Why do Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell?

[guanophore]

With all Respect, we non-protestant biblical christians

There is no such thing as a “non-protestant biblical Christian”. All denominations distinguish themselves from Catholicism, which is all that existed before they emerged 500 years ago. If you are not protesting, then you would be Catholic!

Just to prove the point, you whole post is a protest against Catholicism. I will grant, however, that it is a protest against your imaginary belief of what it is to be Catholic, and has no basis in reality.

(we) see you depending on another gospel ( Gal 1:6-8 ) where you are putting your faith in Mary and in “sanits” in heaven for your prayers. We see you giving Mary or the saints creadit for what only God should get credit for like deliverance or healings. We honestly see you as having a misguided faith in anything but Jesus.

I understand that this is what you see. Many people do have warped perceptions of reality, Catholic reality in particular. People that “see” Catholics this way clearly do not understand Catholicism.

God does not give His glory to another, but He shares His glory with any that obey Him.

Rom 2:5-10
" For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;… glory and honor and peace for every one who does good…"

There is no glory apart from God, therefore, if any “good” of man is glorified it must come from God. Mary was credited by Jesus as blessed because she heard the word of God, and kept it. God has glorified her because she sought honor and immortality. So too have all the saints that have gone to their rest confident in the One who was able to keep them.

To counter this you need to learn to give only God credit.
Stop depending on Mary and the saints for your prayers.
And learn to word your testimoniies in language that we understand. Like quoting someone whom you believe is a Saint is the biggest turn off because in our view you are putting the words of that saint on par with Scriptures.

I agree that it would be helpful for Catholics to use terms that can be better understood by Protestants. However, it is not biblical to “geve only God credit”. God is glorified in His saints, and we are to use them as our role models.

“love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor.” Rom 12:10

" Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due." Rom 13:7

“Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 “that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth.” Eph 6:1-3

" So receive him in the Lord with all joy; and honor such men, 30 for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete your service to me "
Phil 2:29-30

“Honor widows who are real widows.” 1 Tim 5:3

“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;” 1 Tim 5:17-18

“Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith.” Heb 13:7

Honor, and even “double honor” does not “subtract” from God, as you seem to think.

Like James says show me your works, and we know were your faith lies. We see your faith as centered on creatures ( Romans 1 ) rather than soley on Jesus the creator. This basically, comes from our concept of Jesus Alone, or Jesus Supreme.

I puzzle about your use of the royal “we”. Who are “we see your faith”? In truth, you have not seen the faith of any Catholic here, since you have never observed any member of CAF at worship.

However, even if you had, you may still misunderstand our faith. Catholics believe that Jesus instructed us to follow the 10 commandments. Worship of any creature is a violation of the first commandment, and is therefore a mortal sin.

Scripture clearly demonstrates that we are to rely on one another, in Christ, non “Jesus only”, which is part of the new gospel invention of the Reformaiton. Jesus is supreme, but Jesus is in and with His Body, and is not separated from it.

You divorce the five Solas from each other and in doing so, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of Salvation.

LOL.

The “five Solas” were invented as new gospel 500 years ago. In embracing them, you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the Apostolic teaching on Salvation. If it is all the same to you, I will take the Apostles over your protestant forefathers.

Basically, learn to look at people from their world view to see why many of us think you are unsaved. I for one try to make an effort to understand where you are coming from.

I think this is helpful. I do think that looking from your point of view clearly shows how many Protestants think that we are unsaved. It seems to emanate from a lack of understanding about what we believe. I hope that you are willing to let go of your preconcieved notions so that you are able to understand what we really believe. When you are able to do this, you will see that most of what you “perceive” is false.

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by **Daniel Marsh **
(we) see you depending on another gospel ( Gal 1:6-8 ) where you are putting your faith in Mary and in “sanits” in heaven for your prayers. We see you giving Mary or the saints creadit for what only God should get credit for like deliverance or healings. We honestly see you as having a misguided faith in anything but Jesus.

**Marsh -
You are not thinking straight on this. There is no ‘other’ gospel except the one preached on Christ crucified for our salvation. Mary the mother of Jesus was present at Pentecost; she was also in the upper room when Christ appeared to His apostles.

Mary’s faith is OUR Faith! Her Faith in Christ her son is the SAME Faith that we proclaim. We are not giving her credit for what only God should get credit for. She cannot “deliver us from evil” but she can intercede on our behalf (as can all Christians) so that we persevere in this life.

Healings? Read the entire gospel, and read, particular in ACTS where the disciples healed in the name of Jesus - the same thing Mary does as our spiritual mother and mother of the Church.

If anything is misguided, it is your understanding of the spiritual significance of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. Start to think outside of your box a bit and maybe you’ll gradually come to an authentic understanding of what the Church truly believes and preaches because, as it stands now, you see through a glass darkly. **

 

[Teflon93]

Epistles and gospels are not synonyms.

 

[guanophore]

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

If baptism saves you, Paul would have never said that to the Corinthians.

On the contrary, Paul writes in many places about the saving effects of baptism. Baptism is the means by which the saving effects of Christ are applied to the individual. This is why Jesus tells Nicodemus that, unless one is born of water and spirit, one cannot enter the Kingdom.

In fact, we know that no one can be saved unless their sins are washed away, and this is what happened to Paul when he was converted:

" And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ Acts 22:16

This is the same form of baptism that has been used by Catholics since the assumption of Christ.

Yes, clearly Paul was not called to Baptize, that was Peter’s and the other Apostle’s jobs. They were the first bishops (priests).

I think this is a misunderstanding of the passage. Paul is not saying that he did not baptize, or that baptism did not fall within his “job description”. He did baptize, but since there were so many converts to his preaching, he did not have time to baptize them all. The elders and deacons did most of the baptizing.

None of the Apostles had time for all that were being baptized, but bishops were the successors of the Apostles, not Apostles, which is a separate office. Priests are not necessarily bishops, though every bishop is also a priest. “Priest” is an English derivative of presbyter, also called “elder” in the NT.

 

[Randy_Carson]

On the contrary, Paul writes in many places about the saving effects of baptism. Baptism is the means by which the saving effects of Christ are applied to the individual. This is why Jesus tells Nicodemus that, unless one is born of water and spirit, one cannot enter the Kingdom.

In fact, we know that no one can be saved unless their sins are washed away, and this is what happened to Paul when he was converted:

" And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ Acts 22:16

This is the same form of baptism that has been used by Catholics since the assumption of Christ.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the passage. Paul is not saying that he did not baptize, or that baptism did not fall within his “job description”. He did baptize, but since there were so many converts to his preaching, he did not have time to baptize them all. The elders and deacons did most of the baptizing.

None of the Apostles had time for all that were being baptized, but bishops were the successors of the Apostles, not Apostles, which is a separate office. Priests are not necessarily bishops, though every bishop is also a priest. “Priest” is an English derivative of presbyter, also called “elder” in the NT.

:clapping:

Good answer.

And don’t forget that scripture itself suggests this to be the case:

Acts 6:2
So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes, clearly Paul was not called to Baptize, that was Peter’s and the other Apostle’s jobs. They were the first bishops (priests).
guanophore;3727696:

I think this is a misunderstanding of the passage. Paul is not saying that he did not baptize, or that baptism did not fall within his “job description”. He did baptize, but since there were so many converts to his preaching, he did not have time to baptize them all. The elders and deacons did most of the baptizing.

On the contrary, Paul writes in many places about the saving effects of baptism. Baptism is the means by which the saving effects of Christ are applied to the individual. This is why Jesus tells Nicodemus that, unless one is born of water and spirit, one cannot enter the Kingdom.

Thank you for clarifying. I was trying to point out that it doesn’t follow that baptism is unnecessary just because Paul may not have baptized. Jesus also did not baptize, but he also was baptized.