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

[Wesrock]

Christ is our Torah, not the Bible. We follow the traditions given to us by Christ, and if God can speak infallibly through the human writers of the books of the Bible, then he is capable of protecting his Church from error in faith. As Jesus said, the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. The Church does not put men on par with God’s word.

Also, Peter did not exercise the powers of the magisterium in dining with Jews. He himself was most likely trying to reduce scandal to the community his ministry was directed towards (the Jews). He may have gone too far and set the wrong example, but this wasn’t a dogmatic or doctrinal teaching (his dogmatic/doctrinal teaching was that such practices were not necessary). I find it interesting that Paul later wrote in Romans 14 something similar to what Peter had been doing in order to reduce scandal. Paul seems to also have learned something from their encounter.

 

[JMM1957]

What is the Church? It is made of men. No men, however holy, can ever be God’s sure foundation. This is very dangerous thinking. This is why Paul told the Galatians that they were not to put confidence in him,but rather in his gospel message as it was fist delivered, be it himself or an angel of God who would say any other thing. God had his way of confirming His word with signs and wonders . You might preach the Gospel of Thomas all day long, but God will not confirm it

To make man equal to the Word is the most dangerous thing ever. Why? It leaves a door open for Satan. If you don’t believe this is possible, then read the true 3rd prophecy of Fatima, that the popes would never reveal, because it shows how corrupt the Church can become by listening to itself.This is how cults work. People think their leaders have something special from God. Then people can be easily manipulated. This is why there is no gift or charism of “infallibility” in the Bible. God knows that we are dust(Ps103). The light of the world is God’s Word. It is the only sure thing.

God’s Word does not depend on the inspiration of men. It is independently inspired of itself. Even a donkey could speak the Word if necessary. His word is the source of life. Man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Mt4:4.

A man who has a high view of the Word of God will never fail.

Right, this is why it isn’t part of the the canon. The Holy Spirit worked to guide the Church to not accept it as inspired Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

This is why Paul told the Galatians that they were not to put confidence in him,but rather in his gospel message as it was fist delivered, be it himself or an angel of God who would say any other thing.

If you don’t put your confidence in him, then how can you know what the gospel message is?

You see how you’re making a self refuting assertion?

Now, if you understand, as Catholicism does, that there need not be any dichotomy between a man and the what he writes infallibly, under the guidance of the HS, you don’t have a self-refuting statement.

God had his way of confirming His word with signs and wonders . You might preach the Gospel of Thomas all day long, but God will not confirm it

How do you know that the Gospel of Thomas isn’t theopneustos?

One answer: it contradicts Sacred Tradition.

To make man equal to the Word is the most dangerous thing ever

Indeed. No man is equal to the Word, but rather the servant.

Very Catholic, that!

The light of the world is God’s Word. It is the only sure thing.

Very Catholic!

God’s Word does not depend on the inspiration of men. It is independently inspired of itself.

Amen!

Even a donkey could speak the Word if necessary. His word is the source of life. Man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Mt4:4.

You are very Catholic when you assert this.

A man who has a high view of the Word of God will never fail.

Oh, yes!

 

[PRmerger]

The church is authoritative and a foundation only where she is right as per your gospel of Thomas analogy

Indeed.

And what is the canon you use to compare what she (the Church) teaches to?

Answer: Sacred Tradition.

Remember, the NT is a product of the Church. So it cannot be the canon by which you measure the truth of what the Church professes.

 

[JMM1957]

What is the Church? It is made of men. No men, however holy, can ever be God’s sure foundation. This is very dangerous thinking. This is why Paul told the Galatians that they were not to put confidence in him,but rather in his gospel message as it was fist delivered, be it himself or an angel of God who would say any other thing. God had his way of confirming His word with signs and wonders . You might preach the Gospel of Thomas all day long, but God will not confirm it

To make man equal to the Word is the most dangerous thing ever. Why? It leaves a door open for Satan. If you don’t believe this is possible, then read the true 3rd prophecy of Fatima, that the popes would never reveal, because it shows how corrupt the Church can become by listening to itself.This is how cults work. People think their leaders have something special from God. Then people can be easily manipulated. This is why there is no gift or charism of “infallibility” in the Bible. God knows that we are dust(Ps103). The light of the world is God’s Word. It is the only sure thing.

God’s Word does not depend on the inspiration of men. It is independently inspired of itself. Even a donkey could speak the Word if necessary. His word is the source of life. Man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Mt4:4.

A man who has a high view of the Word of God will never fail.

Simply saying that the Gospel he preaches is not of human origin, but through a revelation of Jesus.

 

[zz912]

I thought the Holy Spirit took care of the two, not Peter ?

I didn’t say Peter killed them himself, I said Peter pronounced their sentence.

Did Peter also run the council ?

James “ran” the council as it was held in his diocese, but when Peter spoke, the issue was settled and everyone went silent.

It is the style of magisterium, the evolving of it as it stands today, that people question, not that there is no magisterium, no authority, no teaching.

Authority is the biggest issue. But there is no such thing as a vacuum in authority. Those who reject the magisterium of the Church are in reality placing themselves in that role. This is contrary to scripture by the way.

 

[JMM1957]

I thought the Holy Spirit took care of the two , not Peter ?Did Peter also run the council ?

It is the style of magisterium, the evolving of it as it stands today, that people question, not that there is no magisterium, no authority, no teaching.

Blessings

Can you please speak to specifics on this statement ben, hard to answer to generalities.

 

[zz912]

Key word that comes to mind is “conditionality”. As you kind of say, truth is its own authority. The church is authoritative and a foundation only where she is right as per your gospel of Thomas analogy.

The logical fallacy in this is fatal. You realize this, right? First, Scripture doesn’t say that the Church is “conditionally” the foundation of the truth. You’re inserting words into Scripture that aren’t there. Scripture says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. No qualifiers.

Second, what are you measuring the Church against to determine if she is “right”? (Answer: your own fallible opinion).

Peter had no authority when he was two faced with the Jews and called out by Paul. But when Peter was properly aligned with truth (per his previous vision) ,he had authority , as shown in council of Jerusalem on similar matter. Quite conditional.

Nonsense. Peter’s authority was never conditional, and never waned. Peter’s behavior was not in conformity with his own declared teaching. His teaching was still authoritative, and that was what Paul was calling him out about. Peter wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Paul is relying upon the unconditional authority that Peter held to measure Peter’s teaching against Peter’s action.

His Word as you say is perfect, and constant. Yes, His truth rests upon the church (as it did on Israel once) but that is not to say sometimes imperfect and not constant things compete to rest on her also. (and of course the church uses His Word to help discern the difference).

Scripture doesn’t say such a claim. Jesus promised the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church.

 

[JMM1957]

Good response ez.

Key word that comes to mind is “conditionality”. As you kind of say, truth is its own authority. The church is authoritative and a foundation only where she is right as per your gospel of Thomas analogy. Peter had no authority when he was two faced with the Jews and called out by Paul. But when Peter was properly aligned with truth (per his previous vision) ,he had authority , as shown in council of Jerusalem on similar matter. Quite conditional.

His Word as you say is perfect, and constant. Yes, His truth rests upon the church (as it did on Israel once) but that is not to say sometimes imperfect and not constant things compete to rest on her also. (and of course the church uses His Word to help discern the difference).

Blessings

The Church is only right when we’re right? Lol.

 

[JMM1957]

I can’t believe anybody is still using this baseless accusation. Why are people entertaining an individual that is accusing us of being a cult?

The longer easyduzit stays here, the more he can learn the truth about Catholicism, instead of going by hearsay from people who have an axe to grind. If we are a “cult” based on having some “special teachings,” then so be it. We’re no different than the twelve Apostles and Paul, who would have claimed the very same thing about the information they had received from Jesus.

 

[Michael68]

The longer easyduzit stays here, the more he can learn the truth about Catholicism, instead of going by hearsay from people who have an axe to grind. If we are a “cult” based on having some “special teachings,” then so be it. We’re no different than the twelve Apostles and Paul, who would have claimed the very same thing about the information they had received from Jesus.

I understand your analogy. I never looked at it that way. It makes sense when you put it like that!

 

[JMM1957]

I understand your analogy. I never looked at it that way. It makes sense when you put it like that!

When I referred to “special teachings”, I was hoping nobody would misunderstand me, I don’t mean special knowledge. They are special in that they were revealed by Jesus Christ, as opposed to worldly teachings.

 

[eazyduzit]

I can’t believe anybody is still using this baseless accusation. Why are people entertaining an individual that is accusing us of being a cult?

I was not accusing anyone of being a cult. I was stating my objections to making claims of special knowledge or guidance. This is why people follow such leaders as Rev. Moon or David Koresh or Joseph Smith. All we need is the bible. It is the safest route. That is why Paul warned the Galatians not to accept any other gospel even if it came from him. They were to keep to the original blueprint which he once delivered and confirmed with signs and wonders.

I think you would miss me if i left. We need to challenge each other. Its a good exercise for me. I need to understand how others believe and know Christ.

 

[benhur]

Christ is our Torah, not the Bible.

Hi Wes,

No, the Bible is our Torah, and the Tradition is our Talmud

Also, Peter did not exercise the powers of the magisterium in dining with Jews. He himself was most likely trying to reduce scandal to the community his ministry was directed towards (the Jews). He may have gone too far and set the wrong example, but this wasn’t a dogmatic or doctrinal teaching (his dogmatic/doctrinal teaching was that such practices were not necessary). I find it interesting that Paul later wrote in Romans 14 something similar to what Peter had been doing in order to reduce scandal. Paul seems to also have learned something from their encounter.

Yes.OK

Blessings

 

[eazyduzit]

I can’t believe anybody is still using this baseless accusation. Why are people entertaining an individual that is accusing us of being a cult?

I was not accusing anyone of being a cult. I was stating my objections to making claims of special knowledge or guidance. This is why people follow such leaders as Rev. Moon or David Koresh or Joseph Smith. All we need is the bible. It is the safest route. That is why Paul warned the Galatians not to accept any other gospel even if it came from him. They were to keep to the original blueprint which he once delivered and confirmed with signs and wonders.

I think you would miss me if i left. We need to challenge each other. Its a good exercise for me. I need to understand how others believe and know Christ.

 

[JMM1957]

I was not accusing anyone of being a cult. I was stating my objections to making claims of special knowledge or guidance. This is why people follow such leaders as Rev. Moon or David Koresh or Joseph Smith. All we need is the bible. It is the safest route. That is why Paul warned the Galatians not to accept any other gospel even if it came from him. They were to keep to the original blueprint which he once delivered and confirmed with signs and wonders.

I think you would miss me if i left. We need to challenge each other. Its a good exercise for me. I need to understand how others believe and know Christ.

Then what happened easy? Doesn’t look to me like the original blueprint has been followed very well over the years, with Christianity being splintered up so much.

 

[JMM1957]

I was not accusing anyone of being a cult. I was stating my objections to making claims of special knowledge or guidance. This is why people follow such leaders as Rev. Moon or David Koresh or Joseph Smith. All we need is the bible. It is the safest route. That is why Paul warned the Galatians not to accept any other gospel even if it came from him. They were to keep to the original blueprint which he once delivered and confirmed with signs and wonders.

I think you would miss me if i left. We need to challenge each other. Its a good exercise for me. I need to understand how others believe and know Christ.

Dialog is good as long as both parties are genuinely trying to understand each other, otherwise it can be a waste of time if someone is here just to criticize and not listen.

 

[PRmerger]

Dialog is good as long as both parties are genuinely trying to understand each other, otherwise it can be a waste of time if someone is here just to criticize and not listen.

Yes. I have reported several posters who were not here to dialogue–they were “hit and run” posters. They would post their objection to Catholicism, and then run away, ne’er to return to address the refutations we offered.

Clearly, their intention is only to thwart the faith, not to have an enlightening discourse.

 

[Elizium23]

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.

From Morning Prayer, Thursday Oct 1, 2015.

READING Song of Songs 8:7
Deep waters cannot quench love,
nor floods sweep it away.
Were one to offer all he owns to purchase love,
he would be roundly mocked.

For your spiritual enrichment.

 

[Elizium23]

Yes. I have reported several posters who were not here to dialogue–they were “hit and run” posters. They would post their objection to Catholicism, and then run away, ne’er to return to address the refutations we offered.

Clearly, their intention is only to thwart the faith, not to have an enlightening discourse.

Threads like this go around and around in circles and way off topic. For men of good will who truly seek to know what the Church teaches and believes about justification, and where is our common ground with mainline Protestants, I offer the following landmark document.

JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church

13.Opposing interpretations and applications of the biblical message of justification were in the sixteenth century a principal cause of the division of the Western church and led as well to doctrinal condemnations. A common understanding of justification is therefore fundamental and indispensable to overcoming that division. By appropriating insights of recent biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of the history of theology and dogma, the post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogue has led to a notable convergence concerning justification, with the result that this Joint Declaration is able to formulate a consensus on basic truths concerning the doctrine of justification. In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to today’s partner.