So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[PRmerger]

This is because as Protestants we believe in Sola Scripture.

Except as Protestants you can’t even agree on what Sola Scriptura means.

 

[PRmerger]

The difference is that I see the Catholic Church doing the same thing that Protestant churches do (applying principles derived from the Bible, reason, experience and tradition to make sense out of the gospel), whereas you think the Catholic Church is doing something else and is always guaranteed to get the fundamental/important issues right.

I understand what you’re saying.

But in the case of Catholics we have a living, breathing magisterium that can address the issues of today and apply them to the Word of God.

And we have the guarantee of Christ that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.

In the case of Protestants, what you have is essentially one fallible man telling another fallible man what the Bible means. And then this fallible man determines whether he finds it plausible, in which case he submits, or implausible, in which case he either forms his own church (in his own mind), or leaves to find another church which conforms to his own views. And when he does this he is really being a “good Protestant” because that is what the Protestant paradigm espouses–we get to read the Bible and determine for ourselves what to believe.

That is the epitome of submitting to the Church of the Almighty Self.

IOW: when I submit only when I agree, then the one to whom I submit is really Me.

 

[PRmerger]

But I want to clarify that I am not proposing a hard and fast rule either way concerning “where Scripture is silent.”

I hope you can see how problematic that is, ltwin.

What that means, when there is no “hard and fast rule” about what to do when Scripture is silent, is that all is either permitted or prohibited, based on the whims of the almighty self.

It would seem judicious that Sola Scriptura advocates apply a consistent principle to what to do when Scripture is silent.

Either something is not permitted, since Scripture doesn’t say it’s permitted.
Or it’s prohibited, since Scripture doesn’t say it’s permitted.

When one can apply it, inconsistently, and without any guide except what moves the individual at the time, it is a perilous paradigm indeed, allowing and prohibiting based on NO CANON AT ALL.

But if Scripture is silent about it, it certainly can’t become a universal or normative mandate for all Christians.

I haven’t seen anything at all in Scripture that mandates this. I have read Genesis through Revelation and have never read in a single page what we are to do when Scripture is silent about something. And I certainly never read that “it can’t become a universal or normative mandate for all Christians”.

That would mean, since Scripture is silent about its table of contents, that considering Hebrews to be inspired cannot be a normative mandate for all Christians.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I understand what you’re saying.

But in the case of Catholics we have a living, breathing magisterium that can address the issues of today and apply them to the Word of God.

And we have the guarantee of Christ that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.

In the case of Protestants, what you have is essentially one fallible man telling another fallible man what the Bible means. And then this fallible man determines whether he finds it plausible, in which case he submits, or implausible, in which case he either forms his own church (in his own mind), or leaves to find another church which conforms to his own views. And when he does this he is really being a “good Protestant” because that is what the Protestant paradigm espouses–we get to read the Bible and determine for ourselves what to believe.

That is the epitome of submitting to the Church of the Almighty Self.

IOW: when I submit only when I agree, then the one to whom I submit is really Me.

‏@DailyKeller Jun 7. “If your god never disagrees with you, you might just be worshiping an idealized version of yourself.”” ~Tim Keller.

 

[PRmerger]

‏@DailyKeller Jun 7. “If your god never disagrees with you, you might just be worshiping an idealized version of yourself.”” ~Tim Keller.

If this were Facebook I’d click “like!”

In fact, I just posted Keller’s tweet on my FB wall.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If this were Facebook is click “like!”

In fact, I just posted Keller’s tweet on my FB wall.

It was on my wall June 7th! I’m a big fan of Keller, I’d love to see him swim the Tiber.

In the meantime he’s doing a great job turning American Evangelicals back to the gospel.

 

[Telstar]

They are not wrong. They are following their covenant with God.

Absolutely. Score +1 for agreeance.

Because we have a better covenant. Our place in the covenant is not dependent on who our parents are or whether our physical flesh has been cut away or whether our bodies have been washed with water. This covenant is for all people, our hearts are circumcised, and we are washed clean by the Holy Spirit.

-]Score another +1/-] for agreeance… until we hit the part about water, so scratch that point. Yes, we do have a better Covenant, because it provides a more defined means of attaining salvation, which begins with Baptism. Which gives us all the more reason to want to include all of our immediate family in that Covenant, wouldn’t you say? Even though our salvation isn’t dependent on who our personal family is, we are still taught to see all of our fellow Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ. Not only are we to see them that way, but to actually think of them as being other members of the same Body of Christ, His Church. We become part of Christ’s Body through Baptism. (Dang, it’s hard to get away from that “B” word, isn’t it?) So, why wouldn’t we want to include our own children?

Without a doubt.

That’s a definite uch: ! So, score another +1 for agreeance!

Only we know that that outward sign does not make one part of God’s family. Circumcision is only of value to those who keep the law. For those who break it, their circumcision becomes uncircumcision. And those who are uncircumcised but keep the law are as if circumcized because circumcision is not outward but a matter of the heart.

-]Score another +1/2/-] for agreeance… at least on the first part, but then we find that negative on water thing, again. Because, our hearts are circumcised, and our souls are washed clean by the Holy Spirit, in Baptism. It is the outward sign that indicates the actual inner workings of the Grace of God in our soul, all made possible through the workings of the Holy Spirit, invoked by the prayers of blessing that are said.

Is there any guarantee that every soul that’s Baptized is automatically saved? Of course not. We still have to persevere in the faith that we’ve been given by the Grace and Mercy of God. We still have to work out our own salvation, “in fear and trembling”, until the end. Baptism gives us the grace we need to get started, and to keep on going. It makes no difference how old we are or where we start on our path. It’s all about what we do, and how we do it, along the way. As long as we keep growing in the faith and love of God, then we’ll make it through. There’s bound to be bumps along the road, but that’s what reconciliation and penance (with true repentance) is all about. It renews the graces that were given to us in Baptism.

I see no where in Scripture where we are commanded to baptize babies nor do I see in descriptions of baptism the purpose of making babies part of God’s family.

This is the biggest problem with a faith based on the Bible, alone. It doesn’t have all of the answers we need. It’s meant to be a rough guide (albeit a very good one), but it doesn’t have all of the ingredients necessary in the “recipe” for salvation. No doubt you can still make it, but it might not turn out to be quite as good as it could be. This is where Holy Tradition fills in the gaps and gives us the confidence we need to do it right.

If by that you mean outward baptism I don’t agree. Like outward circumcision, outward baptism is not enough to make someone a Christian.

“Outward Baptism” cannot be separated from “inner Baptism”. They are one and the same. The Catholic Church has never claimed that we are saved by Baptism, alone. We are saved by our active and ever growing faith and love of God, lived throughout our entire lifetime. Catholics don’t believe in OSAS. We have to persevere through hope, in faith and love, or it’s all for naught.

No, of course not. No evangelical I know of believes that infants are reduced to orphan status. Even if we wanted to “make” our children Christians, water baptism is not the means to do that. It is God’s grace that saves them a part from anything we can do ourselves.

But, isn’t that what they really are if they’re not Baptized? They are given to us as a free gift from God. Is there anything wrong with our offering their souls back to Him, so He can fill them with His Grace, and guide them in His ways, through their entire life on earth, for His greater glory?

Because the power of baptism is that the believer rises with Christ through faith. Baptizing them before they can have faith is really depriving them of what baptism is meant to be.

Infant Baptism is no less based on faith than adult Baptism is. The faith that begins in Baptism (offered for them by their parents) is nurtured and grows along with the child. Through the later Sacraments (The Sacrament of Penance [Confession], First Holy Communion, Confirmation, Matrimony, etc.) that they receive one step at a time, they will eventually build a sort of ‘stairway to Heaven’.

I guess it wouldn’t make sense if you think water baptism is what joins you to God’s family.

Exactly! :clapping:

Dang… I lost track of the score…

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I agree, for the most part (obviously, I believe that evangelical Christians are attempting to obey Christ’s commandments in just the same ways as Catholics believe they are attempting to obey Christ by being obedient to the Catholic Church).

The difference is that I see the Catholic Church doing the same thing that Protestant churches do (applying principles derived from the Bible, reason, experience and tradition to make sense out of the gospel), whereas you think the Catholic Church is doing something else and is always guaranteed to get the fundamental/important issues right.

I agree with one important difference: the Son of God established one Church, and identified so closely with that Church that He called persecution of that Church the same as persecution of Him.

So, it’s like establishing your own court and making decisions based on the Constitution, and comparing that court’s decisions to the Supreme Court’s. One is actually empowered to do so; the other isn’t. And the analogy fails in this respect: regarding the Church, we have divine assurance of divine authority.

 

[benhur]

Except as Protestants you can’t even agree on what Sola Scriptura means.

Just as we can’t agree on what catholic is.

 

[benhur]

I agree with one important difference: the Son of God established one Church, and identified so closely with that Church that He called persecution of that Church the same as persecution of Him.

So, it’s like establishing your own court and making decisions based on the Constitution, and comparing that court’s decisions to the Supreme Court’s. One is actually empowered to do so; the other isn’t. And the analogy fails in this respect: regarding the Church, we have divine assurance of divine authority.

Well we are getting our terminology mixed up. “Church” is the " called out", the Elect, the Body. That is what Christ associated himself closely with, and that is what gets persecuted. To have to put a "one’ or "apostolic’’ or “holy” is not necessary. Of course the Body of Christ is one, holy, and has apostles as our foundation. Now it is plain that our constitution says it is quite carnal to hold too much to differences beyond being "elect’’, "called out’’, like those who said I am of Peter or I am of Paul. Keep the main thing the main thing. Now on to secondary things. Your assumption is that today you are the supreme court,or that there is no ebb and flow . A bit like if Democrats were always in control of appointments of liberal interpreters, leaving out republicans and strict interpreters.Both types and both parties are part of The USA. Just as the Ecclesia has protestants and orthodox and catholics .

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Well we are getting our terminology mixed up. “Church” is the " called out", the Elect, the Body. That is what Christ associated himself closely with, and that is what gets persecuted. To have to put a "one’ or "apostolic’’ or “holy” is not necessary.

Right. There was only ONE Church. The Catholic Church.

Of course the Body of Christ is one, holy, and has apostles as our foundation. Now it is plain that our constitution says it is quite carnal to hold too much to differences beyond being "elect’’, "called out’’, like those who said I am of Peter or I am of Paul.

Right. We are COMMANDED to be of ONE FAITH.

Your assumption is that today you are the supreme court,or that there is no ebb and flow . A bit like if Democrats were always in control of appointments of liberal interpreters, leaving out republicans and strict interpreters.Both types and both parties are part of The USA. Just as the Ecclesia has protestants and orthodox and catholics .

That’s not what protestants have done. They have just arrogated authority to themselves (or tried to, or at least pretended to); authority that Jesus bestowed upon His Apostles and St. Peter in particular. It’s not like that Magisterium had been filled with people with different (protestant) opinions; rather, they started a whole new approach to determining the Truth that Jesus left with the Apostles.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Just as we can’t agree on what catholic is.

Sure we can. Pick up a Catechism.

You can re-define words all day long; that won’t change the actual definition of a word.

We’re not in Wonderland.

 

[benhur]

“Outward Baptism” cannot be separated from “inner Baptism”. They are one and the same. The Catholic Church has never claimed that we are saved by Baptism, alone. We are saved by* our active and ever growing faith and love of God, *lived throughout our entire lifetime. Catholics don’t believe in OSAS. We have to persevere through hope, in faith and love, or it’s all for naught.

"May we be made worthy of the promises of Christ " So subtle and yet, counterintuitive. Very conditional. I don’t know how half of the body is ever going to make to heaven. It it is so plain. You must be water baptized, confirmed, partake of the Eucharist, and fully confessed by an ordained priest. You know many of us don’t get past the baptism. Maybe it is better to be honest and say there is no salvation outside CC and maybe Orthodox

 

[benhur]

Sure we can. Pick up a Catechism.

You can re-define words all day long; that won’t change the actual definition of a word.

We’re not in Wonderland.

Whose catechism ? Which one ?

 

[benhur]

Right. There was only ONE Church. The Catholic Church.

Yes. I am of Paul and you …

Right. We are COMMANDED to be of ONE FAITH.

Right .What happens, or is the state of one believing that Christ came in the flesh and was raised up ?
What is the state of those who agree to apostles creed ?Is that enough today ? He does not change and there is nothing new under heaven . The Mosaic Law was what, 613 laws, which then “became” 1500 ordinances The more things change the more they stay the same.

That’s not what protestants have done. They have just arrogated authority to themselves (or tried to, or at least pretended to); authority that Jesus bestowed upon His Apostles and St. Peter in particular. It’s not like that Magisterium had been filled with people with different (protestant) opinions; rather, they started a whole new approach to determining the Truth that Jesus left with the Apostles.

No ebb and flow to your story. Come on, think OT. The reform was definitely new. But not like reinventing the wheel, but rediscovering it. The pendelum had swung back to conservatism so to speak. That is why many say they are “catholic” , an older catholic,closer to the "baseline’’ or center point .

 

[stewstew03]

Just as we can’t agree on what catholic is.

In what sense?

 

[stewstew03]

"May we be made worthy of the promises of Christ " So subtle and yet, counterintuitive. Very conditional. I don’t know how half of the body is ever going to make to heaven. It it is so plain. You must be water baptized, confirmed, partake of the Eucharist, and fully confessed by an ordained priest. You know many of us don’t get past the baptism. Maybe it is better to be honest and say there is no salvation outside CC and maybe Orthodox

“All salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body…”

 

[PRmerger]

"May we be made worthy of the promises of Christ " So subtle and yet, counterintuitive. Very conditional.

Indeed. It is conditional.

It is the deception of the Evil One to whisper that salvation is NOT conditional, which is, of course, contrary to the Scriptures.

I suggest you go to biblegateway.com, type in the very conditional word “if”, and see how many times it is mentioned in the Bible.

Yes. Very conditional.

To believe it is not conditional is to be duped by the Evil One.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know how half of the body is ever going to make to heaven.

The road is indeed narrow.

It it is so plain. You must be water baptized, confirmed, partake of the Eucharist, and fully confessed by an ordained priest.

That, plus all the other things that the Word of God proclaims are part of our salvation.

You know many of us don’t get past the baptism.

That makes it all the more important for us Catholics to evangelize to those who “don’t get past the baptism.”

Maybe it is better to be honest and say there is no salvation outside CC and maybe Orthodox

This is indeed true.

Outside the Catholic Church you cannot be saved, benhur.

 

[PRmerger]

Whose catechism ? Which one ?

Are there other catechisms besides the Catholic ones?

Where is your pastor’s catechism?