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

[JMM1957]

The Apostles Creed is a set of basic or fundamental beliefs held by the majority of Christendom, however many do not see it as complete. It does not address the inerrancy of scripture.

Hi easy, do you accept this?

The Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord; which was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven; and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic [universal] church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and life everlasting. Amen.

If not, what is lacking?

 

[Michael68]

Catholicism is like trying to drink from the fire hydrant.

Then why are you here on a Catholic forum? Kinda like a chicken walking into the wolf den. I don’t get it.

 

[In_His_Grace]

Actually, this is not true. It is very common, especially on CAF to dialogue with Catholics on scripture alone.

The the problem becomes interpretation of that scripture, and who and where does one go to settle the dispute? Who has the authority to decide and where did that authority come from to decide what scripture means. This includes explicit verses :

• We are saved by faith and works (James 2:14-26)
• Baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3)
• Those who believe AND are baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
• he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life (John 6)

This is true because Jesus Christ never said to write everything down. In fact, he never said to write anything down. He said to go preach the gospel. Catholic’s adhere to St. Paul (here I am arguing from scripture alone) :

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thes 2:15)

Arguing from scripture alone, if you have a verse that says :

• We should hold to scripture alone
• Delay baptism to the age of reason
• Baptism is only symbolic profession of faith
• The Eucharist is symbolic only

I’m all ears.

Hi Porknpie,

It wasn’t my intention to debate sola scriptura. I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I was trying to help eazyduzit understand that it’s difficult to dialogue with Catholics from “only” the Scriptures minus Sacred Tradition (the deposit of faith = Sacred Scripture + Sacred Tradition), you know, the three legged stool, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (living teaching office of the Church) which is why I posted a link to DEI VERBUM, to help eazyduzit understand this.

Blessings

 

[JMM1957]

It does not refer to any specific law. If following some rule or just doing something good makes you think you have more favor from God, then you are a “Iaw keeper”. Read Rm.14
“For the kingdom of God is not meat or drink, [What I do or don’t do ] but righteousness and peace and joy in the holy Ghost”.

Yes, if you do something good in love, you do get rewarded by God, this is Scriptural. This does not mean that it is a competition to see who does the most good, and God shows favoritism. We are expected to put our faith into action through love.

 

[In_His_Grace]

Actually, this is not true. It is very common, especially on CAF to dialogue with Catholics on scripture alone.

The the problem becomes interpretation of that scripture, and who and where does one go to settle the dispute? Who has the authority to decide and where did that authority come from to decide what scripture means. This includes explicit verses :

• We are saved by faith and works (James 2:14-26)
• Baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3)
• Those who believe AND are baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
• he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life (John 6)

This is true because Jesus Christ never said to write everything down. In fact, he never said to write anything down. He said to go preach the gospel. Catholic’s adhere to St. Paul (here I am arguing from scripture alone) :

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thes 2:15)

Arguing from scripture alone, if you have a verse that says :

• We should hold to scripture alone
• Delay baptism to the age of reason
• Baptism is only symbolic profession of faith
• The Eucharist is symbolic only

I’m all ears.

Also, even if I never convert I’ll always have a deep appreciation for Catholicism. Like zz912 said …

Catholicism is like trying to drink from the fire hydrant.

This is true in so many ways.

In His Grace

 

[In_His_Grace]

Yes, if you do something good in love, you do get rewarded by God, this is Scriptural. This does not mean that it is a competition to see who does the most good, and God shows favoritism. We are expected to put our faith into action through love.

… We are expected to put our faith into action through love.

Any orthodox Protestant would completely agree with this JMM1957.

Blessings

 

[PJM]

=In His Grace;13282007]Hi eazyduzit,

For the most part I’m with you. I’ve been considering Catholicism for about three years but it’s not likely I’ll ever convert though I do try to keep an open mind and will follow God wherever He leads me. By the way, it’s impossible to dialogue with Catholics from scripture alone as it’s just not part of their way of understanding, their beliefs, about God and His revelation of Himself to man. The following you may find helpful …

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

source: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Kudos and God bless you.

Greetings in Christ Jesus my friend;

I’d like to respond to your first point

I’m going to seemingly contradict myself here, so please stay with me.

Actually the Catholic Church better than any other faith CAN carry on a faith discussion using the bible alone; IF, if, we use all of it.

Secondly
The Bible itself tells ALL of us that the bible alone is insufficient

2 Thes.2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter…

2 Thes.3: 6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

And then their is THIS
**John 20: 30-31 **"Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

John 21:24-25 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.** But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.**

Then if this is still insufficient * there is secular history.

The Bible was not fully authored until the end of the 1st, or VERY early 2nd Century.

The First NT books were authored roughly 50 years or so AFTER the Death and Resurrection of Jesus; THEREFORE The VERY Early Catholic Church [the only Christian church to exist anywhere in the world for nearly the 1st THOUSAND Years] could ONLY have taught the Faith BY Tradition and Word of Mouth

While you straddle the fence of uncertainty; ponder these; what ought to indisputable points:

Can we agree that their is but One True God?

Is it possible for God to hold more than just one truth per defined issue?

Yahweh insisted on only One True Faith; so could Jesus do anything other than that?

History affirms that today’s CC is the One Founded by Jesus, so is it even possible that Jesus [our Perfect God] would have waited over 1,200 YEARS for Wycliffe, Knox, Luther or Calvin to introduce HIS Faith?

God Bless you both!

Patrick*

 

[In_His_Grace]

Greetings in Christ Jesus my friend;

I’d like to respond to your first point

I’m going to seemingly contradict myself here, so please stay with me.

Actually the Catholic Church better than any other faith CAN carry on a faith discussion using the bible alone; IF, if, we use all of it.

Secondly
The Bible itself tells ALL of us that the bible alone is insufficient

2 Thes.2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter…

2 Thes.3: 6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

And then their is THIS
**John 20: 30-31 **"Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

John 21:24-25 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.** But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.**

Then if this is still insufficient * there is secular history.

The Bible was not fully authored until the end of the 1st, or VERY early 2nd Century.

The First NT books were authored roughly 50 years or so AFTER the Death and Resurrection of Jesus; THEREFORE The VERY Early Catholic Church [the only Christian church to exist anywhere in the world for nearly the 1st THOUSAND Years] could ONLY have taught the Faith BY Tradition and Word of Mouth

While you straddle the fence of uncertainty; ponder these; what ought to indisputable points:

Can we agree that their is but One True God?

Is it possible for God to hold more than just one truth per defined issue?

Yahweh insisted on only One True Faith; so could Jesus do anything other than that?

History affirms that today’s CC is the One Founded by Jesus, so is it even possible that Jesus [our Perfect God] would have waited over 1,200 YEARS for Wycliffe, Knox, Luther or Calvin to introduce HIS Faith?

God Bless you both!

Patrick*

Hi Patrick,

Please refer to post 541.

Can we agree that their is but One True God?

 

[zz912]

This is a tragic misunderstanding of the Gospel. At the cross, Jesus put away all sin, not just part of it, past, present, and future. Not future sins says the Catholic. Well, when Christ died,
how much of your sin was future? Well, all of it I hope. Yes, all your sin is under the blood. God remembers it no more Heb.10:17. Now it is also understood that we still sin, but that does not disqualify us .Why not? Because" He ever liveth to make intercession for (us)"Heb7:25. I may fail, but Jesus does not. If Israel fails, does it cancel the covenant?
Law keepers rebel against this because they think it will cause people to sin more, but this expression of God’s love actually produces the opposite.

Are babies saved? Will they go to heaven?

If you answer is yes, then how do they lose their salvation? You claim they are saved, and as you say here, all their future sins are forgiven already.

If you answer no, then you must explain why Jesus had a different opinion about children than you. And how someone who is innocent of personal sin could be damned.

Your entire personal theology above is completely destroyed by the parable of the true vine. Jesus instructs His followers that they must REMAIN in Him, and He tells us what happens to those who do NOT remain in Him. This is impossible in your personal theology, since their future sins are already forgiven.

 

[zz912]

It does not refer to any specific law. If following some rule or just doing something good makes you think you have more favor from God, then you are a “Iaw keeper”. Read Rm.14
“For the kingdom of God is not meat or drink, [What I do or don’t do ] but righteousness and peace and joy in the holy Ghost”.

Are God’s commands optional?

 

[PRmerger]

Are babies saved? Will they go to heaven?

If you answer is yes, then how do they lose their salvation?

Excellent question.

 

[zz912]

Then why are you here on a Catholic forum? Kinda like a chicken walking into the wolf den. I don’t get it.

I’m Catholic.

 

[zz912]

Yes, if you do something good in love, you do get rewarded by God, this is Scriptural. This does not mean that it is a competition to see who does the most good, and God shows favoritism. We are expected to put our faith into action through love.

I seem to remember a teaching of Jesus where He gives 10 talents to one, 5 talents to another, and 3 to a third. So He rewarded them differently based on their works. And He even took the 1 talent of the disobedient gives it to the one with 10.

 

[Porknpie]

Hi Porknpie,

It wasn’t my intention to debate sola scriptura. I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I was trying to help eazyduzit understand that it’s difficult to dialogue with Catholics from “only” the Scriptures minus Sacred Tradition (the deposit of faith = Sacred Scripture + Sacred Tradition), you know, the three legged stool, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (living teaching office of the Church) which is why I posted a link to DEI VERBUM, to help eazyduzit understand this.

Blessings

In His Grace, blessings back.

But your words were (underline is mine)

“By the way, it’s impossible to dialogue with Catholics from scripture alone”

Saying it is impossible, now you are saying it is “difficult”.

I’ll still stand by saying it is neither difficult nor impossible.

Catholics, especially on CAF are used to debating using scripture alone. :tiphat:

Tradition and the Magisterium can always be used, rightly so but we are very comfortable just using scripture, alone.

Although no where in scripture does it ever say that all of the Christian faith that is to be believed and practiced, is to be found in scripture alone.

 

[eazyduzit]

Are God’s commands optional?

Certainly not, but it is no longer my responsibility. Please see Mt5:17,18.
Are you an official law keeper?

 

[In_His_Grace]

In His Grace, blessings back.

But your words were (underline is mine)

“By the way, it’s impossible to dialogue with Catholics from scripture alone”

Saying it is impossible, now you are saying it is “difficult”.

I’ll still stand by saying it is neither difficult nor impossible.

Catholics, especially on CAF are used to debating using scripture alone. :tiphat:

Tradition and the Magisterium can always be used, rightly so but we are very comfortable just using scripture, alone.

Although no where in scripture does it ever say that all of the Christian faith that is to be believed and practiced, is to be found in scripture alone.

My apologies Porknpie, we appear to have misunderstood one another. I agree that Catholics are able to make a reasonable though very unconvincing argument for Catholicism from scripture (as well as history).

Although no where in scripture does it ever say that all of the Christian faith that is to be believed and practiced, is to be found in scripture alone.

Agreed, I also accept tradition (small t) BUT tradition must conform to the word of God.

pax

 

[PRmerger]

My apologies Porknpie, we appear to have misunderstood one another. I agree that Catholics are able to make a reasonable though very unconvincing argument for Catholicism from scripture (as well as history).

Agreed, I also accept tradition (small t) BUT tradition must conform to the word of God.

pax

You have to know what the Word of God is first.

From where do you get the knowledge of what the Word of God is?

Answer: Sacred Tradition.

 

[JMM1957]

My apologies Porknpie, we appear to have misunderstood one another. I agree that Catholics are able to make a reasonable though very unconvincing argument for Catholicism from scripture (as well as history).

Agreed, I also accept tradition (small t) BUT tradition must conform to the word of God.

pax

And you can make a better argument for “what denomination” from Scripture as well as history?

 

[eazyduzit]

Are babies saved? Will they go to heaven?

If you answer is yes, then how do they lost their salvation? You claim they are saved, and as you say here, all their future sins are forgiven already.

If you answer no, then you must explain why Jesus had a different opinion about children than you. And how someone who is innocent of personal sin could be damned.

Your entire personal theology above is completely destroyed by the parable of the true vine. Jesus instructs His followers that they must REMAIN in Him, and He tells us what happens to those who do NOT remain in Him. This is impossible in your personal theology, since their future sins are already forgiven.

You ask this question because you misunderstand the nature of God. He is not an inflexible law keeper like some of us. Rather, He is the Just Judge who understands all the implications much better than we. He is not like us. Because of His supernatural love and justice, all babies are saved and all children before they reach their own personal" age of reason".
To take it one step further, what about those who commit suicide? Will they be saved or lost according to YOUR theology?

And yes i know that one must remain in Christ to be saved. It is evident throughout the NT.
But you are confusing Redemption (of the world) with Salvation (personal) .

But nice try

 

[JMM1957]

And yes i know that one must remain in Christ to be saved. It is evident throughout the NT.
But you are confusing Redemption (of the world) with Salvation (personal) .

But nice try

What is your version of “one must remain in Christ to be saved”? Do “your” personal sins (since being saved) have any effect on your ultimate salvation? Is it necessary for “you” to repent of your sins (since being saved) in order to continue to be saved?