Why do Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell?

[Gamera]

Hi,

Moreover brethren I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you …

But you don’t believe that (assuming that you believe in Sola Scriptura). Catholics believe that God’s word is contained in the Apostles’ preaching, handed down to us via Apostolic Tradition (not to be confused wiuth human tradition with a small “t”). But Protestants believe God’s word is contained solely in the Bible, not in Apostolic Tradition.

“So, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter,” 2 Thes 2:15.

ALL have sinned and need redemption. Including Mary who, unlike her Son had both a human Father and Mother.

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God My Saviour. Luke 1:46,47.

Only a sinner needs a Saviour.

Catholics agree that Mary needed a savior. That’s what the Immaculate Conception was: Jesus saving Mary at the moment of her conception. What, did somebody tell you that Catholics “don’t think Mary needed a savior?” The whole point of the Immaculate Conception is that Jesus saved Mary in a unique way. She needed a savior, but not a redemer. Mary has more reason to be thankful to Jesus than anybody else!

I hope that clarifies what Catholics believe. We know quite well that Mary rejoices in her God her savior (Luke 1:47) who filled her with grace before he had even been born (Luke 1:28)!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Has it been determined yet that it is really true that Catholics are going to Hell because they DO the will of God, and not just profess it with their lips, like the hippocrites? Is it really true that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John which teach the necessity of Baptism and the Eucharist, among other doctrines are false Gospels?

 

[jmtosh]

I think this is a projection. Why is it arrogant to preserve the teachings of Christ as they were delivered?
**No problem with this as Protestants are often accused of this. Is it Christ’s teaching though?
**
I agree. This secular notion of “supremacy” accused by Protestants has nothing to do with Jesus’ method of leadership.
In scripture, we see the primacy of Peter, not “supremacy”.

I agree. I realize that there are members of the One Church who are not recognizeable as members of the visible manifestation of the Church.

What do images have to do with the gospel?

They detract from Christ and violate the Second Commandment.
Peter and Paul would say, as the Catholic Church does, that worship of anyone other than God is idolatry.
Agreed
Peter and Paul would commend the cross, on which the prince of glory died for our sins, foolishness to the world,but the power of God unto salvation for all who believe.
**The “cross” as presented in Scripture is the concept or doctrine of the cross not the worship of a piece of wood with a perpetually suffering Messiah. Christ is now off the cross. This smacks of fetishism. **Celibacy is a discipline that was commended by Jesus as well as Paul, and Peter would no doubt say that one should follow the teaching of Jesus on that point.
Jesus recognised eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake, teaching also that it was a gift to have such a calling. However, Scripture teaches in 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife,etc Peter was married. To enforce celibacy of Priests is unscriptural and is described as a doctrine of seducing spirits 1 Timothy 4:1-3.
Please cite a blasphemous teaching about Mary.
**That she is to prayed to. One only prays to God. Matthew 6: For this is how you should pray, Our Father…Where is the Scriptural authority besides 2 Maccabees for praying to anybody other than God? Praying to the dead is Spiritism. To set her up as a Mediatrix is in direct violation of the High Priesthood of Christ. **

Mary is called blessed by the Word of God,and there is nothing wrong with asking others to pray for us. The children of Israel looked at the brazen serpent for healing, not for worship. You have been reading too many Chick Tracts!

She was blessed in being chosen of God to give birth to the Christ. How does one progress from being blessed to being a Mediatrix?
Normally I ask the living on earth to pray for me.
I have read more than Chick Tracts!!! Chick is a bit of a cowboy when it comes to taking up a cause. His motives are however noble. I am not out to persecute Catholics. Questioning and engaging in debate is not persecution! Persecution is harassing, arresting, spoiling ones goods, beating and executing. I love all men, including Catholics. I just don’t understand their zeal in upholding tradition built on the foundation of the papal infallibility to overule Holy Scripture that is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.
AS REGARDS THE BRAZEN SERPENT:
He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cit down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made : for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense unto it; and he called it Nehushtan (a piece of brass).
2 KINGS 18:4
Well, since ALL of the Catholic teachings preceeded the bible of course none of them are “borne out” of it! On the contrary, the Bible reflects the Catholic teaching that preceeded it.
Why no mention of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, Praying to Mary, Purgatory, the veneration of images, rosaries, etc?

I will admit that some of the scriptures were preserved by the Latin Rite, but there are even much older copies preserved by the other Rites and the Eastern Church, which preceeded the establishment of that in Rome.
**Yes. I agree. **

I am glad that you are here, jmtosh, so that you can get some of this misinformation you have received corrected. The Latin Bible was called the “Vulgate” because it was in the common (vulgar) language. I think we should address the remainder of you other misinformation over on the scripture thread.

Yes in the common language of the people in Rome in the 400s.
What happened in the Dark ages up to the Reformation? The common folk of Europe did not speak not to mention read Latin. They were dependant upon the priests to tell them the truth. In England the Church had become so corrupt and resistant to change that literary works such as Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and Piers Ploughman ridiculed the hypocrisy of the priests. Wycliffe and Lollardy in England foreshadowed the Reformation by 150 YEARS. In Germany the corruption of the Church and its doctrines of indulgences was crying out for a Luther! It doesn’t help providing a Bible if nobody can read it except the priest and the Lord of the Manor.

It is true that the Scripture should be read in the light of the Sacred Tradition that produced it, but that is not a “Roman” tradition as you have been told. Catholicism is much larger that “Rome”.

I’m glad that you recognise that Catholicism is larger than Rome, but is it not true that Rome rules the Catholic Church and deliberates and determines the doctrine that the faithful are to believe and practice?

 

[jmtosh]

Yes, and in verse 8 he calls them hypocrites for 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; What does that mean? They are sayers of the law and not doers.

If you continue, to verses 19 and 20:

*19
For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.
20
These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."
*DEEDS can defile, make unworthy.

CONTEXT MAN!

Speaking of CONTEXT WOMAN why don’t you go TO THE FIRST VERSE :

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples trangress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But He answered and said unto them, Why also do ye transgress the commandments of God by your tradition?
This is precisely the context that I wanted to convey -i.e. That you have replaced the commandments of God with your tradition!

 

[clmowry]

And you ascertained this lil tidbit from what scripture?

Matthew Chapter 7
21 "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, * but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. * Depart from me, you evildoers.’

 

[jmtosh]

Yes, and in verse 8 he calls them hypocrites for 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; What does that mean? They are sayers of the law and not doers.

If you continue, to verses 19 and 20:

*19
For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.
20
These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."
*DEEDS can defile, make unworthy.

CONTEXT MAN!

Speaking of CONTEXT WOMAN why don’t you go TO THE FIRST VERSE :

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples trangress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But He answered and said unto them, Why also do ye transgress the commandments of God by your tradition?
This is precisely the context that I wanted to convey -i.e. That you have replaced the commandments of God with your tradition!

 

[guanophore]

An unbelievers sin causes his seperation from God eternally.
A born again believers? NOPE.

How is sin different, that it separates people from God before they pray the sinners prayer, but not after? What makes you think God has more tolerance for sin on one side of the prayer than he does the other?

The Roman Catholic Church says that the only way God will ever declare me righteous, or you righteous, or anybody else righteous, is if they have a righteousness that inheres within them, an intrinsic righteousness, a righteousness that really belongs to MFM. They would say that you can’t be righteous, apart from the help of Christ, and the grace of Christ, and the infusion of His power and so on, with which you must assent and cooperate. And so you can’t be saved without the help of Christ, or without grace, or without faith.
But, added to that faith, added to that grace, added to that Christ—must be the contribution of MFM, without which God will not declare you just. Am I right or am I wrong?

God declares us all righteous at baptism. Our sins are washed away, and we are pure in his sight. I am not sure what “righteousness that inheres within them” means. When we are baptized, we become the righteousness of God in Christ. Righteousness is infused by the HS. If that is the asme as whatever you mean by “inheres” then yes.

Yes, Catholicsim teaches that we must cooperate with grace. God does not save people against their will. He desires all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. He pours out his grace upon all, and calls all. Not all respond, however, but those that do, he gives the power to become (not just to be called) sons of God. Catholicism does not teach that these things are “added to” the grace that saves us, but they proceed from that grace, are worked out in us by the power of that grace, and are manifested in our lives through that grace. He is at work within us to will and to do His good pleasure. He wants the righteousness declared for us, and infused within us to reach it’s mature perfection. For this, we must remain separated from sin, just as we are the moment of baptism.

 

[Teflon93]

Speaking of CONTEXT WOMAN why don’t you go TO THE FIRST VERSE :

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples trangress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But He answered and said unto them, Why also do ye transgress the commandments of God by your tradition?
This is precisely the context that I wanted to convey -i.e. That you have replaced the commandments of God with your tradition!

A serious charge—so prove it.

Since the Church had not been established at the time the events in this passage occurred, Christ cannot have been speaking of her, unless you claim he was prophesying.

You and MFM have larded up Scripture with so much of your own tradition — much of which didn’t exist until 1,500 years after the apostolic age, the remainder of which came some 300 years after that—it’s an awfully hypocritical charge to make.

You can’t even quote Scripture without adding several paragraphs of your own exegesis. “What this REALLY means is…”

Not very “fundamental.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

Speaking of CONTEXT WOMAN why don’t you go TO THE FIRST VERSE :

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples trangress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But He answered and said unto them, Why also do ye transgress the commandments of God by your tradition?
This is precisely the context that I wanted to convey -i.e. That you have replaced the commandments of God with your tradition!

continue to 15:4-6
Jesus was reprimanding the Scribes and the Pharisees for torturing the law so they didn’t have to support their parents, as is commanded by the fourth Commandment.
*4
For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’
5
(4) But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,”
6
need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. *4

(4) Qorban: a formula for a gift to God, dedicating the offering to the temple, so that the giver might continue to use it for himself but not give it to others, even needy parents.

They were following the letter of the law, not the spirit. And this is the same problem I have with sayers of faith, and not doers.

So, am I still going to Hell because the HS tells me to LIVE my faith, not just profess it with my lips?

 

[Gamera]

The “cross” as presented in Scripture is the concept or doctrine of the cross not the worship of a piece of wood with a perpetually suffering Messiah. Christ is now off the cross. This smacks of fetishism.

" … but we proclaim Christ crucified …" 1 Cor 1:23.

“For I have decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified,” 1 Cor 2:2.

…However, Scripture teaches in 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife,etc Peter was married. To enforce celibacy of Priests is unscriptural and is described as a doctrine of seducing spirits 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

One wife as opposed to multiple wives. Not one wife as opposed to celibate life. Do you seriously think that when Rev. Billy Graham’s wife died a couple of years ago, her death suddenly rendered Rev. Graham ineligible to preach, since he no longer was the “husband of one wife?”

Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine. It is only a custom, and only in the Latin rite. Some Catholic priests are married, FYI.

Please cite a blasphemous teaching about Mary.
That she is to prayed to. One only prays to God. Matthew 6: For this is how you should pray, Our Father…Where is the Scriptural authority besides 2 Maccabees for praying to anybody other than God? Praying to the dead is Spiritism. To set her up as a Mediatrix is in direct violation of the High Priesthood of Christ.

Conjuring the dead is spiritism. Not praying to the dead. Two different things. Nobody is trying to get Mary or the saints to appear! Mary is the mediatrix of graces, not the mediatrix of God’s justice. You don’t deny that we are saved only by her Son, do you? So she is the way all grace came into the world. And she isn’t some “other” priest. Only Christ Jesus is our High Priest. Not Mary.

Why no mention of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, Praying to Mary, Purgatory, the veneration of images, rosaries, etc?

Mary’s Immaculate Conception is mentioned in Luke 1:28, where the Angel states that Mary is “full of grace” even before Jesus has been born.

Mary’s Assumption is implicit in Revelation 12 where she is shown in heaven wearing a crown. Enoch and Elijah already had been assumed in to heaven, so it’s nothing new.

Intercession of saints in heaven is part of our spiritual inheritance according to Hebrews 12:23.

Purgatory is clear in 2 Macc 12:43-46, where the Jews prayed for their dead, and in 2 Tim 1:18, where St. Paul prays for the dead Onesiphorous.

“Veneration of images” as you put it is implicit in the Incarnation of God in the flesh, and Romans 13:7, where we are exhorted to give respect to those to whom respect is due.

Rosaries aren’t doctrines. The rosary is a prayer. It quotes from nuemrous Bible passages, not just the"Our Father" and the “Hail Mary” but also the mysteries (major events in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection).

 

[jmcrae]

Speaking of CONTEXT WOMAN why don’t you go TO THE FIRST VERSE :

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples trangress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But He answered and said unto them, Why also do ye transgress the commandments of God by your tradition?
This is precisely the context that I wanted to convey -i.e. That you have replaced the commandments of God with your tradition!

Prove that we have, using actual history. (“Trail of Blood” and “Roman Catholicism” by Boettner don’t count, since they are works of fiction pretending to be based on facts, akin to The Davinci Code.)

Prove that it wasn’t the Protestants, who didn’t come along and start creating their MAN MADE CHURCHES until after 1517.

How is sin different, that it separates people from God before they pray the sinners prayer, but not after? What makes you think God has more tolerance for sin on one side of the prayer than he does the other?

True, especially since Adam and Eve, who were created saved, perfect, and in a full relationship with God, lost their salvation, their relationship with God, and their perfection at the very moment that they sinned for the very first time.

If “being saved” makes you “saved forever” then Adam and Eve should have been able to do whatever they wanted, without any consequences whatsoever.

Yet, they could not.

 

[guanophore]

“46”: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

What makes you righteous? Christ work or your work?
Because human righteousness is like a filthy rag so if thats what your counting on good luck.

For the Christian, mfm, there is no distinction. We are saved to do His works.

A born again believer would not wallow in sin.

Some do that because they think it does not matter. some convince themselves that what they are doing is not a sin.

Those whom say that would suggest that your need for work sells short Christs work on the cross; meaning NO faith in HIM rather in your own works.

Yes, I think that there are many folks that do not perceive a Catholic lifestyle as an outgrowth of saving grace.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims.** “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”**

Where do you get from this that faith in God is not necessary to be saved?

I’m merely pointing out Tef that having justification fully encompass sanctification and make them unseperable as Rome does

Such statements are anti-Catholic retrorhic and slander. This is Apostolic teaching, and is believed by all who have received Apostolic teaching all over the world, including Apostolic faiths such as the Eastern Orthodox who have nothing to do with Rome. I would suggest that you jettison the “anti-Roman” slurs mfm. The separation of the work of grace is an outgrowth of the Reformation, and has nothing to do with Rome.

leads many to believe that your faith is on your own works of merit and not on Christ work on the cross. And many many many scripture would back the view that we can do nothing toward salvation or CHRIST died for nothing.

Yes, scripture can be made to say many things. I recently was on a thread that was proving that baptism has nothing to do with water! Scripture was used to support slavery, and the subjugation of women as well. This is one reason why scripture should not be separated from the Apostolic Traditions that produced it.

Because your faith is lacking in that it makes sanctification unseperable from justification, a lack of faith is using your own works to justify yourself.

This statement does not make any sense at all. The same grace that justifies is that which sanctifies. When one is acting in faith, trusting in that grace, how can that be said to be justifying one’s own works? One must abandon the works of the flesh (self) and do the works of God. The work of God cannot be done from self will. The two are contradictory to one another.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

How is sin different, that it separates people from God before they pray the sinners prayer, but not after? What makes you think God has more tolerance for sin on one side of the prayer than he does the other?

G it appears you believe WRONGLY that a prayer saves you The prayer does nothing it is the desire to repent and seek God that opens yourself to the HS to indwell within you and regenerate you as a member of “the body of Christ”.

 

[clmowry]

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.

Right there with you on 1-4.

But there’s no such thing as “scripture alone.”

Chuck

 

[jmtosh]

" … but we proclaim Christ crucified …" 1 Cor 1:23.

“For I have decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified,” 1 Cor 2:2.

Yes, The truth of the preaching of the cross of Christ. Or did Paul erect a crucifix in the church?

One wife as opposed to multiple wives. Not one wife as opposed to celibate life. Do you seriously think that when Rev. Billy Graham’s wife died a couple of years ago, her death suddenly rendered Rev. Graham ineligible to preach, since he no longer was the “husband of one wife?”
Your interpretation is precisely what I meant.
Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine. It is only a custom, and only in the Latin rite. Some Catholic priests are married, FYI.

Thats new to me. What rites do they marry in and these rites subject to the Roman Pontiff?

Conjuring the dead is spiritism. Not praying to the dead. Two different things. Nobody is trying to get Mary or the saints to appear! Mary is the mediatrix of graces, not the mediatrix of God’s justice. You don’t deny that we are saved only by her Son, do you? So she is the way all grace came into the world. And she isn’t some “other” priest. Only Christ Jesus is our High Priest. Not Mary.

**Where is this in scripture? With deft exegesis like that it is no wonder people say that you can justify anything from Scripture if you try hard enough!:**confused:

Mary’s Immaculate Conception is mentioned in Luke 1:28, where the Angel states that Mary is “full of grace” even before Jesus has been born.
Again, deft exegesis.
Mary’s Assumption is implicit in Revelation 12 where she is shown in heaven wearing a crown. Enoch and Elijah already had been assumed in to heaven, so it’s nothing new.

**Revelation is a book of imagery and symbolism. The woman clothed with the sun and with the moon at her feet crowned with stars is definitely not Mary! Genesis 37:9 is the key to interpretation of this - the woman is either Israel or the Church as much as the Harlot is false or apostate religion. **
Intercession of saints in heaven is part of our spiritual inheritance according to Hebrews 12:23.
This shows that the Church consists of the redeemed on earth and in heaven. There is no mention of intercession.
Purgatory is clear in 2 Macc 12:43-46, where the Jews prayed for their dead, and in 2 Tim 1:18, where St. Paul prays for the dead Onesiphorous.
Paul was not praying but writing to Timothy and stating his desire. Where does it say he was even dead?“Veneration of images” as you put it is implicit in the Incarnation of God in the flesh, and Romans 13:7, where we are exhorted to give respect to those to whom respect is due.

With clutching at such scriptural straws to justify Idolatry one can justify anything. Christ is physically God in the flesh not a Caucasian statue. Romans 13 speaks of Civil powers.
Rosaries aren’t doctrines. The rosary is a prayer. It quotes from nuemrous Bible passages, not just the"Our Father" and the “Hail Mary” but also the mysteries (major events in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection).

Thanks for the info

 

[myfavoritmartin]

For the Christian, mfm, there is no distinction. We are saved to do His works.

The distinction is you find your works to aid you in reaching an acceptable rightousness unto God, am I right?

Some do that because they think it does not matter. some convince themselves that what they are doing is not a sin.

I’d have to question whether in fact they are born again then.
You’ll recognise them by their fruits and we can be fruit inspecters…

Where do you get from this that faith in God is not necessary to be saved?

Faith in Christ, because it does seem to indicate the plan of salvation includes them yet they say belief in Christ is blasphemy to allah and scripture says “know not me and you know not the father” So they don’t know the father yet are in the salvation plan

Such statements are anti-Catholic retrorhic and slander. This is Apostolic teaching, and is believed by all who have received Apostolic teaching all over the world, including Apostolic faiths such as the Eastern Orthodox who have nothing to do with Rome. I would suggest that you jettison the “anti-Roman” slurs mfm. The separation of the work of grace is an outgrowth of the Reformation, and has nothing to do with Rome.

There is no rhetoric their the trent documents and the newest catechism can NOT seperate sanctification from justification how can you say they are?

Yes, scripture can be made to say many things. I recently was on a thread that was proving that baptism has nothing to do with water! Scripture was used to support slavery, and the subjugation of women as well. This is one reason why scripture should not be separated from the Apostolic Traditions that produced it.

It would have been fine to stay with it had it not gone so far off course so quickly.

This statement does not make any sense at all. The same grace that justifies is that which sanctifies. When one is acting in faith, trusting in that grace, how can that be said to be justifying one’s own works? One must abandon the works of the flesh (self) and do the works of God. The work of God cannot be done from self will. The two are contradictory to one another.

But sanctification is part and parcel to being justified in Romes theology.

 

[jmtosh]

continue to 15:4-6
Jesus was reprimanding the Scribes and the Pharisees for torturing the law so they didn’t have to support their parents, as is commanded by the fourth Commandment.
*4
For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’
5
(4) But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,”
6
need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. *4

(4) Qorban: a formula for a gift to God, dedicating the offering to the temple, so that the giver might continue to use it for himself but not give it to others, even needy parents.

They were following the letter of the law, not the spirit. And this is the same problem I have with sayers of faith, and not doers.

So, am I still going to Hell because the HS tells me to LIVE my faith, not just profess it with my lips?

Did I ever tell you that you are going to hell?

If you trust in good works for salvation, trust in the doctrines of men that are contrary to scripture or trust in the membership of a church then whether you are Catholic, Protestant or scythian you will. If you trust solely on Christ and His sacrifice for your sins on your behalf you shall be saved.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

The distinction is you find your works to aid you in reaching an acceptable rightousness unto God, am I right?

Wrong. It is not my works, but allowing God to work through me, both to will and to do His good pleasure. (Phil 2:13)

I’d have to question whether in fact they are born again then.
You’ll recognise them by their fruits and we can be fruit inspecters…

Isn’t it God’s job to judge, though? Why do you need to question their salvation? One of the things that drew me to Catholicism was that if you say you’re a Christian, a Catholic believes you and doesn’t try to pin you down to a day/time/moment when you “asked Jesus into your heart.” On another forum, I was accused outright of not being saved at all, even though I said I was a Christian - even typed out my testimony! - just because I presented a view of Scripture didn’t match their own. Silly me, I was taking the “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” and “Baptism now saves you” verses literally when they’re supposed to be symbolic.

But sanctification is part and parcel to being justified in Romes theology.

As they are in Scripture, when understood properly.

 

[Gamera]

Did I ever tell you that you are going to hell?

Well, that is the thread title.

If you trust in good works for salvation, trust in the doctrines of men that are contrary to scripture or trust in the membership of a church then whether you are Catholic, Protestant or scythian you will. If you trust solely on Christ and His sacrifice for your sins on your behalf you shall be saved.

The Catholic Church condemned “salvation by works” as a heresy called Pelagianism over 1500 years ago. And we have no doctrines that are contrary to Scripture. So good, we’re all set!

 

[clmowry]

Heb 11:1
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”

So how exactly does this differ from the Faith=Belief definition to which you object?

Chuck