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

[powerofk]

Hi '57,

If I may cut in, I know the apostles baptized, made disciples, but not sure they ever held “confessional” time as done today. I would think forgiving and retaining must be something else.

Blessings

The sacrament of confession has definitely changed throughout the centuries. I was taught when I was younger that originally, a sacramental confession was allowed only once during one’s post-baptismal lifetime. This seems to have been the case when the non-canonical (but still considered edifying spiritual reading) Shepherd of Hermas was written. Part of the book actually details how the sacrament of confession occured in the early Church. Later, confession was allowed more often - though public sins required a public penance and more private sins required a more private penance. The purpose of the curtain was to protect the anonymity of the penitent in times where priests were often pressed upon pain of death to state who visited them in the confessional. The thought was, if a priest hadn’t seen the penitent, he wouldn’t be able to say whether the penitent had come to him in confession or not.

Nowadays, though some still prefer the curtain, we are allowed to have a face-to-face confession, which I prefer personally, because it’s like having a face-to-face with Jesus Himself (remember, the Church considers the priest to act in persona Christi (that is, simply as Jesus’s mouthpiece - the voice heard is the priest’s, though the real person speaking is Jesus Himself) both while saying the words of consecration for the Holy Eucharist and while saying the words of absolution in Confession.

That’s the key - in the Sacrament of Confession, it’s not the priest who forgives us - it’s Jesus Himself. We could pray to Jesus and ask Him to forgive our sins, but it’s quite easy to delude oneself and believe that we’ve been forgiven or that we have permission to continue in committing a sin. For a Catholic with the proper sense of humility (not overly proud nor overly scrupulous), Confession keeps him/her honest with himself or herself. Why? Because the person (1) has to admit that he/she is not perfect, but (2) is assured of God’s mercy and that God will help the person from continuing to stumble in the future. We’re forced to actually admit that we are sinners, but we actually get to hear with our own human ears that we’re forgiven! This, actually, is huge! Here’s my question for you, benhur (and I mean this honestly, not in a degrading, push off way): As a Protestant, when you sin, how do you know if God has forgiven you of a sin that you committed after your baptism?

 

[PJM]

=eazyduzit;13255635]Remember that the apostles were Hebrews so you could only expect them to understand from a Jewish perspective. Without doubt they knew that only God can forgive sins. So they would have taken this to mean that their pastoral duty would be to judge the sincerity of those who claim to have been saved . That is, to exercise church discipline. For example, if a believer goes on sinning like a heathen, we might exercise the authority to judge that such a one has not been saved or forgiven. How else would one know that sins are not fogiven, but by the fruit of ones life. For instance if someone persists in speaking heresy, it would be the church leaders role to pronounce him to be unforgiven and without life. But if he repents with sincerity, he could be judged to be forgiven. Of course, in any church there are a certain percentage who are unsaved because they may not yet have understood the gospel, but we are not to knowingly allow membership to those we can see are not behaving or believing according to the gospel for the church of God is only for the saved.

Thanks for the question!

REALLY

Mt 10:1-9
And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave [SOME OF HIS OWN] them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give. Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses"

John 17- 17-19
Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.** And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. **

We see here [or OUGHT to]; three points

1. Jesus praying to His Father CAN"T be denied as He too is GOD

2 Jesus sends THEM here “as the Father sent Him”; with heavenly powers. This is repeated again in John 20:21 as you will see.

3.Jesus gives HIMSELF as warranty of His precepts, commands, commandments, and
Teaching Only thee truth on ALL Faith-beliefs and Moral Teachings.
John 20: 19-23

One cannot conveniently over look these FACT’S

John 20:19-23

Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. ** He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you**.** As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.** [22]** When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost**. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

So dear friend, if this does not mean what it says; what in you’re opinion oes Jesus MEAN:shrug:

This teaching ought to bread with
1 John 1: 8-10
1 John 5: 16-17

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

=eazyduzit;13255635]Remember that the apostles were Hebrews so you could only expect them to understand from a Jewish perspective. Without doubt they knew that only God can forgive sins. So they would have taken this to mean that their pastoral duty would be to judge the sincerity of those who claim to have been saved . That is, to exercise church discipline. For example, if a believer goes on sinning like a heathen, we might exercise the authority to judge that such a one has not been saved or forgiven. How else would one know that sins are not fogiven, but by the fruit of ones life. For instance if someone persists in speaking heresy, it would be the church leaders role to pronounce him to be unforgiven and without life. But if he repents with sincerity, he could be judged to be forgiven. Of course, in any church there are a certain percentage who are unsaved because they may not yet have understood the gospel,** but we are not to knowingly allow membership to those we can see are not behaving or believing according to the gospel for the church of God is only for the saved.
**

Thanks for the question!

WOW; then just where and how does one “get saved” if NOT in and through"the church"[MY emphasis added above]

What you suggest for sin-forgiveness is a possibility; BUT an certain ONE.

This is MAN"S way; HIGHLY conditional and NOT assured.

Catholic Sacramental Confession is the KNOWN forgiveness of our sins; permitting as Jesus envisioned GREAT inner-peace AND GRAVE to aid one in not sinning that way again:

John 20:21-23

He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] **Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, **they are retained

THis is the second BEST reason [IMO] to be a practicing Catholic:thumbsup:

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[JustaServant]

Eazyduzit; the problem is you see salvation as an ‘event’, not a process. Thus, salvation becomes a monument I look back on, instead of working toward. It creates a spiritual and psychological web that is difficult to untangle. Because it is found nowhere in the Bible or in Church history. Not even the Protestant reformers taught it.
First of all, the dramatic life-changing “Born Again” experiences reported by many is subjective – they vary in degree from person to person.
Secondly, these groups then take what is subjective and try to make it normative. In other words, they take these very personal encounters and insist that everyone must have a similar experience.
It is possible for Catholics to have the dramatic “experience” attested by many non-Catholics. But the “experience” is not equated with salvation. 2000 years of Church history is silent on that, until the last two centuries.

 

[JMM1957]

Remember that the apostles were Hebrews so you could only expect them to understand from a Jewish perspective. Without doubt they knew that only God can forgive sins. So they would have taken this to mean that their pastoral duty would be to judge the sincerity of those who claim to have been saved . That is, to exercise church discipline. For example, if a believer goes on sinning like a heathen, we might exercise the authority to judge that such a one has not been saved or forgiven. How else would one know that sins are not fogiven, but by the fruit of ones life. For instance if someone persists in speaking heresy, it would be the church leaders role to pronounce him to be unforgiven and without life. But if he repents with sincerity, he could be judged to be forgiven. Of course, in any church there are a certain percentage who are unsaved because they may not yet have understood the gospel, but we are not to knowingly allow membership to those we can see are not behaving or believing according to the gospel for the church of God is only for the saved.

Thanks for the question!

Is this a roundabout way of saying that they had authority to forgive sins, or what? Since coming on this forum, I have to say that I find it interesting, and humorous at times, how the other side will put something in their own words(which says the same thing), rather than just agreeing with you on your words.

 

[eazyduzit]

Is this a roundabout way of saying that they had authority to forgive sins, or what? Since coming on this forum, I have to say that I find it interesting, and humorous at times, how the other side will put something in their own words(which says the same thing), rather than just agreeing with you on your words.

Sorry that was not clear enough.
My answer is that only God may forgive sins. Pastoral responsibility is to judge who is truly forgiven and born of God and who is not. Actual remittance cannot be done by another man for one would have to know the true state of the penitant’s heart, and only God can be a true and perfectly just judge.

 

[Elizium23]

Sorry that was not clear enough.
My answer is that only God may forgive sins. Pastoral responsibility is to judge who is truly forgiven and born of God and who is not.

Isn’t it extremely odd, then, that Sacred Scripture attests to an event whereby God gave humans the ability to forgive sins on His behalf? How do you explain that?

 

[eazyduzit]

Eazyduzit; the problem is you see salvation as an ‘event’, not a process. Thus, salvation becomes a monument I look back on, instead of working toward. It creates a spiritual and psychological web that is difficult to untangle. Because it is found nowhere in the Bible or in Church history. Not even the Protestant reformers taught it.
First of all, the dramatic life-changing “Born Again” experiences reported by many is subjective – they vary in degree from person to person.
Secondly, these groups then take what is subjective and try to make it normative. In other words, they take these very personal encounters and insist that everyone must have a similar experience.
It is possible for Catholics to have the dramatic “experience” attested by many non-Catholics. But the “experience” is not equated with salvation. 2000 years of Church history is silent on that, until the last two centuries.

I do not see it as a “problem” . It was Jesus who compared salvation to natural birth. When a baby enters the world, it is an event and not a process. I believe St.Paul was immediately saved and changed when he met Jesus on a certain road. I believe the Ethiopian in Acts8 also had a testimony of receiving from God although not as dramatic. I believe that all those in Acts 10:44 were saved as Peter preached because the HS fell on them. It was not a process l believe that the Samaritan woman in John 4 was saved when she encountered Jesus, because she went to witness immediately and give her testimony. In none of these cases was it anything that the people had done for themselves.

That said, i think it would be helpful if we would first define what we believe salvation is and what, if any, is received or changed as a result.

 

[eazyduzit]

Isn’t it extremely odd, then, that Sacred Scripture attests to an event whereby God gave humans the ability to forgive sins on His behalf? How do you explain that?

Sacred Scripture cannot be made to attest to God making a monumental change when you only can show one verse in support and that only if you interpret it your way. To backup what i have said, I call St. John back to the witness stand. He affirms in 1Jn1:9 “If we confess our sins, HE is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”. What is forgiveness baseed on according to this verse? It is based on the justice and faithfulness of Jesus and no man,

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry that was not clear enough.
My answer is that only God may forgive sins. Pastoral responsibility is to judge who is truly forgiven and born of God and who is not. Actual remittance cannot be done by another man for one would have to know the true state of the penitant’s heart, and only God can be a true and perfectly just judge.

This is very Catholic.

But there is no denying that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to hear men’s confessions, and either forgive them or retain them.

You haven’t yet provided an answer as how you understand this, and how your church accomplishes this.

 

[PRmerger]

Sacred Scripture cannot be made to attest to God making a monumental change when you only can show one verse in support and that only if you interpret it your way. To backup what i have said, I call St. John back to the witness stand. He affirms in 1Jn1:9 “If we confess our sins, HE is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”. What is forgiveness baseed on according to this verse? It is based on the justice and faithfulness of Jesus and no man,

And yet here you are showing just one verse to support your view.

Incidentally, how many verses are required in order to support our view?

 

[Michael68]

Salvation is received at the end of life. It is something we strive to attain by obeying God. It is not what the Protestants claim. You don’t say a prayer, shake a preacher’s hand and have Salvation. That is a lie from the devil

 

[PRmerger]

Salvation is received at the end of life. It is something we strive to attain by obeying God. It is not what the Protestants claim. You don’t say a prayer, shake a preacher’s hand and have Salvation. That is a lie from the devil

Egg-zactly. No one is saved until he dies.

 

[Michael68]

The problem as I see it is that Protestants erroneously see obeying God as works. They teach a No Works Gospel which is not biblical.

 

[benhur]

The sacrament of confession has definitely changed throughout the centuries. I was taught when I was younger that originally, a sacramental confession was allowed only once during one’s post-baptismal lifetime. This seems to have been the case when the non-canonical (but still considered edifying spiritual reading) Shepherd of Hermas was written. Part of the book actually details how the sacrament of confession occured in the early Church. Later, confession was allowed more often - though public sins required a public penance and more private sins required a more private penance. The purpose of the curtain was to protect the anonymity of the penitent in times where priests were often pressed upon pain of death to state who visited them in the confessional. The thought was, if a priest hadn’t seen the penitent, he wouldn’t be able to say whether the penitent had come to him in confession or not.

Nowadays, though some still prefer the curtain, we are allowed to have a face-to-face confession, which I prefer personally, because it’s like having a face-to-face with Jesus Himself (remember, the Church considers the priest to act in persona Christi (that is, simply as Jesus’s mouthpiece - the voice heard is the priest’s, though the real person speaking is Jesus Himself) both while saying the words of consecration for the Holy Eucharist and while saying the words of absolution in Confession.

Hi pf,

Thanks for info and partly agreeing to development.

That’s the key - in the Sacrament of Confession, it’s not the priest who forgives us - it’s Jesus Himself. We could pray to Jesus and ask Him to forgive our sins, but it’s quite easy to delude oneself and believe that we’ve been forgiven or that we have permission to continue in committing a sin. For a Catholic with the proper sense of humility (not overly proud nor overly scrupulous), Confession keeps him/her honest with himself or herself. Why? Because the person (1) has to admit that he/she is not perfect, but (2) is assured of God’s mercy and that God will help the person from continuing to stumble in the future. We’re forced to actually admit that we are sinners, but we actually get to hear with our own human ears that we’re forgiven! This, actually, is huge! Here’s my question for you, benhur (and I mean this honestly, not in a degrading, push off way): As a Protestant, when you sin, how do you know if God has forgiven you of a sin that you committed after your baptism?

Blessed is he who has not seen (or heard) but believes it to be done. Do you have to hear with your fleshly ear ?

I thought in confessional preparation, you are before the Lord, and do not delude yourself, and understand His heart for forgiveness, before Him. This is all to be settled before going into the priest. All that is to be settled afterwards is perhaps counsel and penance. So we do what you do, that is before the Lord. The Lord that knows us intimately, even more than we can convey to a priest. Even more. He is the discerner, the convictor ,the counselor , the forgiver, ultimately. After all, He sticks closer than a brother, and struck us deeply into new life. It began deeply, intimately, and so it continues as we walk, even as we need to confess from time to time. So powerful is He intimately that David says have mercy on your revelation to myself of my own depravity lest one be left dry/dead.

What you have is a mediator, all the time (except in the preparation for confessional) kind of like institutionalizing the time, the "event’’. Once in a while that is good , but across the board, every time ? What you also mention is more to me the confessing of your faults one to another . Faults, not sins (except to the one you offended) . This keeps one humble also. It is not the confessional, where faults can still be kept from the congregation.

Both ways of confessing can be abused, and are to the level of sincerity and maturity as has been graced to the confessor.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The problem as I see it is that Protestants erroneously see obeying God as works. They teach a No Works Gospel which is not biblical.

Hi M,

This is from another thread:

“Yet P’s may stress being P and not C inherently because they feel CC does not stress this new birth enough or through works. C’s probably inherently do not want possible converts to be P’s because they think P’s do not stress works.”

So maybe we are wrong and confusing obedience with your works , but I would say you are wrong in saying we have a no “obedience” gospel.

All of it is obedience, including faith.

Do you feel we became born again because we felt like it ? Yes, we were drawn and became so ultimately out of obedience to the faith that He placed in us, that it pleased Him. And that He desired our salvation more than we ever could or did. An obedient response to His loving call, not a legalistic, get out of hell card.

And likewise we follow obediently as so graced to do the good works as destined before the foundation of the world. The good news is that we no longer obey to achieve, acquire, but because we we have already acquired all in Christ. The more we realize that the more we build by faith and obedience on that.

Blessings

 

[Michael68]

Hi M,

This is from another thread:

“Yet P’s may stress being P and not C inherently because they feel CC does not stress this new birth enough or through works. C’s probably inherently do not want possible converts to be P’s because they think P’s do not stress works.”

So maybe we are wrong and confusing obedience with your works , but I would say you are wrong in saying we have a no “obedience” gospel.

All of it is obedience, including faith.

Do you feel we became born again because we felt like it ? Yes, we were drawn and became so ultimately out of obedience to the faith that He placed in us, that it pleased Him. And that He desired our salvation more than we ever could or did. An obedient response to His loving call, not a legalistic, get out of hell card.

Blessings

Hi! Please answer for me why P say we have a works based Salvation when we are obeying the Lord? I have seen this accusation several times on P forums and has led me to this conclusion: P don’t understand what works are. They claim some scriptures about not doing works so no one should boast. I think this is taken out of context and not to mean do nothing.

 

[benhur]

Hi! Please answer for me why P say we have a works based Salvation when we are obeying the Lord? I have seen this accusation several times on P forums and has led me to this conclusion: P don’t understand what works are. They claim some scriptures about not doing works so no one should boast. I think this is taken out of context and not to mean do nothing.

I gotta go but it is difference of works as effectual or because we have been affected. That is, works to gain something or works because we have already gained (our eternal destiny) ? That is works to remain '‘saved’ or works because we are already saved ?

A lot has to do with when are we born again or how we define that .

We also feel we are obeying the Lord when we base our justification by the sola’s of faith, grace, Christ, and for His glory.

Blessings

 

[eazyduzit]

The problem as I see it is that Protestants erroneously see obeying God as works. They teach a No Works Gospel which is not biblical.

The obedience to God is faith . So many times in the Gospels Jesus says" Be it done unto you according to your faith. Faith is what gets things done in the kingdom. The “work” of God is to believe Jn6:29.
I don’t understand why Catholics want to merit God’s gracious FREE GIFT
(5X in Rm5) and steal His glory?

 

[PRmerger]

The obedience to God is faith . So many times in the Gospels Jesus says" Be it done unto you according to your faith. Faith is what gets things done in the kingdom. The “work” of God is to believe Jn6:29.
I don’t understand why Catholics want to merit God’s gracious FREE GIFT
(5X in Rm5) and steal His glory?

The concept of merit (that is, reward) is very Biblical, eazy.