SPLIT: Catholics have no assurance of salvation

[StrawberryJam]

On the basis that the commentator agrees with his own opinion.

I am not accepting that as evidence in the way anyone defines the word evidence.

 

[Bengoshi]

You have admitted that you are adopting the opinions of persons outside the Apostolic Tradition. You have adopted extrabibilical traditions of men.

So what? The only difference is that I don’t consider anyone to be infallible unlike Catholics. Moreover, the author based his conclusions on Scripture.

 

[Bengoshi]

And, furthermore- on what basis does one have to rely with such trust in such persons?
On what basis?

Reason, my dear, reason.

 

[StrawberryJam]

So what? The only difference is that I don’t consider anyone to be infallible unlike Catholics. Moreover, the author based his conclusions on Scripture.

Serious matters can be boiled down to “So what?” when it comes down to differing interpretations of the bible?
Your protestant minister thought for you. He interpreted for you. Your bible was utterly useless to you if you take this position of argument. You do realize that don’t you?
Do you realize you have implicitly given him authority over your ability to simply read it for yourself?
Dare I ask if you actually have read it for yourself? Beggining to end? Minus the parts Martin Luther took out?
What conclusions were made? On what quesion?

 

[guanophore]

Question: “Why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler he could be saved by obeying the commandments?”

You are required to cite your sources here, Bengoshi.

Copying the work of someone without giving them credit is plagiarism.

This material looks familiar, so I am going to guess it is from here.

gotquestions.org/rich-young-ruler.html

 

[Bengoshi]

Fine. Explain who was their Bishop during the first century then. I want a full explanation from the point of Jesus suffering and bloody dying on the cross to whenever you pick up after that. I never see a Crucifix anywhere but a Catholic Church, or Orthodox Church.
Where is your Crucifix? Are you ashamed of Christ as the bible states some will be?

Do you want me to write a treatise on the subject? Demanding much? I’m sorry but I don’t have enough time to do so. We can know from Church History that there were originally five patriarchates and Rome was just one of them. In fact, it is the youngest patriarchate of all. It’s just that later on, the Bishop of Rome decalred himself to be the primate of all the other bishops and patriarchates. This is when conflicts within the universal church began. I don’t have the exactg dates with me right now but my source is the book “CHURCH HISTORY IN PLAIN LANGUAGE” by Dr. Bruce Shelley (2nd Ed.).

By the way, I do have a crucifix hanging in my room and I usually wear either a necklace or a lapel pin crucifix. I also know and attended some Baptist and Protestant churches with a huge crucifix displayed.

 

[guanophore]

No, I don’t agree with him on this point. The good deeds that will be burned up are thjose done with selfish or ungodly motives.

How can deeds done with selfish and ungodly motives be “good”?

I am having trouble making sense of that.

Sin will not cancel out our rewards bacause as you said, Christ has atoned for ALL of them.

Jesus’ sacrifice paid for our sins, but not all will accept the payment, so they will die in their sins. The nature of sin has not changed. Sin separates people from God. When we are baptized, an inheritance is created for us in heaven. Sin will not “cancel” this, but we will fail to be united to it.

No person is absolutely infallible all of the time, even only when teaching on faith and morals.

If they were, there would not be a need for the gift of infallibility, would there?

So what? The only difference is that I don’t consider anyone to be infallible unlike Catholics. Moreover, the author based his conclusions on Scripture.

All heretics base their conclusions on Scritpture. Basing one’s conclusions on Scripture and other people’s opinions about scripture does not prevent error.

Jesus said He would lead His Church into “all Truth”. This being the case, it seems clear that the Truth can be known.

Reason, my dear, reason.

So, in addition to throwing in your lot with extrabiblical opinions, you have placed your own “reason” above what God has revealed.

 

[Bengoshi]

Define the pope’s infallibility and the responsibility that comes with it if you will be so kind.
Primary Sources only please.

Vatican II’s Explanation

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

*Quoted from catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

 

[StrawberryJam]

Vatican II’s Explanation

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

*Quoted from catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Read it. What is your objection to what is plain and simple for anyone to understand? What are you attempting to “prove”?

 

[Bengoshi]

Can you please explain how this works? I have never heard of this, and I want to know if I can get any points!

Are they available to non-Roman Catholics also?

RC soteriology believes that salvation is by grace through faith and works.

I find it curious that the Scriptures talk about striving, working, and suffering.

Yes, as believers, we strive, work and suffer because of the love of and for God. Not because we want to earn enough points in order to enter heaven, otherwise, the motive will be selfish.

Can you give me a reference to Catholic teaching that explains how this is to be done?

Also, can you explain how anyone can “add” to Christ’s work on the cross?

That’s exactly it, nobody can add to what Christ did on the cross.

 

[Bengoshi]

You have been given misinformation about the Catholic Church, Bengoshi. Rome became a doctrinal center and prime among the Apostolic Sees in the second half of the first century. The faith of the Roman Church was already known throughout the world (as Paul attests in his letter to them). But when Peter and Paul both went to Rome and labored there to build up the saints, it gained the reputation of solidity in doctrine and practice. All this occurred about 250 years before Constantine was born.

Okay. Fair enough. However, that was only the case because Rome was the center of human civilization at that time. Now, it isn’t. So shouldn’t the United States be the center of Christianity now?

Also, your theory does not explain why all the Apostolic Sees that are not part of the Latin Rite have the same doctrines. These areas were never influenced by Constantine. How do you account for that?

Why are they separate then if you claim that the western and eastern rites have the same doctrines?

 

[StrawberryJam]

It is not selfish to expect salvation by not sharing with HIM in the cross? What?
Protestants make no sense to me at all.

You make no excuses for ignoring major points, and simply shrug them off.

You make fun of, and ridicule your catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.

You have no idea how that alone has caused me to continue to be agnostic.

I am not blaming you personally, I hope you realize that.

I am blaming catholics and protestants for this confusion the continue to dwell in and for some reason after 2,000 years still can not come to grips with.

And I am not right, for questioning both of you?

Have you risen to a level that you are above all that? That nitpicky stuff like evidence and science? That part?

What is it really about? I go to Mass - even though I do not believe.

Maybe you are correct- some (non catholic chrisitians) are born to be in eternal hell.

Maybe you are correct.

All you need to do to back this up, is a few bible verses.

Could they be out of context?

Who knows or cares today in this world, in a world where we can’t even teach evolution to kids.
Let’s keep them uninformed.



I thought catholics loved science and knowledge.

 

[Bengoshi]

How can deeds done with selfish and ungodly motives be “good”?

I am having trouble making sense of that.

That’s exactly why they are burned up!

Jesus’ sacrifice paid for our sins, but not all will accept the payment, so they will die in their sins. The nature of sin has not changed. Sin separates people from God. When we are baptized, an inheritance is created for us in heaven. Sin will not “cancel” this, but we will fail to be united to it.

Those who by faith accept God’s salvific grace, will be saved.

If they were, there would not be a need for the gift of infallibility, would there?

What?!

All heretics base their conclusions on Scritpture. Basing one’s conclusions on Scripture and other people’s opinions about scripture does not prevent error.

Jesus said He would lead His Church into “all Truth”. This being the case, it seems clear that the Truth can be known.

It is the Church as a whole who has the truth and not any individual person such as the pope.

So, in addition to throwing in your lot with extrabiblical opinions, you have placed your own “reason” above what God has revealed.

No, reason is just a tool given to us by God in order to understand His revelation.

 

[StrawberryJam]

That’s exactly why they are burned up!

Those who by faith accept God’s salvific grace, will be saved.

What?!

All heretics base their conclusions on Scritpture. Basing one’s conclusions on Scripture and other people’s opinions about scripture does not prevent error.

Jesus said He would lead His Church into “all Truth”. This being the case, it seems clear that the Truth can be known.

So, in addition to throwing in your lot with extrabiblical opinions, you have placed your own “reason” above what God has revealed.

Who are the heretics that base their conclusions on scripture?

 

[Bengoshi]

It is not selfish to expect salvation by not sharing with HIM in the cross? What?
Protestants make no sense to me at all.

Your question doesn’t make sense to me as well. Could you please clarify?

You make no excuses for ignoring major points, and simply shrug them off.

Like where?

You make fun of, and ridicule your catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.

Of course not! This forum is for academic and information purposes only. It doesn’t mean that we hate each other. I have lots of Catholic friends, some of them are even priests.

You have no idea how that alone has caused me to continue to be agnostic.

I’m really sorry to know that. My dad is an agnostic too but you are doing much better than him in that you are earnestly searching for the truth. You should pray to God to lead you to the Truth. Truth is a person, that is Jesus Christ. Catholics and Protestants may have differences in doctrine but we do not condemn each other. We do not say that one or the other is damned just for being one, except if you are a part of the cults. Roman Catholicism may seem cultic to Protestants but most of us do not consider the RCC as a cult. Protestants and Catholics agree on the essentials of Christianity, especially when it comes to the Trinity.

I am not blaming you personally, I hope you realize that.

I am blaming catholics and protestants for this confusion the continue to dwell in and for some reason after 2,000 years still can not come to grips with.

And I am not right, for questioning both of you?

Have you risen to a level that you are above all that? That nitpicky stuff like evidence and science? That part?

What is it really about? I go to Mass - even though I do not believe.

Maybe you are correct- some (non catholic chrisitians) are born to be in eternal hell.

Maybe you are correct.

All you need to do to back this up, is a few bible verses.

Could they be out of context?

Who knows or cares today in this world, in a world where we can’t even teach evolution to kids.
Let’s keep them uninformed.



I thought catholics loved science and knowledge.

Evolution has also been disregarded and refuted by a lot of scientists, so it is not a purely Christian issue. I think the books of Lee Strobel can help you out in your search. I suggfest you acqure the following books:

1. The Case For Christ
2. The Case For Faith
3. The Case For the Real Jesus
4. The Cse For a Creator

 

[paul_c]

Question: “Why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler he could be saved by obeying the commandments?”

Answer: To understand Jesus’ response to the rich young ruler’s question—“What must I do to be saved?”—we must consider three things—the nature of the rich young ruler, the purpose of his question, and the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. At first glance, it appears that Jesus is saying that the young man, and by extension all people, must obey the commandments in order to be saved. But is that really what He was saying? Since the essence of the salvation message is that we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), why would Jesus offer the rich young ruler an ‘alternative plan’?

The story of the rich young ruler is found in all three of the synoptic Gospels, Matthew 19:16-23, Mark 10:17-22 and Luke 18:18-23. The man is described as a “ruler” which means a prince or magistrate of some sort. Since no Roman ruler would address Jesus as “teacher” or “master” it is assumed that this man was a ruler in the local synagogue. This man had “great wealth” (Luke 18:23), and the impact of wealth is the lesson Jesus was teaching to His disciples. He was using this man as an example of the corrupting power of riches and its detrimental effect on the desire for eternal life. The fact that the man was young (Matthew 19:20) and already wealthy would seem to indicate that he had enjoyed a life of riches and ease and had become accustomed to it. When he comes to Jesus asking about eternal life, Jesus uses the opportunity to teach about money, not about salvation by works.

The first thing Jesus says to the man’s greeting “Good teacher,” is to remind him that no one is good except God. Jesus was not denying His own divinity. Rather, He saw beneath the flattery to the man’s heart which was self-seeking and self-promoting. He was attempting to curry favor with Jesus by falling on his knees before Him (Mark 10:17), complimenting Him, and ascribing to Him a divine attribute he never really believed Jesus possessed. Perhaps realizing his hypocrisy was perceived by Jesus, the man ignored His question, “why do you call me good? Only God is good.” Jesus, knowing the man’s heart and his self-righteousness, recited some of the Ten Commandments and told the man to obey them. This was not a refutation of His earlier teachings on salvation by faith. Jesus said this, no doubt, to try him and to convince him that he had by no means kept the commandments, and that in supposing he had he was deceiving himself. At this point, Jesus said the one thing that, knowing the man’s heart, would convince him that he was, after all, a wretched sinner in desperate need of salvation. Jesus points out the young man’s weak spot, his wealth.

The man’s heart condition was made poignantly clear by Jesus’ command that the man sell all and follow Him. His face fell and he went away sad because he could never part with his great wealth, not even in exchange for eternal life. By claiming he had kept the Law, the man was declaring that he had obeyed the first commandment to love the Lord supremely and above all things, including wealth. He was also saying he loved his neighbor more than himself. But if he loved God and fellow-creatures more than he did his property, he would be willing to give up his wealth to the service of God and of man. But that was not the case. He had made an idol of his wealth and loved it more than God. He had not kept the commandments from his youth, nor had he kept them at all. He rejected even this last opportunity to do good with his treasures and seek his salvation by obeying God, choosing to turn away from the Savior and not renew his inquiry about eternal life. He probably never returned.

By His words to the rich young ruler, Christ did not mean to say that any man would be saved by the works of the law, for the Bible teaches plainly that such will not be the case (Romans 3:20, 28, 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:9; 2Timothy 1:9). Rather, he was using the man’s wealth which had corrupted his heart, as an example to the disciples and us.

I fiind it so very curious that you and others like you can deny what Christ explicitly says. Jesus is asked point blank: What does it take to gain eternal life" Jesus responds, " follow the commandments". Do you think he meant these words only for the Rich man? If so, why would it have been included in all the synoptic Gospels? And remember, the first commandment is to love God above all else. That’s where Faith begins. You are only fooling yourselves when you twist scripture to say what you want it to say and you will be held accountable to the truth, not to your desires.

Oh, and by the way, the commandments are moral truths, not the works of the law that Paul is discussing in the quotes you make. Paul teaches his disciples to do good works as well and that they will be judged based on those works (See Romans 2: 5-10). The works of the law that he specifically mentions are circumcision and the dietary laws that were part of the Old Covenant and which were replaced with the New covenant by Baptism and the sacraments including the Eucharist.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
I guess, I for one, was misinterpreting your use of articles. I was presuming that you were quoting them because you thought that they were authoritative in some way. Instead, it seems that you are quoting them because they agree with you - but if that’s the only reason- why not just make the points yourself

Accept that none of them protray your view exactly and then you have to go back and disavow the sections you don’t believe, reducing the credibility of what you quoted originally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
The implications of these two positions are rather important. If you quote someone as an authority, it means you are subservant to their position. In that case, I ask what makes that person authoritative to you?

Ah, do you believe everything St. Paul wrote in his epistles is true, or do you pick and choose there as well. You see, in the Catholic Church, there are no new truths taught. What is taught by the Pope today, are the same truths taught by Jesus to the Apostles. He is the steward of the truth, Now granted there are new applications to the truth for new situations, but great rigor is taken when extrapolating what was taught to these new situations. Read any Papal Bull and you will see that this is done and explained thoroughly for the faithful and the non-faithful alike.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
If you see no one as authoritative, then I ask why you think you know better than anyone else the things that allow men to be saved.

If the Bible was so very clear and could not be manipulated by the words of men, then all Christians would still be Catholic. For instance, do you believe in the real presence in the Eucharist and that you need to partake of Jesus Body and Blood to be saved? If not, read John 6 again. And then read 1Corinthians 11: 23-34.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
For a Catholic, these things are easy. We follow the Pope and the magesterium’s teachings because we believe that they are the rightful successors to the apostles, appointed to teach the truth’s about salvation and administer the grace providing sacraments.

Except of course when that man is protected by the Holy Spirit as stated in Mathew 16: 16-19. What is impossible for man is easily achieved by God. And remember, what the Pope is doing is teaching what was handed down to him. He’s not making up new doctrine. The most he does is apply old doctrine to new situations. And as I stated above, this is done with the utmost care and I’m certain, significant prayer.

 

[Philthy]

Not really, because Protestants do not count their good works as “points” like the RCC does. We don’t even think about doing good works for they should come naturally without any effort on our part. I mean, it has effort of course but it doesn’t feel like it. In other words, we don’t feel as though we’re striving to do good works.

It all comes naturally and we work but we don’t know it’s work and it’s an effort of course but it doesnt feel like it, blah blah, blah. You don’t seem to really have any knowledge of the Christian walk, IMHO. You seem to be seeking to rationalize something that simply doesnt fit into your theological perspective and, to me, it’s pretty clear that you can’t do it.

Catholics, on the other hand, are ususally the ones who frantically work hard to earn enough points for salvation which they add to Christ’s work on the cross.

Oh sure, the Catechism is replete with the notion of working for “points” to “earn” our salvation… And how, exactly, do you distinguish between those who are “frantically working hard to earn enough points for salvation” from those who “don’t feel as though (they’re) striving to do good works”? Let me guess - you just ask them if they are Catholic and if they are you assume that it doesnt come “naturally” to them and if they answer anything else you just assume that it does. Some would suspect hypocricy in such a case. But again, I suspect that you are attempting to rationalize all the available information into your nice neat theological standpoint and, of course, you can’t do it! And rather than taking a step back and questioning why it doesnt fit if your theological perspective is true, you create nonsense like the statements above.

You are not doing the Reformed position any favors.

Blessings!

 

[mackbrislawn]

Okay. Fair enough. However, that was only the case because Rome was the center of human civilization at that time. Now, it isn’t. So shouldn’t the United States be the center of Christianity now?

For many people, the United States is the center of Christianity now.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Even those who do not “feel” assured of their salvation may still be saved. It’s just that they do not know that they are saved.

Okay. Thanks for the answer.

Now, how does one know if he is saved? How does God let us know of that assurance? And why does He withhold that assurance for those who are saved but don’t
know it?

And how does the mental state and anxiety of those who are saved but don’t know it differ from that of the damned?