Will Protestants be saved

  • Thread starter Thread starter zeland
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For those who are baptized, love the scriptures, and look to follow God’s will in their life, of course! (Is Jesus going to say “I never knew you?” no!) I pray they come to love our Lord in the blessed sacrament and love our blessed Mother too while still in this life.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure I follow–are you saying baptism is a different door than Christ? It’s the same door. Faith and baptism is how we enter through Christ. (see e.g. Rom. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:3-4; etc.).
No, I am not. Are you denying that Protestants practice baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
 
No one is saying that Protestants do not baptize properly in general that is there are some who do not but they are the exception. What I would like to see from you is an explanation of what new door way you are referring too. You must realize that Scripture talks about many things that you need to for salvation not just a one line taken from Paul out of context.
 
No one is saying that Protestants do not baptize properly in general that is there are some who do not but they are the exception. What I would like to see from you is an explanation of what new door way you are referring too. You must realize that Scripture talks about many things that you need to for salvation not just a one line taken from Paul out of context.
Well, I didn’t make the original statement saying that Protestants are outside of the community of faith if they remain Protestants, Genesis315 did. So you will need him to clarify what his criterion is for salvation. But based on his statement, his criterion is something other than believing in Christ and confessing him as Lord. He has made an addition to the scriptural criterion for justification, which the scriptures do not support. My point was not to enumerate the additions that he has made since I don’t feel the need to speak for him, only to show that he is making additions.

By the way, feel free to demonstrate that I have taken Paul out of context. I will willingly discuss scripture with you if you have something to offer to the conversation other than an empty accusation.
 
Last edited:
From the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio:

“Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.”

I am thankful for words such as these from my Catholic brothers and sisters. I hope and pray that one day we’ll be together again here as part of the Church Militant. I’m convinced that we’ll be together in the Church Triumphant.

Merry Christmas to all.
 
Last edited:
No, I did not. Where Protestantism would exclude from salvation is that embracing it would be heresy, which is incompatible with faith. I discussed how heresy excludes in my earlier post. A person could certainly enter through the the door, but then exclude themselves through heresy.

Of course, merely being wrong or mistaken is not sufficient for this exclusion–like all sins heresy requires a certain kind of act of the will.
 
Last edited:
No, I did not. Where Protestantism would exclude from salvation is that embracing it would be heresy, which is incompatible with faith.
Heresy is a loaded word my friend. You keep throwing it around, but you have not demonstrated through scripture the specific heresy you are speaking about. I could argue that the Catholic Church departed from the apostolic faith in some important areas, and it was the reformers that returned its attention back to the faith of our fathers. So instead of throwing around an unfounded accusation, feel free to define what you mean by heresy and from what scriptures you derive said heresy. So far, I haven’t seen you do so. Also, you fail to understand that there is a difference between heresy and heterodoxy. Please distinguish between the two and cite examples in your answers.

Also, note the quote provided by @TULIPed which seems to indicate that you have a heterodox opinion from the Catholic Church on this issue. Note that I used the far less offensive term heterodoxy in regard to your own error. We don’t need to be hitting each other with sledgehammers, now do we?
 
Last edited:
I do not agree with Genesis 315 on his opinion about Protestants who remain in their faith. There is only one baptism and anyone who is baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church. however he has not added to scripture on his criteria for justification. The reason I say,and if you read what I wrote I have already stated this, that it is out of context because Jesus stated how we are to be justified not just I accept Jesus. Well if you accept Jesus you will do what He said. You will be baptized. You will confess your sins. You will remember His sacrifice by communion. Now you claim that Genesis315 has made additions so I wonder are you dismissing these requirements that Jesus made in favor of Paul who I do not believe meant that it was THE way to salvation? Paul was talking to the Romans who he said a lot more to than just what you quote. He was talking to who you would have said already accepted Jesus. They were a Christian community. Yeah it is taken out of context when you zero in on that one statement.
 
I do not agree with Genesis 315 on his opinion about Protestants who remain in their faith. There is only one baptism and anyone who is baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church. however he has not added to scripture on his criteria for justification. The reason I say,and if you read what I wrote I have already stated this, that it is out of context because Jesus stated how we are to be justified not just I accept Jesus.
The Biblical definition of justification according to Paul is that we are justified by faith apart from works (Romans 3:21-28). You are conflating justification and sanctification, a common misconception. Also, Protestants believe in and practice confession and communion. So this is a false dichotomy.
You will remember His sacrifice by communion. Now you claim that Genesis315 has made additions so I wonder are you dismissing these requirements that Jesus made in favor of Paul who I do not believe meant that it was THE way to salvation? Paul was talking to the Romans who he said a lot more to than just what you quote. He was talking to who you would have said already accepted Jesus.
True, but when you follow the line of logic between Romans 1 and 10, you will see that Paul is addressing Gentiles and Jews from the standpoint of who they were before faith in Christ (both condemned according to the law - Romans 1 - 3:20), then talks about who they are through faith in Christ (Romans 3:21 to Romans 6); and how they live out this new life in Christ (Romans 7 and forward). However, Chapters 7-10 present how we respond to grace through faith, not how we come to justification which is the topic of this thread. So, no, my comments were not out of context unless you can demonstrate otherwise through scripture.

Now, as you will note in Genesis315’s responses, it seems as though his criterion for salvation involves something else. What that something else is, he never enumerated clearly, but apparently it has to do with something other than faith in Christ.
 
Last edited:
If you research early Christianity, it is Catholic through and through. Where did your faith get the Bible? From the Catholic church.
 
I said that all who confess Christ as Lord and believe he died for their sins will be (saved). This is heresy and was never taught by the apostles or the Church.

To be saved, one must die in the state of grace with all his mortal sins forgiven sacramentaly.

Christ’s death on the cross did not do it all. We must do our part. Many protestants I deal with think that 1 John 1:9 is their personal private ticket to heaven.

Zeland
 
Last edited:
What you say is partially correct. We do need to acknowledge Jesus as our Savior. I disagree with you on what is sanctification. However, I don’t want to get into a maze so I want to concentrate on Baptism. You do agree that we die with Christ that we may have new life? How is that accomplished? Let us look at Romans 6 :
3 Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
which Paul also stated in Colossians 2 12
having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead
. It is obvious that he considers baptism to be first. When you say that the scripture you use shows how one is justified, this shows that it is out of context. Paul is telling us that we first die with Jesus through baptism. This is in Romans before he speaks of acknowledging Jesus as Lord. I am not saying we don’t have to do this I just say that he says more than just that. Than there is Peter at Pentecost who is asked what to do and he answers
37
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, "What are we to do, my brothers?
38 Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
You don’t seem him saying accept Jesus into you heart no it repent and be baptized.

This isn’t the only thing that Peter had to say.; in 1 Peter he says 20
who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
He says that baptism save us now. It is the way that we are justified.

Of course there is Jesus Himself who said
“No one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is born of water and the Spirit” Not just believe in me.
The great commission was 1
9 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
The way that we are made disciples is baptism.
 
Last edited:
If you research early Christianity, it is Catholic through and through. Where did your faith get the Bible? From the Catholic church.
Yeah. My faith is the catholic (small c) faith. I have never claimed otherwise. This has not one iota to do with my response by the way. I am pointing you to the catholic faith as communicated by the apostles to the Church in their writings.
Who says it has to be in the Bible?
I didn’t say it has to be, the point is, referencing the passage in Romans 10 (which you obviously didn’t look up) is that your explanation contradicts the Bible and the apostolic teaching of the faith.
 
Continuing the discussion from Will Protestants be saved:

Hello, I am new here. I was reading this thread- and wouldn’t Romans chapter 2: 12-15 suggest that those who haven’t heard the Gospel- will be judged by their own conscience?
 
Great question. The answer would be no. If you follow the argument leading up to the verses you are questioning, you will see what I mean. In Chapter 1, Paul addresses the Gentiles before they came to Christ. In it, he says that pagans suppress the truth of God and exchange it for a lie (Romans 1: 18-20) so that they are without excuse (the Greek word means a defense). He then addresses the Jews who have received God’s revelation through the law and the prophets. He argues that the Jews, though they have the law, don’t follow it and are also without excuse - same word (Romans 2:1).

Then in verse 12, Paul says that those who sin apart from the law (the Gentiles) will also perish, and those who have the law (the Jews) are equally condemned by it. The fact that even Gentiles have the law written on their hearts and obey elements of it further condemns them because they know what the will of God is but don’t do it. Paul’s conclusion in Romans 3:1-20 is that ALL are sinful, and all are guilty and are unrighteous before God.
The good news then comes. Romans 3:21-30 demonstrates that through faith, we are justified in Christ.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Fauken:
We can’t assume those few Buddhists, Muslims, and Atheists heard of Christ, which is why he said that. They can’t be condemned for failing to live according to the Gospel when they’ve never heard of it for no fault of their own.
They certainly can and will. If you read through Romans 1-3, you will see that both the Gentiles who were ignorant of the law, and the Jews who had the law were both alike condemned under the law (see Romans 2:12 - but read the line of logic leading up to there to get the reference in context). Then proceed to Romans 3:21-28 where we are justified through faith in Christ.

The idea that those who have not heard the gospel are not responsible for their sin is no where in the Bible. In fact, Romans 10, the same place that provides the means by which we are saved that I mentioned above, also urges believers to be about the business of proclaiming the gospel for just that concern, that those who don’t hear the gospel cannot believe and cannot be saved. Again, this is basic Christian doctrine.
The bible does not interpret itself or give meaning to itself. The bible is not self referential…
in other words, the scriptures are not a dumb idol pointing to themselves, they point to Christ in the context of his Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church. The bible only has meaning and saving power for all people in the context of the Church, because that is how God breathed the Scriptures forth.

Before the New Testament was, Christ is. And Christ gave us a community, not a book. Christ is not The Great Book Writer, he is in himself The Word. The book is unified with the charisms of His community, one of which is authority. We all serve somebody.
Who do you serve?
(And if you respond you serve Christ, good for you, but you can’t serve Christ outside His Mystical Body. If you serve Christ only as an individual, you worship yourself, not Christ)
 
Last edited:
You ought to tread lightly when wielding the word of God. It is meant for everyone, and everyone can find plenty to fear in the Scriptures, if that is how would like to read them.

“To whom much is given much is expected”. If one wants to find scriptures that are challenging and fearful, this should strike fear into the heart of any Christian who thinks of his baptism and creed as a membership card.

The Catholic Church reads the Scriptures
In the context of the whole, not as isolated proof texts
In the light of Christ who is the source and key of all saving truth
In union with the living Magisterium.

What does the living Magisterium say about the salvation of those ignorant of the Gospel?
About the Jewish people
About Muslims
Others who have not heard the Gospel?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top