pertaining to the divinity of Jesus is not so humorous.

Catholics believe that we can be justified by faith alone, so I don’t know why others here are arguing that we don’t believe that.
Of course that faith has to contain charity if it is going to be a saving faith.

It is all a matter of semantics.

My question is:
Can a person be saved by a faith that is lacking in any kind of love?
 
The point is… in the RCC you can be justified by faith alone, or faith plus works, or just works. It can’t be all three especially in light of James 2 which has been a hinge point in our discussion. Letting someone walk down the wide road to destruction by letting them think they can achieve heaven by all Rome’s rules governing invincible ignorance is not semantics…its a matter of life and death. Always in love
 
beeper said:
The point is… in the RCC you can be justified by faith alone, or faith plus works, or just works. It can’t be all three especially in light of James 2 which has been a hinge point in our discussion. Letting someone walk down the wide road to destruction by letting them think they can achieve heaven by all Rome’s rules governing invincible ignorance is not semantics…its a matter of life and death. Always in love
Click to expand...
The church does not teach that we can be saved by works alone.

What the church teaches is that we are saved by God’s grace alone, and our response to that grace is a faith working in love.

Any works we do are not by our own power, they can only be done by God’s grace. Any faith we have is not by our own power, it is by God’s grace.
 
beeper said:
The point is… in the RCC you can be justified by faith alone, or faith plus works, or just works. It can’t be all three especially in light of James 2 which has been a hinge point in our discussion.
Click to expand...
No, it can’t be all three, but it can be the first two even in light of of James 2.
This is because scripture talks about salvation as a past, present and future event. We can be saved by faith alone for our initial salvation, by we must live a saving faith we we are going to continue on the path of Christ in our life’s.
Here is the link to Jimmy Akin’s article “Salvation Past, Present and Future.” which explains how salvation is not just a one time experience in our life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top