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

[Arizona_Samson]

This is not a correct articulation of Catholicism, Samson.

Catholics take the Scriptures in their entirety, not snippets only the snippets that aren’t difficult to accept, and believe that this is how 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)

Hi PR. For the sake of brevity I only offered a laconic comparison. Moreover, many of the soteriological aspects of Catholicism that you reference above would fall under the sacramental graces that I mentioned.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR. For the sake of brevity I only offered a laconic comparison. Moreover, many of the soteriological aspects of Catholicism that you reference above would fall under the sacramental graces that I mentioned.

And that’s what makes your tradition compatible with Catholicism.

 

[In_His_Grace]

Ah. I see, then.

So porneia is used in this original text?

You are a subscriber to the Greek Septuagint being the correct version of the OT Bible, yes?

“In Ecclus. 23:23 it is used expressly of the sin of an adulteress.We may also remark that metaphorically idolatry is often called by this name, whereas, since Israel is supposed to be married to the Lord, the breaking of this bend by the worship of false gods might more strictly be named adultery.” from Pulpit Commentary

Ecclus? What’s that?

If I’m not mistakes Ecclus. = Ecclesiasticus = Sirach

Sirach 23:23
For first of all, she has disobeyed the law of the Most High;
second, she has committed an offense against her husband;
and third, she has committed adultery through harlotry
and brought forth children by another man.

In His Grace

Hi PRmerger,

You asked a question, I did a bit of digging and answered your question, inquiring minds want to know. By the way, I realize it’s partly my fault for taking this thread off topic unless you can explain to me how this is relevant to the OP?

In His Grace

 

[benhur]

Ecclus? What’s that?

good question.will have to double check my misprint.

 

[adrift]

good question.will have to double check my misprint.

792 took care of it

 

[benhur]

benhur? Would you mind answering the above?

Hi PR.
My previous post stated I am backing off on any critiquing ,especially the “legalistic” remark.

I also have learned that the law and Jesus context was that only men divorce, and only in case or fornication or that greek word pornea(?) .So in context Jesus did not address what happens if man “goofs” around in sexual sin in a marriage.

As to my church I do not know there take on divorce. I would suspect they probably marry both ways, but would look into the finality of any past marriage and its circumstance. From what I have seen sometimes it is good for one to remain under abusive relationship(maybe separate for awhile) and sometimes not .That is God seems to have blessed both ways, as I am sure He has been at other times not so happy with leaving.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

792 took care of it

yes just noticed ,thank you very muuuch.

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger,

You asked a question, I did a bit of digging and answered your question, inquiring minds want to know. By the way, I realize it’s partly my fault for taking this thread off topic unless you can explain to me how this is relevant to the OP?

In His Grace

And??? Is it “porneia” that is used in Ecclus?

And are you of the opinion that we should accept the Greek version of the OT like the CC does?

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR.
My previous post stated I am backing off on any critiquing ,especially the “legalistic” remark.

I also have learned that the law and Jesus context was that only men divorce, and only in case or fornication or that greek word pornea(?) .So in context Jesus did not address what happens if man “goofs” around in sexual sin in a marriage.

Well, according to your translation, and your assertion, the logical conclusion is that Jesus did give permission for men to divorce their wives if they commit adultery first, and then they can legitimately marry.

As to my church I do not know there take on divorce. I would suspect they probably marry both ways, but would look into the finality of any past marriage and its circumstance.

Well, that’s contrary to the Bible!!

The Bible, according to you, allows divorce and re-marriage for this exception only: if adultery occurred.

Thus, your pastor is permitting adulterous relationships to be given legitimacy in his church.

:tsktsk:

From what I have seen sometimes it is good for one to remain under abusive relationship(maybe separate for awhile) and sometimes not .

Wow. That’s astonishing to hear you say this.

The Catholic Church’s position is that if one is in an abusive relationship, one must separate, for the safety of the spouse and the children.

 

[JMM1957]

Well, according to your translation, and your assertion, the logical conclusion is that Jesus did give permission for men to divorce their wives if they commit adultery first, and then they can legitimately marry.

Well, that’s contrary to the Bible!!

The Bible, according to you, allows divorce and re-marriage for this exception only: if adultery occurred.

Thus, your pastor is permitting adulterous relationships to be given legitimacy in his church.

:tsktsk:

**
Wow. That’s astonishing to hear you say this. **

The Catholic Church’s position is that if one is in an abusive relationship, one must separate, for the safety of the spouse and the children.

Like you, PM, all I can say is wow also.

 

[In_His_Grace]

And??? Is it “porneia” that is used in Ecclus?

And are you of the opinion that we should accept the Greek version of the OT like the CC does?

Hi PRmerger,

You insist on derailing this thread with an issue that is completely irrelevant to the OP. I’ll plainly state what I believe as a Protestant. In a marriage resulting from divorce/remarriage, God will grant forgiveness where there is true repentance and contrition, the new marriage will be blessed and acceptable in the sight of God. Scripture mentions but one unforgivable sin (Mark 3:28-30; Matthew 12:31-32).

In His Grace

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger,

You insist on derailing this thread with an issue that is completely irrelevant to the OP.

Sometimes, oftentimes, actually. threads naturally segue into other tributaries. We are all quite capable of having several dialogues at several times.

And it does have to do with the OP, because the Protestant view of marriage may result in adultery, which may not lead to their salvation.

I’ll plainly state what I believe as a Protestant. In a marriage resulting from divorce/remarriage, God will grant forgiveness where there is true repentance and contrition, the new marriage will be blessed and acceptable in the sight of God. Scripture mentions but one unforgivable sin (Mark 3:28-30).

In His Grace

Sin is forgivable only if one repents. We are agreed on that.

So in the case of adultery, if one continues to engage in adultery, is one really repentant?

:nope:

And Jesus said that divorce and re-marriage is adultery.

Those are not my words.
They are not the CC’s words.

They are Christ’s words.

Also, did your research find out if “porneia” is used in Ecclus?

And if so, are you of the opinion that the Greek translation is an acceptable translation of the OT, meaning you accept the 7 books in the Septuagint as theopneustos?

 

[JMM1957]

Ah. I see, then.

So porneia is used in this original text?

You are a subscriber to the Greek Septuagint being the correct version of the OT Bible, yes?

:yup:

 

[benhur]

Well, according to your translation, and your assertion, the logical conclusion is that Jesus did give permission for men to divorce their wives if they commit adultery first, and then they can legitimately marry.

“And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” Matt 19:9

The context is Mosaic Law (and are we still under it?) where only men can "put away’’ or get a writ for divorce, as allowed by God, (but not for good reasons).

No,Mosaic Law men can not put away except for fornication(pornea). If the man commits adultery first, he is to be stoned, and the point is mute as to whether he can divorce and remarry.

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

“And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” Matt 19:9

The context is Mosaic Law (and are we still under it?) where only men can "put away’’ or get a writ for divorce, as allowed by God, (but not for good reasons).

No,Mosaic Law men can not put away except for fornication(pornea). If the man commits adultery first, he is to be stoned, and the point is mute as to whether he can divorce and remarry.

Blessings

Right.

That supports what I said. Thank you.

God, according to your “adultery exception”, says that if the man wants to “put away” his wife and marry another, can do so if he commits adultery.

Do you see how ridiculous that is?

The Catholic understanding, however, resolves this absurdity: there is no exception for adultery.

No one is permitted to commit adultery so he can marry again.

At least, not the way Catholicism understands Jesus’ words.

 

[benhur]

Well, that’s contrary to the Bible!!

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Topic please

 

[eazyduzit]

Your understanding, or I should say misunderstanding, of this “one” verse in Scripture is a perfect example of why there needs to be an authoritative interpreter of the Bible, the true Church that Jesus established.

In 2 Peter 1:19-20, he says,** “Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know, this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.”**

So, looking at 1 Peter 3:21-22, “This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

I’m not sure what Bible you use for your quotes, but mine, The New American Bible uses the words “prefigured baptism” instead of yours which says, “picture of baptism”. IMO, two different meanings. Prefigured is defined as,“to show or represent beforehand by a figure or type; foreshadowing.” Noah and the others were saved through water, as we are now through baptism, this is what Peter was saying. True, Noah had faith in God and was open to God’s grace, but the water completed the process. Baptism is an inward cleansing (clear conscience) not an outward cleansing (dirt).

My problem is that I don’t see the simple words “saved by baptism” without any qualifiers.
There is still the " but" which you ignore, but I have to account for because it is there. And
the symbology further complicates.

However Peter makes a clear unqualified statement in ch 1:23, that we are “born again by the word of God”. I must stay with the writter’s first definition and not force another meaning when returning to the subject. Systematic interpretation demands that we be consistent. I don’t see why I’m the villain for trying to impose some logical principles.

BTW, as noted in my post, I quoted the NLT. If I don’t say, its the KJV. I note that your using the Catholic Bible. NAB. At home I have a Confraternity Douay Rheim with notes that I also like. Wish I had it now.

Every version I checked had it a little different.

BBE: “is an image”
ISV: "is symbolized
KJV: “The like figure”
WEB: “This is a symbol”

As you noted, in v. 20 water is used in reference to Noah. But notice that water is not what saved Noah! He was saved from it or through it but not by it. The water would have killed Noah, except for the ark which was the actual instrument of salvation. The ark is a type of Christ . The water is the judgement of God, symbolizing that we are saved from the wrath of God. ( we are not saved from hell) Water here symbolizes death. We also die in the water of baptism according to Rm6. Water does not wash away sins. Peter credits the blood of Christ
with this action in ch1:2.

We must interpret according to the complete message of scripture and not make “isolated” or "private’ interpretations.

Your magisterium has as much freedom to misinterpret the bible as anyone. There is no automatic foolproof guarantee. They must study and compare the text like anyone else.

 

[Augustine3]

We must interpret according to the complete message of scripture and not make “isolated” or "private’ interpretations.

Your magisterium has as much freedom to misinterpret the bible as anyone. There is no automatic foolproof guarantee. They must study and compare the text like anyone else.

So who decides which interpretation of scripture is correct?

Before you say we need to consider the context, linguistics, historic background etc. both Catholics and Protestants claim they use these tools yet only one of them is right.

So who gets to decide who is right?

 

[PRmerger]

My problem is that I don’t see the simple words “saved by baptism” without any qualifiers

1 Peter 3:21 says baptism now saves you. That means…you are…“saved by baptism”.

All things have qualifiers, eazy.

It’s the whisper of the evil one that demands “no qualifiers”.

There is no where in Scripture–no where–that states that you have to have “no qualifiers” for our sotieriology. Nowhere.

Your magisterium has as much freedom to misinterpret the bible as anyone.

Well, I’m glad to know that you acknowledge that your interpretation is fallible.

And that means that you’re going to be mistaken at some point.

And since you don’t know when you’re going to be mistaken, and I don’t know when you’re going to be mistaken…

I’m going to go with the interpreter that is infallible, thanks.

#gowiththeonewhosgoingtoberight