Protestants cannot be saved?

[kaycee]

I do wish you’d give me a simple “yes” or “no” answer.

I’ll ask it again: Are you perfectly “saved” (guaranteed a place in heaven) regardless of what you do between now and when you die?

Perfectly!

Do you only have to believe for an instant, or do you have to continue to believe throughout your lifetime, and does belief imply that you must act in a particular way?

Since the Faith to believe is also the gift from a gracious God there will be perserverance until death. Saving Faith will produce fruit, as a fig tree produces figs.

Saving Faith is NOT just knowledge but fully trusting in the Savior to be clothed with HIS righteousness .

How does one “enter by Jesus” without having faith in Him and believing in Him, and as above, does that oblige you to act in a particularly “Christian” way?

Without Faith it is impossible to please God.

Does “…coming to the Father through Jesus” mean that you need not act like a Christian?

One will act like a Christian if one IS a Christian.

Can one “Hath (have) the Son” for an instant, or week, or years, but not at death and be “saved”?

Either God gives you Saving Faith which does not fail, or you have just a James 2 faith that does not save.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Perfectly!

I see.

Then why does Paul tell you to work out your salvation (not sanctification) in fear and trembling?

What on earth would there be to be fearful or or tremble about if you are absolutely assured of heaven?

What is there still left to “work out”?

Why was Paul himself worried about being disqualified for the prize after working so hard?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Things Children of God Can Do:

1. Fall from grace - Gal. 5:1-4,13
2. Be led away with error - 2 Pet. 3:17
3. Err from the truth - James 5:19-20
4. Weak brother may perish - 1 Cor. 8:11
5. Fall into condemnation - James 5:12
6. Be moved away from the hope - Col. 1:21-23
7. Deny the Lord who bought them - 2 Pet. 2:1
8. Depart from the living God - Heb. 3:12
9. Can be a castaway - 1 Cor. 9:27
10. Can become accursed children - 2 Pet. 2:14

Once saved, always saved? I don’t think so.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[kaycee]

I see.

Then why does Paul tell you to work out your salvation (not sanctification) in fear and trembling?

What on earth would there be to be fearful or or tremble about if you are absolutely assured of heaven?

What is there still left to “work out”?

Why was Paul himself worried about being disqualified for the prize after working so hard?

It does not say work at your salvation.

 

[Church_Militant]

It does not say work at your salvation.

Semantic hairsplitting?

I think the verse is clear…but you are projecting your chosen interpretation onto it.

Do you “work out your salvation with fear and trembling?”

 

[Genesis315]

Things Children of God Can Do:

1. Fall from grace - Gal. 5:1-4,13
2. Be led away with error - 2 Pet. 3:17
3. Err from the truth - James 5:19-20
4. Weak brother may perish - 1 Cor. 8:11
5. Fall into condemnation - James 5:12
6. Be moved away from the hope - Col. 1:21-23
7. Deny the Lord who bought them - 2 Pet. 2:1
8. Depart from the living God - Heb. 3:12
9. Can be a castaway - 1 Cor. 9:27
10. Can become accursed children - 2 Pet. 2:14

Once saved, always saved? I don’t think so.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Yikes!

You need to come up with a positive top 10 things we can do to balance that out a little!

 

[CoG]

Protestants cannot be saved?

The keys of the Kingdom have been given to the Church. If the Church says that all are saved then all are saved. If the Church says no one is saved then no one is saved. The Church in its wisdom has not excluded anyone from being able to be saved. Christ has stated the conditions for salvation and the Church supports the teachings of Christ.

 

[Tomster]

It was humor. You sound like you are indulging in a personal attack. Please: stick to the topic, not myself, but the quote of Pope Innocent III, thank you, and the ability of Protestants to enter heaven, with or without the Catholic Church; people leave the Catholic Church on account of behaviors such as your own of course, Martin Luther was turned away from Catholicisim by force–he never left the Catholic Church; hence the extant nature of Protestantisim is an egregious error on the part of your papacy–Pope Leo, or do you dispute the facts? Why should denial of heaven be determined by the incompetency of a pope, that forces the extant Protestant Church as the primary node, at its origin–it is utterly stupid to fault Protestants for what clearly cannot even be regarded as moot, but a great error on the part of one of your popes. Thankfully, I do have a choice, now, to leave the Church, and unlike the appearance of others; I, a Protestant, and certainly catholic–am more than well enough aware of whom is in charge of my admittance into heaven; are you?

The great cardinal princple of Protestantism is that every man attains salvation by entering into an immediate relation with Christ, with the aid of that interior faith be which he believes that, though his sins persist, they are no longer imputed to him, thanks to the merits of Jesus Christ. All men are thus priests for themselves and carry out the work of their justification by treating directly and individually with God. The Life of Grace, being nothing than the external favor of God, remains outside of us and we continue, in fact, in spite of Lutheran faith in Christ, corrupt and sinful. Each human being enters into an isolated relation with our Lord, and there is no transforming life in which all are called to share.Luther never understood the meaning of faith informed by sanctifying grace and charity. Accordingly, the one visible Church of the Mystical Body is done away with, as well as the priesthood and the sacrifice of of the Mystical Body, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The only purpose of preaching and such ceremonies as were retained by Protestants was to stir up the individual’s faith.

continued

 

[Tomster]

It was humor. You sound like you are indulging in a personal attack. Please: stick to the topic, not myself, but the quote of Pope Innocent III, thank you, and the ability of Protestants to enter heaven, with or without the Catholic Church; people leave the Catholic Church on account of behaviors such as your own of course, Martin Luther was turned away from Catholicisim by force–he never left the Catholic Church; hence the extant nature of Protestantisim is an egregious error on the part of your papacy–Pope Leo, or do you dispute the facts? Why should denial of heaven be determined by the incompetency of a pope, that forces the extant Protestant Church as the primary node, at its origin–it is utterly stupid to fault Protestants for what clearly cannot even be regarded as moot, but a great error on the part of one of your popes. Thankfully, I do have a choice, now, to leave the Church, and unlike the appearance of others; I, a Protestant, and certainly catholic–am more than well enough aware of whom is in charge of my admittance into heaven; are you?

Hence the True Church of Christ, according to the Protestant view, is nothing else than the assembly of those who, on account of the confidence interiorly conceived of the remission of their sins, have the justice of Christ imputed to them by God and are accordingly predestined to eternal life. And this Church known to God alone, is the unique Church of the promises of indefectibility, to which our Lord Jesus Christ promised his assistance to the consummation of the world. Since, however, true believers, instructed by the Holy Spirit, can manifest their faith exteriorly, can communicate their impressions and feelings to others and may employ the symbols of the Sacraments to stir up their faith, they give rise to a visible church which, nevertheless, is not the Church instituted by Christ. Membership of this Church is not necessary for salvation, and it may assume different forms according to circumstances. The true invisible Church of Christ is always hidden, unseen in the multitude.

Protestantism, therefore, substituted for the corporate organization of society, imbued with the spirit of the Mystical Body and reconciling the claims of personality and individuality
of man, a merely isolated relation with our Divine Lord. This revolt of the human individual against order on the supernatural level, this uprise of individualism, with its inevitable chaotic self-seeking, had dire consequences both in regard to ecclesiastical organization and in the realms of politics and economics.

Hope this helps.:tiphat:

Tomster

 

[Randy_Carson]

It does not say work at your salvation.

No, it doesn’t.

It says “work out”.

From dictionary.com:

44.**work out, **

a.to bring about by work, effort, or action.
b.to solve, as a problem.
c.to arrive at by or as by calculation.
d.to pay (a debt) by working instead of paying money.
e.to exhaust, as a mine.
f.to issue in a result.
g.to evolve; elaborate.
h.to amount to (a total or specified figure); add up (to): *The total works out to 176. *
i.to prove effective or successful: *Their marriage just didn’t work out. *

So, what do you think Paul was trying to tell us?

 

[nilofc]

Certainly not, you know better. Abraham was saved by Faith as were all the OT hall of famers!

Certainly not. We Catholics do not believe that. Abraham, as well as those men who are just went to hell and was later rescued by Jesus after his death on the cross.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.479 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:480 **“It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.”**481 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You can call this part of hell as “Abraham’s Lot” - where Just and rigtheous people were until Jesus’ redemptive act of salvation on the cross. Abraham was not saved by faith alone, but by the grace of Jesus Christ.

Remember the thief hanging beside Jesus on the cross. He’s been a sinner all his life but an instant he was saved all because he asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus gets to paradise. He didn’t ask to save him but rather just for the chance of remembering him. Jesus, as always, is a very merciful God and He granted him the ticket to paradise. By the grace of God, what a revelation, don’t you think.

In fullness of the truth, a lot of us will learn that all these graces coming from God passes through the hands of Mother Mary. Read on St. Louis de Montfort.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I do wish you’d give me a simple “yes” or “no” answer.

I’ll ask it again: Are you perfectly “saved” (guaranteed a place in heaven) regardless of what you do between now and when you die?

Perfectly!

Ok then. We’ll have to disagree about that one…!

Quote:
Do you only have to believe for an instant, or do you have to continue to believe throughout your lifetime, and does belief imply that you must act in a particular way?
Since the Faith to believe is also the gift from a gracious God there will be perserverance until death. Saving Faith will produce fruit, as a fig tree produces figs.

Saving Faith is NOT just knowledge but fully trusting in the Savior to be clothed with HIS righteousness .

So you have to “fully trust”, which I would call a “sustained effort”, which is (in my opinion) a “work”.

Cool.

Quote:
How does one “enter by Jesus” without having faith in Him and believing in Him, and as above, does that oblige you to act in a particularly “Christian” way?
Without Faith it is impossible to please God.

I agree with your answer, but it doesn’t answer my question.

Does your “faith” and “belief” oblige you to act in a particularly “Christian” way?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Quote:
Does “…coming to the Father through Jesus” mean that you need not act like a Christian?
One will act like a Christian if one IS a Christian.

Hear hear…!! We agree! So there is a “type” of action that is “Christian” then, as opposed to the “type” of action that is “non-Christian”?

Quote:
Can one “Hath (have) the Son” for an instant, or week, or years, but not at death and be “saved”?
Either God gives you Saving Faith which does not fail, or you have just a James 2 faith that does not save.

So,… if you “do evil”, or in other words act unChristianly, you never had the “saving” type faith to begin with?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Kristopher]

It does not say work at your salvation.

Salvation is dependent upon at least one act–repentance. Forgiveness comes to those whom admit they are sinners. Salvation came to a man on a cross next to Jesus, because he saw Jesus as the son of God, while the other on a cross next to Jesus–simply saw Jesus, one of the more pathetic Jews making an impossible claim: Messiah!

God’s grace and faith, save us. There is a ‘simultaneous contrast’ of sorts between the two.

We work out our own salvation to the extent, that we remember, that we are sinners, that we confess before God, that we have sinned. Everyone has this opportunity to confess at least, at the time that we die and therefore, everyone has an opportunity for salvation at the time that they die–it at least, seems reasonable to conclude this: given judgement is both particular and general, and for all humanity.

 

[Kristopher]

Hence the True Church of Christ, according to the Protestant view, … Protestantism, therefore, substituted for the corporate organization of society, imbued with the spirit of the Mystical Body and reconciling the claims of personality and individuality of man, a merely isolated relation with our Divine Lord. This revolt of the human individual … /QUOTE]

You sound utterly confused. There was no revolt on the part of individual conscience: a protocol established by the Catholic Church was followed to the letter “T” by Martin Luther. The revolt both against God and man, which persists to this day, and has laid how many into their graves across 100 yrs. since your Pope Leo bore false witness against Martin Luther and therefore, coerced him toward violations of at least one Commandment by threatening, abusively, Martin Luther’s salvation.

What the protestant church in all its diversity, synonymous with the diversity of Catholics in terms of orders, resembles both to God and to man–surely can be nothing new under the sun: let alone to Judaisim, and to Catholicisim as it has stood across time.

The word “catholic” not for your edification, but to encourage respect; does mean: what is able to be practiced by all, at all times, and at all places–perhaps you deny this? The separation of Martin Luther from catholicisim was a fantasy all too tragically wrought by the Catholic Church: the error in judgement on the part of Pope Leo condemned whom? He failed to be the giant Catholicisim required of a pope. Martin Luther fulfilled it. The imitation of Martin Luther’s questions, now extant within any variety of Catholic Churches does bare witness to this. Sadly, the theft against Martin Luther and his writings, his works, remains incessant on the part of whom some say is Catholic. Not a benign act of cowardice on their part, but simply a continuation of the tragedy wrought by a single pope against his own Catholic member, and a priest whom was among many, with respect to the negligence of bishops, that condemned priests to The Old Testament, as opposed to the New Testament, and the fulfillment of The Great Commission on the part of Martin Luther to truly bring the people the Good News with a German translation–this too was a threat against Catholicisim.

One might transpose more accurately, more honestly, and more realistically your post to bring the question: what is Catholicisim to God, rather than–what is Protestantisim to God?

 

[Tomster]

Tomster;2169098:

Hence the True Church of Christ, according to the Protestant view, … Protestantism, therefore, substituted for the corporate organization of society, imbued with the spirit of the Mystical Body and reconciling the claims of personality and individuality of man, a merely isolated relation with our Divine Lord. This revolt of the human individual … /QUOTE]

You sound utterly confused. There was no revolt on the part of individual conscience: a protocol established by the Catholic Church was followed to the letter “T” by Martin Luther. The revolt both against God and man, which persists to this day, and has laid how many into their graves across 100 yrs. since your Pope Leo bore false witness against Martin Luther and therefore, coerced him toward violations of at least one Commandment by threatening, abusively, Martin Luther’s salvation.

What the protestant church in all its diversity, synonymous with the diversity of Catholics in terms of orders, resembles both to God and to man–surely can be nothing new under the sun: let alone to Judaisim, and to Catholicisim as it has stood across time.

The word “catholic” not for your edification, but to encourage respect; does mean: what is able to be practiced by all, at all times, and at all places–perhaps you deny this? The separation of Martin Luther from catholicisim was a fantasy all too tragically wrought by the Catholic Church: the error in judgement on the part of Pope Leo condemned whom? He failed to be the giant Catholicisim required of a pope. Martin Luther fulfilled it. The imitation of Martin Luther’s questions, now extant within any variety of Catholic Churches does bare witness to this. Sadly, the theft against Martin Luther and his writings, his works, remains incessant on the part of whom some say is Catholic. Not a benign act of cowardice on their part, but simply a continuation of the tragedy wrought by a single pope against his own Catholic member, and a priest whom was among many, with respect to the negligence of bishops, that condemned priests to The Old Testament, as opposed to the New Testament, and the fulfillment of The Great Commission on the part of Martin Luther to truly bring the people the Good News with a German translation–this too was a threat against Catholicisim.

One might transpose more accurately, more honestly, and more realistically your post to bring the question: what is Catholicisim to God, rather than–what is Protestantisim to God?

A little background information for you sir. Leo X having in 1517 entrusted the Dominicans with the publication of certain indulgences, Luther, a monk of vivid imagination and ardent character, feeling slighted probably by the preference given to an Order other than his own, began violently to attack what he called abuses and exaggeration of speech in the preachers of the indulgences. It was not long before he was carried away into attacking the institution of indulgences themselves, as well as the power of granting them; then urged on as he was by the logical consequences of a false principle, he passed from one error to another. Even at that time we find already formulated in his writings and sermons to the people that principle which was to play such an important part of his doctrinal system: faith alone produces the remission sins. It was only after long and laborious efforts made by Leo X, to bring him back to truth and obedience, that the bull of excommunication was fulminated against the rebellious monk. Far from submitting, the heresiarch caused the bull to be burned publicly at Wittenberg. From that moment the revolt was consummated, Protestantism had found its first apostle.

 

[Tomster]

Tomster;2169098:

Hence the True Church of Christ, according to the Protestant view, … Protestantism, therefore, substituted for the corporate organization of society, imbued with the spirit of the Mystical Body and reconciling the claims of personality and individuality of man, a merely isolated relation with our Divine Lord. This revolt of the human individual … /QUOTE]

You sound utterly confused. There was no revolt on the part of individual conscience: a protocol established by the Catholic Church was followed to the letter “T” by Martin Luther. The revolt both against God and man, which persists to this day, and has laid how many into their graves across 100 yrs. since your Pope Leo bore false witness against Martin Luther and therefore, coerced him toward violations of at least one Commandment by threatening, abusively, Martin Luther’s salvation.

What the protestant church in all its diversity, synonymous with the diversity of Catholics in terms of orders, resembles both to God and to man–surely can be nothing new under the sun: let alone to Judaisim, and to Catholicisim as it has stood across time.

The word “catholic” not for your edification, but to encourage respect; does mean: what is able to be practiced by all, at all times, and at all places–perhaps you deny this? The separation of Martin Luther from catholicisim was a fantasy all too tragically wrought by the Catholic Church: the error in judgement on the part of Pope Leo condemned whom? He failed to be the giant Catholicisim required of a pope. Martin Luther fulfilled it. The imitation of Martin Luther’s questions, now extant within any variety of Catholic Churches does bare witness to this. Sadly, the theft against Martin Luther and his writings, his works, remains incessant on the part of whom some say is Catholic. Not a benign act of cowardice on their part, but simply a continuation of the tragedy wrought by a single pope against his own Catholic member, and a priest whom was among many, with respect to the negligence of bishops, that condemned priests to The Old Testament, as opposed to the New Testament, and the fulfillment of The Great Commission on the part of Martin Luther to truly bring the people the Good News with a German translation–this too was a threat against Catholicisim.

One might transpose more accurately, more honestly, and more realistically your post to bring the question: what is Catholicisim to God, rather than–what is Protestantisim to God?

Talk about confusion. Here is just one example.

The conviction that the Eucharist is Christ’s real body and blood received it’s best theological formulation in the Church of the Fathers from the pen of St. John Damascene. Concerning the Eucharist he rebutted in advance Luther’s doctrine that Christ is present in the Eucharist in virtue of the ubiquity of his glorified body as attached to the bread in the moment of communion. The Eucharist, Damascene wrote, “contains the body which was received from the Blessed Virgin and indeed united to the divine nature. This does not mean that the same body which ascended into heaven has come down again, but that the bread and wine themselves are changed into God’s body and blood.” The bread and the body of Christ, he wrote, do not remain two substances in the Eucharist, “but become one and the same [substance].” Ans as if to contradict in advance Calvin and Zwingli, he wrote that what “the Lord said was ‘This is my body,’ not ‘This is a type of my body’.” No expert in Catholic catechesis can improve on the spiritual depth and seriousness of what Damascene wrote.

continued

 

[Tomster]

Belief the Real Presence was first called in doubt only during the 11th century when Berengarius proposed that the presence was only figurative. That only was real in the Eucharist, so he contended, that could be seen with one’s eyes and felt by one’s tongue. It was not until the so-called Reformers had come on the scene that the Real Presence was denied, although at this time Luther himself stuck to the traditional view: He wrote, in 1524, to the citizens of Strasbourg: “I am caught, I cannot escape, the text is too forceful.” He meant, of course, the words whereby Christ instituted the Eucharist. At the conference of Marburg, which the disreputable Landgrave of Hesse organized for the chief reformers so that they MIGHT achieve unity of doctine, Luther wrote with a chalk on the table at which he sat: “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” lest he be swayed from the obvious meaning of Christ’s words. The others did everything to sway him. Among the was Zwingli who did not find it inappropriate to denounce those holding that hallowed doctrine, with words such as these: “Listen you sow, dog, fanatic, learn what a fool you are.” It was this kind of Reformation which deformed some Christian minds.

Luther could not uphold his own view in a consistent manner. It is not so much the fact as his reason that is significant because it sheds a sharp light on why the Church, the Catholic Church alone is capable of carrying out Christ’s command that those whom he had sent should re-enact his will until the end of times. Luther was pressed not only by the obvious sense of the words, “This is my body,” but also by the inner logic of his having broken with the hierarchical Church. He, of course, claimed that he merely restored continuity with the primitive Church as it came from the Apostles. But he could merely leapfrog to that Church. The break was obvious for anyone to see. Indeed Luther made it flagrantly visible in his first great piece of anti-Rome propaganda, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church” (1522). There he also drew the new manner of celebrating the Eucharist without priests.

What Protestantism wanted and still wants is a Church of non-hierarchical continuity so that the principal of Private Judgment and subjective faith may reign supreme. But that rule puts an end to the reign of the Real Presence as well.

 

[down_under]

John 1:12,
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 3:16,
“For God so loved the world, [1] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:36
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Eph 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

John 10:9
I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Acts 4:12
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

Rom 10:9
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Acts 16:31
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.

1 John 5:12,13
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

There are obviously many more as well.

Could be wrong but I am pretty sure christ made a comment about even the deamons believeing. You might want to look that up as it seems to be a wrench in this theory of belief being enough you seem to have.

 

[down_under]

Been there, done that. God needs no human mediators to forgive.

As paul said “As it says somewhere in scripture” Recieve the holy spirit whos ever sins you forgive are forgiven them whos ever sins you hold bound are held bound.

The apostles were given the ability to forgive sins in the name of Jesus Christ. the was Christ’s way of getting that perticular job done. Don’t know how you get your sins forgiven but it is not done christ’s way. For that you have to be physicaly attached to the 12 wise guys christ appointed. I say 12 because the place judas was holding was filled rather early in acts. So there were 12 again. You can go ahead and look that up. Which of course implies and presoposes that as the other apostles died they were replaced by other able me of the remaining apostles choosing. This was christs method of passing down the word of god. Sorry Christ did not have the bible. It would be 350 years before it was put together and roughly a century after that before most people could at the same time afford and be able to read the thing. God passed his word to us through the church he established based on the apostles. And through the apostles he has passed all power and athority. So If you want your sins forgiven for sure you will have to go to them.
You might be able to have your sins forgiven through the mercy of god outside the church. but I cannot garentee such a thing. Now would anyone know with any certainty how to go about abtaining such forgiveness.

 

[down_under]

One or 2 verses questionable verses does not a primacy make.

We dont find that argument among the church Fathers until 3 or 4 hundred years after the Cross. alas, that is another thread.

actually we can demonstrate the primacy as early as the council of jerusalem in the bible, or if you dont like that the letter of clement which was early late first early 2nd century.