What do you think is the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians?

[1edyson]

Authority

 

[mangy_dog]

Is it,

a) Disagreement as to whether salvation is an event or a process?
b) Disagreement about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
c) Disagreement about praying for the dead?
d) Disagreement about the existence of purgatory?
e) Disagreement about how to understand baptism?
f) Disagreement about the doctrine of Transubstantiation?
g) Disagreement about confession of one’s sins being heard by a priest?
h) Disagreement about the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God?
i) Disagreement about the papacy and papal infallibility?
j) Some other doctrine or factor?

Curiously,
Mick

Pride.

 

[Disciple96]

Authority is certainly a large issue of contention between Catholics and non-Catholics. And also among Catholics!

But I also think that the authority issue involves an issue of pride as well.

 

[Brother2]

The biggest difference I find is the view of salvation between reform theology and catholic theology. There are many differences among what I would call the non-essential doctrines of faith (those not directly condemned by scripture) but how someone is saved IS an essential doctrine. Reform theology clearly teaches that salvation is by faith alone and not of any works. RCC theology teaches that salvation is be faith and works. Also in reform theology one can’t lose his/her salvation. We cant’ earn it by our good works…and we can’t lose it if we “screw up” or commit a sin (we all still sin, saved or not). RCC doctrine teaches that we must maintain our salvation with what we do and if we stop doing certain things then we are subjected to losing our salvation.

When I read the Bible it seems very clear to me that salvation (made right before God, no longer under judgment) is a free gift granted by God. Not a gift earn by man (otherwise its no longer a gift, grace is no longer grace as Paul writes). I also find when I read scripture that salvation is an eternal state. All who have been called by God and are really truly saved will remained saved. In reformed theology its referred to as the perseverance of the saints.

So in short…how one is saved seems to be the biggest difference to me.

Forgive me butting in here guys and gals but I get tired, as do some of you, plus I have been so busy on HA… Questions for Adventists I have no energy left for any other…

Salvation is indeed a Gift of God, we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and all He has done for us; as part of the Godhead, Created us, died for us, rose again and defeated death for us, so we could have Eternal Life by Grace through Faith in Him…

Because of our salvation because of our belief in Lord Jesus Christ, because the Holy Spirit lives in us, He begins changing our behaviour to do good works; really, good works is His Gift also…because he helps us Choose to do the right thing…and when we fail we have an Advocate with the Father in Heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ and our sins are forgiven.

As regards ‘once saved always saved’ its a tricky one huh??..no one can pluck me out of His Hand…unless I choose to leave His Hand and commit the ‘unforgivable sin’…which is??..serial rejection of what Lord Jesus Christ has done for me, continue till my conscience goes quiet, I give His Gift back to Him and say that I do not want it anymore… God forbid…

But just as Salvation is accepting the Gift…so being Lost is refusing His Gift or giving it back and saying I don’t want it anymore…???

That should raise some Discussion eh Folks…brothers and sisters…May God Bless all here!! Michael.:cool

 

[Disciple96]

I was just wondering, where exactly does it say “once saved, always saved” in scripture?

 

[SSTeacher]

I was just wondering, where exactly does it say “once saved, always saved” in scripture?

Hi Disciple96,

The term doesn’t appear in Scripture but the Reform teachings of Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace imply that those who receive these blessings have to be certain of salvation. As far as I was ever able to understand Calvinism, the necessary presupposition for the Calvinist is that God’s sovereignty and God’s will are one and the same. If that is presupposed then the argument that it’s impossible for the elect to not be safe and secure seems to make sense.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Disciple96]

Hi Disciple96,

The term doesn’t appear in Scripture but the Reform teachings of Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace imply that those who receive these blessings have to be certain of salvation. As far as I was ever able to understand Calvinism, the necessary presupposition for the Calvinist is that God’s sovereignty and God’s will are one and the same. If that is presupposed then the argument that it’s impossible for the elect to not be safe and secure seems to make sense.

Cordially,
Mick

So Reform Teachings don’t go by sola scriptura?

 

[SSTeacher]

So Reform Teachings don’t go by sola scriptura?

Sure they do.

Positively,
Mick

 

[Disciple96]

And where do the teachings you just mentioned come from?

 

[SSTeacher]

And where do the teachings you just mentioned come from?

Calvinists, invoking the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, claim that their teachings come from the Bible (the truncated one that contains only 66 books.)

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[Stouts989]

This article might help…

gotquestions.org/perseverance-saints.html

 

[SSTeacher]

The biggest difference I find is the view of salvation between reform theology and catholic theology.

Don’t forget the Orthodox Christians.:bounce:

There are many differences among what I would call the non-essential doctrines of faith (those not directly condemned by scripture)

With Scripture Twisting on the rise, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for Biblicists to reach conclusions about what are essentials and what are non–essentials.

but how someone is saved IS an essential doctrine.

How the Atonement works is not known. Do you favor any particular theory of the Atonement?

Reform theology clearly teaches that salvation is by faith alone and not of any works.

I agree.

RCC theology teaches that salvation is be faith and works.

I disagree. I’m not a Catholic but I venture to submit that Catholics understand Ephesians 2:10 in the same way as the Reform guys do.

Also in reform theology one can’t lose his/her salvation. We cant’ earn it by our good works…and we can’t lose it if we “screw up” or commit a sin (we all still sin, saved or not).

I agree.

RCC doctrine teaches that we must maintain our salvation with what we do and if we stop doing certain things then we are subjected to losing our salvation.

I disagree and suggest that Catholics do not “maintain” their salvation since to suppose they have been “saved” in the sense that Reform theology teaches would be for a Catholic the sin of presumption. Catholics spend their lives working out their salvation with fear and trembling and do not claim that they are saved. I daresay most of them know where they stand with the Lord, though, since Catholics have access to auricular confession.

When I read the Bible it seems very clear to me that salvation (made right before God, no longer under judgment) is a free gift granted by God.

Interesting. How do you understand that gift? Do you think of it as a piece of paper that a person has in his or her possession that declares the holder to be righteous? Or do you think of it as a relationship with the Lord, which a person willingly enters into and then keeps his or her part of the relationship vital and alive by obeying the Lord’s commandments? Presumably, it’s the former because if it’s the latter wouldn’t the person be embracing works?

Not a gift earn by man (otherwise its no longer a gift, grace is no longer grace as Paul writes).

A gift is not earned, certainly. But it’s the understanding of the word “gift” that perhaps causes confusion?

I also find when I read scripture that salvation is an eternal state.

I follow.

All who have been called by God

Many are called but few are chosen.

and are really truly saved will remained saved.

So what do you suppose went wrong in the case of Judas? Judas was chosen by God and yet…

In reformed theology it’s referred to as the perseverance of the saints.

And sometimes it’s referred to as Preservation of the Saints, and at other times it’s referred to as Eternal Security. I’ve noticed that Catholics on this forum usually refer to it as “OSAS.”

So in short…how one is saved seems to be the biggest difference to me.

You might be right.

Thanks for your comprehensive post.

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[Stouts989]

Don’t forget the Orthodox Christians.:bounce:

With Scripture Twisting on the rise, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for Biblicists to reach conclusions about what are essentials and what are non–essentials.

maybe…but we can easily agree what we believe who God is, who Jesus is, and how we are saved are all essentials.

How the Atonement works is not known. Do you favor any particular theory of the Atonement?

The atonement is limited. Its either limited by God (who receives it) or by man (our will to accept it or not). Scripture seems to say God is doing the choosing not us. Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 are good places to start.

I disagree and suggest that Catholics do not “maintain” their salvation since to suppose they have been “saved” in the sense that Reform theology teaches would be for a Catholic the sin of presumption. Catholics spend their lives working out their salvation with fear and trembling and do not claim that they are saved. I daresay most of them know where they stand with the Lord, though, since Catholics have access to auricular confession.

working out our salvations seems to me that it is done so that we can earn or maintain our salvation and prove ourselves worthy before God in order to be saved. We are made right before God because of what Christ did not us. Galatians 3:6, James 2:23, and Romans 4:3 are verses where Paul is quoting Gen. 15:6 "even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Was it Abraham’s working out his salvation or doing works for God that made him righteousness before God?..no it was his belief that made him right before God…not his works. Works are a product of salvation not a means to. To be saved is to be made right before God

Interesting. How do you understand that gift? Do you think of it as a piece of paper that a person has in his or her possession that declares the holder to be righteous? Or do you think of it as a relationship with the Lord, which a person willingly enters into and then keeps his or her part of the relationship vital and alive by obeying the Lord’s commandments? Presumably, it’s the former because if it’s the latter wouldn’t the person be embracing works?

Everyone who is in a relationship with Christ is because they were called by God. (John 6:65 and Romans 8:28, just to name two, also Ephesians 1). That faith is a saving faith (James 2). Gift is free to us because Christ paid it in full. There’s no more debt for us to pay. We don’t maintain or keep our salvation. Christ did and does that for us through us. We are made right before God because of Christ…not because we worked for it by obeying God’s commandments.

Does that answer you’re question?

A gift is not earned, certainly. But it’s the understanding of the word “gift” that perhaps causes confusion?

Maybe. I’m not sure what the exact definition of gift is by the RCC though.

So what do you suppose went wrong in the case of Judas? Judas was chosen by God and yet…

Nothing went wrong with Judas…everything went according to God’s plan:thumbsup:

I hope that was helpful!

 

[SSTeacher]

maybe…but we can easily agree what we believe who God is, who Jesus is, and how we are saved are all essentials.

The atonement is limited. Its either limited by God (who receives it) or by man (our will to accept it or not). Scripture seems to say God is doing the choosing not us. Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 are good places to start.

working out our salvations seems to me that it is done so that we can earn or maintain our salvation and prove ourselves worthy before God in order to be saved. We are made right before God because of what Christ did not us. Galatians 3:6, James 2:23, and Romans 4:3 are verses where Paul is quoting Gen. 15:6 "even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Was it Abraham’s working out his salvation or doing works for God that made him righteousness before God?..no it was his belief that made him right before God…not his works. Works are a product of salvation not a means to. To be saved is to be made right before God

Everyone who is in a relationship with Christ is because they were called by God. (John 6:65 and Romans 8:28, just to name two, also Ephesians 1). That faith is a saving faith (James 2). Gift is free to us because Christ paid it in full. There’s no more debt for us to pay. We don’t maintain or keep our salvation. Christ did and does that for us through us. We are made right before God because of Christ…not because we worked for it by obeying God’s commandments.

Does that answer you’re question?

Maybe. I’m not sure what the exact definition of gift is by the RCC though.

Nothing went wrong with Judas…everything went according to God’s plan:thumbsup:

I hope that was helpful!

I greatly enjoyed reading your post. Thanks. During my Evangelical days, I was an Arminian. One of my very good friends is a five–point Calvinist and we often bat this subject around and have fun adducing our respective proof texts. I’ve never been drawn to Calvinism although I do concede that it’s much more logical than Arminianism. There are certainly more verses and passages in the Bible endorsing the Calvinist stance.

Welcome to the Forums, by the way – I’ve just noticed your join date.

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[Stouts989]

Thanks Mick! Much appreciated.

Would you be willing to reference some of the verses used to support Arminian theology? Most of the research I’ve been doing tells me what they believe…but not why Biblically.

I’m still looking to find out where the concept of free will comes from as well…

Thanks!
Stouts

 

[Peter_J]

Reform theology clearly teaches that salvation is by faith alone and not of any works. RCC theology teaches that salvation is be faith and works.

Certainly not. The RCC is perfectly aware that we are saved “by faith apart from works”, as St. Paul says; but that does not necessarily means “by faith alone”.

 

[khutcheson]

Certainly not. The RCC is perfectly aware that we are saved “by faith apart from works”, as St. Paul says; but that does not necessarily means “by faith alone”.

Peter, the faith versus works debate on here has frustrated me for some time. I think a lot of us talk past each other on this issue and there are some serious misperceptions on both sides.

As a Protestant, I was always taught (and still believe) that we are saved by faith alone–that we can NEVER merit salvation and that it is a free gift of grace. However, I was also taught that (contrary to the mischaracterizations of OSAS I occasionally read on here) if I am saved, if I love the Lord, I WILL obey him, I WILL do good works. Good works, of necessity flow from living in a state of grace, good works flow from the love of the Lord. Good works don’t earn us our salvation but must accompany it.

 

[jmcrae]

Nothing went wrong with Judas…everything went according to God’s plan

It was not necessary to God’s plan that Judas betray Christ, though. God the Father would have ensured that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins, in any case.

Judas made a free choice, and although we are not permitted to say that anyone is definitely in Hell, Christ’s words that “it would be better for that man if he had never been born” seem to suggest that where he ended up, ultimately, is a relatively worse place than the place where unbaptized children go.

 

[SSTeacher]

Thanks Mick! Much appreciated.

Hi Stouts.

Would you be willing to reference some of the verses used to support Arminian theology?

To get too deeply into the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians would likely derail this thread but perhaps you would consider starting a new thread?

Most of the research I’ve been doing tells me what they believe…but not why Biblically.

But what does the word “biblically” actually mean? That’s really the whole of the argument, isn’t it? The Calvinists argue that the verses and passages they adduce mean what the Calvinists suggest they mean and the Arminians disagree and argue that those verses and passages don’t mean what the Calvinists think they mean. (cf. Proverbs 15:23)

You’ll perhaps agree that central to the discussion is whom God wants to save and who actually is saved? Arminians posit that God wants all people to be saved. So, verses that contain this idea are the ones that Arminians like. 1 Timothy 2:3–6 is a handy passage, 1 Timothy 4:10 can be used, as can Titus 2:11. But the Calvinists disagree as to the interpretation. There’s the difficulty.

I’m still looking to find out where the concept of free will comes from as well…

Thanks!
Stouts

I think anybody who holds Calvinist presuppositions will have trouble with the concept of free will – as most non–Calvinists understand that idea, anyway. Calvinists endorse the notion that, “God who is not sovereign of all fails to be God at all,” right? Is that in the Bible? Well, there’s no verse that actually reads as such. But is the idea a biblical idea? Calvinists say it is and Arminians retort that the Calvinists are projecting onto God a very petty and human notion of sovereignty.

There are lots of people on this forum who are very conversant with what’s in the Bible (including some Catholics ) so I think you might find it worthwhile to start a new thread. I daresay there would be no shortage of responses if you were to be careful with the wording of your opening post. Go on, start a new thread, why don’t you?

Encouragingly,
Mick

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Hi Stouts.

To get too deeply into the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians would likely derail this thread but perhaps you would consider starting a new thread?

But what does the word “biblically” actually mean? That’s really the whole of the argument, isn’t it? The Calvinists argue that the verses and passages they adduce mean what the Calvinists suggest they mean and the Arminians disagree and argue that those verses and passages don’t mean what the Calvinists think they mean. (cf. Proverbs 15:23)

You’ll perhaps agree that central to the discussion is whom God wants to save and who actually is saved? Arminians posit that God wants all people to be saved. So, verses that contain this idea are the ones that Arminians like. 1 Timothy 2:3–6 is a handy passage, 1 Timothy 4:10 can be used, as can Titus 2:11. But the Calvinists disagree as to the interpretation. There’s the difficulty.

I think anybody who holds Calvinist presuppositions will have trouble with the concept of free will – as most non–Calvinists understand that idea, anyway. Calvinists endorse the notion that, “God who is not sovereign of all fails to be God at all,” right? Is that in the Bible? Well, there’s no verse that actually reads as such. But is the idea a biblical idea? Calvinists say it is and Arminians retort that the Calvinists are projecting onto God a very petty and human notion of sovereignty.

There are lots of people on this forum who are very conversant with what’s in the Bible (including some Catholics ) so I think you might find it worthwhile to start a new thread. I daresay there would be no shortage of responses if you were to be careful with the wording of your opening post. Go on, start a new thread, why don’t you?

Encouragingly,
Mick

The trouble with the word “biblically” is that it’s open to the reader’s interpretation. Thus you can have Seventh Day Adventists saying that the command to worship on the Sabbath was never rescinded, whereas it became a TRADITION in the very earliest church days to worship on Sunday as that was when Christ rose from the dead.

Both parties have the same Bible. So all starting a discussion on “Biblical” would do is open up a whole bunch of personal opinions. That’s why we have the Church and the magisterium - to guide the formation of our opinions. I think it was GK CHesterton who commented when an Afghan chief was being presented with a Bible as the “secret of England’s greatness” that he could think of few things more puzzling for an Afghan chief to be given a book loaded with Middle Eastern mythology and history in no logical form.

But then that’s the sort of pompous nonsense governments sometimes go in for. These days of course the Brits aren’t giving out Bibles or boasting about England’s greatness.

To understand the Bible to start with we all need guidance. I certainly did - in my atheist days I could read the Gospels and get some sort of logical drift (although I had a couple of years of previous Sunday School under my belt), but if I turned to Leviticus or Numbers, then what the hell was that supposed to mean?