Salvation questions from some Protestant brothers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Unique_name
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DiZent said:
40.png
Hodos:
Luckily no Protestant denomination that I am aware of holds to this doctrine.
Click to expand...
I’ve had this discussion with some of my Protestant friends who profess Once Saved, Always Saved. They tell me that when you accept Jesus into your heart, all your sins are forgiven - past, present & future - that if you sin again after accepting Jesus, you are already forgiven - there is nothing more you need to do
Click to expand...
My experience as well. “You’ve already been forgiven.” I’ve had that line parroted to me many a time before I become Catholic.

It’s a fool’s errand to even try to say what “all” Protestants believe. In my former baptist faith, all the individual churches are independent. The diversity of belief is staggering.
 
Last edited:
The teaching of Scripture says that there will be a
“falling away” from the Faith, some might claim that
Vat II is that!! But what about the Protestant Reformation?
Anyway, the “Man of Lawlessness” has NOT been revealed
yet so, IMHO the great Apostasy will be triggered by
an end time PERSECUTION which will cause many to
err and “believe the Lie”. see Matt. 24:12; 2 Thess. 2:1-12.
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
My experience as well. “You’ve already been forgiven.” I’ve had that line parroted to me many a time before I become Catholic.
Click to expand...
That statement is actually true understood in the context they are speaking about. Jesus did pay for all of your sins at the cross. They have been atoned for. We call that objective justification. This is why Paul speaks in the past tense when addressing atonement. What they may not be doing well is addressing the issue of subjective justification, and/or understanding that there are two kinds of righteousness (coram deo and coram mundo) and that Christians are called to be justified in both areas.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, the Church has an answer and a term for everything. To me, that’s beautiful.

Thank you all for your answers! I’ll look into the resources provided and mull over what you all have said.

A follow-up question is this: How would you respond to someone who says that saying “our teaching hasn’t changed, just our understanding,” is a cop-out answer?
 
Jen7 said:
It means the person has received sacramental baptism. Original sin was washed away, he is an adopted son of God, etc.
Click to expand...
I meant what does it mean that the person is part of the Cathoic church but not fully.
 
Unique_name said:
“our teaching hasn’t changed, just our understanding,” is a cop-out answer?
Click to expand...
Dont you think our understand changes as we get closer to God, but what He is teaching us is always the same?

I think so, as we grow our understnding changes…its not a cop-out its the truth.
 
Last edited:
Unique_name said:
A follow-up question is this: How would you respond to someone who says that saying “our teaching hasn’t changed, just our understanding,” is a cop-out answer?
Click to expand...
There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

this teaching has not changed. However, it has a greater depth of understanding. Many believed it meant you had to be a card carrying practicing member of the Catholic Church. But that understanding was limited in light of scripture and tradition. So the church delved deeper and expanded the understanding of how salvation comes through the Catholic Church.
 
annad347 said:
I meant what does it mean that the person is part of the Cathoic church but not fully.
Click to expand...
it means they have been properly baptized but that they are not a card carrying practicing Catholic. As there is only one baptism and only one church, a proper baptism makes you a member of the church.
 
Last edited:
Grace saves. The Catholic Church is the conduit for that grace.

Someone correct me if I am wrong… Anyone outside the Church who is to be saved will be saved by the Church.
 
Unique_name said:
That being said, pre-Vatican II, would the Church really have taught that they weren’t saved? (I’m not getting into once saved, always saved, I think my question is clear without diving into all that.) If the answer is that the Church did teach that they would not inherit eternal life, and changed at V II, then does that mean that the Church was wrong for 1950 years?
Click to expand...
No, but unfortunately things have definitely become more confusing since VII. Now there’s beliefs that we have a reasonable hope that all are saved, privileged vs non-privileged routes of salvation, whether the Catholic Church is THE Church, or does the Church subsist in the Catholic Church, Muslims worshipping the same God, God willing the multiplication of faiths and religions; is it any wonder it’s become so confusing.

My understanding is that the Catholic Church is the one true faith established by Jesus, outside of which there is no salvation. It seems like there are three main aspects to entering the Kingdom: Faith in Jesus, baptism, and receiving the Eucharist.

I’m well aware that God can save whomever He chooses outside of what He commanded, but we shouldn’t be telling non-Catholics that they are fine remaining outside the Church, because Vatican II says (fill in the blank).

So what happens to non-Catholics and our Protestant brethren? We don’t know. That’s between God and them. It seems wrong if Jesus commanded his disciples to go forth and teach and baptize, for them in turn to start finding other means for people to enter the Kingdom other than what Jesus commanded.
 
There were no other churches for 1500 years so when a person was ‘outside’ the Catholic church, they were not Christians or baptized. The word of God was preached from the pulpit, not available as a bible a person could have in their home.

Today we have people who have received baptism, read the word of God and pray every day to honor God with their lives. Vatican ll recognizes this.
 
Melcehzidek honored God prior to the Bible. He’s probably in Heaven too. But, he wouldn’t be if it were not for Jesus dying on the cross.

Yet. This does not imply that salvation exists without the Church.
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
40.png
Unique_name:
That being said, pre-Vatican II, would the Church really have taught that they weren’t saved? (I’m not getting into once saved, always saved, I think my question is clear without diving into all that.) If the answer is that the Church did teach that they would not inherit eternal life, and changed at V II, then does that mean that the Church was wrong for 1950 years?
Click to expand...
No, but unfortunately things have definitely become more confusing since VII. Now there’s beliefs that we have a reasonable hope that all are saved, privileged vs non-privileged routes of salvation, whether the Catholic Church is THE Church, or does the Church subsist in the Catholic Church, Muslims worshipping the same God, God willing the multiplication of faiths and religions; is it any wonder it’s become so confusing.

My understanding is that the Catholic Church is the one true faith established by Jesus, outside of which there is no salvation. It seems like there are three main aspects to entering the Kingdom: Faith in Jesus, baptism, and receiving the Eucharist.

I’m well aware that God can save whomever He chooses outside of what He commanded, but we shouldn’t be telling non-Catholics that they are fine remaining outside the Church, because Vatican II says (fill in the blank).

So what happens to non-Catholics and our Protestant brethren? We don’t know. That’s between God and them. It seems wrong if Jesus commanded his disciples to go forth and teach and baptize, for them in turn to start finding other means for people to enter the Kingdom other than what Jesus commanded.
Click to expand...
So often I wish that old time Catholics who are in their 80’s were more prominent in these online discussions to give some perspective of life before Vatican II. My mother is a font of knowledge regarding these things but can’t even turn a computer on let alone fathom online forums.

Before Vatican II it was understood that the Catholic Church was the True Church but by the same token there was not an overwhelming urgency to convert non Catholic friends and relatives because they’d be going to hell. Of course there were even back them scrupulous types who were very literally black and white in their attitude, but for the most part people of faith didn’t live or die on judging the souls of others.

One of the telling situations before VII was our embrace of the Billy Graham crusades. My mother said they were encouraged to go along when he toured Australia in the late 50’s, as a real man of God.

I think that I have grown up believing that you can both be a faithful, obedient follower of Catholic teaching, without judging the souls of others. They aren’t mutually exclusive positions.
 
annad347 said:
I meant what does it mean that the person is part of the Cathoic church but not fully.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that they’ve only received one of the three Sacraments of Initiation? (Baptism, Holy Eucharist, and Confirmation)
 
Jen7 said:
Perhaps that they’ve only received one of the three Sacraments of Initiation? (Baptism, Holy Eucharist, and Confirmation)
Click to expand...
Other churches offer that. I believe the Lutheran church I started going to have mentioned doing Confirmation. They do have Baptism and have Holy Eucharist.

Another church I went to did the Eucharist once a month, it sure about Confirmation, but I believe they do Baptism for adults…

Anyway if the church perform the three Sacraments of Initiation then you can receive salvation as a non-Catholic…correct?

Also every church Ive been too does confessions of sins but directly to God, and believe Jesus is our Lord and Savior.

Some people are making it sound like if you’re not Cathoic you’re not saved in the eyes of the Lord.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top