Why do Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell?

[myfavoritmartin]

Ah, but here is the rub. I am asking why any non-Catholic believes a Catholic isn’t justified or saved. Since a non-Catholic doesn’t believe in the Catholic definitions of justification, “Trent and the newer Catechism” shouldn’t come into play, should they?

In other words, Catholics have faith, but they also believe that much more is required. If a non-Catholic doesn’t believe that more is required, then they should just say that Catholics are doing things which are unnecessary…not that their religion is leading them to hell.

Not a saving faith if they can’t put all their hope on Christ alone and they need to lean on works, even if they are ones done in holiness of heart it still shows a lack or an adding to the finished work.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Not a saving faith if they can’t put all their hope on Christ alone and they need to lean on works, even if they are ones done in holiness of heart it still shows a lack or an adding to the **finished **work.

IT"S NOT FINISHED!
IT’S LACKING SOMETHING. What is it lacking???

 

[myfavoritmartin]

IT"S NOT FINISHED!
IT’S LACKING SOMETHING. What is it lacking???

teteletestai

 

[Teflon93]

Yes, I know. And I grew up there, so I should be more understanding. The problem is that I get so tired of everything being squeezed into a fundamentalist-vs.-Catholic mode. I don’t think this gets at the real, substantive issues. I was so happy to get out of that world and be in a situation where we weren’t just all throwing stereotypes at each other. I don’t take into sufficient account what it must be like to be a Catholic living in the fundamentalist culture I know so well.

Sorry if this sounds patronizing. I’m really trying to extend an olive branch here!

Edwin

It’s not patronizing at all—I referred to a fundamentalist position as though it were true of most Protestants, which it clearly isn’t. You were correct to call me on it.

 

[guanophore]

Here’s a list of must DO’S to recieve that “grace” of justification
You must:

— Love and worship God
— Pray
— Fast
— Love one’s neighbor
— Practice self-renunciation
— Obey the commandments of God
— Bear witness to the Catholic faith
— Follow supernatural inspiration in deeds
— Confess the major doctrines of the Church

Do all of these things, and maybe become worthy of Justification.

But the Bible says (Romans 3) that God Justifies the ungodly and that we are justified apart from works.

Where does the Catholic Church teach that one must do all these things to be justified?

If these things you say are true, how come the Church teaches that everyone is immediately justified at baptism, without having to do those things?

 

[guanophore]

Isn’t faith a supernatul gift of God, fragile and in need of nurshisement, easily lost or distroyed by our own free will?

There is a gift of faith that is supernatural, but there is also a part of our humanity that includes faith. We place our faith in all kinds of things, like that cars will stop when the light changes and not run into us. We trust that the chair is under us when we go to sit, and that the sun will come up in the morning. Faith is a natural function of the human being. To the extent that all that we are is a gift of God, of course it is included, but just like the rest of our persons, it is incumbent upon us, being the mover of our own faith, to place it where it belongs, and to exercise it properly, and to add those things to it that are commanded by God.

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon,

I appreciate your substantive response here, and I apologize for my angry language earlier.

No problem.

For the very simple reason that the Council of Trent uses the word “merit,” and many other Catholic sources do as well. It is not something made up by Protestants. I understand why you are saying this, because Protestants so often caricature this word and don’t bother trying to understand what it means in context. But there are real issues here. At the risk of reopening our old can of worms, the phrase “treasury of merits” used throughout Catholic tradition is deeply problematic for Protestants. This is not stuff we made up.

The Council of Trent was 500 years ago! Language does change over time; we have to be careful of the sense of words which, while extant today as well as then, may have a very different context.

Furthermore, you chose to respond to SyCarl’s post not by saying that you didn’t believe in merit, but by saying (in post 239), “I would think the words of Jesus would be dispositive on that score.” I can understand that you thought you were responding to the general issue of whether works are necessary. But you were specifically responding to the word “merit,” and you can’t reasonably blame me for answering you on that basis.

I don’t blame you for answering me on that basis, but I was addressing the term the way Protestants use it—recompense for good works. Trent was responding to the notion that good works mean nothing.

No, since that’s not what I’m “blaming” Catholics for, or what I was “blaming” them for in the indulgence thread. Again, I think you are responding to me as if I were a fundamentalist. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with the proposition that works are rewarded. My issues with Catholic teaching are much more specific than that. (I do have a problem with the “jewels in the crown” teaching insofar as it’s separated from salvation entirely–and so, I would imagine, do you!)

My issue with “jewels in the crown” is that it undermines the notion that one engages in good works and charity for the glory of God, not for one’s own glory.

It may be the point you are interested in arguing. But in that case why respond to SyCarl or to me? Why not respond to these fundamentalists who exercise you so much? Why impose that discussion on people who are trying to have a different kind of discussion? (I may be wrong about SyCarl, but he doesn’t strike me as a fundamentalist and his post was in and of itself quite reasonable.)

MFM is currently forwarding the fundamentalist argument in large measure; SyCarl sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t. It doesn’t matter to me whether an argument forwarded is fundamentalist or mainline Protestant; if it mischaracterizes Catholic teaching, it is incorrect.

I have explained that they are not similar in the points that interest *me. *And surely I ought to be allowed to decide which aspects of Catholic doctrine I’m objecting to? I’m not objecting to the idea that works are rewarded. I don’t know how many times I have to say this before you believe me!

You don’t need to prove anything to me. The trouble with the “works are rewarded” formulation is that it needs to be clarified before someone dives off the “works salvation” cliff. As the Catechism notes, it is God’s grace which allows for our good works. God is pleased with them, they do not count for nothing, as Trent clarified, and the more we let sanctifying grace flower through such works the closer to God and salvation we become. That is not to say that if I tithe 10% of my income to the Church I will be saved.

If you choose to make malicious suppositions about your separated brothers, it is not their responsibility to prove you wrong. Rather, it is your responsibility to show how I am inconsistent, which you don’t even try to do. I really don’t understand how you think I’m inconsistent. I am interested in hearing an argument to that effect.

The inconsistency comes in when you take heated exception to the Catholic practice of indulgences but resist a negative word about Protestant practices such as “jewels in the crown.” A practice is a practice, regardless of who practices it. If it is erroneous, it deserves condemnation, regardless of who practices it.

The phrase “works salvation” is so vague as to be almost meaningless. I do not believe that either Catholics or Orthodox or any other major Trinitarian Christian tradition hold to a salvation by works apart from grace. I believe that the question of the proper relationship between faith and works is a complex one on which various Christian traditions hold a number of different views, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. I’m not convinced that the word “merit” is the best word to use to describe how our works are related to their reward. I think it lends itself to misunderstanding. However, I do not think that this is a church-dividing issue or that the Gospel is at stake. We agree that we are saved only by grace; that initial justification cannot be merited in any sense; and that saving faith is a faith that works through love. As far as I’m concerned, everything else is nuance. But nuance is important.

And I agree with all of that. I disagree with the cherrypicking like SyCarl posted above, which ignores the vast array of passages speaking to the importance of good works and active faith, including many straight from Christ’s lips. We’ve talked about several in this thread already.

It is also incorrect to assume that the Catholic formulation is Works = Salvation when it is clearly articulated in the Catechism as Faith + Justifying Grace + Works + Sanctifying Grace = salvation. Faith without works is dead; all without God’s grace is for naught.

 

[Teflon93]

Because I can’t see what’s wrong with it, except for the overly sharp distinction between reward and salvation. (In other words, I don’t see it as a form of works salvation–I think it’s a lame attempt to avoid ascribing final salvation to works in the sense that Scripture does. And as I’ve said many times, I don’t think indulgences are works salvation either. You appear to be so used to arguing with people who make this charge that you see it when it is not there.) I am happy to condemn other fundamentalist doctrines, such as the idea that a person can die without charity and go to heaven, or the related doctrine of OSAS, or the frequently expressed dictum that a person can be good and go to hell (they probably mean that no one who doesn’t believe in Jesus is good, but that’s often not what they say). But I think “jewels in the crown” is fairly innocuous.

That’s fair enough, although I’m still mystified as to your earlier heated reaction to indulgences. That’s a different thread, though.

My issue with “jewels in the crown”, as noted above, is that one should seek to do good for God’s glory, not for one’s own. To the extent that it fosters the sin of pride, that can be dangerous.

I apologize for the foolish attempt at psychological explanation. But I don’t understand why you keep injecting fundamentalism into this discussion, given that neither of us is a fundamentalist.

MFM is forwarding the fundamentalist ball. The fundamentalists are the leading source of anti-Catholic argument; we have to insist on clarity in terminology because this thread is read by more than the posters.

Also, if the “fundamentalists” that you have encountered are Pentecostal Holiness, then I’m less likely to condemn them. Many of my objections apply primarily to Baptists and quasi-Baptists. The abominable prosperity gospel, however, is much more characteristic of Pentecostals than of fundamentalists (though in my experience not generally of rural Southern “Church of God” Pentecostals, who come from the Holiness tradition–but perhaps it is penetrating those circles).

Edwin

There’s a whole spectrum of this type of belief within the Pentecostal community today; it tends to vary. In the Church of God congregation I attended with my wife, the teaching would change week to week, often in mutually-contradictory ways (“I don’t know why you people worry about being saved—of course you’re saved” one week, and “Do you think you’re saved? Hah!” the next).

Aside from these inscrutable utterances there, my exposure to fundamentalist argument is what I read and what we get here on CAF. I did not grow up in a Baptist church, nor did I spend any significant time in one (attended one service as I recall).

 

[Teflon93]

Where does the Catholic Church teach that one must do all these things to be justified?

If these things you say are true, how come the Church teaches that everyone is immediately justified at baptism, without having to do those things?

I don’t think he’s using “justification” and “sanctification” properly.

All of the listed things certainly impart sanctifying grace, in that they draw us closer to God.

 

[SyCarl]

No problem.

The Council of Trent was 500 years ago! Language does change over time; we have to be careful of the sense of words which, while extant today as well as then, may have a very different context.

Unfortunately the Catechism is not 500 years old and of course as an ecumenical council Trent is still binding.

And I agree with all of that. I disagree with the cherrypicking like SyCarl posted above, which ignores the vast array of passages speaking to the importance of good works and active faith, including many straight from Christ’s lips. We’ve talked about several in this thread already.

It is also incorrect to assume that the Catholic formulation is Works = Salvation when it is clearly articulated in the Catechism as Faith + Justifying Grace + Works + Sanctifying Grace = salvation. Faith without works is dead; all without God’s grace is for naught.

I have never said that Catholicism teaches works salvation. I do find language such as that of the Catechism refering to meriting salvation is problematic. I would not hesitate to say that works are necessary for those who have the chance to do them. However, I just as strongly feel that they do not merit anything. To me works are like a one-way street. We owe them to God but God doesn’t owe us anything for them. If we recognize that our works are from God’s grace, there is no place for merit.

I do find it annoying though when some Catholics suggest that Protestants feel you can do whatever you want to as long as you believe. Antinomianism has absolutely not place in historic or mainline Protestantism. I probably do overeact when I see such accusations made.

 

[Gamera]

To me works are like a one-way street. We owe them to God but God doesn’t owe us anything for them. If we recognize that our works are from God’s grace, there is no place for merit.

The Catholic concept of merit is not that God “owes” us anything for our works, but rather, that God chooses to reward us sheerly out of His benevolence. Imagine a parent rewarding a good report card by giving the child a special gift. The good grade doesn’t require the parent to dole out a reward, as if it were payment, but the reward is sheerly a gift that the parent gives to the child out of love.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I’d like to summarize what I’m “getting” from the non-Catholics here:

Because Catholics believe that true, saving faith is an active faith that includes good works (NOT works of the OT Law), and even though they believe that Jesus died on the cross, rose again the third day, trust in Him as the Only Saviour, Catholics will not go to Heaven? Because we believe that we will be judged by what we do to the “least of these” and offer our lives as a living sacrifice, being Jesus’ hands and feet in this world by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc… we are not going to Heaven? Does anyone posting in this thread really believe that?

 

[SyCarl]

The Catholic concept of merit is not that God “owes” us anything for our works, but rather, that God chooses to reward us sheerly out of His benevolence. Imagine a parent rewarding a good report card by giving the child a special gift. The good grade doesn’t require the parent to dole out a reward, as if it were payment, but the reward is sheerly a gift that the parent gives to the child out of love.

I guess I am somewhat influenced by my experience with my wife who is a former cradle Catholic. When we were married she was so afraid that she would be going to hell because she was not good enough to go to Heaven. She was the most caring person I had met, always concerned about others, but she was terrified that she had not done enough good works. So anything that suggests that we have to merit salvation disturbs me because it can imply some magic quantity of works that must be achieved to make the grade. The effect is not new. It is my understanding that it Luther’s fear that he could never be good enough was part of the influence that lead him to the realization of faith alone.

 

[Teflon93]

Unfortunately the Catechism is not 500 years old and of course as an ecumenical council Trent is still binding.

I’ve posted the Catechism passages though; they make it very clear that God does not “owe” us salvation. So what’s your objection?

I have never said that Catholicism teaches works salvation. I do find language such as that of the Catechism refering to meriting salvation is problematic. I would not hesitate to say that works are necessary for those who have the chance to do them. However, I just as strongly feel that they do not merit anything. To me works are like a one-way street. We owe them to God but God doesn’t owe us anything for them. If we recognize that our works are from God’s grace, there is no place for merit.

But the Catechism makes very clear that God’s grace is both necessary and the very font of goodness. So what’s the objection?

I do find it annoying though when some Catholics suggest that Protestants feel you can do whatever you want to as long as you believe. Antinomianism has absolutely not place in historic or mainline Protestantism. I probably do overeact when I see such accusations made.

I wouldn’t go too far with the historic line—Luther in particular did oscillate on the “sin boldly, but believe more boldly still” line and did indeed act in excessive fashion as a result, quite possibly in an attempt to cope with his normal scrupulousness. Breaking nuns out of a nunnery, living with them, and marrying one would raise eyebrows even five centuries later!

Do most Protestants today believe in the free ride? No, thank God, which is why I maintain that devout Protestants and devout Catholics bear a strong resemblance to each other.

 

[Teflon93]

I guess I am somewhat influenced by my experience with my wife who is a former cradle Catholic. When we were married she was so afraid that she would be going to hell because she was not good enough to go to Heaven. She was the most caring person I had met, always concerned about others, but she was terrified that she had not done enough good works. So anything that suggests that we have to merit salvation disturbs me because it can imply some magic quantity of works that must be achieved to make the grade. The effect is not new. It is my understanding that it Luther’s fear that he could never be good enough was part of the influence that lead him to the realization of faith alone.

Scrupulosity (scrupulousness?) is indeed a painful affliction, and I think is the root of Luther’s rebellion.

It is not limited to Catholics; my wife struggled with it for years as a Pentecostal (church 4 times a week; must join the choir, must tithe, crying during sermons because she felt she wasn’t doing enough, etc). The breaking point for her came when her mother had a knee replaced and her music director (brother of the pastor) told her she couldn’t take a couple of weeks off from choir to tend to her.

The Catholic Church doesn’t encourage it; you can see Father Serpa’s responses to it in Ask An Apologist where it comes up every week.

In our own case, our deacon and priest each told us that with a new baby at home, our most important focus is on him, and offered to bring the Eucharist to us on those days when we can’t make it to Mass because we’re tending to him. We make sure we get to Mass.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Scrupulosity (scrupulousness?) is indeed a painful affliction, and I think is the root of Luther’s rebellion.

It is not limited to Catholics; my wife struggled with it for years as a Pentecostal (church 4 times a week; must join the choir, must tithe, crying during sermons because she felt she wasn’t doing enough, etc). The breaking point for her came when her mother had a knee replaced and her music director (brother of the pastor) told her she couldn’t take a couple of weeks off from choir to tend to her.

My husband struggled the same way - we were Baptists who believed Once Saved, Always Saved; but my poor dh doubted and fretted and struggled with whether or not he was saved quite a bit. We were 3-times-a-week attenders, as your walk with God was questioned if you weren’t at church every time the doors were open, and even if you were there you heard, “If you can’t remember a date and time that you asked Jesus into your heart to be your personal Lord and Savior, you’d better come down while we sing ‘Just as I Am’ and get right with God.” As much as they talked about assurance, they did more to plant doubt.

 

[rlg94086]

Not a saving faith if they can’t put all their hope on Christ alone and they need to lean on works, even if they are ones done in holiness of heart it still shows a lack or an adding to the finished work.

So, you say…you make the assumption that we “lean on works.” It isn’t true. Our works are because of and part of our faith.
James 2:

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? **

The two are inseparable. That’s why I gave up yesterday in frustration. We are arguing about something that James already recorded in Scripture. Catholics aren’t “leaning on works,” as you claim. Works are inseparable from true faith.

So, again, you believe in “faith alone.” Fine. Then, the Catholic, who relies fully on the grace of God and not their own worth, is justified/saved by their faith, according to that belief. I have supported this by Scripture, which we both believe is the Holy Word of God, correct? Or is James not in your Bible?

 

[SyCarl]

I’d like to summarize what I’m “getting” from the non-Catholics here:

Because Catholics believe that true, saving faith is an active faith that includes good works (NOT works of the OT Law), and even though they believe that Jesus died on the cross, rose again the third day, trust in Him as the Only Saviour, Catholics will not go to Heaven? Because we believe that we will be judged by what we do to the “least of these” and offer our lives as a living sacrifice, being Jesus’ hands and feet in this world by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc… we are not going to Heaven? Does anyone posting in this thread really believe that?

No I do not think that you will not go to Heaven for believing this. As I have said earlier, I believe most of our differences on this issue are largely semantic.

I think that there has always been a struggle to understand, or at least explain, the place of works in salvation. I would agree with Augustine when it comes to works “earning anything”.

Wherefore, even eternal life itself, which is surely the reward of good works, the apostle calls the gift of God. “For the wages of sin,” he says, “is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Wages (stipendium) is paid as a recompense for military service; it is not a gift: wherefore he says, “the wages of sin is death,” to show that death was not inflicted undeservedly, but as the due recompense of sin. But a gift, unless it is wholly unearned, is not a gift at all. We are to understand, then, that man’s good deserts are themselves the gift of God, so that when these obtain the recompense of eternal life, it is simply grace given for grace.-Augustine (The Enchiridion Chapter 107)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.h

With respect to faith I would agree with Cyril of Jerusalem that it is something involving the assent of the soul.

For there is one kind of faith, the dogmatic, involving an assent of the soul on some particular point: and it is profitable to the soul, as the Lord says: He that hears My words, and believes Him that sent Me, has everlasting life, and comes not into judgment: and again, He that believes in the Son is not judged, but has passed from death unto life.
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 5, Paragraph 10)
newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm

Similarly I would agree with Bede on faith.

You can believe what God says, you can believe that God exists, and you can believe in him him, which means that you love him so much that you want to do what he tells you. There are many evil people around who manage the first two of these. They believe that God means what he says, and they are quite prepared to accept that he exists. But it takes someone who is not just a nominal Christian but who is in one in deed and and in living to love God and do what he commands. Faith with love is Christian,but faith without love is demonic.
.”-Bede (Concerning the Epistle of St. James, Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI: James, 1-2Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 30.)

I think this is how a true Protestant should define faith.

 

[Church_Militant]

Context CM Context.

Then where does this have anything to do with the topic of this thread?

Matt 7:15-20
False prophets don’t bear good fruit, they are the tree that is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Again, where does this apply to the topic of this thread?

Now please answer my question.

Do Christians works show they have true faith?

What does Matthew 25:31-46 say Irish? If you wanna talk about context, then apply that to the passage that you have quoted then explain it yourself. I’m not here to do your homework for you.

 

[Church_Militant]

Okay, Jesus didn’t die for all mankind

, just christians!!!
I;m in, hope you make it!!!I don’t think you can support that from the Word of God, but by all means show me where you think it does.

Hell is our side of the Catholic Church!!!

Here again, please show us where you found that in the Bible or in an authoritative Catholic document.I don’t believe that you can.