Protestants in Heaven without Confession?

[paul_c]

Quote:
=paul c;10163604]

The Pope’s authority doesn’t come from councils, council’s authority comes from the Pope. The Pope’s authority comes from Jesus. See Matthew 16 and John 21.

Nicea canon 6 -
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.
It seems to me that this is recognizing jurisdiction of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch as part of the Hierarchy which has at its head, the Bishop of Rome. Nicea Canon 6 doesn’t provide Rome with jurisdiction, it merely uses its jurisdiction as an example of the jurisdiction that it was affording the patriarchs in their provinces. We still have a hierarchy that represents archbishops as having jurdisdiction over the bishops in their territories

Quote:
I’ve seen no evidence that this is true but lets concede for a moment that it is. It still wouldn’t prove that Lutheran ordination is valid because the Pope and his designees define who has the faculty to ordain. Those priests that followed Luther separated themselves from the Church and from apostolic succession. That’s why when a Lutheran Minister converts to Catholicism, he must appeal to the Catholic Bishop to be ordained.

Bishops can ordain priests by the laying on of hands, only if the Pope recognizes his faculties. If the Pope excommunicates a bishop or otherwise restricts his faculties, any ordination that the bishop then performs would be invalid.

 

[paul_c]

First, I appreciate the kind words. Thank you.

I alluded to this in another post, but the foremost issue for me, right now, is universal jurisdiction. I see no evidence of it in the early councils, and none of the other patriarchates are willing to accept it, and they were there at Nicea. Now that said, they could be wrong, too, and universal jurisdiction may actually be true. So, who would I join?
Were this problem solved - reconciliation of east and west, I would be in RCIA the next day.

It is also important to mention that I was born and raised in the home of a Lutheran pastor, educated in a Lutheran college. In my late fifties, I am aculturated Lutheran. Making a change would not be done lightly, so as the phrase goes, here I stand.
But even that would not stop me under the conditions mentioned above.

Jon

Yes, undoubtedy to swim the Tiber under your circumstances would take extreme courage. And I also understand your east vs west dilemma. But I would tell you that there is only one universal church. When the Pope reaches out to the Orthodox, he has to reach out to many different patriarchs because the Orthodox have no distinct governing body… They are generally broken into national churches: Greek orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc. Good luck to you in finding your way into full communion with the Church that Jesus founded. Pope Benedict is working hard to bring the Orthodox back into the fold, which would make your decision easier. Perhaps that will happen but he has 1000 years of discord to break through… What about the movement of the Anglicans back into the Church. Does that have any weight with you? That was also seen to be improbable just a few years ago.

 

[Porknpie]

I’m actually surprised every time I see you on line that you haven’t already entered RCIA

In fairness to Jon…he could teach RCIA. If he wanted to enter the Church, if I were his priest, I’d take him immediately and then put him to work teaching RCIA and perhaps a bible study or two.

I know, that’s why I figure your coming home to Rome is only a matter of time.

Now that’s up to the Holy Spirit. Pray for him…and I hope he prays for me.

Fr. Mitch Pacwa says that God, the perfect judge, will judge all non-Catholics fairly in how they conducted their lives, he’ll judge their hearts and their pursuit of the Truth as they knew and understood it …by the dictates of their conscious…words consistent with the catechism:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

You can fault Jon but I won’t and will let our all-loving God be his judge. Jon, one thing I would say is that if you ever realized the OHACC was the Truth in Christ…then you’d have to put everything else aside and follow the Lord in that Truth…putting aside your upbringing, education & family history…you’d really like Eucharistic Adoration…I’m sure you’d sign up for the night hours between midnight and 4am.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Paul,

=paul c;10168072]Nicea canon 6 -
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, **since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. **Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.
It seems to me that this is recognizing jurisdiction of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch as part of the Hierarchy which has at its head, the Bishop of Rome. Nicea Canon 6 doesn’t provide Rome with jurisdiction, it merely uses its jurisdiction as an example of the jurisdiction that it was affording the patriarchs in their provinces. We still have a hierarchy that represents archbishops as having jurdisdiction over the bishops in their territories

It seems to me it doesn’t state the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction because it is understood his was the jurisdiction of the west, and that the jurisdiction of the others was equal in their’s to the Bishop of Rome’s in his. It say* the** like **is customary…*. It seems to be making an equivalency here, and doesn’t imply a greater jurisdiction for one over the other.

Bishops can ordain priests by the laying on of hands, only if the Pope recognizes his faculties. If the Pope excommunicates a bishop or otherwise restricts his faculties, any ordination that the bishop then performs would be invalid.

Where is he given this authority outside his western jurisdiction?
Canon 6 continues:
*And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail. *
No mention of the pope outside his own jurisdiction, that being the west.

Now , mind you, Paul, I’m not saying that the CC is wrong in its interpretation, as you put forth, only that since the other patriarchs dispute Rome’s interpretation, there is a conflict here that needs to be reconciled.

Jon

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JonNC,

The Canon does not say that the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction is the West. I believe brother Paul’s interpretation is correct - “Nicea Canon 6 doesn’t provide Rome with jurisdiction, it merely uses its jurisdiction as an example of the jurisdiction that it was affording the patriarchs in their provinces.”

In other words, the Council was simply establishing that the bishop of Alexandria had a jurisdiction that extended beyond his local diocese, in the same way that the bishop of Rome had a jurisdiction that extended beyond his diocese. This greater jurisdiction seems to be clearly delineated for the case of Alexandria in the Canon, but there is no mention of exactly what is the delineation of the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.

If we understand that the canon is simply describing a type of jurisdiction that goes outside of a bishop’s local diocese, then one can see that the Catholic understanding of a “universal jurisdiction” does not violate the canon at all (especially as the Canon itself does not actually delineate the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome).

How we understand this extra-diocesan jurisdiction (its function and actual extent) is obviously an issue among the Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

It seems to me it doesn’t state the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction because it is understood his was the jurisdiction of the west, and that the jurisdiction of the others was equal in their’s to the Bishop of Rome’s in his. It say* the** like ***is customary… It seems to be making an equivalency here, and doesn’t imply a greater jurisdiction for one over the other.

Where is he given this authority outside his western jurisdiction?
Canon 6 continues:
*And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail. *
No mention of the pope outside his own jurisdiction, that being the west.

Now , mind you, Paul, I’m not saying that the CC is wrong in its interpretation, as you put forth, only that since the other patriarchs dispute Rome’s interpretation, there is a conflict here that needs to be reconciled.

 

[mardukm]

Bishops can ordain priests by the laying on of hands, only if the Pope recognizes his faculties. If the Pope excommunicates a bishop or otherwise restricts his faculties, any ordination that the bishop then performs would be invalid.

Not exactly. The excommunication or restriction would be determinative of the licitness of the ordinations, not their validity. If they are illicit, they would have no effect within the Catholic Church. But the Church would still recognize their objective validity even if the bishop establishes a separate Church of his own.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JonNC]

Dear brother JonNC,

The Canon does not say that the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction is the West. I believe brother Paul’s interpretation is correct - “Nicea Canon 6 doesn’t provide Rome with jurisdiction, it merely uses its jurisdiction as an example of the jurisdiction that it was affording the patriarchs in their provinces.”

In other words, the Council was simply establishing that the bishop of Alexandria had a jurisdiction that extended beyond his local diocese, in the same way that the bishop of Rome had a jurisdiction that extended beyond his diocese. This greater jurisdiction seems to be clearly delineated for the case of Alexandria in the Canon, but there is no mention of exactly what is the delineation of the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.

If we understand that the canon is simply describing a type of jurisdiction that goes outside of a bishop’s local diocese, then one can see that the Catholic understanding of a “universal jurisdiction” does not violate the canon at all (especially as the Canon itself does not actually delineate the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome).

How we understand this extra-diocesan jurisdiction (its function and actual extent) is obviously an issue among the Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you, my friend.

Do you think, as important a distinction as this is, that if the council understood the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, that they would have used language that seems to equate the jurisdictional privileges of Rome and Alexandria? I wold think that this very important issue would have called for more precise language.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Thank you, my friend.

Do you think, as important a distinction as this is, that if the council understood the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, that they would have used language that seems to equate the jurisdictional privileges of Rome and Alexandria? I wold think that this very important issue would have called for more precise language.

Jon

I think that everyone at the council already understood the primacy of Rome, so it didn’t need elaboration. You are preconditioned to read it the way you do, just as we are preconditioned to read it as I defined it to you. Just another example of how tradition defines how we interpret Church documents.

 

[paul_c]

In fairness to Jon…he could teach RCIA. If he wanted to enter the Church, if I were his priest, I’d take him immediately and then put him to work teaching RCIA and perhaps a bible study or two.

Now that’s up to the Holy Spirit. Pray for him…and I hope he prays for me.

Fr. Mitch Pacwa says that God, the perfect judge, will judge all non-Catholics fairly in how they conducted their lives, he’ll judge their hearts and their pursuit of the Truth as they knew and understood it …by the dictates of their conscious…words consistent with the catechism:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

You can fault Jon but I won’t and will let our all-loving God be his judge. Jon, one thing I would say is that if you ever realized the OHACC was the Truth in Christ…then you’d have to put everything else aside and follow the Lord in that Truth…putting aside your upbringing, education & family history…you’d really like Eucharistic Adoration…I’m sure you’d sign up for the night hours between midnight and 4am.

I too am confident that Jon is a good man. But there is a reason that we are called to evangelize. Its because there is grace to be gained through the sacraments and there is the fullness of Truth in Catholic teaching. These are truly aids to the soul. Can non-Catholics gain heaven - yes, in exceptional ways. But is it the best and surest way there? No, that is through the Catholic Church. Not all Churches are equal.

 

[MJDorry]

So, would it be easier to be ignorant about confession completely. God wouldn’t be able to hold you accountable for something you did not know right ?

From the point of view of someone who does not wish to burdened by truth, I suppose this would be better, but to have this thought is to already know the truth so embracing the lie ex post facto is destructive. And in the grand scheme of things, our personal feelings aside, I think it is objectively better to know than not to. The truth can be a great inconvenience, but one that should reward sooner rather than later if you cling to it.

 

[Annie39]

The LCMS Church has confession and absolution! Good thing too

I am an ex-LCMS Lutheran and have never heard this. Where can I read evidence of this?

 

[Azygos]

The Catholic Faith is a gift from God. It’s better to know the Truth and to be a part of the Truth than it is to be invincibly ignorant.

 

[rellanor]

A key distinction between Catholics and Christians is the view of the Bible. Catholics view the Bible as having equal authority with the Church and tradition. Christians view the Bible as the supreme authority for faith and practice. The question is, how does the Bible present itself? Second Timothy 3:16-17 tells us, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This text tells us that Scripture is not “just the beginning,” or “just the basics,” or the “foundation for a more complete church tradition.” On the contrary, Scripture is perfectly and fully sufficient for everything in the Christian life. Scripture can teach us, rebuke us, correct us, train us, and equip us. “Bible Christians” do not deny the value of church tradition. Rather, Christians uphold that for a church tradition to be valid, it must be based on the clear teaching of Scripture and must be in full agreement with Scripture. Catholic friend, study the Word of God for yourself. In God’s Word you will find God’s description of, and intention for, His Church. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

A second key difference between Catholics and Bible Christians is the understanding of how we can approach God. Catholics tend to approach God through intermediaries, such as Mary or the saints. Christians approach God directly, offering prayers to no one other than God Himself. The Bible proclaims that we ourselves can approach God’s throne of grace with boldness (Hebrews 4:16). The Bible is perfectly clear that God desires us to pray to Him, to have communication with Him, to ask Him for the things we need (Philippians 4:6; Matthew 7:7-8; 1 John 5:14-15). There is no need for mediators or intermediaries, as Christ is our one and only mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), and both Christ and the Holy Spirit are already interceding on our behalf (Romans 8:26-27; Hebrews 7:25). Catholic friend, God loves you intimately and has provided an open door to direct communication through Jesus.

The most crucial difference between Catholics and Bible Christians is on the issue of salvation. Catholics view salvation almost entirely as a process, while Christians view salvation as both a completed status and a process. Catholics see themselves as “being saved,” while Christians view themselves as “having been saved.” First Corinthians 1:2 says, “To those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy.” The words “sanctified” and “holy” come from the same Greek root. This verse is declaring that Christians are both sanctified and called to be sanctified. The Bible presents salvation as a gift that is received the moment a person places faith in Jesus Christ as Savior (John 3:16). When a person receives Christ as Savior, he/she is justified (declared righteous – Romans 5:9), redeemed (rescued from slavery to sin – 1 Peter 1:18), reconciled (achieving peace with God – Romans 5:1), sanctified (set apart for God’s purposes – 1 Corinthians 6:11), and born again as a new creation (1 Peter 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:17). Each of these is fully accomplished at the moment of salvation. Christians are then called to live out practically (called to be holy) what is already true positionally (sanctified).

The Catholic viewpoint is that salvation is received by faith, but then must be “maintained” by good works and participation in the Sacraments. Bible Christians do not deny the importance of good works or that Christ calls us to observe the ordinances in remembrance of Him and in obedience to Him. The difference is that Christians view these things as the result of salvation, not a requirement for salvation or a means of maintaining salvation. Salvation is an accomplished work, purchased by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:2). God offers us salvation and assurance of salvation because Jesus’ sacrifice was fully, completely, and perfectly sufficient. If we receive God’s precious gift of salvation, we can know that we are saved. First John 5:13 declares, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”

We can know that we have eternal life, and we can have assurance of our salvation because of the greatness of Christ’s sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered or re-presented. Hebrews 7:27 says, “He sacrificed for their sins once for all when He offered Himself.” Hebrews 10:10 declares, “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” First Peter 3:18 exclaims, “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.” Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice was absolutely and perfectly sufficient. Jesus declared on the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30). Jesus’ atoning sacrifice was the full payment for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). As a result, all of our sins are forgiven, and we are promised eternal life in heaven the moment we receive the gift God offers us – salvation through Jesus Christ (John 3:16).

Catholic friend, do you desire this “so great salvation” (Hebrews 2:6)? If so, all you must do is receive it (John 1:12) through faith (Romans 5:1). God loves us and offers us salvation as a gift (John 3:16). If we receive His grace, by faith, we have salvation as our eternal possession (Ephesians 2:8-9). Once saved, nothing can separate us from His love (Romans 8:38-39). Nothing can remove us from His hand (John 10:28-29). If you desire this salvation, if you desire to have all your sins forgiven, if you desire to have assurance of salvation, if you desire direct access to the God who loves you – receive it, and it is yours. This is the salvation that Jesus died to provide and that God offers as a gift.

 

[Annie39]

I am an ex-LCMS Lutheran and have never heard this. Where can I read evidence of this?

The “this” to which I refer is the sacrament of Confession. Where can I read about this taking place?

Annie

 

[Annie39]

I am an ex-LCMS Lutheran and have never heard this. Where can I read evidence of this?

The “this” to which I refer is the sacrament of Confession. Where can I read about this taking place?

Annie

 

[paul_c]

A key distinction between Catholics and Christians is the view of the Bible. Catholics view the Bible as having equal authority with the Church and tradition. Christians view the Bible as the supreme authority for faith and practice. The question is, how does the Bible present itself? Second Timothy 3:16-17 tells us, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This text tells us that Scripture is not “just the beginning,” or “just the basics,” or the “foundation for a more complete church tradition.” On the contrary, Scripture is perfectly and fully sufficient for everything in the Christian life. Scripture can teach us, rebuke us, correct us, train us, and equip us. “Bible Christians” do not deny the value of church tradition. Rather, Christians uphold that for a church tradition to be valid, it must be based on the clear teaching of Scripture and must be in full agreement with Scripture. Catholic friend, study the Word of God for yourself. In God’s Word you will find God’s description of, and intention for, His Church. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

Interesting point of view. But not aligned with the facts. Indeed, when the Bible Canon was chosen in 382AD by Pope St. Damasus, the criteria used to define what was scripture included consistency with Catholic Tradition. So scripture depends on Church Tradition, not the other way around. And you quote 2Timothy as evidence of teaching from scripture, yet the New Testament was not in place at the time of this letter’s writing and many of the books had yet to be written, how do you explain that? Finally, if scripture alone is sufficient to teach us, rebuke us, correct us, train us and equip us, why do Truth seeking Christians come up with sometimes completely opposing views when reading the same scripture verse? In fact, isn’t it our Faith traditions that define how we understand scripture? And if this is true, have you considered who is the source of your particular faith tradition? Isn’t it the founder of your church? Why do you believe him over the teachings of the Church founded by Christ?

A second key difference between Catholics and Bible Christians is the understanding of how we can approach God. Catholics tend to approach God through intermediaries, such as Mary or the saints. Christians approach God directly, offering prayers to no one other than God Himself. The Bible proclaims that we ourselves can approach God’s throne of grace with boldness (Hebrews 4:16). The Bible is perfectly clear that God desires us to pray to Him, to have communication with Him, to ask Him for the things we need (Philippians 4:6; Matthew 7:7-8; 1 John 5:14-15). There is no need for mediators or intermediaries, as Christ is our one and only mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), and both Christ and the Holy Spirit are already interceding on our behalf (Romans 8:26-27; Hebrews 7:25). Catholic friend, God loves you intimately and has provided an open door to direct communication through Jesus.

Do you really think that Catholics don’t pray to God? You have been misled if this is what you think. I would also be surprised if you never asked for someone to pray for you since its part of most Christian traditions to do so? Do you ever pray for your children? That’s what we ask Mary and the Saints to do for us. But we much more frequently pray directly to God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[paul_c]

The most crucial difference between Catholics and Bible Christians is on the issue of salvation. Catholics view salvation almost entirely as a process, while Christians view salvation as both a completed status and a process. Catholics see themselves as “being saved,” while Christians view themselves as “having been saved.” First Corinthians 1:2 says, “To those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy.” The words “sanctified” and “holy” come from the same Greek root. This verse is declaring that Christians are both sanctified and called to be sanctified. The Bible presents salvation as a gift that is received the moment a person places faith in Jesus Christ as Savior (John 3:16). When a person receives Christ as Savior, he/she is justified (declared righteous – Romans 5:9), redeemed (rescued from slavery to sin – 1 Peter 1:18), reconciled (achieving peace with God – Romans 5:1), sanctified (set apart for God’s purposes – 1 Corinthians 6:11), and born again as a new creation (1 Peter 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:17). Each of these is fully accomplished at the moment of salvation. Christians are then called to live out practically (called to be holy) what is already true positionally (sanctified).

The Catholic viewpoint is that salvation is received by faith, but then must be “maintained” by good works and participation in the Sacraments. Bible Christians do not deny the importance of good works or that Christ calls us to observe the ordinances in remembrance of Him and in obedience to Him. The difference is that Christians view these things as the result of salvation, not a requirement for salvation or a means of maintaining salvation. Salvation is an accomplished work, purchased by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:2). God offers us salvation and assurance of salvation because Jesus’ sacrifice was fully, completely, and perfectly sufficient. If we receive God’s precious gift of salvation, we can know that we are saved. First John 5:13 declares, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”

So here’s what Catholics really believe about salvation. You must die in the state of grace to go to heaven. You get into the state of grace through baptism, which is freely given to all those that chose to follow Christ regardless of their previous sins. But baptism is a covenant relationship. To retain the graces of God, you must now do His will, loving God and your neighbor as yourself and avoiding mortal sin. If you fall from grace through mortal sin, you will be condemned to Hell unless you reconcile sacramentally though contrition (sorrow for sins), confession to a priest, and penance. God in his mercy has allowed this sacrament to be done as often as you are truly willing to come back to Christ. If you die in the state of grace, you will go to heaven. However if you still have a tendency to sin, you will go to purgatory first to purge that tendency from you because there can be no sin in heaven.

If you think through the Catholic view of Salvation, you will see that it is consistent with every verse of scripture you quoted. You will also see that its consistent with scripture verses you failed to quote, Like St. Paul’ s statements that God judges on the basis of a man;s work (Romans 2- 5-10) and his own point that he is working on his own salvation with fear and trembling. You see, your view, at its very essence, ignores the implications of sin. That is what Satan wants → for people to believe that their sin doesn’t matter.

 

[paul_c]

We can know that we have eternal life, and we can have assurance of our salvation because of the greatness of Christ’s sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered or re-presented. Hebrews 7:27 says, “He sacrificed for their sins once for all when He offered Himself.” Hebrews 10:10 declares, “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” First Peter 3:18 exclaims, “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.” Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice was absolutely and perfectly sufficient. Jesus declared on the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30). Jesus’ atoning sacrifice was the full payment for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). As a result, all of our sins are forgiven, and we are promised eternal life in heaven the moment we receive the gift God offers us – salvation through Jesus Christ (John 3:16).

You’ve got half the truth here. Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for the forgiveness of sins and everyone who asks sacramentally will be forgiven any former sins. But Jesus’ sacrifice was not made to condone our future sins. This is where you have been misled. Once you have been saved, you must live the life of a Christian. If you subsequently sin, you will be condemned. What did Jesus say in Matthew 7:21-23? Not all those that cry out Lord, Lord will enter heaven, but only those that do the will of the Father.

Catholic friend, do you desire this “so great salvation” (Hebrews 2:6)? If so, all you must do is receive it (John 1:12) through faith (Romans 5:1). God loves us and offers us salvation as a gift (John 3:16). If we receive His grace, by faith, we have salvation as our eternal possession (Ephesians 2:8-9). Once saved, nothing can separate us from His love (Romans 8:38-39). Nothing can remove us from His hand (John 10:28-29). If you desire this salvation, if you desire to have all your sins forgiven, if you desire to have assurance of salvation, if you desire direct access to the God who loves you – receive it, and it is yours. This is the salvation that Jesus died to provide and that God offers as a gift.

Yes, salvation is ours, but only if we cooperate with the graces that God gives us. If we turn from God through sin or fail to live up to our commitments to our fellow man, we will be condemned just as the Goats are condemned in Matthew 25 for failure to take care of the least of our brothers. Read the Gospels again in the light I’ve just offered you. It will eliminate all those conflicts in scripture which you have been consciously or unconsciously ignoring.

 

[Porknpie]

Rellanor,

You are engaging in plagiarism. It is on the banned topics list of CAF. It is also a type of lying which breaks a commandment of The Lord. I see word for word copying coming from here…

gotquestions.org/Catholic-Christian.html

This is a useful plagiarism check tool: dustball.com/cs/plagiarism.checker/

A key distinction between Catholics and Christians is the view of the Bible. Catholics view the Bible as having equal authority with the Church and tradition. Christians view the Bible as the supreme authority for faith and practice. The question is, how does the Bible present itself? Second Timothy 3:16-17 tells us, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This text tells us that Scripture is not “just the beginning,” or “just the basics,” or the “foundation for a more complete church tradition.” On the contrary, Scripture is perfectly and fully sufficient for everything in the Christian life. Scripture can teach us, rebuke us, correct us, train us, and equip us. “Bible Christians” do not deny the value of church tradition. Rather, Christians uphold that for a church tradition to be valid, it must be based on the clear teaching of Scripture and must be in full agreement with Scripture. Catholic friend, study the Word of God for yourself. In God’s Word you will find God’s description of, and intention for, His Church. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

A second key difference between Catholics and Bible Christians is the understanding of how we can approach God. Catholics tend to approach God through intermediaries, such as Mary or the saints. Christians approach God directly, offering prayers to no one other than God Himself. The Bible proclaims that we ourselves can approach God’s throne of grace with boldness (Hebrews 4:16). The Bible is perfectly clear that God desires us to pray to Him, to have communication with Him, to ask Him for the things we need (Philippians 4:6; Matthew 7:7-8; 1 John 5:14-15). There is no need for mediators or intermediaries, as Christ is our one and only mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), and both Christ and the Holy Spirit are already interceding on our behalf (Romans 8:26-27; Hebrews 7:25). Catholic friend, God loves you intimately and has provided an open door to direct communication through Jesus.

The most crucial difference between Catholics and Bible Christians is on the issue of salvation. Catholics view salvation almost entirely as a process, while Christians view salvation as both a completed status and a process. Catholics see themselves as “being saved,” while Christians view themselves as “having been saved.” First Corinthians 1:2 says, “To those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy.” The words “sanctified” and “holy” come from the same Greek root. This verse is declaring that Christians are both sanctified and called to be sanctified. The Bible presents salvation as a gift that is received the moment a person places faith in Jesus Christ as Savior (John 3:16). When a person receives Christ as Savior, he/she is justified (declared righteous – Romans 5:9), redeemed (rescued from slavery to sin – 1 Peter 1:18), reconciled (achieving peace with God – Romans 5:1), sanctified (set apart for God’s purposes – 1 Corinthians 6:11), and born again as a new creation (1 Peter 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:17). Each of these is fully accomplished at the moment of salvation. Christians are then called to live out practically (called to be holy) what is already true positionally (sanctified).

The Catholic viewpoint is that salvation is received by faith, but then must be “maintained” by good works and participation in the Sacraments. Bible Christians do not deny the importance of good works or that Christ calls us to observe the ordinances in remembrance of Him and in obedience to Him. The difference is that Christians view these things as the result of salvation, not a requirement for salvation or a means of maintaining salvation. Salvation is an accomplished work, purchased by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:2). God offers us salvation and assurance of salvation because Jesus’ sacrifice was fully, completely, and perfectly sufficient. If we receive God’s precious gift of salvation, we can know that we are saved. First John 5:13 declares, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”.

 

[Slaney]

You can’t protest in Heaven if your a Protestant, protesting & Heaven don’t get along…