Why do Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell?

[Church_Militant]

Sigh.

Luke 6:46 is in my Bible; not sure if Luther redacted it in yours:

46: And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

John 6:53:

53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

CM’s noted the passage from Mark 25 already.

The fact is, if you check those red-text Bibles, you’ll find Christ answers the question of salvation differently based on circumstance and context. This is why Catholics maintain Protestants can’t simply cherrypick the Gospel; it’s not “either/or” but “both/and”.

That is also why devout Protestants resemble devout Catholics—they insist on doing good works. They do not simply wall themselves in their room with their Bible and do nothing, nor do they “sin boldly”.

 

[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.

Martin in a serious discussion, people try to understand the other position. You on the other hand, continue to read past posts to promote your own opinion about what Catholics believe according to your preconceived interpretation of what the words in Scripture and Catechism mean. You seem to know more about what Catholics believe than St. Augustine and St. Thomas Acquin combined.

In a nutshell, for Catholics, the word “faith” is a verb. The very ACT of accepting the gift of God’s grace is a work. The two cannot be separated.

For every Bible verse you have slung (out of context), refutation has been thrown, in context. So slinging any more verses is useless.

I’m still waiting were you find the word “believer” in Matthew 25.

Are you baptized? Do you think Baptism is necessary?

 

[SyCarl]

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!

I do think that the sin boldly line is generally taken out of context. The historic Lutheran Augsburg Confession I think makes the position clear.

Furthermore, it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but because it is the will of God. It is only by faith that forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. And because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works. For Ambrose says: Faith is the mother of a good will and right doing. For man’s powers without the Holy Ghost are full of ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works which are good in God’s sight. Besides, they are in the power of the devil who impels men to divers sins, to ungodly opinions, to open crimes. This we may see in the philosophers, who, although they endeavored to live an honest life could not succeed, but were defiled with many open crimes. Such is the feebleness of man when he is without faith and without the Holy Ghost, and governs himself only by human strength.
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/augs-020.html

 

[Teflon93]

I do think that the sin boldly line is generally taken out of context. The historic Lutheran Augsburg Confession I think makes the position clear.

Context with Luther is a funny thing—he blew hot and cold, and changed positions often, as I’m sure you’re aware.

It is an open question as to whether Luther agreed with the Augsburg Confession, isn’t it? He seemed to get checked by committee from time to time.

My quibble was with your claim that such a libertine view had no place within historic Protestantism; I’d say Luther pushed it pretty far and Lutherans pushed it back.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

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.

Yes, the “talking past each other” I mentioned a few posts back. (At least I think it was in this thread…) Just because Protestants changed the definitions of a few theological terms does not mean Catholics should have to use the new definitions.

Similarly I would agree with Bede on faith.

Faith with love is Christian,but faith without love is demonic.

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

But if it’s “faith with love” then it is not “faith alone” and there goes one of the Five Solas of Protestant thought. Though I still don’t understand how you can have more than one Sola, because any more than that automatically means it isn’t “alone.”

 

[Church_Militant]

1 john 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and** ye need not that any man teach you**: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and **not be ashamed before him at his coming. **29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

John says nothing about losing your salvation even though you’ll be ashamed,

But Jesus does…Revelation 3:5 He that shall overcome, shall thus be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

 

[Church_Militant]

Where did the red text come from?

Out of his doctrinal interpretation…even though the text does not actually say that.

 

[Tammy111]

Out of his doctrinal interpretation…even though the text does not actually say that.

What does Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition Teach? We can discuss till we’re blue in the fingers, but it will do nothing, nor will it convince anyone. The Protestants rely on their private interpretations and us, Catholics rely on Sacred Scripture as explained by the Apostolic Tradition in God’s Holy Church.
This thread is circular because of this basic presuppositional difference.

 

[Church_Militant]

So let me ask you this, do you believe that the only righteousness that has the **merit necessary **to meet the requirements of the holiness of God, is that righteousness that was achieved and performed by Jesus Christ—and by Jesus Christ “alone!”

Define holiness.

Easton’s Bible Dictionary: Holiness

In the highest sense belongs to God (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 15:4), and to Christians as consecrated to God’s service, and in so far as they are conformed in all things to the will of God (Romans 6:19, 22; Ephesians 1:4; Titus 1:8; 1 Peter 1:15). Personal holiness is a work of gradual development. It is carried on under many hindrances, hence the frequent admonitions to watchfulness, prayer, and perseverance (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Ephesians 4:23, 24). (see SANCTIFICATION.)

 

[Church_Militant]

What does Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition Teach? We can discuss till we’re blue in the fingers, but it will do nothing, nor will it convince anyone. The Protestants rely on their private interpretations and us, Catholics rely on Sacred Scripture as explained by the Apostolic Tradition in God’s Holy Church.
This thread is circular because of this basic presuppositional difference.

Oh well…

 

[SyCarl]

Though I still don’t understand how you can have more than one Sola, because any more than that automatically means it isn’t “alone.”

Because the “solas” refer to different things.

1. Why are we saved? For God’s glory alone.
2. How are we saved? By Christ’s sacrifice alone.
3. How do we receive this salvation? By grace alone.
4. How do we accept this salvation? By faith alone.
5. From where can we learn what we must believe and do? From scripture alone.

 

[guanophore]

We are talking about justification not salvation.

:bigyikes: Now justification has no bearing either? :bigyikes:

Many would call it a false gospel, because your reliance is not only on faith but also your own doings…
Grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone.

This formula cannot be found in scripture.

Nobody denies that we should do good works. It is a question of whether they merit anything.

“For this very reason **make every effort **to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; 11 so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” 2 Peter 1:5-11

Sure sounds like a lot of merits to me!

We already owe Jesus everything. How can we merit anything?

Jesus is gracious, and permits us to share in His merits.

“Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.” 2 John 7-8

We will be judged according to our works. The works are the evidence that shows that shows us that God’s judgement is just. In a court you are judged according to the evidence. The evidence does not make you innocent or guilty. That is a fact independent of the evidence. Similarly we are saved through faith. Good works will be the evidence by which God’s judgemnet will be justified. They are not the cause.

That is very Catholic of you to say!

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Because the “solas” refer to different things.

1. Why are we saved? For God’s glory alone.

Check.

1. How are we saved? By Christ’s sacrifice alone.

Yep.

1. How do we receive this salvation? By grace alone.

Amen.

1. How do we accept this salvation? By faith alone.

But you just said it was “faith with love” so it’s not faith alone.

1. From where can we learn what we must believe and do? From scripture alone.

This isn’t the thread for that, but you don’t really believe “Scripture Alone” as much as you like to think you do.

 

[SyCarl]

Check.
Yep.
Amen.
But you just said it was “faith with love” so it’s not faith alone.
This isn’t the thread for that, but you don’t really believe “Scripture Alone” as much as you like to think you do.

With respect to faith, it is through faith alone, but not faith that is alone. It may be a matter of semantics but it to us it is important.

The rest was just to show how there can be 5 solas.

 

[guanophore]

What words of Jesus speak of merit?

In Protestant bibles it is usually translated “reward”:

Matt 10:40-42
41 He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward, and he who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."

 On the contrary, Luke 17:10 says that when we have done everything Jesus has commanded us, we are still "unprofitable servants." I am aware of a lot of language in the Gospels about the necessity of good works, and even of a reward that will be given to good works, but nothing about the merit of good works.

I agree that we must always to our sacred duties in an attitude of humility, and seeking service, not rewards.

NT:591

apodidoomi,

properly, to put away by giving, to give up, give over

1. to deliver, relinquish what is one’s own: Matt 27:58 hence, in the middle voice to give away for one’s own profit what is one’s own, i. e. to sell
2. to pay off, discharge, what is due Matt 5:26
3. to give back, restore: Luke 4:20
   **4. to requite, recompense, in a good or a bad sense: Matt 6:4 Matt 6:6,18 **
   (from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

How do you imagine that merit and reward are different?

This may simply be a semantic issue. But Catholics need to understand why Protestants object to language of merit so that we can reach common ground. I think a lot more common ground exists on this issue than most people on both sides recognize, and I think the real question is the nature of faith (can one have the faith that is a supernatural gift of God without also having charity–Catholics say one can, Protestants generally say one can’t).

Edwin

I agree, Edwin. I think most of it is semantics.

 

[guanophore]

Which is why works are an absolute necessity. Please explain to me how someone with faith can be saved without any good works…other than a person who converts at the very end of their life (e.g. thief on the cross).

I think there are others who are exempted, also, such as the ill and infirm, mentally ill, disabled and young children. Certainly those that can do, should do, but those that are unable to do are not required beyond their ability.

 

[rlg94086]

I think there are others who are exempted, also, such as the ill and infirm, mentally ill, disabled and young children. Certainly those that can do, should do, but those that are unable to do are not required beyond their ability.

Must do, not should do, for those that can do - it is not that it would be nice. “Faith without works is dead,” so don’t be an “ignoramus.”

Clearly, I don’t believe that those who “can’t do” are not saved. However, your list is strange - “the ill and infirm, mentally ill, disabled and young children” can’t do good works?? How so?

Now, the thief on the cross, someone who converts just before dying, etc. I understand. Again, I don’t live my life by exception. If y’all want to take exception with the word “absolutely,” have at it - I could care less…save it for the courts. For me personally, as a Catholic Christian, it is an “absolute necessity.”

 

[guanophore]

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.

Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon experience when people misunderstand the gospel message, whether they are Catholic, or not. I recently had a young gang member tell me that he thought he had “done too many bad things ever to be forgiven”.

It is right that you should be disturbed by the concept that any of us can work our way into heaven, or “merit” salvation. If we all got what we deserved we would all be burning in the pit.

Are you open minded enough to consider that your beloved may have had an incomplete understanding of what is actually taught by the Church?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

[What does Matthew 25:31-46 say Irish?

Hey Michael how can these things in Matthew merit anything? If it was predestned? look at verse 34

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom **prepared for you from the foundation of the world: **
[/quote]

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I’m still waiting were you find the word “believer” in Matthew 25.

It doesn’t need to be because verse 34 shows that the works can NOT be meritorius as you suggest…rather predestined

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, **inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: **