What is the difference in Protestants being "saved" and Catholic salvation?

[In_His_Grace]

This is very Catholic!

What’s ironic is that Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture.

You heard a man preach it, who heard another man preach it, who heard another man preach it…but no one ever read “I will profess and believe things about God that are ONLY found in the Bible” in a single page of the Bible.

This is very Catholic!

Whoops, promise not to tell anyone right?

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

Not knowledgeable on the circumstances you mention but if my Bishop left our diocese and became Lutheran, I wouldn’t follow him as I would know he was disobedient to the Church and his vows. I’d follow his replacement.

I think this is largely true of protestants and pastoral changes in their denominations as well.

PnP

Hi P,

Would you then move to another principality, because that is what it would have required back then. It was a couple of hundred years later after Luther that you could find two different "churches’ in the same city, even province ?

 

[benhur]

You’ll have to cite the chastising your are referencing. I’m not sure what you are referencing to. And yes, a bishop, in UNION with the Pope, is the chair of peter in his diocese. Now a bishop can be in or out of union with the Pope. But the Pope, and his seat, will never issue forth error. That’s what he meant and not dancing around it can avoid that he clearly taught papal infallibility.

Hizz,

Pope Stephen reinstituted several lapsed or apostate bishops (denied faith under persecution) which Cyprian openly opposed. Stephen later accepted all baptisms as valid, even from schismatic sects, with no need to rebaptize if came back. Cyprian and other bishops openly opposed Rome’s practice and rebaptized in their own dioceses.

Cyprian made no qualification that you had to be in step with Rome in all things to be a proper bishop or have your respective seat of Peter. I still maintain Cyprian did not preach infallibility as decreed 1600 years later .

You conveniently ignored the second quote of Augustine, which was reinforced by the first quote which you did address.

You are quite right, except for the conveniently. Confused it as a default saying, or famous quote a lot of folks put at the bottom of every post. But you are right, upon reading very pertinent to your case.

I have no problem with it, and do not assume he means only the bishops of Rome. Even Iraneus when he lists those successive bishops of Rome, does so also for two other cities. .Again, Cyprian views all bishops, in every city/ location, as bishops of the “see of Peter” . At best then you could say all bishops are infallible according to Cyprian. The only problem for me is I (and I think Cyprian also) do not see infallibity synonomous with , “gates of hell not prevailing”. That to me means Satan loses the war. Your view means Satan never even wins a battle, not even temporarily, which I and Cyprian seem to disagree with.

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Whoops, promise not to tell anyone right?

It’s just between you, me and the 5000 other readers of this thread,

#shhhhhhhh!!

 

[Porknpie]

Hi P,

Would you then move to another principality, because that is what it would have required back then. It was a couple of hundred years later after Luther that you could find two different "churches’ in the same city, even province ?

Sinful men can lead many astray Ben. Happened long before the major reformers as well. The Church has been fighting heresy from the beginning. Arianism had it’s hold for a long time as an example. The truth doesn’t change as you know no matter how many people fall away, for whatever length of time.

If faced with the choice:

• join a church that deny’s the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
  or
• become a martyr for the faith.

I think the latter is what our Lord would ask of us out of complete love and Truth.

Having a formed conscious on the Eucharist, to chose the former is to deny him.

 

[PJM]

=JMM1957;13234589] “Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” Heb. 13:7-8. Did God tolerate more than one faith in the OT? Were not all Jews bound by the same God given law? Jesus was sent by his Father to accomplish a mission, part of which was to establish a Church that would preach salvation in His name to the ends of the earth. This Church founded by Jesus, which was known as the Catholic Church very early in the second century, was given a mission to do also, it being equipped with the teachings of the Lord, and the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide it. To think that the true Church spread nothing but innacurate teachings for 1500 years is nonsense. The fact is, many Protestant’s, Baptist’s, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others use this belief to justify why their religions appeared so late in Christian history. They all believe that the one true Church was teaching error for 1500 years, and a new correct path needed to be taken. If all revealed Truth comes ONLY from the Bible, as many would agree, then please show me where it teaches that the Church established by Jesus Christ would go into error for 1500 years, or longer, and then be revived in later times by a new church or churches that would teach all truth, the way it was intended to be?

WELCOME TO CAF MY FRIEND,

Nice reply. I Do hope however that our Luthern friend will still respond to my ptrvious post.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;13235484]Catholics believe in taking the Word of God in its entirety, not just 1 verse, taken out of context and extrapolated to be the entirety of the kerygma.

Here’s how Catholics believe we are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

By feeding the hungry and clothing the naked (Matt: 25:42)

VERY well done! Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[In_His_Grace]

It’s just between you, me and the 5000 other readers of this thread,

#shhhhhhhh!!

 

[PJM]

=eazyduzit;13234840]James did not condemn “faith alone” . He also preached it . Jms.1:21b "…receive with meekness(without merits) the engrafted word,which is able (by itself) to save your souls.
This is plainly salvation by faith alone.

Then in v.12 James says" Blessed is the man that endures trials, for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life…"

In the Bible, “crowns” are rewards that are an addition to salvation which is the gift of God.

James understands the difference.

James says that for salvation, all one needs to do is receive the “word” by which he means the Gospel. Repentance would be assumed. Receive means to believe or trust.

For an illustration of what Jesus required, read the parable of the “lost son” Lk.15.

Faith “alone” is not contradictory to Judgement of works in 1Cor.3 Here we see that" Works" are burned , not souls. All who make it here are saved, but some lose their works and receive no treasure in heaven. They are as St. Peter said, “scarcely saved.”

Have a great day

REALLY

Have you ever heard of the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

Allow me dear friend to share it with you:

Never-Ever; Can, May or DOES
One bible verse, passage or teaching
Have the authority or Power to
Invalidate, make void or override another
verse, passage or bible teaching

were this to be even the slightest possibility [ITS NOT}; it would render the bible as useless to teach or learn God’s One True Faith.

**2nd. Tim 3:16-17 “[All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work”

**Mt. 19:16-17 "And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

**Jn. 3:5 **“Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Mt. 16:1-19 "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon[YOU PETER] this rock I will build my church,[singular] **and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee [ALL OF] **the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven"

Mt. 28:19-20 " Going therefore, teach YOU [my Apostles & MY Church] all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU!: and behold I am with YOU! all days, even to the consummation of the world…"

So our friend, there is very much in the bible which, by the way, in NOT the only source of God’s truth read the last two verses in John 20 & 21], that contradicts a “Faith Alone” philosophy.

In Mt. 16:19 the Cf. Powers to bind and to loose" were at that time and place; powers of UNLIMITED Governance, that Peter and the Early Catholic Church would need to grow and Govern the One New Church Christ envisioned and desired; following His OWN Tradition of just One Chosen People in the OT:thumbsup:

God Bless you! It is the Holy Spirit who has led you to this site, so that you MIGHT learn His truths. PRAY MUCH for discernment

Patrick.

 

[PJM]

=JMM1957;13235469]I agree, our relationship is not performance based, that would indicate that works were all that were required. We do not initially respond to God’s grace by doing works, we first have faith. However, “faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” James 2:17.

As for Abraham, “faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.” James 2:22.

“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James 2:24

“For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” James 2:26.

It has been argued by some that there is a contradiction between Paul and James on faith and works, however, we know that the Bible does not contradict itself and both Paul and James were inspired by the same Holy Spirit. So we must acknowledge that they both were just giving different viewpoints, not opposing viewpoints, and their points of emphasis were not exactly the same, which may have been due to individual congregational concerns.

Again; very nicely done! Thank you

 

[benhur]

Sinful men can lead many astray Ben. Happened long before the major reformers as well. The Church has been fighting heresy from the beginning. Arianism had it’s hold for a long time as an example. The truth doesn’t change as you know no matter how many people fall away, for whatever length of time.

If faced with the choice:

• join a church that deny’s the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
  or
• become a martyr for the faith.

I think the latter is what our Lord would ask of us out of complete love and Truth.

Having a formed conscious on the Eucharist, to chose the former is to deny him.

Hi P,

Just that you brought Cyprian and quote about bishops being the church and to follow them. Many reformers followed their bishops, just as Cyprian’s parishioners followed him even when he went against the pope on baptisms

Blessings

 

[eazyduzit]

Catholics believe in taking the Word of God in its entirety, not just 1 verse, taken out of context and extrapolated to be the entirety of the kerygma.

Here’s how Catholics believe we are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

By feeding the hungry and clothing the naked (Matt: 25:42)

Once again I will refer to Luke 15.

You are having an “OLDER BROTHER” reaction.

 

[PRmerger]

Once again I will refer to Luke 15.

Catholics give a hearty amen! to Luke 15.

You are having an “OLDER BROTHER” reaction.

Not sure what this means.

At any rate, you ought to be able to acknowledge that the Scripture verses I cited all deal with our soteriology.

We don’t take 1 Scripture verse and use it to define the kerygma.

 

[Techno2000]

Catholics give a hearty amen! to Luke 15.

Not sure what this means.

I think he means the jealous older brother of the prodigal son.

 

[In_His_Grace]

WELCOME TO CAF MY FRIEND,

Nice reply. I Do hope however that our Luthern friend will still respond to my ptrvious post.

God Bless you,

Patrick

I’m wondering? Why should I believe the claims of the Catholic Church over the claims of our Eastern Orthodox brethren? What say you Patrick? Sounds like an outstanding topic for another thread?

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

I’m wondering? Why should I believe the claims of the Catholic Church over the claims of our Eastern Orthodox brethren? What say you Patrick? Sounds like an outstanding topic for another thread?

Blessings

As for me, I would be as happy for you if you joined the EO Church as if you joined the CC.

Both have the same doctrines, save for one: papal supremacy.

So it’s essentially, ASAIAC, joining the same Body.

 

[pablope]

I’m wondering? Why should I believe the claims of the Catholic Church over the claims of our Eastern Orthodox brethren? What say you Patrick? Sounds like an outstanding topic for another thread?

Blessings

St Optatus has an answer:calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

He writes:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25

 

[eazyduzit]

Catholics give a hearty amen! to Luke 15.

Not sure what this means.

At any rate, you ought to be able to acknowledge that the Scripture verses I cited all deal with our soteriology.

We don’t take 1 Scripture verse and use it to define the kerygma.

The comparison I saw in the reaction of the elder brother in Lk.15, aside from his wanting his own party time, was that he was perhaps shocked that Papa did not put a list of extra burdens on the wayward son to make up for his sins . In the world, we would expect such a son to be grounded for a month if not for life. So also I see the Catholic list of burdens that are required of sinners before they can be considered truly forgiven and restored. Yet, what are the conditions for forgiveness in this parable? Forgiveness and restoration are unconditional! How does that compare with Catholic soteriology and your list of conditions?

Indeed, I acknowledge your list. Truly very interesting. Do you present all this to those you are evangelizing?

 

[PRmerger]

The comparison I saw in the reaction of the elder brother in Lk.15, aside from his wanting his own party time, was that he was perhaps shocked that Papa did not put a list of extra burdens on the wayward son to make up for his sins .

I find it curious that you see the list I offered–which comes straight from the Bible–as “extra burdens”.

That’s very frightening to me, eazy.

None of these ought to be viewed as “extra burdens” to Christians.

Belief in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

Repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

Baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

Eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

Submitting to the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

Declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

Coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

Works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

Grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

Submitting to his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

Submitting to his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

Keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

Our words (Matt 12:37)

Feeding the hungry and clothing the naked (Matt: 25:42)

In the world, we would expect such a son to be grounded for a month if not for life. So also I see the Catholic list of burdens that are required of sinners before they can be considered truly forgiven and restored.

What is the “Catholic list” that differs from what Scripture list above?

Indeed, I acknowledge your list. Truly very interesting. Do you present all this to those you are evangelizing?

Indeed I do, esp. when someone thinks he gets to sum up the kerygma in one verse.

If anyone ever says, “The Bible says that all I have to do to be saved is [fill in the blank]” I like to show them what the Word of God actually says.

 

[JMM1957]

The comparison I saw in the reaction of the elder brother in Lk.15, aside from his wanting his own party time, was that he was perhaps shocked that Papa did not put a list of extra burdens on the wayward son to make up for his sins . In the world, we would expect such a son to be grounded for a month if not for life. So also I see the Catholic list of burdens that are required of sinners before they can be considered truly forgiven and restored. Yet, what are the conditions for forgiveness in this parable? Forgiveness and restoration are unconditional! How does that compare with Catholic soteriology and your list of conditions?

Indeed, I acknowledge your list. Truly very interesting. Do you present all this to those you are evangelizing?

Hi easyduzit, not being Catholic, you look at penance after confession as burdensome and unnecessary I suppose. First of all, we are forgiven of our sins immediately after confession, doing the penance first is not required to complete forgiveness, this is the true Catholic teaching on the matter. We are still expected to do the penance received from the priest after confession however, and should not look at it as being a burden, we should welcome it as part of our healing process from sin. Normally penance just amounts to the priest asking us to say a certain Catholic prayer or two which focuses us on spiritual things and helps us with conversion of the heart. I agree that we are forgiven of sin when we ask God with a sincere heart to do so, however we should refrain from committing the same sin and other sins in the future.