Why do Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell?

[jmtosh]

So which is it ?

Oh me oh my, “the backing of Parliament” so he abolished Parliament and then is in cahoots with it ? oh yeah,.

Sorry for being confused.

And anyway since you brought it up, “you nor your many affiliations are not squeaky clean.”

The English Civil War (in this instance to be technically correct The 2nd English Civil War) was **not primarily **Catholic Vs Protestant, the issue was **primarily **King (a traitorous King) and Parliament. There were also Protestants on the Royalist side - the tragedy of Civil wars- compare the ACW.

You erroneously stated that Cromwell slaughtered Catholics with the approval of the King as the head of the Church. I showed you that this was not the case.

Cromwell attacked Drogheda and Wexford that were Irish Royalist strongholds that refused to surrender. There is no doubt that Cromwell’s troops committed what today would be considered a war crime. The point is that although he was Protestant and they Catholic he did not massacre them as Catholics but as Irish Royalists.

I did not claim that my so called ancestors are squeaky clean.

 

[jmtosh]

Hawkeye,

I said he later abolished Parliament!

 

[johncatholic]

In response to Daniel Marsch the Catholic Church does not put its trust in creatures, its live revolves around Jesus. Though it honors Mary and the saints we realize they are not divine and they are not the source of our salvation. They are perfect role models as creatures for us to emulate. Some saints were serious sinners before becoming saints and God would like them to be examples to us on how to live our lives. Read the works of the early church fathers and you will see how the Catholic church is in conformity with them and their teachings. The Bible is a wonderful book that should be read and if read carefully you would see the Catholic church is in conformity with it. I would rather trust a 2000 year tradition and belief than put my faith in competing devisive beliefs that are no more than 400 to 500 old.

 

[hawkeye]

You erroneously stated that Cromwell slaughtered Catholics with the approval of the King as the head of the Church. I showed you that this was not the case.

Well isn’t Elizabeth the head of the church in England ? and I hear her ever year at Christmas say those words “my government” so I assume she and her earlier kings and queens were over the church and the government.

I did not claim that my so called ancestors are squeaky clean.

For the record let me remind you that it wasn’t the Protestant Church that has persecuted and harassed millions of believers.

You did quote the above in post #723, and since Cromwell was a protestant then I assume he qualifies.

And he sought to explain his actions to Parliament to which I assume the king was over since the king of England set up Parliament to ease the running of the country.

So I don’t think you can separate Parliament from the King or the present day queen, like I said, she always say “my government.”

After Wexford, the English Parliament sent Cromwell reinforcements and an enormous sum of money to buy off his (Catholic) English enemies in Ireland.

Cromwell chose his men for their Protestant religious fervor and implemented strict Puritan discipline.

Many Franciscans and other priests were killed. Three hundred women were massacred while standing at the cross in the public square. They had hoped that being near the cross would soften the hearts of the Christian soldiers. Instead it identified them as Catholics, and they were put to death. The churches were then destroyed. The total number of dead at Wexford was about 2,000.

Source

So I’m afraid I don’t buy into this “it wasn’t the protestant church that harassed and persecuted millions of believers,” it seems many did barbaric deeds in it’s name.

And sorry but back on topic, I do not know why Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell, as if they were so cock sure about it.

 

[kaycee]

It is interesting that this private interpretation seems to contradict what scripture says…

“Baptism …now saves you…” 1 Peter 3:20-21

Actually, to get the intended meaning, you need to read it in context.

1 Pet 2:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 **Corresponding **to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

In this context, then, “baptism” is used metaphorically to symbolize a conscience clear before God. It is not said that it is the outward, physical act of baptism which saves, but that it is the good conscience which baptism signifies which saves. This good conscience is achieved by the washing of the conscience by the Blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:22; Titus 3:5; I John 1:7; Revelation 1:5), and is acquired entirely by faith (Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-10) before baptism in water is practiced as a sign of that good conscience (Romans 4:8-11, remembering that baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision; Colossians 2:11-12).

Thus we see that it is deceiving to refer simply to the phrase “[baptism] now saves us” without taking it in context with the very careful explanatory phrase which Peter uses, that is, that it is not the outward and physical act which saves, but the inward testimony of a cleansed and good conscience before God, which saves (cf. I John 3:21).

rickross.com/reference/icc/ICC122.html

 

[Teflon93]

So when Christ sent forth the apostles with the command to “Go and baptize all nations” he was really saying, “Go and engage in empty symbolism and metaphor”?

Why send them forth at all, since baptism was not only purely symbolic, but has led us poor Catholics so terribly astray?

 

[JonNC]

So when Christ sent forth the apostles with the command to “Go and baptize all nations” he was really saying, “Go and engage in empty symbolism and metaphor”?

Why send them forth at all, since baptism was not only purely symbolic, but has led us poor Catholics so terribly astray?

…and Orthodox, and Lutherans, and others?

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by **PetersKeys **

Jesus said no one comes to the Father but by him. That means only Jesus can save us. Muslims and other non-christians don’ believe in Jesus and are devoid of this salvation.

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does
not believe will be condemned.”

**You are assuming too much here. Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through Him, meaning, that Jesus is the ONLY MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND HUMANKIND. It doesn’t say that those who do not know Him are not saved. It says that those that do not believe will not be saved. That’s a big difference. Jesus is the sole judge of each of us. Only He knows our hearts, and He will judge us when it is our time, regardless of those who belong to another religion. They believe in God or desire to know God. Those who do not believe, like secularists and atheists, are the ones who will not be saved because they have shut themselves out of God’s grace and His will. **

 

[Contarini]

Well isn’t Elizabeth the head of the church in England ?

No. Only Henry VIII used the word “head,” as far as I know.

and I hear her ever year at Christmas say those words “my government” so I assume she and her earlier kings and queens were over the church and the government.

Don’t assume. Learn. What part of “Cromwell helped depose and kill the king” do you not understand? It’s like saying that Lenin’s atrocities were carried out with the Tsar’s blessing! Indeed, as C. S. Lewis pointed out, the Puritans had a lot in common with the Communists.

%between%

So I’m afraid I don’t buy into this “it wasn’t the protestant church that harassed and persecuted millions of believers,”

I don’t either. (There were no “millions” involved on either side, but there were atrocities on both sides.) You are right that the massacres in Ireland were religious (and ethnic) as well as political.

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

…and Orthodox, and Lutherans, and others?

Absolutely—anyone who took Christ at his word!

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Jesus said no one comes to the Father but by him. That means only Jesus can save us. Muslims and other non-christians don’ believe in Jesus and are devoid of this salvation.

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does
not believe will be condemned."

Mark 16:16

Faith and Baptism are the core tenents of salvation. Without Faith in Jesus everything else dosen’t hold.

Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. Peroid. End of Story. If you say otherwise then you claim what he did on the cross was for nothing and his suffering was for nothing.

Sorry, but you’re overstepping your bounds a little here, friend. The Church does not teach that Muslims and non-Christians are damned because they do not believe in Jesus. In fact, our doctrine is that invincible ignorance is enough to absolve one of responsibility for such a sin – and it’s often not enough merely to have heard about Jesus in order to believe in Him, especially if one grows up in a rabidly anti-Christian society.

Add to that the fact that nowhere does Catholic doctrine say that it is enough to believe in Jesus. We don’t “get saved” by “confessing Jesus”; salvation is a life-long journey during which we must apply our faith to our day-to-day lives. In other words, one who “believes” but does not “do” has no faith.

Where does that leave one who doesn’t believe (for a variety of reasons beyond one’s control) but strives to do good – and, of course, does not sin gravely against the natural law?

Again, let me reiterate: it is misleading to suggest that the Church teaches that “non-Christians” are doomed by their unbelief. We do not claim they will be saved, but neither do we claim that they cannot be saved.

From the CCC:

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

Here we see that, in fact, the Church recognizes that such religions may even contain smidgens of truth – the fullness of which, of course, resides in the Church. This can only mean that the Church recognizes too that Christ is working through those religions to bring non-Christians to His Church by “meeting them where they are”, so to speak.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Also from the CCC:

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

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.”

PS: I just realized how old is the post to which I’m responding. Forgive me if I just reopened an old argument that’s already been resolved.

Peace,
Dante

 

[guanophore]

Actually, to get the intended meaning, you need to read it in context.

1 Pet 2:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 **Corresponding **to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

In this context, then, “baptism” is used metaphorically to symbolize a conscience clear before God. It is not said that it is the outward, physical act of baptism which saves, but that it is the good conscience which baptism signifies which saves. This good conscience is achieved by the washing of the conscience by the Blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:22; Titus 3:5; I John 1:7; Revelation 1:5), and is acquired entirely by faith (Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-10) before baptism in water is practiced as a sign of that good conscience (Romans 4:8-11, remembering that baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision; Colossians 2:11-12).

Thus we see that it is deceiving to refer simply to the phrase “[baptism] now saves us” without taking it in context with the very careful explanatory phrase which Peter uses, that is, that it is not the outward and physical act which saves, but the inward testimony of a cleansed and good conscience before God, which saves (cf. I John 3:21).

rickross.com/reference/icc/ICC122.html

I agree, baptism produces a clean conscience toward God, because it removes original and all personal sins. The reason that Peter uses the metaphore of salvation through water, is that this action of the Holy Spirit was joined with water when Jesus went into the water for baptism. He united the work of the HS to clean the conscience with the washing of water. This washing is not for the purpose of cleaning the body, but for cleaning the soul.

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

Baptism regenerates the soul:

Titus 3:4-8
5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

Baptism applies the saving work of Christ on the Cross to the individual, so that we are justified before God.

 

[kaycee]

I agree, baptism produces a clean conscience toward God, because it removes original and all personal sins. The reason that Peter uses the metaphore of salvation through water, is that this action of the Holy Spirit was joined with water when Jesus went into the water for baptism. He united the work of the HS to clean the conscience with the washing of water. This washing is not for the purpose of cleaning the body, but for cleaning the soul.

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

Baptism regenerates the soul:

Titus 3:4-8
5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

Baptism applies the saving work of Christ on the Cross to the individual, so that we are justified before God.

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

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

 

[gavanhe]

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

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

Daniel
I notice you have a lot of posts to your credit, therefore I would have thought that you may have picked up on the fact that catholics do NOT give credit to Our Lady or any Saints that we pray to for any good that may come from our prayers. We pray to them for intercession with Our Lord because we feel unworthy at times to approach him directly and they have the advantage of having more influence with Him. This means that we hold Our Lord in such high regard you could almost equate it with the Hebrew custom of not daring to speak the Lords name and referring to Him as YAHWE.

 

[rlg94086]

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

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

Quoting out of context does not help your case - are you just doing word searches?
1 COR 1:10-16:

10 4 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. 11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. 12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to 5 Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 6 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one can say you were baptized in my name. 16 (I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

Paul wasn’t talking about the efficacy of Baptism. He was talking about the fact that **he, Paul **was sent to preach the Gospel - IOW that was his mission. That’s why the verses prior are about him being thankful that he did not baptize the Corinthians to whom he was writing. They were all baptized, he just wasn’t the one to do it.

Baptism is clearly taught throughout the New Testament as a necessity.

 

[qui_est_ce]

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech,

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

 

[Godlovesus]

In corospondance to daniel’s comment about how us catholics put faith in The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. We look to them for guidence and to bring our prayers to God’s throne. We do not worship them as we do God, but simply ask their help that way there are more people we know praying for our cause. And by the way I do not believe that people who say that Catholosicism leads to hell, and I pray for them. I believe all good people in this world are saved as long as they believe in God and his grace.

I hope this helps!

 

[hawkeye]

I don’t either. (There were no “millions” involved on either side, but there were atrocities on both sides.) You are right that the massacres in Ireland were religious (and ethnic) as well as political.

Edwin

Yes, which refutes the earlier claim etc; … thank-you.

 

[joe370]

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

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

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

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

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

AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU THINK CATHOLICS WORSHIP AND PRAY TO MARY AND THE SAINTS FOR OUR SALVATION; IS THIS AN ACCURATE SUPPOSITION?