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

[In_His_Grace]

Ok. Reward has several meanings. Reward then in the biblical sense of our conversation is then a reward as per gift, or without merit, or what we have done. It is not earned. My latter statement “heaven is not merited” qualifies “heaven is not a reward”. That your quote leaves out the “not” ok, the idea is the same. Gift,unmerited.

Blessings PR

PS Good quote find

Also, regarding the Book of Concord, eternal life is something “owed” only in the sense that it is based on the promises of God.

 

[Michael68]

Ok.Kindly disagree. Paul was not referring also to losing his salvation. The prize ,reward. is not salvation. As the Lord says in Rev 22 ,“Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me”. This all has to do with the judgement seat of Christ where we will be given rewards or have some taken away depending on of works in the kingdom. For instance who shall sit on His right side, or anywhere else ? Would that not be a reward ?

Blessings

I Cor. 9:24-27. St. Paul especially talks of losing salvation in verse 27.

 

[PRmerger]

Also, regarding the Book of Concord, eternal life is something “owed” only in the sense that it is based on the promises of God.

Amen! Very Catholic, this.

 

[benhur]

Very true, and my opinion is that this would be a good place to end the debate, because anything else that is added will just be more of the same thing. Much of our differences come down to the meaning of “words”, wouldn’t you agree? I think both sides really do have the general idea of how we are justified or saved, and the idea that Paul and James seem to have different viewpoints on faith/works only shows that the passing of time has not changed much when it comes to the P’s and C’s viewpoints. I think that there is room for us both to be correct, if we just make some small compromises in our language.

Well yes and know.Then of course comes the application or the practice which may show real variance. I think Paul and James are reconciled viewpoints.
There is a big difference in works because you are saved and works to be saved.

Beyond the semantic problem is the is the idea that sacraments are effective, in particular baptism. So you have a lot of P’s who believe, made a profession, been baptized, and think they are ok (saved) right there, and may not really be born again. You have Catholics also who have been baptized but are taught to do things (sacraments, Mass, good corporal works of mercy etc.) within the Church to be ok (saved). They may also not be born again but as long as they are striving to be a good Catholic they think themselves to be OK (saved/being saved).

So yes, I do not like faith alone if one thinks a profession of faith, yes to an altar call, and you are born again when maybe you are not . I also do not like your sacraments and Catholic religious life making one think you are born again when maybe you are not.

So I agree that profession of faith alone, or doing all the right “things”/works may or may not indicate a "saved’ soul.

Blessings

 

[Michael68]

Well yes and know.Then of course comes the application or the practice which may show real variance. I think Paul and James are reconciled viewpoints.
There is a big difference in works because you are saved and works to be saved.

Beyond the semantic problem is the is the idea that sacraments are effective, in particular baptism. So you have a lot of P’s who believe, made a profession, been baptized, and think they are ok (saved) right there, and may not really be born again. You have Catholics also who have been baptized but are taught to do things (sacraments, Mass, good corporal works of mercy etc.) within the Church to be ok (saved). They may also not be born again but as long as they are striving to be a good Catholic they think themselves to be OK (saved/being saved).

So yes, I do not like faith alone if one thinks a profession of faith, yes to an altar call, and you are born again when maybe you are not . I also do not like your sacraments and Catholic religious life making one think you are born again when maybe you are not.

So I agree that profession of faith alone, or doing all the right “things”/works may or may not indicate a "saved’ soul.

Blessings

I have to agree to disagree

 

[benhur]

Also, regarding the Book of Concord, eternal life is something “owed” only in the sense that it is based on the promises of God.

Yes our “reward” is bought and paid for , propitiated , by Christ. In essence the Lord is “owed”, awarded, us, the spotless Bride.

 

[JMM1957]

Ok.Kindly disagree. Paul was not referring also to losing his salvation. The prize ,reward. is not salvation. As the Lord says in Rev 22 ,“Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me”. This all has to do with the judgement seat of Christ where we will be given rewards or have some taken away depending on of works in the kingdom. For instance who shall sit on His right side, or anywhere else ? Would that not be a reward ?

Blessings

I know that you don’t want to believe that a heavenly reward is salvation itself, but it is ben, because in your mind you keep wanting to not associate any kind of works with salvation, but I’m afraid James especially, and even Paul, tells us that works are necessary to complete our faith.

Lets look at 2 Tim.4: 6-8 again.…6For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. 7I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; 8in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have long for His appearing.

If Paul had not done the very things he just mentioned, do you thing he would have been awarded the crown of righteousness on that day? The crown of righteousness is not some kind of separate reward apart from salvation. Are you going to make me show you even more examples of heaven being OUR reward?

 

[benhur]

Let me ask you this, ben: are all Christians permitted to read the Bible and come to their own understanding of what it means? And then, does that mean we can read the Bible and decide what reward means in the Biblical sense, per our own prayer and inspiration?

And if my view is different (even contrary) than yours, are we still both right?

Hi PR,

Well here is the definition: “something that is given in return for good or evil done or received or that is offered or given for some service or attainment <the police offered a reward for his capture”.
Is it quid pro quo: “something that is given to you or done for you in return for something you have given to or done for someone else”

Is our covenant really based on quid pro quo ?

Those who go to hell are indeed rewarded with their destiny .It is given based on everything they have done. Such can not be said for the saved Christian. He is found in the book of life and awarded/rewarded heaven. The writing into that book is a free unmerited favor and based strictly on the good work of Christ, not our own works. So right there one can see how the word can be understood differently. One is not rewarded with hell the same way one is rewarded with heaven. Hence the qualification. Without that, I would deny the use of the word altogether for the saint and avoid any hint of merit.

As far as personal “interpretation”, we all personally decide what we think is right. Any good truth comes from without us hence it is not really your “own” interpretation, but one you think/believe to be right. And finally yes, truth is absolute. On many things both can not be right.

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

As far as personal “interpretation”, we all personally decide what we think is right. Any good truth comes from without us hence it is not really your “own” interpretation, but one you think/believe to be right.

Then you ought not be here doing what the Catholic Church does, to which you respond, “I don’t need a Church to tell me what’s the correct interpretation. I get to decide what I think is right.”

Why do you reserve for yourself what you object to in the CC?

 

[Michael68]

Hi PR,

Well here is the definition: “something that is given in return for good or evil done or received or that is offered or given for some service or attainment <the police offered a reward for his capture”.
Is it quid pro quo: “something that is given to you or done for you in return for something you have given to or done for someone else”

Is our covenant really based on quid pro quo ?

Those who go to hell are indeed rewarded with their destiny .It is given based on everything they have done. Such can not be said for the saved Christian. He is found in the book of life and awarded/rewarded heaven. The writing into that book is a free unmerited favor and based strictly on the good work of Christ, not our own works. So right there one can see how the word can be understood differently. One is not rewarded with hell the same way one is rewarded with heaven. Hence the qualification. Without that, I would deny the use of the word altogether for the saint and avoid any hint of merit.

As far as personal “interpretation”, we all personally decide what we think is right. Any good truth comes from without us hence it is not really your “own” interpretation, but one you think/believe to be right. And finally yes, truth is absolute. On many things both can not be right.

Blessings

Don’t you know your name can be taken out of the book of life? Blotted out like it was never there.

 

[benhur]

Then you ought not be here doing what the Catholic Church does, to which you respond, “I don’t need a Church to tell me what’s the correct interpretation. I get to decide what I think is right.”

Why do you reserve for yourself what you object to in the CC?

Well, again you must take my statement in its completeness to fully represent what I said, same as the Lutheran statement. Qualifications mean something.
The church is certainly part of the equation, as it is from without and from without comes truth. Just as you certainly are not saying you do need understanding ,or you do *not * need Scriptures (because u have church) or you do not need history or parents or teachers etc ., not to mention the Holy Spirit.

I do not object the CC or any church to decide a matter. I do not object for scripture to plainly spell out some matters .I do not object for History to weigh in, nor parents and teachers, or even an individual, etc.

Again , why can it not be both, and in fact it is. For you/we decide which church got it right, what historical view got it right etc…

Blessings.

 

[PRmerger]

I do not object the CC or any church to decide a matter.

Really? Even when it disagrees with your personal view on a theological matter?

 

[benhur]

Don’t you know your name can be taken out of the book of life? Blotted out like it was never there.

Yes understand . There is that warning. Actually Mike, do you know of an instance where it happens , or will happen ? Yes it is a warning but does scripture say where of one who was written in it but was taken out ? Not sure. The OSAS is something I am not dogmatic about.

 

[benhur]

Really? Even when it disagrees with your personal view on a theological matter?

As long as “not objecting” does not mean agreeing to. There is also the understanding of different levels of objecting/disagreeing, and of course the caveat that if there is any possible personal wrongdoing on this matter I probably have occasioned it .

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

As long as “not objecting” does not mean agreeing to. There is also the understanding of different levels of objecting/disagreeing, and of course the caveat that if there is any possible personal wrongdoing on this matter I probably have occasioned it .

Blessings

I’m sorry. I don’t know what that means.

Do you submit to your church on some theological matters, even when you disagree personally?

 

[Michael68]

Yes understand . There is that warning. Actually Mike, do you know of an instance where it happens , or will happen ? Yes it is a warning but does scripture say where of one who was written in it but was taken out ? Not sure. The OSAS is something I am not dogmatic about.

I don’t know of an instance recorded in the bible (afterall we know from St. John that everything is not recorded in the bible). The warning alone is enough for me to stay on God’s path

 

[JMM1957]

Yes understand . There is that warning. Actually Mike, do you know of an instance where it happens , or will happen ? Yes it is a warning but does scripture say where of one who was written in it but was taken out ? Not sure. The OSAS is something I am not dogmatic about.

How about this one, Psalm 69:28…27Add iniquity to their iniquity, And may they not come into Your righteousness. 28May they be blotted out of the book of life. And may they not be recorded with the righteous. 29But I am afflicted and in pain; May Your salvation, O God, set me securely on high.…

 

[Michael68]

How about this one, Psalm 69:28…27Add iniquity to their iniquity, And may they not come into Your righteousness. 28May they be blotted out of the book of life. And may they not be recorded with the righteous. 29But I am afflicted and in pain; May Your salvation, O God, set me securely on high.…

Thank You!!! I knew it had to be somewhere. I remember a teaching years ago that said your name can be blotted out. Thanks again.

 

[benhur]

I don’t know of an instance recorded in the bible (afterall we know from St. John that everything is not recorded in the bible). The warning alone is enough for me to stay on God’s path

thanks bro . agree to warning

 

[PJM]

=benhur;13261977]Hi JMM,

The thread deals with “salvation” of the individual. “Getting things done” does not save you .“Getting things done” assumes life, spiritual life (a corpse can not get things done). Getting things done is what is done after one has life. Getting things done shows you have life (with the caveat that spiritual corpses-goats -can also appear to be doing things also).

Where we differ is that you combine justification with sanctification (a setting aside to get things done, being fashioned for a purpose, after justification/new birth). That is it is almost like the CC says sanctification “saves” you. Or it is a preoccupation in “getting things done” to continue being saved. We would say yes be preoccupied, but not to be saved , but because you are saved, but now, what kind of Christian will you be, and to claim, fulfill, all that has been destined for you, to claim your full reward. (reward is not heaven, for you have that promise already).

Blessings

I’ve never heard the “catholic position” described as “sanctification saves you” before. This is however extremely close to thee truth as truth must be singular per defined issue.

I get somehow the impression that you MIGHT be scoffing at this principle?

1 Peter 1:16
Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy

Luke 6:40
The disciple is not above his master: but every one shall be perfect, if he be as his master

2 Timothy 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work

Matthew 5:48
Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect

The reality is that Souls that either ARE Perfect" or have died without unconfessed Mortal sins being forgiven are going to enter into heaven.

I SUSPECT we can agree on this 1st point.

Where we disagree is on the need for sin forgiveness; where it would seem TO ME, that you favor the philosophy that Christ DOES and DID it all; while we hold to what the Boble actually teaches which flows from and beyond the OT use of Priest in the process of sin-forgiveness.

1 John 1: 8-10
i John 5: 16-17
& John 20: 19-23

God Bless you,

Patrick