Will Protestants be saved

[Hodos]

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 C atholic 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 )

Nor do Protestants make that claim. We do make the claim though that the Bible was written for the purpose of passing on God’s revelation to us and as such was written to be understood by its readers. We reject the claim that the Bible is unintelligible to the average person. So when the mystical body as you like to call yourself interprets the Bible in ways that are contradictory to the original author’s intended message, we believe that this is discernible through proper exegesis of the text and reject such interpretation. The Church is subject to God’s word, not over it. You still have not addressed any relevant point provided thus far in the discussion of passages relevant to the topic.

 

[Jehu2077]

“Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.”
I do not presume on anyone’s salvation (especially my own). I believe what the Church teaches to be true and divinely revealed. I reject ecumenism as an “I’m okay, you’re okay, we’re all okay” attitude. It’s Christian unity with a goal of full communion with Rome. I entered the Church thanks to ecumenism and evangelization. I do not know for sure who will be members of the Church Suffering/ Triumphant, but I do believe it would be much better for my separated brothers and sisters to be aboard the Barque of Peter than a life ring.

 

[TULIPed]

I do not know for sure who will be members of the Church Suffering/ Triumphant, but I do believe it would be much better for my separated brothers and sisters to be aboard the Barque of Peter than a life ring.

First - this is a great quote (I’m going to use it over the holidays with my in-laws when we discuss theology - “I’m just tossing in ideas from the life ring over here, but…”) . Second, I appreciate your candor and your obvious concern and love for we separated siblings. Finally, while we may disagree on my position in the life ring, I am glad that we can agree on our love and thankfulness for our great King and Savior.

Merry Christmas Jehu2077!

 

[guanophore]

Strange statement from a Christian.

We affirm the sovereignty of God. He will save whoever He wants, however He likes. Do you think no one was saved before Jesus came into the world?

“former” Catholics

Some who have left the One Church for a denomination seem to live a more authentic Christian life than those who are nominally Catholic. I had a Catholic aunt who became a Jew, and seemed to live more faithfully toward God than she ever did as a “catholic”. I always prayed she would find her way back to the faith into which she was baptized.

That’s not a strange statement at all, read the catechism. Saying that all will be definitively saved, that would be a strange statement from a Christian.

It may seem strange because it is a Catholic teaching that Jesus is the only name under heaven by which we may be saved.

I said that all who confess Christ as Lord and believe he died for their sins will be.

Somehow this does not seem consistent with the Scriptures:

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 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’ (Matt. 7:21)

I said that all who confess Christ as Lord and believe he died for their sins will be. That’s not a strange statement from a Christian, it is the apostolic Christian doctrine. If the catechism says otherwise, then that would be a departure from the deposit of faith and should raise serious questions about the orthodoxy of the catechism.

The content of the apostolic deposit of faith differs greatly depending on one’s perceptions (filters). Those who embrace Calvanism (TULIP) perceive the apostolic faith through Calvanistic lenses.

 

[goout]

goout:

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 C atholic 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 )

Nor do Protestants make that claim. We do make the claim though that the Bible was written for the purpose of passing on God’s revelation to us and as such was written to be understood by its readers. We reject the claim that the Bible is unintelligible to the average person. So when the mystical body as you like to call yourself interprets the Bible in ways that are contradictory to the original author’s intended message, we believe that this is discernible through proper exegesis of the text and reject such interpretation. The Church is subject to God’s word, not over it. You still have not addressed any relevant point provided thus far in the discussion of passages relevant to the topic.

Who said the bible should be unintelligible to the average person? Straw man, one of the oldest and deadest accusations against the Church. To the contrary, the scriptures come fully alive only in Christ’s community. Living Word brings life. To the degree you arrogate the scriptures to your own person, they are unintelligible to you.

The bible is one with the Mystical Body of Christ.
Put yourself in the context of Jesus followers, and those who followed them for the next oh…40+ years. You have no book. What you have are people. And the only way you know Christ is by the authority of those persons who are passing on the Tradition. Tradition, Scripture, and the living authority of the Church are one seamless thing. To deny this is to deny the Incarnation of Christ, which is basic Christian non-negotiable doctrine.
Christ came in human flesh, among human beings, for human beings, founded His community, and from His community the scriptures come forth. You speak as though God threw the bible down from heaven. (Joseph Smith might agree)

Without the Tradition of the Catholic Church united with Christ, you have absolutely nothing of value, because that is where scripture comes from.

As to relevance, yes there is plenty of relevance, the issue is one of obedience to the Church. You don’t accept it, so of course you can’t see the relevance. But you have no claim that relevance is not there.

 

[TULIPed]

Those who embrace Calvanism (TULIP) perceive the apostolic faith through Calvanistic lenses.

I would modify this somewhat:

“Those who embrace Calvinism (TULIP) perceive the apostolic faith through CORRECT lenses”

Come on - I’m totally kidding. It’s Christmas everyone - be Merry!

 

[RealisticCatholic]

They can be.

 

[guanophore]

in the Bible. In fact, Romans 10, the same place that provides the means by which we are saved

Catholics believe that we are not saved by the Bible, but by the blood of Christ shed upon the cross for our sins.

those who don’t hear the gospel cannot believe and cannot be saved.

I am certainly glad this is not the case.

Scripture doesn’t say that belonging to a particular denomination or switching between them will lead to doom.

Actually, it does!

I feel that we’re all so caught up in belonging to the most correct form of Christianity, as an institution, that we forget that the bible easily lays out the plan of salvation.

One does not exclude the other. It may seem that the “bible easily lays out the plan” because of the point of view from which it is read, but there are many elements of living the faith that are not “laid out” very clearly in the scripture. This is why Jesus founded a Church.

Here’s what the Bible lays out–it lays out

Yes, but Calvanists read the plan of salvation very differently. Believe in the heart, confess with the mouth, etc.

Your interpretation of Catholic theology however is attempting to chisel a new doorway that isn’t in the architectural plans.

I can understand why it seems that way. Those who have been separated from the Apostolic faith, and are strongly influenced by the innovations of the Reformation have a very different perspective.

I didn’t make the original statement saying that Protestants are outside of the community of faith if they remain Protestants

I don’t think this is what was said. Catholics accept that anyone who has a valid Trinitarian baptism is a member of the Body of Christ. There are plenty who claim to be Catholics that also embrace heresies. They are Protestants but don’t know it.

By the way, feel free to demonstrate that I have taken Paul out of context.

I think this has already been demonstrated in this thread by the introduction of other verses that pertain to salvation. Catholics don’t consider salvation a once for all event, as the Calvanists do. This was a concept that was unknown before the Reformation, and is a significant departure from the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

you have not demonstrated through scripture the specific heresy you are speaking about.

All of the TULIP would qualify.

I could argue that the Catholic Church departed from the apostolic faith in some important areas

There is no doubt that many persons, calling themselves Catholic, acted in the flesh. This has been going on since the beginning of the Church. However, nothing that Judas does can negate the Truth of Jesus. The Truth resides in the Catholic Church, and even a corrupt Bishop cannot change that.

there is a difference between heresy and heterodoxy.

Yes, there is, but the heterodoxies are heresies. Not everyone who embraces them ever had the truth in the first place, so they cannot be guilty of obstinant denial of what they never possessed.

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?

Such hitting has not been demonstrated to be fruitful for dialogue, in my opinion. However, it is important to distinguish also between heresy and heretics. All Protestants embrace heresies. Very few of them know their “heterodoxies” are heretical, and cannot be charged with such an offense.

in regard to your own error.

I find myself wondering what brings you to CAF. Did you come here to inform ignorant Catholics about our errors?

Jesus stated how we are to be justified not just I accept Jesus

I think it is to “just accept Jesus”, but how we understand this is very different. The Catholic understanding of being “in Christ” and making him Lord of our lives is quite different. "Accept Jesus’ for us means the WHOLE gospel, not just the sinners prayer.

Well if you accept Jesus you will do what He said.

Exactly! The obedience of faith, which includes holding fast to the faith that was passed down to us from the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

You are conflating justification and sanctification, a common misconception.

This is a common charge I hear from Reformed Christians. In fact, up until the Reformation, there was no separation between these. At that time, 1500 years after the once for all divine deposit of faith was made to the Church, we had some theologians bringing creative innovations into the “economy of salvation”.

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.

For us there is a complete continuity between the two. We believe that we are saved by grace, through faith, and that the same grace that justifies us is the grace that sanctifies us. They are not separated. Calvanists view this position as “conflating”.

Who says it has to be in the Bible?

The Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura!

 

[TULIPed]

The Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura!

Point of clarification - Sola Scriptura doesn’t say, “it has to be in the Bible”. Sola Scriptura says, “it can’t conflict with what’s in the Bible.”

Carry on.

 

[goout]

guanophore:

The Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura!

Point of clarification - Sola Scriptura doesn’t say, “it has to be in the Bible”. Sola Scriptura says, “it can’t conflict with what’s in the Bible.”

Carry on.

And you know something conflicts with the bible by…?

 

[guanophore]

I am pointing you to the catholic faith as communicated by the apostles to the Church in their writings.

Actually, you are pointing to a Reformed interpretation of those writings that has been separated from the deposit of faith which created the Bible.

your explanation contradicts the Bible and the apostolic teaching of the faith.

No doubt it certainly contradicts your perceptions of what is written. We understand what we read through our education and experience (or lack of it). Your glasses seem to have been provided by Calvanistic theology.

The answer would be no.

So long as you exclude a great deal of Scripture, one can arrive at this conclusion.

The bible does not interpret itself or give meaning to itself. The bible is not self referential…

You may believe this (as do I) but Protestants are taught that it does. They also approach what they read through Reformation lenses, so that understanding what is written is infused with Reformation theology.

So when the mystical body as you like to call yourself

I think maybe you misunderstood the reference here. The “mystical body” does not interpret the Scriptures. This duty is given to the successors of the Apostles.

interprets the Bible in ways that are contradictory to the original author’s intended message,

We understand what the original author’s intended message is by reading through the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles. During the Reformation, Scripture reading was separated from the Sacred Tradition, which is why there are so many disparate interpretations today.

The Church is subject to God’s word, not over it.

The Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and authority appointed by Christ work together. They are complimentary.

 

[guanophore]

“Those who embrace Calvinism (TULIP) perceive the apostolic faith through CORRECT lenses”

Of course!

Everyone is obligated to follow their own conscience.

17 Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin. James 4:17

Since you believe this view is correct, if you failed to follow it, it would be a sin.

Point of clarification - Sola Scriptura doesn’t say, “it has to be in the Bible”. Sola Scriptura says, “it can’t conflict with what’s in the Bible.”

Or at least with one’s perception of what is in the Bible! I must have been thinking of Solo Scriptura.

 

[TULIPed]

First - I am on a Catholic website and am thankful to be here as a guest and therefore respectful of the beliefs and traditions of my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.

Second - I greatly respect and admire the reverence and seriousness with which Roman Catholics invest in their love for our shared King. We Protestants could learn much from you all.

Third - to answer your question, we start to know something conflicts with the Bible by reading it, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Concepts like “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” are fairly straightforward, no?

Finally - Merry Christmas. This is a great website, and I am thankful to be discussing theology today with everyone here.

 

[goout]

goout:

The bible does not interpret itself or give meaning to itself. The bible is not self referential…

You may believe this (as do I) but Protestants are taught that it does. They also approach what they read through Reformation lenses, so that understanding what is written is infused with Reformation theology.

This isn’t a matter of belief, it’s a matter of coherent thought. Christians are not asked to reject reason.

And it’s reasonable to see that the Scriptures did not fall from the sky by God’s divine hand. The life of Christ and the Christian community are primary to scripture.
The scriptures were written by people, through the authority of the community. Does anyone here deny this?
And there was no written New Testament until the year…what? Pick your date.
There was NO Canon until a few hundred years later.

Without the Christian community (aka Church) you have a book of sayings and ethics.

 

[TULIPed]

Or at least with one’s perception of what is in the Bible! I must have been thinking of Solo Scriptura.

We prefer “Han Solo Scriptura”.

 

[goout]

First - I am on a Catholic website and am thankful to be here as a guest and therefore respectful of the beliefs and traditions of my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.

Second - I greatly respect and admire the reverence and seriousness with which Roman Catholics invest in their love for our shared King. We Protestants could learn much from you all.

Third - to answer your question, we start to know something conflicts with the Bible by reading it, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Concepts like “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” are fairly straightforward, no?

Finally - Merry Christmas. This is a great website, and I am thankful to be discussing theology today with everyone here.

Thanks for your kindness, charity and good example.

I hold the expectant hope of all people being saved. (ducking right now)
I also believe there are people of all different religious beliefs who will see God before I will, including Catholics who have left the practice of the faith over scandal. Tons of people have lived Mt 25 to a higher degree of perfection than I could hope to.

I personally have a huge chip on my shoulder over people who proof text the bible to preach condemnation and exclusion. It happens more visibly in evangelical protestant circles, but there is also a strain of Catholicism that subscribes to fundamentalist scripture interpretations.

I just point to the Church, because all things come together in the community that Christ founded.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Only God knows.

He provided us with the Church and Sacraments as the normal vehicles of grace.

 

[guanophore]

This isn’t a matter of belief, it’s a matter of coherent thought. Christians are not asked to reject reason.

There is good rationale to support the concept that Scripture interprets itself. I happen to disagree with it, but it is not irrational. It is taught in hermeneutics courses in Protestant Seminaries.

The life of Christ and the Christian community are primary to scripture.

Yes, but from a Reformed point of view, the Church lost the authentic Christian faith by refusing to live it, so it was taken away from them, and given to the “remnant” of the true faithful at the time of the Reformation. The first 1500 years of “community” can then be dispensed, and the restored Gospel can start at Reformation.

The scriptures were written by people, through the authority of the community. Does anyone here deny this ?

I think it might be more precise to say that they were written through the inspiration/authority of the Holy Spirit, and cannot be interpreted properly without that HS (which they believe the CC lost). No, Protestants also accept that the Scriptures are inspired (God-Breathed) and inerrant.

Where we differ is the authority issue. Catholics believe that authority can only be wielded by persons. Authority requires acts of the will, discernment, and the ability to take responsibilit for ones’ actions. Writings, however Holy, cannot do these things, which are peculiar to persons.

What Sola Scriptura does is force the Sacred WRitings into a role they were never meant to play, and for which they are not capable of filling. The end result is that each person becomes their own authority.

And there was no written New Testament until the year…what? Pick your date.

The first books were penned around 50 AD, which meant the Church functioned without any written NT for about 20 years. The later books were not completed until as late as 96-100 AD, so we are looking at about a half century of the Church practicing the faith that was handed down from the Apostles.

The NT canon was closed about 382 AD, but all the books in it were used from time they were written. There was a great deal of controversy about which books belonged in the collection, which Luther managed to revitalize by questioning the canon and whether certain books should be included. Among the criteria was whether the writing had been used during divine liturgy.

Without the Christian community (aka Church) you have a book of sayings and ethics.

Reformed Christians just take the position that their Christian Community is a more authentic and accurate context for understanding the Scripture.