Why do Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell?

[Teflon93]

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: **

If you build it, they will come.

By analogy, we build prisons for criminals. The fact that we built the prison doesn’t mean that the criminals don’t deserve to be there, or haven’t committed crimes of their own free will.

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

I was an adult Sunday school teacher in the Southern Baptist church for many years. I came into the Roman Catholic Church Easter Vigil 2006.

90% of the questions that Protestents ask about the Catholic Church are easily answered. Most of the time they are not interested in the Truth anyway and are just doing what Protestents do: “Protest”. Their theology comes from publications like Chick Publications.

The Church compiled the Bible, and then the Protestents had to take out books in order to make their faith work. Ask them to read the last few verses of Revelation and ask them does that apply to them?

They condemn us for asking for the Saints to intercede for us, who better to intercede than a Saint?

They deny the Blessed Sacrament and the True Presence. They believe in such doctrines as Sola-Scriptura, OSAS, Baptism is just a symbol. They sing 15 verses of “Just as I am” waiting for someone to walk down the aisle. They accept new members by a “vote” (like anyone will actually stand up and say no ) Their “Lord’s Supper” is oyster crackers and grape juice where you “take it” instead of it being given. They allow unbaptized children to take it. They take Christ off the Cross even though it is by the Crucifixtion we are saved.

You want to know why Protestents are so intimedating? They carry around a big fat NIV Bible with lots of yellow highlights and lots of notes in the margin. Some Catholics think they can’t fight that. Are some verses more inspired than others? Why do you have to highlight anything? Isn’t the whole Bible inspired? Don’t the verses in John 6 mean just as much? Or did they take those out also? Catholics go through the Bible every 3 years, we have Mass every day.

We get an opportunity every mass to ask Jesus to forgive us, we have postures of kneeling, we have a true liturgy, we show great reverance for God every mass. We have men and women that give their whole lives and chastity to the Church. We know that our Mass will be the same Mass at every church around the world every day. We have some churches in the Philippines that have 12 or more masses said every day.

How can they have a valid ordination without Apostolistic Succession? Anybody can go out and start “United House of Prayer for All People” make themselves a Bishop and try to convince you they have rightly divided the word of truth.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

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.

It’s an employment of speech called “litotes” (make a positive affirmation by negating the opposite) look at Hebrews 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

Do you think God is unjust or forgetful? Exactly…It’s that same speech employment.

Furthermore think about
Luke 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

If you build it, they will come.

By analogy, we build prisons for criminals. The fact that we built the prison doesn’t mean that the criminals don’t deserve to be there, or haven’t committed crimes of their own free will.

Tef it says come ye blessed of “MY FATHER” this has nithing to do toward MERIT, or Christ would say come ye whom served me well or something along those lines.

 

[jmtosh]

Hi,

The crucial and only necessary thing is to put faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His atoning death, burial and resurrection.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

The Reformation occurred as a protest against the excesses and errors in the Church of Rome. Since the early 300s when Constantine made Christianity the State religion there were non- conformist belivers who saw that institutionalised religion was wrong and that faith in Christ according to the Holy Scriptures was necessary.

The Roman Catholic Church insists in putting Church Tradition and Papal Infallibility on the same level or above Holy Scripture! and as a result teaches the opposite of what Scripture teaches!!!

These doctrines are not taught in the Bible and an honest objective study will prove it:

Papal Infallibilty (1860s)
Immaculate conception of Mary (1950s)
Papal Succession / Peter first pope
Priesthood
Roman Supremacy (started in 600s)
Prayers to saints
Purgatory
Rosary / Prayer Beads (similar to Muslim prayer beads / Hindu prayer beads)
Idolatry (see the second of the 10 commandments)
Transubstantiation (bread and wine are symbols)
Calling priests Father
Confessional (confess sins to God not men)
Infant baptism (baptism doesn’t save your soul it is an act of obedience)
Prayers to Mary (bible condemns prayers to Queen of Heaven so called)

WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE THE WORD OF GOD OR THE DOCTRINES OF MEN?

FOR THIS MAN AFTER HE OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD.

Put your faith in God and in His Holy Word, Jesus Christ.
God bless you.

Jonathan

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Now justification has no bearing either?

G4 justification is a necessity to salvation, but do NOT confuse the 2.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Hi,

The crucial and only necessary thing is to put faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His atoning death, burial and resurrection.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

The Reformation occurred as a protest against the excesses and errors in the Church of Rome. Since the early 300s when Constantine made Christianity the State religion there were non- conformist belivers who saw that institutionalised religion was wrong and that faith in Christ according to the Holy Scriptures was necessary.

The Roman Catholic Church insists in putting Church Tradition and Papal Infallibility on the same level or above Holy Scripture! and as a result teaches the opposite of what Scripture teaches!!!

These doctrines are not taught in the Bible and an honest objective study will prove it:

Papal Infallibilty (1860s)
Immaculate conception of Mary (1950s)
Papal Succession / Peter first pope
Priesthood
Roman Supremacy (started in 600s)
Prayers to saints
Purgatory
Rosary / Prayer Beads (similar to Muslim prayer beads / Hindu prayer beads)
Idolatry (see the second of the 10 commandments)
Transubstantiation (bread and wine are symbols)
Calling priests Father
Confessional (confess sins to God not men)
Infant baptism (baptism doesn’t save your soul it is an act of obedience)
Prayers to Mary (bible condemns prayers to Queen of Heaven so called)

WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE THE WORD OF GOD OR THE DOCTRINES OF MEN?

FOR THIS MAN AFTER HE OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD.

Put your faith in God and in His Holy Word, Jesus Christ.
God bless you.

Jonathan

Welcome to CAF Jonathan! You have made a lot of statements and accusations here not pertinent to the current thread. Instead of any of us derailing this thread with answers, please check out the Catholic Answers Library and Scripture Catholic to see where just about all of those things are, indeed, found in Scripture.

My faith is totally in the Holy Word of God, Jesus Christ, and He brought me to the fullness of faith in His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church from a staunch anti-Catholic, Fundamentalist Baptist background. I could have written your post not long ago. I hope you find the answers you seek here.

 

[Teflon93]

It’s an employment of speech called “litotes” (make a positive affirmation by negating the opposite) look at Hebrews 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

Do you think God is unjust or forgetful? Exactly…It’s that same speech employment.

Furthermore think about
Luke 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

Context, man, context:

1: Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2: Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3: And this will we do, if God permit.
4: For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, **
5: And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6: If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7: For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
9: But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
10: For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
11: And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end**:
12: That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
13: For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14: Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15: And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16: For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

A whole lot of “do” language here. Why not be slothful, if you believe?

Why was it necessary for Abraham not merely to believe, but to place Isaac on the altar, to raise the knife, to bring it down? Did not God know Abraham’s heart? Why was action required for Abraham to be so blessed?

Good thing we pull passages, not verses—we can see that what the author of Hebrews is saying here is that Christians cannot rest on their laurels, on past good works, but require continual repentance and renewal when they fall away if we are to persevere to the end and be saved.

This is what we Catholics refer to as the perseverance of the saints.

 

[THurifer2]

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,.

Because their entire religion stands and falls by whether Catholicism is true or false.

They are called PROTESTants for a reason

 

[Teflon93]

Tef it says come ye blessed of “MY FATHER” this has nithing to do toward MERIT, or Christ would say come ye whom served me well or something along those lines.

MFM, I think you’re simply torturing the text here.

Christ did not separate the sheep and the goats based on belief and unbelief. You can’t shoehorn that reading in because it’s not there. This is why you have to insert your own interpretation to square the circle with sola fide.

Moreover, pick an episode in Scripture and demonstrate where what we believe matters, what we do does not. Christ’s own ministry throughout the Gospel shows otherwise; time and again he associates with non-Jews who are nonetheless righteous, doing more good than Pharisees.

Indeed, Christ enjoins the disciples to do as the Pharisees say, not as they do, an odd thing for him to say if what we do matters not.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to quote Christ on salvation directly. No one can claim a higher authority. No one can cherry pick the Lord’s own teachings.

 

[Contarini]

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."

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?

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

Here’s the difference. The word “merit” is most properly and naturally interpreted to mean what the medievals called “condign merit.” That is to say, something that intrinsically deserves a reward. If it means “congruous merit,” i.e., actions that are fittingly rewarded out of God’s generosity, then I don’t have a problem with it. The problem with admitting “merit” as a legitimate category is that in Catholicism this has led to ideas such as the “treasury of merits.” Teflon rebukes me for taking this language at face value, but I think the metaphor really meant something. It implied that “merits” are things that one can accumulate, and furthermore can accumulate more than they need. I therefore think that there’s something to be said for the Protestant approach of refusing to ascribe “merit” to any action committed by any human being other than Jesus Christ. This does not contradict or weaken any of the NT language describing the importance of good works or the fact that good works are rewarded.

Luke 17:9-10 has to be reconciled with “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” Both are in the Gospels. Both are true.

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

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

Trent and the new catechism

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?

It doesn’t! that is only initial justification, read the following paragraphs 1987-95 talk about it’s a transformation of the soul where sanctifying grace is INFUSED and original sin removed.

1212,2010 and 1392 all speak of how justification is FURTHERED by sacraments.

1247,1248,1249 talks of the preperation of justification by faith AND good works

 

[Contarini]

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.

Teflon,

It is always open to you to read Luther’s Commentary on Galatians, where you will find his mature view expressed. Or I could point you to the lengthy quotations from that work that I cited in an earlier thread on this forum. If you are interested, I can dig it up. I am tired of explaining Luther’s position to people who have no interest in understanding it, but insist on taking one rhetorical flourish in a letter as typical no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

Luther said in the plainest language that a person who had saving faith in Jesus Christ would not deliberately and persistently sin, and that if he did then he would soon cease to be a believer. That is what Luther taught. Later Lutheran theology did push the boundaries even further “back,” for instance by making it clear that David was not a believer while he was unrepentantly enjoying the fruits of his murder and adultery. (Luther implies that he was, though of course David *did *repent when confronted by Nathan, and Luther would say that this was precisely because he was a believer.)

I am taking my characterization of Luther from his lengthiest and one of his most mature theological texts, the 1535 Commentary on Galatians. You are taking it from a 1521 letter to a scrupulous friend. Isn’t it obvious which of these two is the fairer and more honest approach?

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to quote Christ on salvation directly. No one can claim a higher authority. No one can cherry pick the Lord’s own teachings.

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

 

[Teflon93]

Here’s a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on “Merit” which buttresses Edwin’s points:

Ethics and theology clearly distinguish two kinds of merit: (I) **condign merit **or merit in the strict sense of the word (meritum adcequatum sive de condign), and (2) **congruous or quasi-merit (meritum inadcsquatum sive de congruo). Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice (justitia commutativa), and thus gives a real claim to a reward. Congruous merit, owing to its inadequacy and the lack of intrinsic proportion between the service and the recompense, claims a reward only on the ground of equity. This early-scholastic distinction and terminology, which is already recognized in concept and substance by the Fathers of the Church in their controversies with the Pelagians and Semipelagians, were again emphasized by Johann Eck, the famous adversary of Martin Luther (cf. Greying, “Joh. Eck als junger Gelehrter,” Munster, 1906, pp. 153 sqq.). The essential difference between meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo is based on the fact that, besides those works which claim a remuneration under pain of violating strict justice as in contracts between employer and employee, in buying and selling, etc.), there are also other meritorious works which at most are entitled to reward or honor for reasons of equity (ex cequitate) or mere distributive justice (ex iustitia distributiva), as in the case of gratuities and military decorations. From an ethical point of view the difference practically amounts to this that, if the reward due to condign merit be withheld, there is a violation of right and justice and the consequent obligation in conscience to make restitution, while, in the case of congruous merit, to withhold the reward involves no violation of right and no obligation to restore, it being merely an offense against what is fitting or a matter of personal discrimination (acceptio personarum). Hence the reward of congruous merit always depends in great measure on the kindness and liberality of the giver, though not purely and simply on his good will. **

In applying these notions of merit to man’s relation to God it is especially necessary to** keep in mind the fundamental truth that the virtue of justice cannot be brought forward as the basis of a real title for a Divine reward either in the natural or in the super-natural order. The simple reason is that God, being self-existent, absolutely independent, and sovereign, can be in no respect bound in justice with regard to his creatures. Properly speaking, man possesses nothing of his own; all that he has and all that he does is a gift of God, and, since God is infinitely self-sufficient, there is no advantage or benefit which man can by his services confer upon Him**. Hence on the part of God there can only be question of a gratuitous promise of reward for certain good works. For such works He owes the promised reward, not in justice or equity, but solely because He has freely bound himself, i.e., because of His own attributes of veracity and fidelity. It is on this ground alone that we can speak of Divine justice at all, and apply the principle: Do ut des (cf. St. Augustine, Seim. clviii, c, ii, in P.L., XXXVIII, 863).

and

If, however, salutary acts can in virtue of the Divine justice give the right to an eternal reward,** this is possible only because they themselves have their root in gratuitous grace, and consequently are of their very nature dependent ultimately on grace**, as the Council of Trent emphatically declares (Sess. VI, cap. xvi, in Denzinger, 10th ed., Freiburg, 1908, n. 810): “the Lord. whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things, which are His own gifts, be their merits.”

 

[Teflon93]

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

And that is ALL Christ had to say regarding salvation?

 

[e61iuser]

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Very good! What else?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Christ did not separate the sheep and the goats based on belief and unbelief.

Using scripture you can not state this as fact, simply because the judgement of nations is exactly as I say the seperating of those alive whom are believers (sheep) nonbelievers (goats).

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Very good! What else?

Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Jhn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Jhn 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.
Jhn 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon,

It is always open to you to read Luther’s Commentary on Galatians, where you will find his mature view expressed. Or I could point you to the lengthy quotations from that work that I cited in an earlier thread on this forum. If you are interested, I can dig it up. I am tired of explaining Luther’s position to people who have no interest in understanding it, but insist on taking one rhetorical flourish in a letter as typical no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

Luther said in the plainest language that a person who had saving faith in Jesus Christ would not deliberately and persistently sin, and that if he did then he would soon cease to be a believer. That is what Luther taught. Later Lutheran theology did push the boundaries even further “back,” for instance by making it clear that David was not a believer while he was unrepentantly enjoying the fruits of his murder and adultery. (Luther implies that he was, though of course David *did *repent when confronted by Nathan, and Luther would say that this was precisely because he was a believer.)

I am taking my characterization of Luther from his lengthiest and one of his most mature theological texts, the 1535 Commentary on Galatians. You are taking it from a 1521 letter to a scrupulous friend. Isn’t it obvious which of these two is the fairer and more honest approach?

Edwin

So was Luther NOT a believer in 1521 but a believer in 1535?

As you know, Luther went back-and-forth, back-and-forth on a great many things. He was known for inconstancy. He was also known for very questionable personal behavior of the sort that rather shreds the OSAS notion of believers never sinning.

It is simply impossible to square some of Luther’s personal conduct with that notion. They must believe that he wasn’t a believer, or that he became one later.

For the Catholic, the answer is simple: he was a heretic who made himself Pope, with the usual tragic consequences and theological cognitive dissonance, a significant portion of which was cleaned up by those Lutherans who came later.

To present Luther’s enormous correspondence as though it came down to one intemperate letter is dishonest. He wrote many intemperate things, which is why merely quoting the man is often sufficient to give his adherents the vapors.

You admire Luther. Do you stand by everything Luther wrote as being Christian, holy, and pious?