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

[benhur]

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).

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.

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

Fair enough on the Peter thing,but it does show a “practice” can be wrong( being a respect or of persons).

As far as the church being the pillar and because the gates of hell can not prevail against her therefore she can never be wrong is a Catch 22 coming from where ? A bit like rule #1 the church can never be wrong on faith and morals and rule # 2 if she is refer to rule #1 .

But good rebuttal to my stating that I do not question that truth rests upon and in the church but rather that we wrestle with not so truths ,even grey areas, from resting on top also. I just disagree with what prevailing means to you,no conditionality and really infallibility, and that not because she has not erred in the past, but she can not by the very nature of the covenant.

Well God is faithful in all his covenants. As you know Satan at every turn in each of them tried to dissolve them but failed. But he sure won some battles, and they were just not in the area of practice or personal behavior, but yes , in doctrine, and lo and behold , tradition! Yet each covenant delivered perfectly, though with a lot of “lemonade” .

So I propose that between us all there is some “lemonade”, and by no means has hell prevailing against us thru lemons.

Blessings

 

[MaryT777]

I found that the Joint Declaration just whitewashed the differences and avoided the core issue.
Here at the Forum we don’t even try to be politically correct.

The Lutheran World Federation sign off on the document which includes the ELCA.
The LCMS and WELS and those that consider themselves "confessional Lutherans’ as I understand it did not sign off on it.

For those that felt the document whitewashed the issues from a non Catholic perspective they would need to take it up with their leaders that signed it.

TOWARD TRUE RECONCILIATION
A Comment on Lutheran-Roman Catholic Relations

You may have heard that a declaration was signed that claims to resolve a key difference between the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church. What you may not have heard is that more than 45 percent of the Lutheran church-bodies in the world did not support the declaration.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is the oldest and second-largest Lutheran church-body in the United States. We would like to explain why we could not support the declaration.

We rejoice that we have much in common with our fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic Church. Because of what we have in common, we are committed to working toward true reconciliation of our important differences. We could not support the declaration because it does not actually reconcile the difference between us concerning the most important truth of Christianity.

What is that truth? God loved the world so much that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live a perfect life in our place and to die for our sins. God declares us to be totally righteous and completely forgiven because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God gives us eternal life as a free gift through trust in Christ alone.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that something more than trust in Christ is necessary for us to be saved. It teaches that we are able to merit, through our works, eternal life for ourselves and others. We believe this teaching obscures the work of Jesus Christ and clouds the central message of the Bible.

Therefore, despite what has been reported in the public media about the Lutheran-Roman Catholic declaration, very significant differences remain in regard to how we understand salvation, a fact that the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges.

We pray for genuine reconciliation of differences among Christians. Our church is intent on working for the day when the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed with one voice. We will continue to work toward true reconciliation.

A Statement from the Office of the President
The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod
International Center
1333 South Kirkwood Road
St. Louis, Missouri 63122-7295

 

[JMM1957]

Great Christians have proved by their very lives that that the Bible is indeed sufficient. One example was Smith Wigglesworth. He never read anything but the Bible or even allowed any other literature in his house. I would like to be “duped” as much as this man. How many people were raised from the dead in your ministry? How many thousands have you healed and saved?

"His methods often involved hitting, slapping or punching the afflicted part of the body. On a number of occasions his approach to persons suffering from stomach complaints was to punch them in the stomach, sometimes with such force that it propelled them across the room. When challenged on this, his response was “I don’t hit them, I hit the devil.”

Julian Wilson, Wigglesworth The Complete Story: A New Biography Of The ‘Apostle Of Faith’ Smith Wigglesworth (Biblica, 2004) page 82-3.

 

[PRmerger]

Then nobody is saved by a church either, no matter how holy or spot on. Nor by Tradition. Nor by a council or magisterium. Nor by wit.

Very Catholic this.

PS Jesus saves quite universally/catholic/Catholic.

As is this.

 

[PRmerger]

"His methods often involved hitting, slapping or punching the afflicted part of the body. On a number of occasions his approach to persons suffering from stomach complaints was to punch them in the stomach, sometimes with such force that it propelled them across the room. When challenged on this, his response was “I don’t hit them, I hit the devil.”

Julian Wilson, Wigglesworth The Complete Story: A New Biography Of The ‘Apostle Of Faith’ Smith Wigglesworth (Biblica, 2004) page 82-3.

Yipes!

That’s what comes from reading the Bible without the lens of the Faith which gave him this Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Well more the church even the authors/writers were /are stewards of His Words. Not sure “product” is the succinct word . I thought Vat2 was trying to get away from that divisive mentality, push me/pull me, my church/ your church in the spirit of ecumenicalism. At best God gave the church, the Catholic Church, the bible.

Blessings

:extrahappy::dancing::bounce:

 

[PRmerger]

God declared it scripture ,

Yes, and He did this through His Church.

Unless there is some* other* way you know that God “declared” Hebrews theopneustos but the Epistle of Clement not?

or are u saying that the Trinity isn’t enough somehow ?

The Trinity isn’t enough? Of course the Holy Trinity is enough. God sustains all. So without God, there is nothing; the Trinity is the only thing that isn’t contingent.

But without the Church, the Trinity is totally useless to us…unless you believe in private revelation.

Without a means for God’s Revelation, you have a Head without any means of sharing the Logos.

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible does not disagree. The Church is to preserve and publish and preach the truth. It is not the truth.

Very Catholic, this.

Only God’s Word is truth.

Indeed.

But without the church, how can the gospel be presented to the world?

Amen!

 

[PRmerger]

No one who believes that adultery is an exception understands it like you’ve suggested. Rather, they understand it to permit the innocent spouse to divorce and remarry.

Incidentally, (coincidentally? providentially?), I happened to be searching a thread and came upon this:

Hey Josh,

To add to this thread discussion, I want to share with you a real life situation in which the KJV translation of Mt. 19:8-9 was, in my opinion, horribly abused. A woman called me who was a friend of a friend. She and her husband were Protestants who used KJV and even though she knew I was Catholic, she also knew that I studied the Bible and wanted my opinion on the heart-breaking situation she was enduring.

Here, in a nutshell, was the situation…

She and her husband had three children (one of them a newborn). She and her husband also went to church and Bible study sessions on a regular basis. They considered themselves born again Christians, and believed in the importance of Christian living based upon biblical teachings.

Her husband was evidently going through some sort of mid-life crisis. He moved out of the house and wanted a divorce so he could start dating someone else.

Even though he professed belief in living according to biblical standards, he actually used the Bible to excuse his actions. This was his reasoning:

1. The husband stated that he had not committed the sin of fornication with another woman. But…
2. He admitted that he had lusted in his heart about other women, and Jesus teaches that such an act is, in itself, adultery.
   This is found in Matthew 5:28 (the exact same gospel, incidentally, in which Jesus presents an exception clause to his divorce ruling).
   Therefore, the husband stated that while married he had committed adultery according to this understanding of the term.
3. The KJV translation of Matthew 19:8-9 presents “adultery” to be the exception for Jesus’ condemnation of divorce.
   Hence, this husband stated that because he was an adulterer (from having lusted in the heart) it is biblically permissible for them to get a divorce.

So the KJV translation gave this guy a biblical excuse to break his wedding vows, turn his back on his family, and look to getting married to someone else. I told this unfortunate woman about the Greek word “porneia” and how it is actually a broad term embracing the idea of improper sexual practices. Adultery is one such practice, but so is incest, which was probably the concern being addressed.

After all, Jesus declared that the Gentiles would accept him and his teachings ( in other words, would want to become baptized converts to Christianity). Many Gentiles engaged in marriages that are considered incestuous by Judeo-Christian law. So what if a Gentile who is married under such conditions wants to become a Christian? His marriage places him in a perpetual state of mortal sin. Therefore, because an incestuous marriage is considered invalid in Judeo-Christianity, a divorce is permitted, and the obstacle preventing one from becoming Christian is removed. It is for this reason that other Bibles translate “porneia” (from Matthew 19:8-9) as “unlawful.” An incestuous marriage is unlawful according to Judeo-Christianity, and likewise invalid (so there is not moral issue in getting a divorce to correct the situation).

But, for the sake of argument, what if the word “porneia” is supposed to be translated as “adultery”? Well, then what is to prevent everyone from using this exception clause in the same way I described above? Why set down a rule (i.e., “no divorce”) and then give it a loop hole big enough for everybody in the world to exploit (i.e., “unless you have committed adultery, which includes lusting after someone in your heart”)? Maybe people don’t lust on planet Vulcan, but among the human race lust is a sin that is pretty darn hard to avoid. So for this fact alone, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the word “porneia” in Matthew 19:8-9 is not intended to be translated as “adultery.”

So that pretty much refutes that assertion made by Black that “no one who believes that adultery is an exception understands it like you’ve suggested. Rather, they understand it to permit the innocent spouse to divorce and remarry”

Understanding the divorce “exception” the Protestant way does indeed give permission to commit adultery so one can have the Biblical blessing to be divorced.

And that is indeed a huge difference between Protestant understanding of being “saved” and Catholic understanding.

 

[zz912]

The Bible does not disagree. The Church is to preserve and publish and preach the truth. It is not the truth. Only God’s Word is truth. But without the church, how can the gospel be presented to the world?

The following of certain personalities and teachings is what Paul called CARNALITY in 1Cor.3. V.4 “For one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?”

The Bible most certainly does disagree. The Bible says to listen to the Church. The Bible says to listen to tradition, whether written or oral. That’s what the Bible says.

And you don’t have a Bible without the Church. The Bible needs the Church.

 

[zz912]

**God declared it scripture **, or are u saying that the Trinity isn’t enough somehow ?

When, where and how did God declare it Scripture?

 

[zz912]

Yes, no vacuum in authority, as in if there be no pope we we would not implode.(if that is what u mean).

If there were no other magisterium save the Catholic one, then rejecting it would place us “alone” as our own teachers. But there are other magisteriums, even traditions.

Blessings

Correct, you submit to a magisterium for knowing the Christian faith. It may be your particular denomination, or it may be yourself. But you do submit to a magisterium. My question is where did they get their authority?

 

[In_His_Grace]

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.

This isn’t necessarily true in all cases. Some people just aren’t very articulate but do stick around lurking, listening and learning, like me.

 

[PRmerger]

This isn’t necessarily true in all cases. Some people just aren’t very articulate but do stick around lurking, listening and learning, like me.

Of course I wasn’t referring to you.

 

[PRmerger]

Rampant. Macaroni pictures and saint posterboard projects replaced religious education for at least the last 50 years. It’s doubtful most heard anything more than a variation of “God is love” over and over, with further context or instruction. It was abysmal.

OMG. I don’t know how I missed this.

But if ever there was a trenchant, insightful, pithy description of the dismal catechesis the Church provided in the past 50 years, it is this ^^.

:tiphat::bowdown::bowdown2:

 

[In_His_Grace]

Of course I wasn’t referring to you.

I didn’t think you were but wasn’t certain. Thanks.

 

[RyanBlack]

Incidentally, (coincidentally? providentially?), I happened to be searching a thread and came upon this:

So that pretty much refutes that assertion made by Black that “no one who believes that adultery is an exception understands it like you’ve suggested. Rather, they understand it to permit the innocent spouse to divorce and remarry”

Understanding the divorce “exception” the Protestant way does indeed give permission to commit adultery so one can have the Biblical blessing to be divorced.

And that is indeed a huge difference between Protestant understanding of being “saved” and Catholic understanding.

I was Protestant for more than 30 years. I’ve never heard of such perverse use of Scripture. The way in which the adultery exception is understood by Protestants is that it applies to the innocent spouse. I have never heard anyone suggest that it gives permission to commit adultery in order to divorce and have a second marriage. Such twisted reasoning would be considered repugnant among the Protestants with whom I’ve associated. I don’t think this case you have referenced is representative of the way Protestants who take Scripture seriously understand teaching concerning marriage and divorce.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

When, where and how did God declare it Scripture?

When the books were written , although the church compiled the canon.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

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.

I try to listen , and answer according to the truth , sorry if I missed something .

 

[PRmerger]

I was Protestant for more than 30 years. I’ve never heard of such perverse use of Scripture. The way in which the adultery exception is understood by Protestants is that it applies to the innocent spouse.

Well, here you have an example of someone who used it, quite correctly I would add, to justify his divorce.

Exactly what I posited.

And if any Protestant says it applies to the innocent spouse only, then the simple solution is to say, “Where does the text say that?”

Such twisted reasoning would be considered repugnant among the Protestants with whom I’ve associated.

Well, it’s twisted to think that Jesus would give an exception clause for adultery in the first place.

I don’t think this case you have referenced is representative of the way Protestants who take Scripture seriously understand teaching concerning marriage and divorce.

It is representative of at least 1 Protestant. And I am pretty sure, given our human nature, that he’s not the only one who’s used it.

Whether it is representative of* most* Protestants is irrelevant.

No one has posited that in the first place.