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

[JMM1957]

Sorry if I had a wrong understanding of CC teaching. My understanding is that once something is proposed or defined, it cannot be changed or altered for ever. That’s the thing about infallibility.

You say that the Magisterium serves the word of God, but it also serves the CC.You would expect it to have a bias towards the organization it serves.

I however, am not the servant of any organization. I have no traditions to uphold or defend.

easy, all earthly organizations have some sort of governing body, or leadership, to facilitate the work of the organization. The Magisterium not only does that, but was entrusted with the even more important work of receiving the Gospel of Jesus Christ directly from Him, and protecting the integrity of it from those who would want to distort it. The Magisterium not only keeps this authentic Gospel alive, but was given the command by Our Lord to interpret and teach it to the whole world for the salvation of souls. The Magisterium does not have a bias towards the CC, as you call it, the Magisterium is the servant of the Word to the CC itself, the flock of believers.

“For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.” 2 Cor. 4:5

 

[JMM1957]

I think this is a difficult verse and I am trying to break it down to analyze it’s parts.
On a surface level it seems to disagree with 1Pt 1:23 as well as with Peter’s speech in Acts 15:7 and Jas. 1:18,21, and Eph 1:13, and many more . That is why I have difficulty with your understanding. Why would Peter be against himself and the other holy writers? Something is amis. Peter plainly says in 2Pt1:4 “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature.”

I believe water baptism is necessary, but for the purposes outlined in Rm.6. There are also other baptisms in the bible. Do you believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit? And the baptism of Fire?

However, I understand why this is a major verse for Catholics. perhaps I will consult some commentaries.

If you know what Romans 6 says, then you will see the connection to this, Col. 2:11-13 “In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;** having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up**** with Him** through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions…”

And this, John 3:5, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Through water baptism, the new circumcision not done with hands, we are buried with Christ into His death, and rise with Him in the Spirit which raised Him from the dead. We are a new creation, as our old self has died, our transgressions have been forgiven.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry if I had a wrong understanding of CC teaching. My understanding is that once something is proposed or defined, it cannot be changed or altered for ever. That’s the thing about infallibility.

Firstly, that is not a correct articulation about infallibility.

Secondly, the above is absolutely incorrect. Doctrinal development is a big thing in Catholicism.

Thirdly, it still remains that you are acting as a magisterium to folks here while resisting the CC’s magisterium.

All the magisterium has been doing, for 2000 years (in contrast to your few decades) is saying: this is what God has revealed and how we are to understand it.

You say that the Magisterium serves the word of God, but it also serves the CC. You would expect it to have a bias towards the organization it serves.

Only in the same way that the Apostles served the Word of God but also served the early Church.

I however, am not the servant of any organization. I have no traditions to uphold or defend.

Everything you do in your church is a tradition, and unless you believe it’s contrary to the Word of God, you will be defending it and upholding it.

So your statement above statement cannot be true.

 

[JMM1957]

Sorry if I had a wrong understanding of CC teaching. My understanding is that once something is proposed or defined, it cannot be changed or altered for ever. That’s the thing about infallibility.

No problem easy, at least you acknowledge that you have a misunderstanding of some CC teachings and are open to understanding them. There are many outside the Church, and even inside the Church unfortunately, who think they know CC teaching, and stubbornly refuse to be told otherwise. This is why the Catechism of the CC is such a valuable teaching tool for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Do you have one in your possession easy?

Don’t forget easy, infallibility only applies to matters of faith (doctrine) and morals, those two components of our belief system don’t change, although they can be modified or clarified further over time as it is needed, but the fundamental teaching does not change, nor will it ever change.

 

[JMM1957]

I think this is a difficult verse and I am trying to break it down to analyze it’s parts.
On a surface level it seems to disagree with 1Pt 1:23 as well as with Peter’s speech in Acts 15:7 and Jas. 1:18,21, and Eph 1:13, and many more . That is why I have difficulty with your understanding. Why would Peter be against himself and the other holy writers? Something is amis. Peter plainly says in 2Pt1:4 “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature.”

I believe water baptism is necessary, but for the purposes outlined in Rm.6. There are also other baptisms in the bible. Do you believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit? And the baptism of Fire?

However, I understand why this is a major verse for Catholics. perhaps I will consult some commentaries.

Not to be overly simplistic easy, but this is another example of why we believe that the Magisterium was given to us in the Church, so that when something in Scripture seems difficult to understand, we can have “our eyes opened” to the correct insight which was intended by the sacred authors. This is not to say that we should not study the Scriptures on our own, on the contrary, we should do so. The Magisterium teaching authority always pulls together everything in Scripture and Sacred Tradition to show why we believe as we do in matters of faith and morals.

 

[powerofk]

I think this is a difficult verse and I am trying to break it down to analyze it’s parts.
On a surface level it seems to disagree with 1Pt 1:23 as well as with Peter’s speech in Acts 15:7 and Jas. 1:18,21, and Eph 1:13, and many more . That is why I have difficulty with your understanding. Why would Peter be against himself and the other holy writers? Something is amis. Peter plainly says in 2Pt1:4 “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature.”

I believe water baptism is necessary, but for the purposes outlined in Rm.6. There are also other baptisms in the bible. Do you believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit? And the baptism of Fire?

However, I understand why this is a major verse for Catholics. perhaps I will consult some commentaries.

We actually do believe in the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit”. We call it the Sacrament of Confirmation. Remember, in the Acts of the Apostles, the apostles (who we consider the forerunners of today’s bishops) would lay their hands on people and the Holy Spirit would come on the people. The laying on of hands by the bishop is part of the Sacrament of Confirmation. With the anointing with chrism (a perfumed oil used in the past to anoint kings and OT priests), the bishop states, “Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit”. Take notice to that only the bishop (or his designate - most of the time, bishops will give their priests the ability to confirm for the Easter Vigil, as bishops cannot be in every parish in their dioceses at one time) can pass along the gift of the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Confirmation, as only the apostles could call down the Holy Spirit on followers. Simon Magus (who had recently been baptized) thought he could buy this power with money, and Peter rebuked him.

 

[Elizium23]

As you noted, in v. 20 water is used in reference to Noah. But notice that water is not what saved Noah! He was saved from it or through it but not by it. The water would have killed Noah, except for the ark which was the actual instrument of salvation. The ark is a type of Christ . The water is the judgement of God, symbolizing that we are saved from the wrath of God. ( we are not saved from hell) Water here symbolizes death. We also die in the water of baptism according to Rm6. Water does not wash away sins. Peter credits the blood of Christ
with this action in ch1:2.

Water only symbolizes death to sins. Water is an enduring symbol of life in Judeo-Christian tradition. I am unaware of a story where a righteous man drowned. However, we have the example of Noah already mentioned. Hmm, let’s see… I would have said the pericope is read during the Easter Vigil but it is only alluded in Isaiah. However, another reading in the Easter Vigil is that of Moses and the Red Sea. Another clear case of the prefigurement of baptism, the righteous are spared amidst the waters while all evil is washed cleanly away. Other allusions are Isaiah 12:3, Ezekiel 47:1. Not to mention Christ’s “living water” discourse to the Woman at the Well.

Let us put it this way: Jews lived amidst vast deserts. Far from being afraid of water, they recognized that water gives life. Perhaps they did not know that the human body is chiefly made of water, but none of them would have been surprised.

We must interpret according to the complete message of scripture and not make “isolated” or "private’ interpretations.

I agree! So why have you ignored the complete message of the New Testament, which clearly makes MARY out as the New Ark of the Covenant? Check out the dialogue and events of the Visitation to Elizabeth, and compare that to David greeting the Ark when it came to town. No, Christ is the CONTENTS of the Ark, and Mary is the Ark itself. This is also clear in Revelation 11:19, 12:1-6. John mentions the Ark in Heaven and now suddenly he’s talking about Mary! (Of course it may be a rash assumption that you accept the Woman of Revelation to be the Blessed Virgin Mary, but it’s clear she’s giving birth to Christ.)

Your magisterium has as much freedom to misinterpret the bible as anyone. There is no automatic foolproof guarantee. They must study and compare the text like anyone else.

But unlike your magisterium I am willing to learn and be corrected by God at any time.

If Christ did not guarantee freedom from error when he said “The gates of Hell will not prevail” then what in the world could he mean? The Magisterium is constantly taught and corrected by God! That is exactly the point of our doctrine of the protection of the Holy Spirit. If the Catholic Church is not protected, then nobody can be. If nobody is protected, then you are just as wrong as us and the whole system falls to pieces.

 

[eazyduzit]

Firstly, that is not a correct articulation about infallibility.

Secondly, the above is absolutely incorrect. Doctrinal development is a big thing in Catholicism.

Thirdly, it still remains that you are acting as a magisterium to folks here while resisting the CC’s magisterium.

All the magisterium has been doing, for 2000 years (in contrast to your few decades) is saying: this is what God has revealed and how we are to understand it.

Only in the same way that the Apostles served the Word of God but also served the early Church.

Everything you do in your church is a tradition, and unless you believe it’s contrary to the Word of God, you will be defending it and upholding it.

So your statement above statement cannot be true.

Some things are tradition. We have bible study on Wednesday night. Thats by tradition. When someone repents and believes, we baptise them because it is the command of scripture not tradition.

Now concerning the way in which apostles are to minister the faith, it is not by exercising dominance or infallibility, 2Cor.1:24 says: “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.”

So according to the Bible, the way in which the Magesterium rules is unlike the biblical leadership style.

 

[Cathoholic]

Eazyduzit. (I’m late to this discussion but here goes.). You mentioned:

QUOTE:

Now concerning the way in which apostles are to minister the faith, it is not by exercising dominance or infallibility, 2Cor.1:24 says: “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.”

So according to the Bible, the way in which the Magesterium rules is unlike the biblical leadership style.

This is not correct reasoning nor is it Catholic teaching eazyduzit.

And I am surprised that you use this reasoning given that this issue has been pre-emptively addressed in this thread (as per PRmerger in post 823 and you even quoted it in post 829).

I’ll use this as an opportunity to reiterate the Catholic teaching on this issue . . .

VATICAN II (Dei Verbum Section 10) 10. 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.

Vatican II quote above (from here) and CCC below bold mine.

From the CCC . . .

CCC 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

---

Saying . . .

2Cor.1:24 says: “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.”

. . . is (implied as) being equivalent to not being able to teach authoritatively and in a manner protected by God, is bad logic.

---

Hopefully I am merely missing your implication hare (in which case you will no doubt correct me on what you really meant).

There are numerous examples of the Apostles using their Apostolic teaching authority not the least of which is St. Paul to the Corinthians.

Just because an Apostle (or his successor) uses this teaching authority (as St. Paul did with the Corinthians) does NOT necessarily mean they have “dominion” over what the people believe.

This is Catholic teaching.

Protestants will make the same claim but if there are literally thousands of differing Protestant denominations all coming to differing conclusions (and they have no way to definitively, authoritatively solve these differences) at LEAST ALL of them (possibly excepting one) must be wrong somewhere.

Which is really the whole point of this thread–to illustrate the differences taught between Catholic and Protestant means of salvation (part of that difference is what is taught, not only between Catholics and Protestants, but unfortunately between Protestants and Protestants too).

You folks do affirm PART of the authentic message on the transmission of doctrine (including part of the doctrine of salvation), but unfortunately not all of it. This is true in many instances, but it is especially seen regarding the issue of salvation.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[JMM1957]

Eazyduzit. (I’m late to this discussion but here goes.). You mentioned:

QUOTE:

Now concerning the way in which apostles are to minister the faith, it is not by exercising dominance or infallibility, 2Cor.1:24 says: “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.”

So according to the Bible, the way in which the Magesterium rules is unlike the biblical leadership style.

This is not correct reasoning nor is it Catholic teaching eazyduzit.

And I am surprised that you use this reasoning given that this issue has been pre-emptively addressed in this thread (as per PRmerger in post 823 and you even quoted it in post 829).

I’ll use this as an opportunity to reiterate the Catholic teaching on this issue . . .

VATICAN II (Dei Verbum Section 10) 10. 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.

Vatican II quote above (from here) and CCC below bold mine.

From the CCC . . .

CCC 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

---

Saying . . .

2Cor.1:24 says: “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.”

. . . is (implied as) being equivalent to not being able to teach authoritatively and in a manner protected by God, is bad logic.

---

Hopefully I am merely missing your implication hare (in which case you will no doubt correct me on what you really meant).

There are numerous examples of the Apostles using their Apostolic teaching authority not the least of which is St. Paul to the Corinthians.

Just because an Apostle (or his successor) uses this teaching authority (as St. Paul did with the Corinthians) does NOT necessarily mean they have “dominion” over what the people believe.

This is Catholic teaching.

Protestants will make the same claim but if there are literally thousands of differing Protestant denominations all coming to differing conclusions (and they have no way to definitively, authoritatively solve these differences) at LEAST ALL of them (possibly excepting one) must be wrong somewhere.

Which is really the whole point of this thread–to illustrate the differences taught between Catholic and Protestant means of salvation (part of that difference is what is taught, not only between Catholics and Protestants, but unfortunately between Protestants and Protestants too).

You folks do affirm PART of the authentic message on the transmission of doctrine (including part of the doctrine of salvation), but unfortunately not all of it. This is true in many instances, but it is especially seen regarding the issue of salvation.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Thank you for saving me the time!

 

[eazyduzit]

Water only symbolizes death to sins. Water is an enduring symbol of life in Judeo-Christian tradition. I am unaware of a story where a righteous man drowned. However, we have the example of Noah already mentioned. Hmm, let’s see… I would have said the pericope is read during the Easter Vigil but it is only alluded in Isaiah. However, another reading in the Easter Vigil is that of Moses and the Red Sea. Another clear case of the prefigurement of baptism, the righteous are spared amidst the waters while all evil is washed cleanly away. Other allusions are Isaiah 12:3, Ezekiel 47:1. Not to mention Christ’s “living water” discourse to the Woman at the Well.

Let us put it this way: Jews lived amidst vast deserts. Far from being afraid of water, they recognized that water gives life. Perhaps they did not know that the human body is chiefly made of water, but none of them would have been surprised.

I agree! So why have you ignored the complete message of the New Testament, which clearly makes MARY out as the New Ark of the Covenant? Check out the dialogue and events of the Visitation to Elizabeth, and compare that to David greeting the Ark when it came to town. No, Christ is the CONTENTS of the Ark, and Mary is the Ark itself. This is also clear in Revelation 11:19, 12:1-6. John mentions the Ark in Heaven and now suddenly he’s talking about Mary! (Of course it may be a rash assumption that you accept the Woman of Revelation to be the Blessed Virgin Mary, but it’s clear she’s giving birth to Christ.)

If Christ did not guarantee freedom from error when he said “The gates of Hell will not prevail” then what in the world could he mean? The Magisterium is constantly taught and corrected by God! That is exactly the point of our doctrine of the protection of the Holy Spirit. If the Catholic Church is not protected, then nobody can be. If nobody is protected, then you are just as wrong as us and the whole system falls to pieces.

The flood however, was more than a symbol. It actually killed people. In this way,it was similar to the Red Sea crossing.The Hebrews were saved from Egypt by the water because it actually killed the Egyptian army. Noah was saved from the evil of the world in the same way.This is symbolic of Baptism in that our sin nature is killed off. But to be reborn, we must still enter into thr Ark of Salvation which is Jesus Christ, just as Noah and his family did. Or as in the case of Moses, we must still have the blood upon our doorpost which symbolizes faith in the sacrifice of Christ. The Gospel is all about Jesus, not Mary. He is the one that procures salvation. He is the object of faith. Jesus explained to the disciples how all the OT scripture speaks of Him.

As to the “gates of hell”, the Greek word is Hades which simply means “the realm of the dead”. It was a prophecy of how Satan would attack the church and try to defeat though death. Satan used the Roman emperors to kill many believers and discourage the new faith but it didn’t work. The blood of the Martyrs caused all the more growth.

Jesus is the whole message of the Bible. It is His-story.

 

[JMM1957]

The flood however, was more than a symbol. It actually killed people. In this way,it was similar to the Red Sea crossing.The Hebrews were saved from Egypt by the water because it actually killed the Egyptian army. Noah was saved from the evil of the world in the same way.This is symbolic of Baptism in that our sin nature is killed off. But to be reborn, we must still enter into thr Ark of Salvation which is Jesus Christ, just as Noah and his family did. Or as in the case of Moses, we must still have the blood upon our doorpost which symbolizes faith in the sacrifice of Christ. The Gospel is all about Jesus, not Mary. He is the one that procures salvation. He is the object of faith. Jesus explained to the disciples how all the OT scripture speaks of Him.

As to the “gates of hell”, the Greek word is Hades which simply means “the realm of the dead”. It was a prophecy of how Satan would attack the church and try to defeat though death. Satan used the Roman emperors to kill many believers and discourage the new faith but it didn’t work. The blood of the Martyrs caused all the more growth.

Jesus is the whole message of the Bible. It is His-story.

What you said above is fairly close to what the Catechism of the CC teaches about baptism. Then there is the “but” word. Also, the Catechism says baptism is “the gateway to life in the Spirit,” is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one “can enter the kingdom of God.” This is what is called for in John 3:5.

 

[JMM1957]

The flood however, was more than a symbol. It actually killed people. In this way,it was similar to the Red Sea crossing.The Hebrews were saved from Egypt by the water because it actually killed the Egyptian army. Noah was saved from the evil of the world in the same way.This is symbolic of Baptism in that our sin nature is killed off. But to be reborn, we must still enter into thr Ark of Salvation which is Jesus Christ, just as Noah and his family did. Or as in the case of Moses, we must still have the blood upon our doorpost which symbolizes faith in the sacrifice of Christ. The Gospel is all about Jesus, not Mary. He is the one that procures salvation. He is the object of faith. Jesus explained to the disciples how all the OT scripture speaks of Him.

As to the “gates of hell”, the Greek word is Hades which simply means “the realm of the dead”. It was a prophecy of how Satan would attack the church and try to defeat though death. Satan used the Roman emperors to kill many believers and discourage the new faith but it didn’t work. The blood of the Martyrs caused all the more growth.

Jesus is the whole message of the Bible. It is His-story.

Yes, the Gospel is about Jesus, His incarnation, life, and death. The sacrificial offering of His body on the cross at Calvary opened the door to eternal life for all mankind.

The Bible gives us the “salvation story” from Genesis to Revelation. The whole message is summed up in Jesus himself. And although the above is all true, we cannot deny other truth’s are presented in Scripture also, would you not agree? I don’t want to go off topic, but when you mentioned Mary, I need to remind you that the Scriptures, OT and NT both, do reference Mary outside of the infancy narratives and a couple other places in the Gospels. Now, it isn’t done by mentioning her name specifically, but the language used can only be understood as referring to her considering the context’s. We can’t look at Mary as being someone who just happened to be at the right place at the right time in history. She plays a much more important role in the whole story of salvation than just giving birth to Jesus, and then disappearing into obscurity.

 

[andrewstx]

Not even close .

Where did I go wrong? I was describing the local Protestants where I live AND not Lutherans in central Tex. And I hold Lutherans in high esteem.

Here in west Tx in my town of 9,000 there is one Lutheran congregation, less than 50 members.

The huge majority here are Southern Baptists and members of so called “non denominational” denominations.

With these and just these they go to the front of the church, shake hands with thepreacher and say the "sinners prayer’. That is it, bthey are now “saved” sins are forgiven. With these people baptism is for those already “saved”.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Where did I go wrong? I was describing the local Protestants where I live AND not Lutherans in central Tex. And I hold Lutherans in high esteem.

Here in west Tx in my town of 9,000 there is one Lutheran congregation, less than 50 members.

The huge majority here are Southern Baptists and members of so called “non denominational” denominations.

With these and just these they go to the front of the church, shake hands with thepreacher and say the "sinners prayer’. That is it, bthey are now “saved” sins are forgiven. With these people baptism is for those already “saved”.

But they don’t believe the prayer saves them , they trust Jesus to save them , it’s not a mental exercise.

 

[PRmerger]

Some things are tradition.

Yes.

We have bible study on Wednesday night. Thats by tradition.

Yes. And so are things like making the sign of the cross, the praying the Stations of the Cross, genuflecting before entering a pew.

Customs. Traditions. Small “t”.

When someone repents and believes, we baptise them because it is the command of scripture not tradition.

Scripture is nothing but Sacred Tradition which has been written down.

Now concerning the way in which apostles are to minister the faith, it is not by exercising dominance or infallibility, 2Cor.1:24 says: “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.”

You are very Catholic when you say that the Apostles (and their successors, the Catholic and Orthodox bishops) minister without dominance.

But the apostles indeed exercised infallibility.

Unless you believe that there is some error in the Epistles of Paul, and in Peter’s Encyclicals?

I’m certain you don’t.

Which means that you do believe that these men were given the charism of infallibility.

So according to the Bible, the way in which the Magesterium rules is unlike the biblical leadership style.

They rule just like the Apostles–without domination, but with infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

 

[eazyduzit]

Yes.

Yes. And so are things like making the sign of the cross, the praying the Stations of the Cross, genuflecting before entering a pew.

Customs. Traditions. Small “t”.

Scripture is nothing but Sacred Tradition which has been written down.

You are very Catholic when you say that the Apostles (and their successors, the Catholic and Orthodox bishops) minister without dominance.

But the apostles indeed exercised infallibility.

Unless you believe that there is some error in the Epistles of Paul, and in Peter’s Encyclicals?

I’m certain you don’t.

Which means that you do believe that these men were given the charism of infallibility.

They rule just like the Apostles–without domination, but with infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

What you are doing PR is bringing God’s word down to man’s level. His word stands apart. It alone is His Logos which is guaranteed to us forever as a light in a dark place. It is the source of life and spiritual nourishment,as Peter says "that you may grow thereby. " It is for ever settled in heaven. It was given to us by a direct form of Revelation that bypasses man’s brain. It cannot be added to or or any word deleted from. The men were fallable, but the words were not. The writers were at times full of doubt, but somehow of over a period of about 2000 years and 40 some authors, it still is one consistent story centered on the Gospel of Christ. Non of this is true of man’s Tradition. The Bible is a sure word. It is an anchor in the storm. It is the sure foundation. Every promise of God is fully guaranteed. Every prophesy must be fulfilled to the letter. Scores of predictions about Christ from the OT have been perfectly fulfilled. This is not the product of any man. It is a living word. It is “living and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword…” How would Moses have known exactly how creation happened? No man could have such knowledge. The Hebrews always made a care full distinction between “written Torah” and “oral Torah”. Apparently the CC has not done so. This dilution can only lead to spiritual weakness.

There is no “gift of infallibility” listed in the bible. Receiving any gift of the Spirit or charism is depends on one’s desire for it, and willingness to prove himself worthy and faithful.

 

[zz912]

Some things are tradition. We have bible study on Wednesday night. Thats by tradition. When someone repents and believes, we baptise them because it is the command of scripture not tradition.

The books of the Bible are Tradition. Scripture cannot exist without Tradition.

Now concerning the way in which apostles are to minister the faith, it is not by exercising dominance or infallibility, 2Cor.1:24 says: “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.”

So according to the Bible, the way in which the Magesterium rules is unlike the biblical leadership style.

What style was Peter using when he condemned two people to death? What leadership style was the Council of Jerusalem using? What about Paul when he excommunicated several people? Did they have authority over those people, yes or no?

 

[zz912]

What you are doing PR is bringing God’s word down to man’s level. His word stands apart. It alone is His Logos which is guaranteed to us forever as a light in a dark place.

You seem to be conflating the Bible with Jesus. The Bible is NOT the Logos/Jesus. We do NOT worship the Bible.

It is the source of life and spiritual nourishment,as Peter says "that you may grow thereby. " It is for ever settled in heaven. It was given to us by a direct form of Revelation that bypasses man’s brain. It cannot be added to or or any word deleted from. The men were fallable, but the words were not.

If the writers of scripture were incapable of writing down error, then they WERE infallible. You can’t have it both ways. Either they could have written error when writing the scriptures, or they were infallible. Which do you choose?

The writers were at times full of doubt, but somehow of over a period of about 2000 years and 40 some authors, it still is one consistent story centered on the Gospel of Christ. Non of this is true of man’s Tradition.

Which books belong in the Bible is Tradition.

The Bible is a sure word. It is an anchor in the storm. It is the sure foundation. Every promise of God is fully guaranteed. Every prophesy must be fulfilled to the letter. Scores of predictions about Christ from the OT have been perfectly fulfilled. This is not the product of any man. It is a living word. It is “living and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword…”

The Bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Why do you not believe the Bible when it says this?

How would Moses have known exactly how creation happened? No man could have such knowledge. The Hebrews always made a care full distinction between “written Torah” and “oral Torah”. Apparently the CC has not done so. This dilution can only lead to spiritual weakness.

Moses wrote down the oral teaching he received in writing Genesis. Are you saying that Genesis contains spiritual weakness or is diluted in some way?

There is no “gift of infallibility” listed in the bible. Receiving any gift of the Spirit or charism is depends on one’s desire for it, and willingness to prove himself worthy and faithful.

There is NO passage in the Bible which says that we receive gifts of the Holy Spirit based upon our desire for them. You make the Holy Spirit out to be some sort of vending machine in the sky.

I’ll also reiterate, there is NO passage in the Bible which lists off which books should be in the Bible. Why do you accept the Tradition of the Catholic Church for the foundation of your faith?

 

[benjohnson]

Salvation: Salvation is a free gift from God and comes from the one and final sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

Saves: Jesus saves, passes to Moses. He shoots! He SCORES!