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

[opulumpu]

OK rc fair . I find it logical based on other covenants. All show God to be infallible and perfect on His end. Our end has been with the good, bad, and ugly, all of them. All covenants do what they were supposed to do.The OT and her promises thru the one true Israel fulfilled.

Blessings

Benhur,

You still have not answered the question from rcwitness: “How do you determine falsehood”.

 

[opulumpu]

They get their authority from where all authority comes from, God. Now any falsehoods projected have no authority (authorship) from God.

benhur

How did that authority from God come down to them, through a dream, a revelation, personal judgement, etc, etc. How can they convince us that the authority they received is legitimate. Think about David Koresh, Jonestown Guyana etc etc.

 

[benhur]

Benhur,

You still have not answered the question from rcwitness: “How do you determine falsehood”.

Hi O ,

Well his question was rhetorical somewhat, for rc asks “how do we determine…”

But if you are are asking, I suppose in similar fashion as your church determines it. And then, it does come down to the individual deciding what is right, even if it is deciding which church is right.Quite a personal thing, not just corporate.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

benhur

How did that authority from God come down to them, through a dream, a revelation, personal judgement, etc, etc. How can they convince us that the authority they received is legitimate. Think about David Koresh, Jonestown Guyana etc etc.

Yes, problematic. How is it that you or I can both determine Jonesy is bad but a Billy graham is not (as some C’s have kindly said here ?)

Did Jesus ever say buyer need *not *beware ? Your (CC’s) infallibility seems to say that ( that the CC has nothing "problematic’ with any teaching on faith and morals).

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, problematic. Did Jesus ever say buyer need *not *beware ? Your (CC’s) infallibility seems to say that ( that the CC has nothing "problematic’ with any teaching on faith and morals).

Blessings

No, Jesus is saying, beware of individuals teachings even if they are ordained ministers, because they may not be in concert with the college of Bishops. And the college of Bishops are confirmed by the office of Steward of Christ, or the Bishop which succeeded Peter’s chair.

 

[rcwitness]

“Let another take his office”

All the Apostles had equal offices, except Peter. He was commissioned differently from the others, because he was commissioned to feed and tend the others. This Jesus said after Peter denied Him, yet Jesus’ prayer was that after he denied Him, he would then strengthen the others. How? The words Jesus used are Shepherd and Feed. This is why we trust in the infallible aspect of the Bishop when Teaching on faith and morals to ALL the faithful.

 

[eazyduzit]

“Let another take his office”

All the Apostles had equal offices, except Peter. He was commissioned differently from the others, because he was commissioned to feed and tend the others. This Jesus said after Peter denied Him, yet Jesus’ prayer was that after he denied Him, he would then strengthen the others. How? The words Jesus used are Shepherd and Feed. This is why we trust in the infallible aspect of the Bishop when Teaching on faith and morals to ALL the faithful.

Well and good except that Peter himself affirms in his apostolic letter to his fellow elders that
he is an an elder the same as they are, not more equal, but just equal. Who’s interpretation should I accept? Yours or Peter’s? Methinks Peter would know just a little better than we.

 

[eazyduzit]

No, Jesus is saying, beware of individuals teachings even if they are ordained ministers, because they may not be in concert with the college of Bishops. And the college of Bishops are confirmed by the office of Steward of Christ, or the Bishop which succeeded Peter’s chair.

Interesting. Could you show us were Jesus said this or how you know?

 

[Wesrock]

Well and good except that Peter himself affirms in his apostolic letter to his fellow elders that
he is an an elder the same as they are, not more equal, but just equal. Who’s interpretation should I accept? Yours or Peter’s? Methinks Peter would know just a little better than we.

Identifying himself as an elder/presbyter to the elder’s he was writing to does not mean Peter denied having greater authority. The Pope is also a bishop and can soeak from one bishop to another.

For clarification, I’ll trust Christ’s interpretation. Who better to listen to, you or Christ?

 

[eazyduzit]

Well, he actually clarified what he meant by “God’s eternal word”–he specifically said it was “the Bible”.

The Bible is a book, a holy book to be sure, and the Word of God.

But what was said about real freedom coming from a book is NOT part of the kerygma.

No book, no matter how holy,

Real freedom comes from the Word of God–Jesus Christ.

And Jesus gave us 2 channels to know Him: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

From my side of the fence this is the most dangerous liberal thinking possible. Looking for
alternate sources of revelation has always led to disaster, divisions, strife, etc. If any church in the Pentecostal camp took your view of God’s Testament it would be time for them to shut the doors and close shop. They would have no power and no effectiveness and no HS.

The Bible is not another book. It is living and powerful, because it is God’s covenant and contains all His promises to us. It is the only source of light in the world. All the world lieth in darkness. We cannot obtain anything from God except through faith in His promises. We will not be led by God except through His word.

This bible is the only spiritual book in the world, but it is not of the world as other books. It is from heaven. You cannot know Jesus apart from His word. Jn. 15:7 “If ye abide in Me and my words abide in you…”

Anything but the bible is unreliable, even all the creeds and caticisms, confessions of faith, no matter how old or new.

 

[eazyduzit]

Identifying himself as an elder/presbyter to the elder’s he was writing to does not mean Peter denied having greater authority. The Pope is also a bishop and can soeak from one bishop to another.

For clarification, I’ll trust Christ’s interpretation. Who better to listen to, you or Christ?

But then you must agree that Peter was not telling the whole truth and thus was being deceptive.

 

[eazyduzit]

Interesting.

So you can’t judge someone by their fruits, eh?

At every single one of your church services someone is healed and delivered and someone prophesies and speaks in tongues?

Really?

That sounds incredulous, even before you answer, but I do await your response.

I see a lot of condemnation in this statement.

Egg-zactly.

So this contradicts your original point.

You seem to be refuting your own position here.

His resurrection of course.

Unfortunately this is a rare exception at my current church. But certainty there are churches at a higher faith level where the supernatural is normal. A good example would be King Jesus
Church in Miami under Pastor Guillermo Maldonado. Jesus ministry was an example of what a Christian ministry should look like. That’s why I asked you how one one would know ifJesus was from God when He began His ministry, but you avoided answering by saying the resurrection which happened at the end, not the beginning. So is your answer that we should not be able to know? (Until the end)

 

[powerofk]

Unfortunately this is a rare exception at my current church. But certainty there are churches at a higher faith level where the supernatural is normal. A good example would be King Jesus
Church in Miami under Pastor Guillermo Maldonado. Jesus ministry was an example of what a Christian ministry should look like. That’s why I asked you how one one would know ifJesus was from God when He began His ministry, but you avoided answering by saying the resurrection which happened at the end, not the beginning. So is your answer that we should not be able to know? (Until the end)

The only people who recognized Jesus as God during His earthly ministry were those who God had divinely inspired to recognize it. Jesus may have been recognized as a prophet by many, an earthly messiah by others. The Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus’s mother, recognized Jesus as the Son of God, but only because it had been divinely revealed to her by the angel - and even then, she kept her mouth shut and worried for Jesus’s safety. It was St. Peter who openly declared Jesus to be the Son of God - but Jesus reminded Peter (and the other disciples) to stay silent about this until after His Resurrection.

Of course, this is where Jesus personally changed Simon’s name to Peter - literally to “Rock”. And we can go on and on about how in Greek, the word for rock is feminine, while Peter’s name is masculine, but remember - in Aramaic, Jesus would have called Peter “Cephas” - the name which St. John states means “Peter” and the name by which St. Paul called Peter. St. Paul does not call him Simon - he calls him Cephas, that is, Peter, or Rock. And when Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter, He makes him His vicar/vizier/chancellor - that is, the person who holds the keys to the kingdom and who holds the King’s seal. The vicar/vizier/chancellor is the equivalent to the Prime Minister. He is the highest ranking official in the kingdom - Joseph was Pharoah’s vizier during the great famine. And in Isaiah, one vicar is removed from duty, being replaced by another - and the new vicar is given the keys to the kingdom.

But I digress. During Jesus’s public ministry, very few recognized Him as the Son of God. And even those who did (except Mary, who was forewarned by the angel Gabriel and by Simeon), didn’t understand what His mission was to be. This is why, shortly after Jesus praises Peter for understanding that He is the Son of God, He rebukes him and calls him “Satan”.

 

[Cathoholic]

Eazyduzit.

You said:

Well and good except that Peter himself affirms in his apostolic letter to his fellow elders that he is an an elder the same as they are, not more equal, but just equal.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the point you are tying to assert here is that (1) St. Peter is on completely equal terms with his fellow elders.

I think you also conclude from this that (2) ALL CHRISTIANS are on equal terms.

The reason I concluded you think this is from the above, combined with you said elsewhere (on this thread— Questions on the the Bible and the priesthood here]) . . . .

Eazyduzit:

Now that sin has has been taken away, every believer serves as a priest before God under the high priesthood of Christ.

Since Priesthood has to do with salvation too I will address this here on this thread.

(I assume you DO know that if there is no Priesthood, there is no salvation - this is the way Christ set up His Church).

(But I’d rather focus on the Priesthood issue on a dedicated thread like the one I alluded to on the thread “Questions on the the Bible and the priesthood”).

I think part of what is confusing you about Catholic belief is (and I may be wrong on this), is that you think Catholics DENY St. Peter is a “presbyter” or “priest”. I suspect you think that (3) Catholics conclude, if St. Peter is a Pope . . . he is no longer a Priest.

(4) I also think YOU affirm the Priesthood of all believers, but (5) deny a ministerial Priesthood apart from Christ and . . . .

. . . . that (6) you THINK Catholics DO affirm a ministerial Priesthood apart from Christ.

And (7) if Catholics think what you think we believe than by St. Peter’s own words, Catholics MUST be contradicting St. Peter.

Eazyduzit again:

But then you must agree that Peter was not telling the whole truth and thus was being deceptive.

Am I correctly understanding what you are positing here?

I don’t want to attempt to rebut or affirm these ideas, if that is not what you are saying.

The seven points of Eazyduzit I think you are asserting here (is this correct?).

• Eazyduzit sees 1st Peter 5:1-3 = St. Peter on completely equal terms with other elders
• Eazyduzit believes all Christians are on equal terms (concerning ministry)
• If St. Peter is the first Pope (as Catholics try to assert), then Catholics must think St. Peter must no longer be a Priest or “elder”
• Eazyduzit asserts the Priesthood of all believers
• Eazyduzit concludes no ranking ministerial Priesthood
• Eazyduzit asserts Catholics affirm a ministerial Priesthood apart from Christ.
• Eazyduzit sees Catholics and St. Peter in conflict

Am I correctly understanding what you are positing here Eazyduzit?

1st PETER 5:1-3 1 So I exhort the elders among you, **as a fellow elder **and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. 2 Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, 3 not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.

Bold of 1st Peter mine.

 

[JMM1957]

From my side of the fence this is the most dangerous liberal thinking possible. Looking for
alternate sources of revelation has always led to disaster, divisions, strife, etc. If any church in the Pentecostal camp took your view of God’s Testament it would be time for them to shut the doors and close shop. They would have no power and no effectiveness and no HS.

The Bible is not another book. It is living and powerful, because it is God’s covenant and contains all His promises to us. It is the only source of light in the world. All the world lieth in darkness. We cannot obtain anything from God except through faith in His promises. We will not be led by God except through His word.

This bible is the only spiritual book in the world, but it is not of the world as other books. It is from heaven. You cannot know Jesus apart from His word. Jn. 15:7 “If ye abide in Me and my words abide in you…”

Anything but the bible is unreliable, even all the creeds and caticisms, confessions of faith, no matter how old or new.

It is good to have reverence and submission to the Word of God in the Bible, but the Bible is not alone as being the only source of light in the world, Matt. 5:14 records Jesus speaking to his disciples, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

Those that proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations are the" light of the world", you can carry that idea further and say that the Church itself is the light of the world. If anything other than the Bible is unreliable, then how could anyone trust the words of those spreading the Good News of the Gospel after Jesus, and before the Bible was fully written and the final canon of Scripture established?

By saying that only what is written on the pages of the Bible are totally reliable, means we have a book which can only interpret itself, because nobody’s interpretation in their own words would be trustworthy to follow. Do you see what I’m getting at? We have to be careful to not worship the book itself.

 

[rcwitness]

Well and good except that Peter himself affirms in his apostolic letter to his fellow elders that
he is an an elder the same as they are, not more equal, but just equal. Who’s interpretation should I accept? Yours or Peter’s? Methinks Peter would know just a little better than we.

I am aware that Peter addresses himself as a “fellow elder” and “to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours.”

These statements do not address Peter’s office with its singular role commissioned by Jesus several times in Scripture.

Peter alone (while the others were present) was given the keys.

Peter alone (while the other were present) was prayed for to remain in the faith and strengthen his brothers.

Peter alone (while the others were present) was commissioned to feed and shepherd the flock.

I cannot in good conscience deny the Catholic understanding of the meaning behind the prophecies of these Scriptures.

 

[Wesrock]

But then you must agree that Peter was not telling the whole truth and thus was being deceptive.

Peter was writing a letter, not a full treatise on the office. If he felt the need to associate with other elders on a personal level, qhat’s wrong with that? The pope can write “As a fellow bishop, I understand the difficulty of leading a flock” without being deceptive or misleading. Peter’s primacy, either in the Catholic interpretation or even as just one of the Twelve wouldn’t have been needed to explained. All of his readers woikd have known. It’s not necessary for him to insukt the intellihence of the elder’s he’s addressing by qualifying every point they would already have known.

 

[JMM1957]

I am aware that Peter addresses himself as a “fellow elder” and “to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours.”

These statements do not address Peter’s office with its singular role commissioned by Jesus several times in Scripture.

Peter alone (while the others were present) was given the keys.

Peter alone (while the other were present) was prayed for to remain in the faith and strengthen his brothers.

Peter alone (while the others were present) was commissioned to feed and shepherd the flock.

I cannot in good conscience deny the Catholic understanding of the meaning behind the prophecies of these Scriptures.

Peter alone had his name changed by Jesus in anticipation of him being given a special role in the Church.

If any non-Catholics want to dispute any of these assertions, I have no problem answering them within the context of this thread, not off topic at all imo.

 

[benhur]

No, Jesus is saying, beware of individuals teachings even if they are ordained ministers, because they may not be in concert with the college of Bishops. And the college of Bishops are confirmed by the office of Steward of Christ, or the Bishop which succeeded Peter’s chair.

He said all that ?

 

[benhur]

No, Jesus is saying, beware of individuals teachings even if they are ordained ministers, because they may not be in concert with the college of Bishops. And the college of Bishops are confirmed by the office of Steward of Christ, or the Bishop which succeeded Peter’s chair.

It was the OT equivalent of “college of bishops”, ,even those in Moses chair, God’s stewards,that had it very wrong when Christ walked the Earth amongst them.

Blessings