Split: Debate: Catholic Vs Non-Catholic Soteriology

[sandusky]

Cat:

So why do YOU feel it is necessary to try to persuade Catholics that their Church is in error? Are you getting some kind of reward in heaven for this? Can’t you just accept Catholics as fellow Christians who practice their faith differently than you do and rejoice with them?

I don’t know much about Evelyn Christenson, I know that Gary Smalley is more of a psychologist than a theologian, and that Bill Bright and Billy Graham were/are extremely ecumenical in their approach.

It seems to me that you listened much to those mentioned above, but that you did not listen much to Erwin Lutzer (with and “E” not an “I”).

Here is his answer to your question, (and probably why you crossed the Tiber), from the introduction to his book, The Doctrines that Divide, A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians.

Lutzer says,”…some of God’s sheep cannot tell the difference between grass and Astroturf! In the midst of this doctrinal vacuum we hear pleas for unity…Ecumenism is receiving much support in our day, even in the public press. We’ve all read accounts telling us that the Roman Catholic understanding of justification is really much closer to Lutheranism than generally thought. The optimists are predicting a merger of at least some Protestant denominations with the church of Rome. To quote George Cary in his book A Tale of Two Churches, “I have high hopes not only for an increase in mutual understanding but also for the eventual reunion of the two streams of Western Christendom.”

When the Reformation began in the 16th century, the Roman Catholic hierarchy predicted that once Christendom began to split, there would be no end to the fragmentation. A glance through a roster listing all of the denominations in the U.S. today demonstrates this prophecy was fulfilled…

Understandably, some would like to turn the clock back to pre-Reformation days, when the Western church was one monolithic organizational structure…

But to speak of unity and to minimize the doctrinal differences is to sacrifice truth on the altar of wishful thinking. Unity, unless it is based on agreement regarding the content of the gospel, would not be worth the price. To this day, irreconcilable differences exist within Christendom on the most fundamental teaching of the gospel. As the chapters of this book will show, two divergent answers are still given to the question: What must I do to be saved?

There is no need to repent for doctrinal differences if the truth of the gospel is at stake…There is no such thing as a harmless addition to the gospel…Without agreement on this central point, all attempts at unity are misguided.

Let me also say emphatically that the body of Christ is not broken. The unity for which Christ prayed has been granted by the Father. All true believers are members of Christ’s body, which is indivisible. Paul did urge us to “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3), but it was not organizational unity that he had in mind. The unity of the Spirit exists among believers despite their doctrinal differences. That we should maintain it, but not create it, was Paul’s plea….Lutzer’s book is a very reasonable look at the differences posed in the questions: Was Mary the Mother of God? Was Peter the first Pope? Justification: By Faith, Sacraments, or both? Why Can’t we agree about the Lord’s Supper? Why Can’t we agree about baptism? Predestination or Free Will: Augustine v. Pelaguis, Luther v. Erasmus, Calvin v. Arminius, Whitefield v. Wesley; Can a Saved Person Ever Be lost? Lutzer is decidedly Reformed in his theology. He is an excellent preacher as well.

I left the Catholic Church more than 40 years ago because of the CC’s answer to the question: What must I do to be saved? It was many more years before I found out the truth, but God in his grace did show it to me: Grace alone, Faith alone, Scripture alone, Christ alone, Glory to God alone.

 

[whosebob]

I left the Catholic Church more than 40 years ago because of the CC’s answer to the question: What must I do to be saved?

JMJ + OBT​

Sandusky, I enjoyed reading your post and the quotes you provided; please provide in your own words and also with documentation “the CC’s answer to the question: What must I do to be saved?”

It was many more years before I found out the truth, but God in his grace did show it to me: Grace alone, Faith alone, Scripture alone, Christ alone, Glory to God alone.

Now let’s see …

Grace alone. Yep, CC agrees. The CC in the Catechism has this to say about the Holy Spirit, who is uncreated Grace, “grace” with a capital “G”, who is the Author of all actual graces and sanctifying grace and other special graces:The Holy Spirit is “the principle of every vital and truly saving action in each part of the Body.”(Pius XII, encyclical, Mystici Corporis, DS 3808.) He works in many ways to build up the whole Body in charity (Cf. Eph 4:16): by God’s Word “which is able to build you up”(Acts 20:32); by Baptism, through which he forms Christ’s Body(Cf. 1 Cor 12:13); by the sacraments, which give growth and healing to Christ’s members; by “the grace of the apostles, which holds first place among his gifts”(Lumen Gentium 7 § 2); by the virtues, which make us act according to what is good; finally, by the many special graces (called “charisms”), by which he makes the faithful “fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church.”(LG 12 § 2; cf. Apostolicam Actuositatem 3.) CCC 798]

Faith alone. Without faith it is impossible to please God – that’s what the Bible teaches (Letter to the Hebrews), and the CC sure agrees with it. A man or woman that responds to God’s loving initiative (which may come by various means: a sermon on TV, a neighbor, family member, or friend, a book or magazine, etc.) with repentance and faith will receive His grace; even that response is not apart from grace or made without it. The Catholic understanding is that this faith is consummated by reception of the Sacraments, which reception is not a “work” but rather an act of faith in Christ and His promises, those outward signs being Our Lord’s choice means by which to impart sanctifying grace. BUT following upon his initial justification (for example, following upon Baptism), it is unbiblical to hold that nothing else on the part of the believer is involved in the working out of his salvation-justficiation-sanctification. St. James settled that question in his letter: You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:22-24) [emphasis mine]

Scripture alone. Sorry, St. Paul taught otherwise: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. (2 Thess. 3:6) I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (1 Tim. 3:14-15) So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess 2:15) [emphasis mine] The fullness of Divine Revelation – Sacred Scripture + Apostolic Tradition – is what the Catholic Church has faithfully transmitted down to the present day, and has clarified at times by virtue of its teaching authority, or Magisterium.

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

Christ alone. Yes, the CC agrees with that!!! Here is a beautiful quote right from the start of the Catechism: “FATHER, . . . this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”(Jn 17:3) “God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”(1 Tim 2:3-4) “There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”(Acts 4:12) - than the name of JESUS. [CCC Prologue] The thing is, outside of the CC you’re missing out on much of what Christ wants you to have; you are especially missing out on being able to receive His very Self – His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity as given to us in the Eucharist, and in the great flood of graces He makes available to us by our being present at the re-presentation of His Sacrifice on Calvary during Holy Mass.

Glory to God alone. Yep, the CC agrees with that alright – God alone is to be adored! We do however honor the memories of God’s holy ones who have gone before us (as did the author of the Letter to the Hebrews, for example), whose souls alive in Heaven behold God face to face and offer prayers on our behalf (as described in St. John’s Apocalypse); by the same power of the Holy Spirit that enables us to pray directly to God, our needs and requests can be made known in prayer to the Saints in Heaven, and we are no more wasting our time or putting an obstacle between us and God than if we ask another person presently living on earth to pray for us.

====================

You might find this helpful: ScriptureCatholic.com

Study the Catholic Faith, but from the sources, not from some pre-digested material which misrepresents it! When you are ready – and I’m praying that will be soon – you are only one good sacramental confession away from being reunited with the Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church.

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[apophasis]

JMJ + OBT​

Sandusky, I enjoyed reading your post and the quotes you provided; please provide in your own words and also with documentation “the CC’s answer to the question: What must I do to be saved?”

How’s this idea? You read Lutzer’s book on the doctrines that divide.

 

[whosebob]

How’s this idea? You read Lutzer’s book on the doctrines that divide.

JMJ + OBT​

Huh? I don’t have that book, and I doubt my local library carries it, but I can easily look at all sorts of sources for Catholic teaching, freely available on-line: Sacred Scripture, the Catechism, documents of Vatican II and other councils, enyclicals and other writings of the Popes. There are also other valuable resources like the Catholic Encyclopedia, the lives and writings of the Saints, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and more – many of those can be found on-line too. I would give all the hyperlinks but I’m almost done with CAF for the night and just don’t have the energy to do so at the moment; but see my homepage for links to many of the resources I just mentioned.

I was asking him for him to state in his own words his understanding of what it is that the Catholic Church teaches you have to do to be saved … or however it was he phrased it. What is your understanding of the same? (I see you indentify yourself as a Protestant in your CAF profile.) If he or you can provide a quote from Lutzer’s book to the same effect, then that would be great! Seriously, I would appreciate it, I’m not being glib.

But why would I read a secondary source which quite obviously misrepresents the teachings of the Catholic Church in order to try and come to a conclusion about the Church’s teachings??? That doesn’t make sense. Again, if I want to know what the Church teaches, then I go to the source – AND YOU SHOULD TOO!!!

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[apophasis]

Here is his answer to your question, (and probably why you crossed the Tiber), from the introduction to his book, The Doctrines that Divide, A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians.… As the chapters of this book will show, two divergent answers are still given to the question: What must I do to be saved?

Sandusky, thank you for this post. Enlightening as always!

I think a very simple, yet fundamental difference is that in Catholicism the main question is “What must I do to be Catholic?,” whereas the Reformation exhumed the age old question, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), and responded with the age old Pauline answer: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved…” (v. 31).

Which question demonstrates the greater love?

 

[apophasis]

JMJ + OBT​

Huh? I don’t have that book, and I doubt my local library carries it,

You could go out and buy it.

I was asking him for him to state in his own words his understanding of what it is that the Catholic Church teaches you have to do to be saved … or however it was he phrased it. What is your understanding of the same? (I see you indentify yourself as a Protestant in your CAF profile.) If he or you can provide a quote from Lutzer’s book to the same effect, then that would be great! Seriously, I would appreciate it, I’m not being glib.

Better yet, you tell me in your own words what you think your church teaches you must do to be saved.

But why would I read a secondary source which quite obviously misrepresents the teachings of the Catholic Church in order to try and come to a conclusion about the Church’s teachings??? That doesn’t make sense.

How do you know it “misrepresents” if you haven’t read it? That doesn’t make sense. You seem to be saying that the only difference between Catholic and Protestant soteriology is the Protestant’s misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. The Reformers (like Luther) just didn’t understand the Catholic faith (even though he was extremely well educated in Catholic theolgy). Is that what you’re saying?

 

[whosebob]

I think a very simple, yet fundamental difference is that in Catholicism the main question is “What must I do to be Catholic?,” whereas the Reformation exhumed the age old question, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), and responded with the age old Pauline answer: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved…” (v. 31).

Which question demonstrates the greater love?

JMJ + OBT​

Until his death, any man – whether he be a justified Bible-believing Christian or an in-your-face hedonistic pagan – has the freedom to commit sins that offend God, even to the extent that were he beforehand an adopted son of God, a “son in the Son,” he would no longer have God dwelling within his soul after his free and grave act of disobedience.

Here is a capsulization, straight from the Catechism, of the Church’s teaching of what is required of any man, may he become a Christian, that he be saved:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1691 - 1696, 1700

1691 “Christian, recognize your dignity and, now that you share in God’s own nature, do not return to your former base condition by sinning. Remember who is your head and of whose body you are a member. Never forget that you have been rescued from the power of darkness and brought into the light of the Kingdom of God.”[1a]

1692 The Symbol of the faith confesses the greatness of God’s gifts to man in his work of creation, and even more in redemption and sanctification. What faith confesses, the sacraments communicate: by the sacraments of rebirth, Christians have become “children of God,”[2] “partakers of the divine nature.”[3] Coming to see in the faith their new dignity, Christians are called to lead henceforth a life “worthy of the gospel of Christ.”[4] They are made capable of doing so by the grace of Christ and the gifts of his Spirit, which they receive through the sacraments and through prayer.

1693 Christ Jesus always did what was pleasing to the Father,[5] and always lived in perfect communion with him. Likewise Christ’s disciples are invited to live in the sight of the Father “who sees in secret,”[6] in order to become “perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.”[7]

1694 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, Christians are “dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” and so participate in the life of the Risen Lord.[8] Following Christ and united with him,[9] Christians can strive to be “imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love”[10] by conforming their thoughts, words and actions to the “mind . . . which is yours in Christ Jesus,”[11] and by following his example.[12]

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

1695 “Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God,”[13] “sanctified . . . [and] called to be saints,”[14] Christians have become the temple of the Holy Spirit.[15] This “Spirit of the Son” teaches them to pray to the Father[16] and, having become their life, prompts them to act so as to bear “the fruit of the Spirit”[17] by charity in action. Healing the wounds of sin, the Holy Spirit renews us interiorly through a spiritual transformation.[18] He enlightens and strengthens us to live as “children of light” through “all that is good and right and true.”[19]

1696 The way of Christ “leads to life”; a contrary way “leads to destruction.” The Gospel parable of the two ways remains ever present in the catechesis of the Church; it shows the importance of moral decisions for our salvation: “There are two ways, the one of life, the other of death; but between the two, there is a great difference.”[21]

1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article 7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son[1b] to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.

1a St. Leo the Great, Sermo 22 in nat. Dom., 3L 54,192C.
2 Jn 1:12; 1 Jn 3:1.
3 2 Pet 1:4.
4 Phil 1:27.
5 Cf. Jn 8:29.
6 Mt 6:6.
7 Mt 5:48.
8 Rom 6:11 and cf. 6:5; cf. Col 2:12.
9 Cf. Jn 15:5.
10 Eph 5:1-2.
11 Phil 2:5.
12 Cf. Jn 13:12-16.
13 2 Cor 6:11.
14 1 Cor 1:2.
15 Cf. 1 Cor 6:19.
16 Cf. Gal 4:6.
17 Gal 5:22,25.
18 Cf. Eph 4:23.
19 Eph 5:8, 9.
20 Mt 7:13; cf. Deut 30:15-20.
21 Didache 1,1:SCh 248, 140.
1b Lk 15:11-32.

I will conclude with a quote from St. Matthew’s Gospel:

[A]nd you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. (Matthew 10:22 [RSV])

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[whosebob]

You could go out and buy it. Better yet, you tell me in your own words what you think your church teaches you must do to be saved.

JMJ + OBT​

I just did, in my response posted prior to this one.

How do you know it “misrepresents” if you haven’t read it?

By virtue of the fact that it says the teaching of the Catholic Church is contrary to the teachings contained in Sacred Scripture. For one, I’ve read the entire Catechism (the one I’ve been linking to) from cover to cover as well as the entire Holy Bible, and from my experience there is absolutely no contradiction.

That doesn’t make sense. You seem to be saying that the only difference between Catholic and Protestant soteriology is the Protestant’s misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. The Reformers (like Luther) just didn’t understand the Catholic faith (even though he was extremely well educated in Catholic theolgy). Is that what you’re saying?

The Reformers either misunderstood Catholic teaching and propagated contrary teachings of their own devising, per their personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture, in good conscience. Or they understood the Catholic Faith perfectly well and chose to advance their own contrary personal teachings, based on their personal interpretations of Sacred Scripture, in a free and sinful manner. Either way they propagated heresies. Whatever the case, I pray that Our Lord had mercy on their souls when they died and that I will embrace them as brothers in Christ when, God willing and according to His Mercy, my life on Earth comes to its end.

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Church_Militant]

Sandusky, thank you for this post. Enlightening as always!

I think a very simple, yet fundamental difference is that in Catholicism the main question is "What must I do to be Catholic?

," whereas the Reformation exhumed the age old question, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), and responded with the age old Pauline answer: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved…” (v. 31).

Which question demonstrates the greater love?This is baloney, (with apologies to the lunch meat…). I could bury you in references that refute this abysmally ignorant mistatement, but I’ll let Whosebob’s posts do that for me. (Well done by the way Bro! :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Suffice it to say that there is no difference. [SIGN]To be a faithful Catholic is to be a faithful Christian[/SIGN]

You know I am so tired of this, really I am. I am Catholic. I believe in all She teaches. I have a personal and real relationship with Jesus. NOT in spite of but because I am a believing Catholic. I read my Bible and Pray. At the very least I start and end my day in prayer. NOT in spite of, but because I am a believing Catholic. I am a Christian. NOT in spite of, but because I am a believing Catholic.

I fully agree with you Stephen, and that is precisely what I mean with my post above. It’s hard to discuss things with the clueless who are convinced that they are not.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[happygal]

What I want to know is why Protestants try to convince Catholics that our “religion” is false and that we need to “become Christians?”

→ Hm at least my church never teaches that Catholicism was false, but it was a Catholic frez who told me that my church was having a false teaching…

When I was Protestant, I never did this. I accepted Catholics as true Christians.

→ Me too, i never see Catholic are non Christian, however it was my RCIA Priest who wanted to address me as Christian he as Catholic, so i never bother about how he wanted to address me since he never wanted to acknowledge he is actually a Christian Catholic

I read Jack T. Chick’s tracts about Catholicism and realized that they were fiction. I still liked a lot of the other Jack T. Chick tracts (Somebody Loves You is excellent.) But I didn’t go along with everything JTC said or wrote.

I read other Protestant apologies against Catholicism, and I never believed them. I knew Catholics and I knew that the stuff in those apologies wasn’t true.

I personally think the devil must be laughing his head off. He is convincing Christians to witness to Catholics, who are fellow Christians, instead of pagans who are lost in their sins and don’t know Jesus. Tragic.

→ This i 100% agree with you, that is why from all my previous post here in this forum, i have emphasizing the needs to get the unchurch to church and not getting those who are churched to change church, but i can understand the situation in America is alittle different where majority of you are either Christian/Catholic with only a handful are none believes. I am staying in a country where mostly are buddhist thus Christian here have more work to do to get those unchurch then the other way around. My greatest task is getting my parent save since they are very very skeptical about Christianity.

 

[VociMike]

You totally missed the point I was trying to make. I know that nobody burns heretics now. You might think I am stupid, but I really am not.

No, I don’t think you are stupid. And I apologize for not understanding your point.

My point was that heresy is such a serious charge, that in times past both Catholics and the Reformed persecuted and killed those it deemed heretics. Although that is not done now, I doubt whether the gravity of heresy has been diminished.

Against that background, I linked a prominent Catholic web page that charged Protestantism as being a great heresy.

Well it seems obvious to me that each side thinks the other is teaching heresy. The only other alternative is that one side thinks the other is teaching error but that the error is insignificant. That’s the lukewarm realm that is afraid to insist that true is true, and false is false.

But saying that the other side is teaching heresy is not the same as calling the Catholic Church the whore, the beast, or calling the Eucharist the Death Cookie, or claiming that all believing Catholics are going to hell. The latter are signs not just of serious disagreement, but of hatred. And you just don’t find that in any serious or organized form on the Catholic side, as you do on the Protestant side.

 

[maurin]

Sandusky, thank you for this post. Enlightening as always!

I think a very simple, yet fundamental difference is that in Catholicism the main question is “What must I do to be Catholic?,” whereas the Reformation exhumed the age old question, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), and responded with the age old Pauline answer: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved…” (v. 31).

Which question demonstrates the greater love?

Apophasis,

You clearly misunderstand what it means to be Catholic.

You think that sola Ecclesia has nothing to do with Jesus. Quite on the contrary. Jesus founded the Church on the Rock who is Peter. Jesus guaranteed that He is with the Church to the end of the ages. Jesus guaranteed that the gates of hell will never prevail. The Church is the Bride of Christ (have you ever considered all the implications of the meaning of ‘Bride?’). Sola Ecclesia means sola Iesu. As in Jesus’ teaching on Marriage, when a person gives his life to Christ, “the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” To understand differently understands Christ as a liar, and the Holy Spirit ineffective.

With that understanding, sola Ecclesia is a compliment, not an insult.

And the Church is ALWAYS in need of reform. We are Pilgrims on a journey together. And I agree with a poster who said earlier on this thread that those who enter or re-enter Jesus’ Church from other Christian backgrounds bring much needed emphases to the Community.

I have this hanging on my wall:

If the Catholic Church is not today the dominant social dynamic force, it is because Catholic scholars have failed to blow the dynamite of the Church. Catholic scholars have taken the dynamite of the Church, wrapped it up in nice phraseology, placed it in an hermetic container and sat on the lid. The only way to make the message dynamic is to blow the dynamite of the message. It is about time to blow the lid off so the Cahtolic Church may again become the dominant social dynamic force.

Peter Maurin, along with Dorothy Day, founded the Catholic Worker newspaper and Houses of Hospitality in the early 1930’s. The above is my paraphrase of an “Easy Essay” which appeared in the Catholic Worker Newspaper in the mid 30’s.

It has been my experience that those who turn or re-turn to the Church from other Christian churches exemplify the dynamism, and re-ignite it in their more ‘comfortable and settled’ cradle-Catholic brothers and sisters. Dorothy Day’s cause for Canonization was opened almost 20 years ago. Dorothy Day was a convert.

What does it mean to be a Catholic? Give your life to the Lord, God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Cat]

Conference Baptists are not non-denominational. The denomination has been around for over a hundred years and is one of the most “denominational” of denominations… Here is a link to Midwest Baptist Conference:

midwestbap.org/main.cfm

---

Dr. Gary Smalley is NOT a psychologist, he’s a pastor. He holds a bachelors degree in psychology from the University of California at Long Beach and received his Master of Divinity degree from Bethel Seminary in St. Paul, MInnesota (the college of the Baptist General Conference, BTW). I don’t know where he got his Doctor of Divinity. He was the associate pastor of the Conference Baptist Church that I grew up in. He was a great pastor; he was the one who ministered to my family while my brother was in the hospital.

I hope you are not implying that Dr. Billy Graham and Dr. Bill Bright are “flawed” in some way because they are “ecumenical.” Dr. Billy Graham has probably led more people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ then anyone who has ever lived, except for possibly Dr. Bill Bright. The “Jesus” movie, a Campus Crusade for Christ production (the organization that Bill Bright founded) has been shown to millions of people in the world and has led to hundreds of thousands of conversions. This movie is available at the Catholic Bookstore in our city, and I know of at least one Catholic Church that displays a picture of Jesus from this movie.

If being “ecumenical” brings millions of souls into the kingdom of heaven, then Lord, make me ecumenical!

Perhaps that is the crux of my question–how much more would Christians accomplish if they stopped trying to convert each other and actually obeyed the Great Commission and went out into all the world and preached the Gospel?

And for what it’s worth, the Catholic Church teaches that we are saved through our faith in Jesus Christ. A reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church will verify this. So much of the “stuff” that dissenters claim the Catholic Church “adds” is not salvation, but sanctification.

I agree, why bother to read non-Catholic books or listen to non-Catholic speakers talk about the Catholic Church. All they do is make me have pity in my heart for those who spread untruths about Catholicism. When investigating something, it’s best to get the facts straight from the source. That’s what my husband and I did. We attended a Catholic Church for three years before becoming Catholic, and we spent much of that time studying Catholic teachings from Catholic sources. We also compared what we studied to the Bible and discovered that the Catholic Church was in agreement with the Bible in all respects. And we prayed a lot. We trusted the Holy Spirit to lead us into truth, as He promised. And He did.

However, we will read the Lutzer book out of respect and love for this great pastor and teacher. We live close enough to him that we will try to talk to him in person about it. Lately, he has been facing all kinds of accusations from evangelical Christians of supporting “new methods of spirituality,” e.g. lectio divina and contemplative prayer. Oh my!

 

[VociMike]

Sandusky, thank you for this post. Enlightening as always!

I think a very simple, yet fundamental difference is that in Catholicism the main question is “What must I do to be Catholic?,” whereas the Reformation exhumed the age old question, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), and responded with the age old Pauline answer: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved…” (v. 31).

Which question demonstrates the greater love?

For being “the main question” I find it very interesting that I have never asked myself that question, nor heard anybody else ask it. It must be a really secret “main question”.

If anything, I disagree that the main question is “what must I do to be saved” but rather something like “What is God’s will for me?” Answer that question and everything else falls into place. Catholics understand that a large part of God’s will for us is to be in the Church, and to live out her teachings, which are nothing more than God’s teachings, presented with God’s authority.

 

[mozart-250]

Well it seems obvious to me that each side thinks the other is teaching heresy. The only other alternative is that one side thinks the other is teaching error but that the error is insignificant. That’s the lukewarm realm that is afraid to insist that true is true, and false is false.

Well actually I for one would be of the camp that the Catholic Church is likely preaching some error but that the error is insignificant. But my reason is quite well thought out and I would dispute applying the word “lukewarm” to it.

• We (and by extension myself) are likely teaching and preaching errors also. If I consider the vast number of areas out there where true Christians who exhibit the fruit of the Spirit in their lives disagree, the statistical probability of any one person or church, including myself, to be theologically pure and not wrong one way or another is remote to nonexistent. So where again is that verse about removing the log from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from your brothers eye again?
• Since I likely am wrong about some things, I can then examine this same list of areas where true Christians disagree and ask myself what is the impact of being wrong on this issue or that one. After having gone through that exercise, I have concluded that there I would say there are only a few out there where the impact of being wrong is truly high. On these issues of faith and morals you and I would agree.
• When I examine the Bible and see the criteria on which my life will be evaluated, I see little evidence that that theological purity on all of these issues is high on God’s priority list. I see plenty of evidence that Christian character, charity, and humility ranks much higher. I see plenty of evidence that God would be more pleased with a Christian who is wrong on a low priority issue and yet humble in his wrongness that a Christian who is right and arrogant about it.

But saying that the other side is teaching heresy is not the same as calling the Catholic Church the whore, the beast, or calling the Eucharist the Death Cookie, or claiming that all believing Catholics are going to hell. The latter are signs not just of serious disagreement, but of hatred. And you just don’t find that in any serious or organized form on the Catholic side, as you do on the Protestant side.

Both Catholics and Evangelicals have their hardline factions against the other. I have seen a fewl posters here argue that although there is a small probability us heretical evangelicals might make heaven but most likely we won’t because we are in the wrong church.

The reason why you see more organized anti-Catholicism is ecclesiastical. Since there is not one umbrella over all of evangelicals as there is Catholics, the small hardline of true antiCatholics are free to organize together while in Catholicism they are not. Thus they make more noise than they really are worth.

They really are a very small minority within the larger realm of evangelicalLand.

As evidence conduct the following experinement. Google “Billy Graham”. If you do that you will come to a web page here. that represents a typically hardline antiCatholic organization.

Now under this page, you will find an apostasy database. Now you might have to click through a whole lot of subsections, but you will read of a list of prominent evangelical names James Dobson, Jerry Farwell, Bill Bright, Rick Warren…many, many more…who apparantly are in apostasy.

If you take the time to read why they are in apostasy, you will find a big reason is the Catholic issue (they are not hard line AntiCatholic. They either are somewhere in the middle (as many here are) or ecumenical towards the Catholics.

Then ask yourself one question. If I eliminate all of these big names and those who associate with them, from the pool of possible hardline AntiCatholics, then I ask who is left?

Cat…did I meet you on another forum (as CatInTheWindow) (I was there as my baseball team “RedSox”). I left forum after a week or so because the hardline antiCatholics were really grating to me. I have observed that the hardline antiCatholics love the internet disproportionate to their true numbers. I have also observed that the hardline antiCatholics seem disproportionately stupid. Two things I despise as much as bigotry are arrogance and stupidity.

 

[maurin]

Well actually I for one would be of the camp that the Catholic Church is likely preaching some error but that the error is insignificant. But my reason is quite well thought out and I would dispute applying the word “lukewarm” to it.
.

Mt 16:17-18: Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

28:20b: And belold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.

If the “Church is likely preaching some error” (even an “insignificant one”?!?!?!?!?!?!), then Christ is a liar and the Holy Spirit is ineffective.

Just a thought.

 

[VociMike]

Well actually I for one would be of the camp that the Catholic Church is likely preaching some error but that the error is insignificant. But my reason is quite well thought out and I would dispute applying the word “lukewarm” to it.

I just want to focus on this for a moment. How can the opposing teachings on e.g. the Eucharist be insignificant? Either the Eucharist is Christ or it isn’t. Believing and teaching the “wrong” thing on this matter is very serious. Same with many other fundamental teachings.

 

[mozart-250]

Mt 16:17-18: Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

28:20b: And belold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.

If the “Church is likely preaching some error” (even an “insignificant one”?!?!?!?!?!?!), then Christ is a liar and the Holy Spirit is ineffective.

Just a thought.

Well that is only true if

“gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” =
“church likely preaching some insignificant error”

At a minimum that interpretation is …um… shall I say not very intuitive to me. But what do I know…I’m just a heretic Protestant.