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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IGotQuestions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benhur said:
Catholic annulments can be kind of cheesy also, that is problematic in balancing the letter of the law with the spirit of the law.
Click to expand...
No doubt. Men are fallible in the marriage tribunal.

However…
Abusus non tollit usum.
 
eazyduzit said:
The point I was making is that if baptism replaces circumcision, then like circumcision, it is basically a sign of covenant, but not salvific as demonstrated in Rm4:10
Click to expand...
This is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to Scripture which says, explicitly, that baptism IS salvific.

In the first encyclical you ever read it says it, eazy.

1 Peter 3:21.
 
eazyduzit said:
The point I was making is that if baptism replaces circumcision, then like circumcision, it is basically a sign of covenant, but not salvific as demonstrated in Rm4:10 “How was it then reckoned?..Not in circumcision…” and then in v.11 “And he received the SIGN of circumcision…”. And then as you quoted from v. 12, “You were also risen with Him , through faith in the working of God.” According to this we are “buried” with Him through Baptism. Why? So that we may be dead to sin. This step comes after salvation, not before, which is why in Acts 8, Philip only allowed the Ethiopian eunuch to be baptized on the condition that he believed first. Then notice that being raised with Him is on the condition of “faith in the working of God.” and not through baptism.

I firmly believe that everything we receive from God must be by faith. Mk11:24 says “Whatsoever things you desire, when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them.” Faith is saying that I already have it, even though I don’t see it, but because of God’s promise, its as good as done, so we thank Him in advance. It’s not about anything I do.
Click to expand...
Circumcision was a “sign” of being a member of the covenant, it had no other effect, spiritual or otherwise. Note that virtually all of the “signs” of something in the OT were a prefigurement of something greater in the NT, that they were not just signs or symbols anymore, but had a deeper spiritual effect, a transformation, and actually caused a change to occur in the person in their relationship to God. 1 Peter 3:20-21 says “the saving of eight persons in the ark was a prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not just a removal of dirt from the body, but a pledge to God for a clear conscience.” God’s grace comes to us in baptism, and in it we die to sin, we are buried with Christ, and are risen with Him, alive in the Spirit. This is why Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3:5, “no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”
 
I just wanted to say how appreciative I am for all the Catholic responses to my posts. I am ignoring no one and I read and consider what all of you have to say. Just so all of you know I did go through RCIA (fall 2013 - spring 2014). I was aware from the get go that I would need a Decree of Nullity for my previous marriage before I would be allowed to enter the Church which I was willing to do if I decided to convert. About three weeks before RCIA was over I stopped going, I didn’t accept some of what the Catholic Church teaches, the top two issues for me being the Catholic Church’s teachings on Ecclesiology and Soteriology. I followed my conscience. Is it possible that I will reconsider my decision at some point in the future? Yes, it is possible, if that’s where God leads me I will follow Him, and as I’ve stated more then once there is so much that I truly do admire about Catholicism and I consider Catholics to be my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Again, thanks and God bless all of you.
 
PRmerger said:
Then you are adding to Scripture, ben.

No where in the text does it say, “Only the spouse who is cheated on can re-marry”.

Nowhere.

#donotaddtoScripture
Click to expand...
Very legalistic. Jesus did not stone the woman caught in adultery. It would have been very legal for Him to do so. And just what was “sinning no more” for the Samaritan women at the well ? Was she to go back to the first husband, or the second husband or third ? Was she to remain single or celibate the rest of her life ? I know Christ did not say to sin no more to her ,but she did have an epiphany of sorts and i would think became a “follower”. What was she to do?
 
PRmerger said:
No doubt. Men are fallible in the marriage tribunal.

However…
Abusus non tollit usum.
Click to expand...
I like that . I would apply that to some of the abuses of SS, personal divine revelation and many other P things.
 
In_His_Grace said:
I just wanted to say how appreciative I am for all the Catholic responses to my posts. I am ignoring no one and I read and consider what all of you have to say. Just so all of you know I did go through RCIA (fall 2013 - spring 2014). I was aware from the get go that I would need a Decree of Nullity for my previous marriage before I would be allowed to enter the Church which I was willing to do if I decided to convert. About three weeks before RCIA was over I stopped going, I didn’t accept some of what the Catholic Church teaches, the top two issues for me being the Catholic Church’s teachings on Ecclesiology and Soteriology. I followed my conscience. Is it possible that I will reconsider my decision at some point in the future? Yes, it is possible, if that’s where God leads me I will follow Him, and as I’ve stated more then once there is so much that I truly do admire about Catholicism and I consider Catholics to be my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Again, thanks and God bless all of you.
Click to expand...
In His Grace,

Just to share…

My spouse, JUST like you, went through RCIA for 8 months, and 2 weeks (after meeting the Bishop) prior to Easter she decided not to join the Church. Longer story here but suffice to say that intellectually she had all the information, but her heart wasn’t converted.

However, 2 January’s later (2 1/2 yrs), she out of no where decided that she wanted to join. She really meant it at that point and I can tell you that it was a very happy and joyous day for her.

That’s the way it should be for you as well: happy and joyous.

The Spirit has a way of working on our mind and intellect, as well as our heart…over time.

Someday, you too may have a change of mind and heart.
 
benhur said:
Very legalistic.
Click to expand...
Ben, I’m confused by this comment.

When scripture is silent and Catholic’s defend scripture…doing so is “legalistic” :confused:

Conversely, when discussing saved by “faith alone”, I’ve also read accusations of Catholics being “legalistic” when listing everything else scripture says that we must do to be saved.

So the term “legalistic” (a very protestant term) seems to be used in any case to support one’s opinion, whether the bible is silent, or defending one’s opinion when scripture is explicit.

Legalism is in the eye of the beholder.
 
benhur said:
And the holocaust did not happen either ? Tetzel was just misunderstood by folks of his time?
Click to expand...
I see that you have no proof of the myth other than to make a false claim.
To answer your question I will quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia emphasis are mine
History presents few characters that have suffered more senseless misrepresentation, even bald caricature, than Tetzel. “Even while he lived stories which contained an element of legend gathered around his name, until at last, in the minds of the uncritical Protestant historians, he became the typical indulgence-monger, upon whom any well-worn anecdote might be fathered” (Beard, “Martin Luther”, London, 1889, 210). For a critical scholarly study which shows him in a proper perspective, he had to wait the researches of our own time, mainly at the hands of Dr. Nicholas Paulus, who is closely followed in this article. In the first place,** his teaching regarding the indulgences for the living was correct**. The charge that the forgiveness of sins was sold for money regardless of contrition or that absolution for sins to be committed in the future could be purchased is baseless. An indulgence, he writes, can be applied only “to the pains of sin which are confessed and for which there is contrition”. “No one”, he furthermore adds, “secures an indulgence unless he have true contrition”. The confessional letters (confessionalia) could of course be obtained for a mere pecuniary consideration without demanding contrition. But such document did not secure an indulgence. It was simply a permit to select a proper confessor, who only after a contrite confession would absolve from sin and reserved cases, and who possessed at the same time facilities to impart the plenary indulgence (Paulus, “Johann Tetzel”, 103).
Click to expand...
 
benhur said:
And the holocaust did not happen either ? Tetzel was just misunderstood by folks of his time?
Click to expand...
I see that you have no proof of the myth other than to make a false claim.
To answer your question I will quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia emphasis are mine
History presents few characters that have suffered more senseless misrepresentation, even bald caricature, than Tetzel. “Even while he lived stories which contained an element of legend gathered around his name, until at last, in the minds of the** uncritical Protestant historians**, he became the typical indulgence-monger, upon whom any well-worn anecdote might be fathered” (Beard, “Martin Luther”, London, 1889, 210). For a critical scholarly study which shows him in a proper perspective, he had to wait the researches of our own time, mainly at the hands of Dr. Nicholas Paulus, who is closely followed in this article. In the first place, his teaching regarding the indulgences for the living was correct.** The charge that the forgiveness of sins was sold for money regardless of contrition or that absolution for sins to be committed in the future could be purchased is baseless**. An indulgence, he writes, can be applied only “to the pains of sin which are confessed and for which there is contrition”. “No one”, he furthermore adds, “secures an indulgence unless he have true contrition”. The confessional letters (confessionalia) could of course be obtained for a mere pecuniary consideration without demanding contrition. But such document did not secure an indulgence. It was simply a permit to select a proper confessor, who only after a contrite confession would absolve from sin and reserved cases, and who possessed at the same time facilities to impart the plenary indulgence (Paulus, “Johann Tetzel”, 103).
Click to expand...
 
Porknpie said:
In His Grace,

Just to share…

My spouse, JUST like you, went through RCIA for 8 months, and 2 weeks (after meeting the Bishop) prior to Easter she decided not to join the Church. Longer story here but suffice to say that intellectually she had all the information, but her heart wasn’t converted.

However, 2 January’s later (2 1/2 yrs), she out of no where decided that she wanted to join. She really meant it at that point and I can tell you that it was a very happy and joyous day for her.

That’s the way it should be for you as well: happy and joyous.

The Spirit has a way of working on our mind and intellect, as well as our heart…over time.

Someday, you too may have a change of mind and heart.
Click to expand...
Hi Porknpie and thanks for sharing with me about your wife.
…The Spirit has a way of working on our mind and intellect, as well as our heart…over time.
Click to expand...
Someday, you too may have a change of mind and heart.
Click to expand...
Yes, it absolutely is in God’s hands and my heart, mind and soul are not closed to wherever He will lead me.

P.S. Ok, now I get what’s up with your username. 🙂 Your wife Pie must be a very gifted artist and I would love to see your avatar that she painted in high resolution.

Blessings
 
benhur said:
Very legalistic. Jesus did not stone the woman caught in adultery. It would have been very legal for Him to do so. And just what was “sinning no more” for the Samaritan women at the well ? Was she to go back to the first husband, or the second husband or third ? Was she to remain single or celibate the rest of her life ? I know Christ did not say to sin no more to her ,but she did have an epiphany of sorts and i would think became a “follower”. What was she to do?
Click to expand...
I’m missing your point. The spouse who cheats, is he/she allowed to remarry, yes or no?

You claimed that Jesus was giving an exception for when remarriage was allowed, and said it applied to an innocent spouse who had been cheated on and divorced. Could you illuminate if this exception applies to the cheater in your denomination? And how is asking about what is allowed in your denomination being legalistic?
 
IGotQuestions said:
If Catholics are Christians what are the steps they take to receive salvation?
Protestants believe Romans 10:9 & 10. Confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and you shall be saved.
Click to expand...
Evangelicals believe in Sola Gratia and Sola Fide, that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in the one final and perfect sacrifice of Christ.

Roman Catholics believe they are continually being saved through the performance of good works of charity and the sacramental graces they believe are received from the doling out of sacraments by their church.
 
Arizona_Samson said:
Evangelicals believe in Sola Gratia and Sola Fide, that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in the one final and perfect sacrifice of Christ.

Roman Catholics believe they are continually being saved through the performance of good works of charity and the sacramental graces they believe are received from the doling out of sacraments by their church.
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention Catholics believe they are saved through faith in Christ and their good deeds are their faith put into action 😉
 
Arizona_Samson said:
Evangelicals believe in Sola Gratia and Sola Fide, that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in the one final and perfect sacrifice of Christ.

Roman Catholics believe they are continually being saved through the performance of good works of charity and the sacramental graces they believe are received from the doling out of sacraments by their church.
Click to expand...
Correct , but Lutherans believe in the means of grace.
 
benhur said:
Very legalistic. Jesus did not stone the woman caught in adultery. It would have been very legal for Him to do so. And just what was “sinning no more” for the Samaritan women at the well ? Was she to go back to the first husband, or the second husband or third ? Was she to remain single or celibate the rest of her life ? I know Christ did not say to sin no more to her ,but she did have an epiphany of sorts and i would think became a “follower”. What was she to do?
Click to expand...
So it’s okay to add to Scripture, with the claim, “Hey, I’m just not being legalistic!”

You are free to add to Scripture because to not do so is too legalistic?

That’s contrary to Scripture.

And the point remains: the Bible does NOT state that ONLY the cuckolded spouse may re-marry.

So, the man who wants to divorce his wife should commit adultery, so then he can be permitted to re-marry.

That’s what is the logical consequence of Protestants using the “adultery exception” loophole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top