Why do Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SebMurphy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg94086 said:
Okay. So, how do you think God chooses His Elect? Is it just random?
Click to expand...
No one can answer that. However, you can know if you are elect.

Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
 
kaycee said:
No one can answer that. However, you can know if you are elect.

Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
Click to expand...
Yay! I’m elect…so are 99% of all Catholics and Christians! See how simple that was? 👍

Now, you can’t say any Christian faith leads people to hell.
 
rlg94086 said:
Yay! I’m elect…so are 99% of all Catholics and Christians! See how simple that was? 👍

Now, you can’t say any Christian faith leads people to hell.
Click to expand...
:extrahappy:

Wait, that’s just one verse. What about all the other stuff, like, John 6:53*

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. * And the whole discourse on eating his body and drinking his blood?

What about James 2:14-22?
*
14
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16
and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
**21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. *22

Is this the reason ML originally removed the book of James on the basis it was “strawey?”

Sometimes Truth is hard to quantify, it’s a mystery, but we cannot eliminate inconvenient facts to fit our theology. my:twocents:
 
qui_est_ce said:
:extrahappy:

Wait, that’s just one verse. What about all the other stuff, like, John 6:53

*Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. *And the whole discourse on eating his body and drinking his blood?

What about James 2:14-22?

*14 *
*What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? *
*15 *
*If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, *
*16 *
*and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? *
*17 *
*So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. *
*18 *
*Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. *
*19 *
*You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. *
*20 *
*Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? *
***21 ***
***Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? ***
***You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. ***22

Is this the reason ML originally removed the book of James on the basis it was “strawey?”

Sometimes Truth is hard to quantify, it’s a mystery, but we cannot eliminate inconvenient facts to fit our theology. my:twocents:
Click to expand...
Shhh! I’m being ecumenically euphoric right now…don’t rain on my parade. 😉 🙂
 
SebMurphy said:
Hi
I am Catholic and I get annoyed when I see on other forums other Christians saying Catholicism leads to hell.
Why do they say this?
Please reassure me because sometimes I get worried about it,.
Click to expand...
It’s probably just an oversight 😉
 
qui_est_ce said:
Is this the reason ML originally removed the book of James on the basis it was “strawey?”

Sometimes Truth is hard to quantify, it’s a mystery, but we cannot eliminate inconvenient facts to fit our theology. my:twocents:
Click to expand...
Hmmm, you seem to have more than your share of difficulty quantifying truth.

I thought it was offensive to RC’s when non catholics misrepresent their faith. 😦
 
Kaycee…I see that your signature is: “Acts 16:30 What must I do to be saved? They said, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Does this mean if I believe in the Lord Jesus that my Atheist, blasphemous, God-hating non-repentant brother that lives in my household will be saved?
 
kaycee said:
Hmmm, you seem to have more than your share of difficulty quantifying truth.

I thought it was offensive to RC’s when non catholics misrepresent their faith. 😦
Click to expand...
It’s offensive to Catholics too. 🙂
 
Lampo said:
Kaycee…I see that your signature is: “Acts 16:30 What must I do to be saved? They said, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Does this mean if I believe in the Lord Jesus that my Atheist, blasphemous, God-hating non-repentant brother that lives in my household will be saved?
Click to expand...
What do you think?

Certainly when read in context the meaning is clear.

Act 16:34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household
 
kaycee said:
And yet you state Martin Luther removed the Book of James out of the bible, which is clearly not true. :confused:
Click to expand...
He wanted to remove it, and did remove it, but was persuaded by his peers to put it back where it belonged.
 
kaycee said:
What do you think?

Certainly when read in context the meaning is clear.

Act 16:34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household
Click to expand...
Your answer is “no” then?
 
kaycee said:
What do you think?

Certainly when read in context the meaning is clear.

Act 16:34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household
Click to expand...
Hi kaycee,

I have a follow-up question…and I’m not just being argumentative, I am really curious as to the way this is answered by a five-point Calvinist.

One of the “problems” non-Catholics have with the Catholic Church is the baptism of infants.

Since,
  1. “whole household” is mentioned in more than one place in the Bible and Jesus encouraged people who brought their infants to touch him (Luke 18:15-17)
And,
2) Faith and Grace are gifts from God

What is the issue with infant baptism from a biblical sense?
 
rlg94086 said:
Hi kaycee,

I have a follow-up question…and I’m not just being argumentative, I am really curious as to the way this is answered by a five-point Calvinist.

One of the “problems” non-Catholics have with the Catholic Church is the baptism of infants.

Since,
  1. “whole household” is mentioned in more than one place in the Bible and Jesus encouraged people who brought their infants to touch him (Luke 18:15-17)
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t see the relationship of Jesus touching children being relevant to infant baptism. It appears that children were acceptable to Him without baptism.
And,
2) Faith and Grace are gifts from God

What is the issue with infant baptism from a biblical sense?
Click to expand...
Well, infant baptism is’nt biblical as there are no instances of it recorded in scripture.
 
kaycee said:
What do you think?

Certainly when read in context the meaning is clear.

Act 16:34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household
Click to expand...
Lampo said:
Your answer is “no” then?
Click to expand...
It would be so much nicer if people would just answer the question instead of playing guessing games. No wonder there is so much misunderstanding in the world.🙂
 
kaycee said:
Sorry, I don’t see the relationship of Jesus touching children being relevant to infant baptism. It appears that children were acceptable to Him without baptism.

Well, infant baptism is’nt biblical as there are no instances of it recorded in scripture.
Click to expand...
Ah…the absence of evidence argument. Thanks for responding. I thought you might have something more substantial, but I appreciate the effort.

BTW…if you don’t see a relationship between touching Jesus and Baptism, I can see why you don’t see the relevance of the passage.
 
kaycee said:
Sorry, I don’t see the relationship of Jesus touching children being relevant to infant baptism. It appears that children were acceptable to Him without baptism.

Well, infant baptism is’nt biblical as there are no instances of it recorded in scripture.
Click to expand...
In one instance in Scripture where it says, “households” you acknowledge that infants/children are/could be included and in the next instance in Scripture where it says, “households” you say infants/children are not included. That’s not very consistent is it? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that was the point of “rlg94086’s” question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top