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

[JMM1957]

No, at birth one is unsaved. As the bible says, we are born in sin. Catholics understand this,
Which is why they want to baptise infants, but if one should die, they will be saved due to the mercy and the character of God. There is a special area in heaven for children that died a violent death due to war or whatever because they need special care. There is another for aborted babies. A just God would not let innocents end up in hell. That is unthinkable. It is also almost a smear on the justice of God to baptize infants because you think He might let that happen. Are men more merciful than God? Really?

The way we understand it is, we are all born into original sin. It doesn’t matter if you are a newborn baby or an unbaptized adult, both are in sin, the former in original sin, the latter in both original and actual sin, actual sin being willful sin after the age of reason. Scripture says, “Amen, Amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.” This is why we baptize infants, to remove the original sin, and to bring them into the family of God, the New Covenant, just as circumcision in the OT entered the infant into the Old Covenant. Baptism Paul says, is “circumcision without human hands.” (Col. 2:11-12).

We believe in the mercy and justice of God just as you do. But we also acknowledge that Scripture does not SPECIFICALLY speak about the fate of infants who die in the womb or newborn infants who have not yet been baptized. Taking this into consideration, the Church’s current position is that although it has not been defined infallibly, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism.

 

[JMM1957]

No, at birth one is unsaved. As the bible says, we are born in sin. Catholics understand this,
Which is why they want to baptise infants, but if one should die, they will be saved due to the mercy and the character of God. There is a special area in heaven for children that died a violent death due to war or whatever because they need special care. There is another for aborted babies. A just God would not let innocents end up in hell. That is unthinkable. It is also almost a smear on the justice of God to baptize infants because you think He might let that happen. Are men more merciful than God? Really?

Baptism of infants has always been the practice of the Church from the earliest times, and we do it not because of mistrust in God’s justice, as you suggest, but because baptism is the NT equal of circumcision, as I said in my previous post. We are simply carrying out Jesus command in John 3:5. What was the eternal fate of an OT baby who died in the womb or died after birth but before circumcision???

 

[benhur]

LOL, perfect example of why someone should go back and read what they just wrote before they press the “submit” button!

Hi JMM,

been there, done that (that is, too quick on the submit button ,and sometimes not listening to that little inner voice).

Blessings

 

[zz912]

Originally Posted by zz912 View Post
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?

I wasn’t asking about the law. I was asking about God’s commands.

You stated God’s commands are absolutely NOT optional. So my next question to you is what happens if a saved Christian does not follow these commands?

1. Feed the hungry
2. Clothe the naked
3. Visit those in prison.
4. Care for the sick.
5. Care for your family
6. Eat His Flesh, drink His Blood
7. be baptized
8. correct a wayward brother
9. etc, etc, etc

 

[zz912]

As i have said, the Cross was a propitiation for the sins of the whole world. However, there is one sin that is unto death. It is to disbelieve.

Even the demons believe. Why are they not saved?

Your destiny depends on what you believe, not on sins, because everyone sins.

Scripture support for this personal belief of yours? Because in every instance where Jesus talks of His coming judgment, He judges based on our actions.

But if you really are a true believer you won’t want to sin.

The Apostles thought differently than you. That’s why they wrote many letters to various groups of true believers, exhorting them to continue in their ways and not to fall prey to sin and lose their salvation.

Even if you’re stuck in an addiction, you realize it’s wrong. David was already struggling with himself before the prophet came to him. But he had never lost his salvation although his joy was gone.

Citation for this personal belief of yours? Where does the Bible state David never lost his salvation?

Law keepers always want to know , what is the minimum I can do?

Labeling everyone else as “law keepers” seems like a poor attempt to deflect from criticism of your personal theology. There’s not one faithful Catholic that I know that even THINKS about what the minimum that they must do.

But a real relationship with Jesus is more like a marriage. We don’t think in terms of what is the minimum i can do and still get by.

Believe it or not, but Catholics do have a real relationship with Jesus, and it IS a marriage.

 

[zz912]

No, at birth one is unsaved. As the bible says, we are born in sin. Catholics understand this,
Which is why they want to baptise infants, but if one should die, they will be saved due to the mercy and the character of God. There is a special area in heaven for children that died a violent death due to war or whatever because they need special care. There is another for aborted babies. A just God would not let innocents end up in hell. That is unthinkable. It is also almost a smear on the justice of God to baptize infants because you think He might let that happen. Are men more merciful than God? Really?

So babies, who are unsaved, still attain Heaven and salvation? How’s that work?

You are getting yourself twisted into saying the most ridiculous things because you refuse to admit the error of your personal theology.

And why are babies who die violent deaths given a special place, but babies who die of natural causes not? Do babies who die of cancer or peanut allergies not saved? Or are they placed in some other section of Heaven? Where is all this teaching of yours found in the Bible? Where does it teach that babies are automatically saved, and ones who die violent deaths are given special treatment over ones who die natural deaths?

It would just be easier if you came up with some other explanation for the fatal flaw in your theory of OSAS. You have to answer why babies are saved, then lose their salvation, but people gain their salvation back, but can never lose again for some reason.

 

[zz912]

“We don’t know” is a good answer. That’s what the Pharisees answered when Jesus asked them about the baptism of John.

Really?!?!?

THAT’S who you want to compare yourself and your views to? You do know that the Pharisees in that story didn’t want to answer Jesus because they knew that either answer would expose how their theology was wrong.

Come to think of it, maybe it applies after all.

 

[clem456]

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.

Just to be clear, Christ has conquered sin and death. End of story (or more accurately, beginning of story…Good News for all of humanity). Jesus of Nazareth, through his offering of himself, is redemption for all sins of all time. In God there is no past, present, or future. He is beyond time. Our future sins do not vacate redemption.

The question is, will we accept redemption and attain salvation in him, or will we put our pride in the way and insist on the power our sins?

 

[JMM1957]

I mentioned this only as an illustration of the goodness of God. It has been independently reported by several people who have seen heaven.

Babies don’t automatically become mature by living in heaven. Young ones need help and personal love just as they do here.

You also stated earlier: “There is a special area in heaven for children that died a violent death due to war or whatever because they need special care. There is another for aborted babies.”

Unless I misunderstand, you are stating this as though you accept these independent visions as fact to support your personal beliefs or the beliefs of your congregation. Or at least you consider these visions of heaven to be worthy of belief in the goodness of God. So, my question is, do some of your understandings of God and His goodness come from outside of Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

It has been independently reported by several people who have seen heaven.

So you are expressing a theological point–“babies who die in violent deaths have a special place in heave”–that’s not found in Scripture, but comes from private revelation.

So please don’t ever refer to yourself as a Bible Alone Christian,

or object to Catholicism, which also claims that Scripture is not the only source for our doctrines.

 

[JMM1957]

So you are expressing a theological point–“babies who die in violent deaths have a special place in heave”–that’s not found in Scripture, but comes from private revelation.

So please don’t ever refer to yourself as a Bible Alone Christian,

or object to Catholicism, which also claims that Scripture is not the only source for our doctrines.

We as Catholics believe that in God’s goodness, mercy, and justice, and that He would not condemn aborted or unbaptized babies, and even though the Scriptures do not address this particular issue independently or specifically, we have the strong belief that there is a special place for these babies in eternal life. Because of the lack of definitive Scriptural evidence, we cannot say implicitly that they go to “heaven” itself. We must never be afraid to admit that there are some things about God that we don’t understand, but we know enough about Him to have faith, hope, and love. "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? (Rom. 11:33-34).

 

[PJM]

=In His Grace;13284776]Hi Patrick,

Please refer to post 541.

Yes, no, no, and disagree.

pax

So my friend, please show me how you’re disagreeing changes the FACTS:shrug:

Historically true is the fact the RCC was the ONLY Christian established-church and faith until the Great Eastern Schism of 1054

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

=In His Grace;13286568]I disagree. Scripture is not a Catholic book. We don’t get the knowledge of what scripture is from the Catholic Church’s Sacred Tradition. God’s people, the church, distinguished scripture from other religious writings. God was involved in every step of the process. The canon of scripture was not created by the church rather the church discovered or recognized it. God’s word was inspired and authoritative from its inception, it “stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89) and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it. Why would God speak to us via scripture and then fail to guide the church in recognizing and preserving His speech? God gave scripture to the church, period.

Blessings

Please HELP us out here

It was Catholics that culled the Jewish books and selected 46 to be included in the Original Bible

It was Catholics who AUTHORED the entire New Testament

It was the Early Catholic Church that established the Canon of the Bible as 73 books

So then dear friend; how is the bible in your opinion NOT a Catholic Book. Without the RCC their would be no bible:shrug:

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

=In His Grace;13286643]Hi JMM1957,

All of God’s elect throughout all time wherever they may be are part of God’s ecclesia and includes denominations such as Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal non-denominational, home churches etc. etc etc. and yes, even the Catholic denomination, God’s elect may not be involved in any denomination at all.

In His Grace

OK:thumbsup:

According to your position Jesus; Our PERFECT God

Would have to accept just anyone and EVERYONE’S own set of faith believes on identically defined issues:shrug:

AND would have had to wait for Wycliffe, Knox, Luther and Calvin to make known what seem logically to be possible: only ONE truth per defined issue.

SO dear friend
IS Jesus right?
or is Wycliffe the one
or might it be Knox
or maybe Luther;
and what about Calvin?

Pope Benedict had this to say about truth: [caps for emphasis; not shouting here]

THEIR CAN’T BE YOUR TRUTH AND MY TRUTH OR THEIR CAN BE NO TRUTH

Definition of “truth” from Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionay

TRUTH.** “Conformity of mind and reality**. Three kinds of conformity give rise to three kinds of truth. In logical truth, the mind is conformed or in agreement with things outside the mind, either in assenting to what is or in denying what is not. Its opposite is error. In metaphysical or ontological truth, things conform with the mind. This is primary conformity, when something corresponds to the idea of its maker, and it is secondary conformity when something is intelligible and therefore true to anyone who knows it. In moral truth, what is said conforms with what is on one’s mind. This is truthfulness and its opposite is falsehood.”

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

=In His Grace;13287509]With Patrick’s statement above we are at the heart of the matter. Authority. This is what originally drew me to consider the Catholic Church. I’ve read many books by Catholic scholars and as of yet remain unconvinced that this is in fact true. Maybe one of our Catholic brothers or sisters at CAF will be the first, at least for me anyway, to prove that Patrick’s statement is true.

Blessings

Might I suggest that you just may be looking at this issue incorrectly

TRY disproving the veracity that I shared?

And I AM being serious here.

Didn’t Jesus Himself tell us to:
"Give the Cesar what is Caesar’s and GIVE GOD what is God’s

God Bless you,

Patick

 

[PJM]

=In His Grace;13287509]With Patrick’s statement above we are at the heart of the matter. Authority. This is what originally drew me to consider the Catholic Church. I’ve read many books by Catholic scholars and as of yet remain unconvinced that this is in fact true. Maybe one of our Catholic brothers or sisters at CAF will be the first, at least for me anyway, to prove that Patrick’s statement is true.

Blessings

If you’ll accept the bible; check these out

Mt 10: 1-8
Mt 16: 15-19
Jn.17: 11-6
Mk 16: 14-15
Mt 28:16-20

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[clem456]

The truth is, in it’s primary essence, the Person of Christ. Doctrines and dogmas and disciplines and catechesis are the “getting acquainted” with that person.

THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

74 God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”:29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 “Christ the Lord, **in whom **the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and **which he fulfilled in his own person **and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.”

A person might know all truth as revealed in the written word and Tradition of the Catholic Church and still not know Jesus Christ.
Conversely a person might be completely ignorant of Scripture and Tradition and yet know Jesus Christ.
This is the clear teaching of the Church.
The knowing is not merely head knowledge, it is adherence to the person of Christ.

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

 

[JMM1957]

I disagree. Scripture is not a Catholic book. We don’t get the knowledge of what scripture is from the Catholic Church’s Sacred Tradition. God’s people, the church, distinguished scripture from other religious writings. God was involved in every step of the process. The canon of scripture was not created by the church rather the church discovered or recognized it. God’s word was inspired and authoritative from its inception, it “stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89) and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it. Why would God speak to us via scripture and then fail to guide the church in recognizing and preserving His speech? God gave scripture to the church, period.

Blessings

Why so grumpy, LOL!!! Let’s just say then, that God is the author of the Bible, and the Catholic Church is it’s publisher… is that more palatable? Honestly, I was under the impression that even Protestant’s acknowledged that what was to be the canon of Scripture was debated and decided on by the Catholic Church. And yes, the Holy Spirit guided the Church flawlessly in deciding on what books to include that were inspired, and setting aside those books that were not inspired. It was not a quick decision either, much thought and debate went into it over centuries until it was finalized. So, yes, God gave us His Word in Scripture, allowed us to recognize it, and preserve it in the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Honestly, I was under the impression that even Protestant’s acknowledged that what was to be the canon of Scripture was debated and decided on by the Catholic Church.

*Some *Protestants will acknowledge this…but most have never even thought about it.

And there is one Protestant who claims that he has been given special knowledge from God to read the texts and discern whether they are theopneustos.

(But that’s the only one I’ve ever encountered in all my years of dialogue).

 

[JMM1957]

*Some *Protestants will acknowledge this…but most have never even thought about it.

And there is one Protestant who claims that he has been given special knowledge from God to read the texts and discern whether they are theopneustos.

(But that’s the only one I’ve ever encountered in all my years of dialogue).

Wow, now that’s amazing!