Will Protestants be saved

[goout]

guanophore:
Yes I understand all this, and it is illogical. No book can interpret itself or give itself authority. It’s either circular logic, or it’s idolatry.
The bible is not magic in Harry Potter fashion, having it’s own powers of authority. The Gospel is good news literally, and good news is communication.

What is communication?
Dialogue by persons, for persons, between persons.
The words don’t have authority in themselves, the authority or integrity of words is only as good as the person behind them. Christ formed a community. Reformeds are in the position of asserting that Christ was not capable of forming a community that lasts. That is a very ineffectual Jesus.

Even as Reformed Christians chafe at all of this, they make their own claims to the very same thing. And because they have rejected personalist aspects of the Church, they must latch on to the book in an inordinate fashion.

Why is The Christ Incarnate? This is the core of the issue and it goes unaddressed.

 

[guanophore]

Yes I understand all this, and it is illogical. No book can interpret itself or give itself authority. It’s either circular logic, or it’s idolatry.

The logic is achieved by cherry picking certain verses and applying them on the foundation of the premise.

There are some basic principles many of which have already been mentioned in this thread. Here is one:

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.

Another is that the authorative Church is not necessary to interpret:

he 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.

This hermeneutic principle is accompanied here by a strawman, as Catholics don’t claim that the Bible is unintelligible to the average person. However many Protestants are erroneously taught that the CC teaches this.

One that has not been mentioned, but is operating, is that one understands scripture because one is anointed by the Holy Spirit. Since the HS is the author, the reader can best understand the meaning when one is anointed by the HS, who will open the readers mind.

1 John 2:20 “But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge.”

So since everyone who has prayed the sinners prayer is anointed, there is no need for a Church to guide interpretation.

1 John 2:27 “As for you, the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in him”

If one walks with Christ, He will open ones’ mind to understand the Scriptures:

Luke 24:45 "Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures

All one needs is to ask:

Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock , and the door will be opened for you.

So you see, it is a matter of believing that one interprets as it is revealed by God.

The next assumption is:

2 Peter 1:19 "So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Sola Scripturists are taught that the prophetic message more fully confirmed is the text of the Scripture (not the person of Jesus), and that the reader is not interpreting by oneself, but by the Holy Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

Reformeds are in the position of asserting that Christ was not capable of forming a community that lasts. That is a very ineffectual Jesus.

Yes, I do agree with you. The assertion here is that the sins of men are more powerful than Christ, such that He was unable to keep His promise. He did not uphold those to whom He gave the faith and the care of the flock, so they fell into irretrievable sin. The Gospel became “lost” for 1500 years.

Why is The Christ Incarnate? This is the core of the issue and it goes unaddressed.

I think it also goes back to a deficient understanding of Church. They do not realize that the Church, like Christ, is incarnate, having both divine and human nature. So that it is the divine elements of the Church that keep her Holy, not the human.

 

[goout]

Just to emphasize:
the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit comes person to persons, not person to things. We can bless things, but that is not the same thing.
When we say the scriptures are inspired, we are not talking about the words on the page, we are talking about those words in the context of those who communicated them.

The Holy Spirit inspires the authors, not just words. And Christ himself is the fullness of that anointing.

It is as if the reformed strain cannot answer the incarnational problem, so it attempts to default to the Holy Spirit in a gnostic way, as if the Spirit and the Son of God are separate.

 

[TULIPed]

The Gospel became “lost” for 1500 years.

I must say - I am greatly enjoying this dialogue between 2 Catholics on Reformed Protestant doctrine and theology. I say this without sarcasm - rather with respect and admiration. I wish I had more Reformed friends who were knowledgeable on Roman Catholic doctrine.

Please allow me quibble or 2 - we don’t believe that the Gospel became lost. We certainly don’t believe that all the Roman Catholic church did for 1500 years was wrong or irretrievable. Permit me to quote from the 2nd Helvetic Confession:

“Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures…”

And further - for example:

“THE DUE HONOR TO BE RENDERED TO THE SAINTS. At the same time we do not despise the saints or think basely of them. For we acknowledge them to be living members of Christ and friends of God who have gloriously overcome the flesh and the world. Hence we love them as brothers, and also honor them; yet not with any kind of worship but by an honorable opinion of them and just praises of them. We also imitate them. For with ardent longings and supplications we earnestly desire to be imitators of their faith and virtues, to share eternal salvation with them, to dwell eternally with them in the presence of God, and to rejoice with them in Christ. And in this respect we approve of the opinion of St. Augustine in De Vera Religione: “Let not our religion be the cult of men who have died. For if they have lived holy lives, they are not to be thought of as seeking such honors; on the contrary, they want us to worship him by whose illumination they rejoice that we are fellow-servants of his merits. They are therefore to be honored by the way of imitation, but not to be adored in a religious manner,” etc.”

And while I’ve got a bit of your attention, I have to say that I am so impressed with how the Catholic Church has kept the Catechism up to date in terms of readability and access. It blows away anything we have. It’s easy to read, well summarized and written in easy to understand prose. Bravo.

Please continue.

 

[goout]

guanophore:

The Gospel became “lost” for 1500 years.

I must say - I am greatly enjoying this dialogue between 2 Catholics on Reformed Protestant doctrine and theology. I say this without sarcasm - rather with respect and admiration. I wish I had more Reformed friends who were knowledgeable on Roman Catholic doctrine.

Please allow me quibble or 2 - we don’t believe that the Gospel became lost. We certainly don’t believe that all the Roman Catholic church did for 1500 years was wrong or irretrievable. Permit me to quote from the 2nd Helvetic Confession:

“Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures…”

And further - for example:

“THE DUE HONOR TO BE RENDERED TO THE SAINTS. At the same time we do not despise the saints or think basely of them. For we acknowledge them to be living members of Christ and friends of God who have gloriously overcome the flesh and the world. Hence we love them as brothers, and also honor them; yet not with any kind of worship but by an honorable opinion of them and just praises of them. We also imitate them. For with ardent longings and supplications we earnestly desire to be imitators of their faith and virtues, to share eternal salvation with them, to dwell eternally with them in the presence of God, and to rejoice with them in Christ. And in this respect we approve of the opinion of St. Augustine in De Vera Religione: “Let not our religion be the cult of men who have died. For if they have lived holy lives, they are not to be thought of as seeking such honors; on the contrary, they want us to worship him by whose illumination they rejoice that we are fellow-servants of his merits. They are therefore to be honored by the way of imitation, but not to be adored in a religious manner,” etc.”

And while I’ve got a bit of your attention, I have to say that I am so impressed with how the Catholic Church has kept the Catechism up to date in terms of readability and access. It blows away anything we have. It’s easy to read, well summarized and written in easy to understand prose. Bravo.

Please continue.

Thanks for kindness and charity and clarity. Something for all of us to aspire to.

 

[guanophore]

I am greatly enjoying this dialogue between 2 Catholics on Reformed Protestant doctrine and theology.

I am counting on those of you in this faith tradition to make corrections as needed!

I wish I had more Reformed friends who were knowledgeable on Roman Catholic doctrine.

Understanding our differences if part of why CAF is here, but you are so right, Catholics are not at all welcome on the main Reformed forum, and many evangelicals are given a very hard time here. We all need to work on our charity, along with our understanding.

Helvetic Confession:

“Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures …”

Hmmm

The Greek and Latin Fathers are all quite Catholic…

And while I’ve got a bit of your attention, I have to say that I am so impressed with how the Catholic Church has kept the Catechism up to date in terms of readability and access. It blows away anything we have. It’s easy to read, well summarized and written in easy to understand prose.

It sure does take a lot of work! The current one was over 20 years in the making. One thing I like about it is the extensive referencing. As you noted, the Fathers are well cited so that one can trace the theology through history.

I have to confess, the Institutes are intimidating by comparison…

 

[Jimbo]

I like to listen to Call to Communion alot. Dr. Anders often makes the point that his grandfather got more out of his couple of sacraments than David himself does out of his 7.

I know many holy protestants. My main concern is with my own salvation, that I’m working out with fear and trembling.

 

[elohimrules]

Protestants can go to heaven, so can zen buddhist, islamist. Some dont go to heaven, even Catholics. Only God knows

 

[Vico]

Will Protestants be saved?

Catchism of the Catholic Church

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

 

[hope]

I am confused that the only comment you make is that Protestants baptize. Did I dispute that they did? I don’t see where. The point of what I posted was not that Protestants don’t baptize but that salvation depended on baptism.

 

[ColorMomma]

Some don’t.

 

[TULIPed]

Again - I am impressed with the straightforward nature of the Catholic Catechism. However, with regard to the OP’s question, there’s this as well a few lines above (emphasis is mine):

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church

Please correct me if my analysis is mistaken, but it would seem that this (which is entirely consistent with the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio) would indicate that Protestants (and all non-Catholics) who believe in (I would add “and love and declare as Lord”, but forgive my editorializing) Christ and are properly baptized are in a certain, though imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Rev12Mary]

I see. Yes I completely agree, through faith we are justified by Christ. What a loving Lord he is too, whose mercies renew every morning, even to those who do not know his name, but as Romans 2:6 tells us, "Who will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life. …In the same way the righteous of the Old Testament, although they didn’t know Him yet- are justified in Christ. Thanks for letting me respond. I love all the talking about Jesus. I’m blessed to have stumbled in here.

 

[Vico]

…

What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[TULIPed]

Yes - as always, well written and easy to understand. I would say that this document is a bit circular in some cases, however, I think it concludes the concept well in the next question:

THIRD QUESTION

Why was the expression “ subsists in ” adopted instead of the simple word “ is ”?

RESPONSE

The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.[11]

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].

When taken together with what’s found in the Unitatis Redintegratio, and the Catechism, I’d say it’s difficult to argue that Catholic doctrine professes that those who have faith in, and love for Christ and are baptized outside of the Catholic Church are exempt from salvation, no?

 

[Vico]

…
When taken together with what’s found in the Unitatis Redintegratio, and the Catechism, I’d say it’s difficult to argue that Catholic doctrine professes that those who have faith in, and love for Christ and are baptized outside of the Catholic Church are exempt from salvation, no?

I assume that you intended to say excluded not exempt.

All those that actually prove to be saved at the end of their lives (in the particular judgement) and all of those past saints, are members of the Catholic Church, no matter which form of external religious activity occurred in their life.

The question is sometimes asked, what of those that are living and validly baptized? All those that are validly baptized are members of the Church of Christ by baptism, however since their baptism may not be fruitful, may not prove to be saved at the end of their lives, so may not prove to be true members. In order to remain free from sin through sanctifying grace, the Holy Mysteries (seven sacraments) are provided by the Catholic Church for the faithful, some of which are not available in the churches and ecclesial communities not in full communion (except perhaps for baptism) which makes if more difficult for them.

Matthew (Jesus sitting on mount Olivet speaking to the disciples privately):​

25:46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting. 26:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended all these words, he said to his disciples: 26:2 You know that after two days shall be the pasch, and the son of man shall be delivered up to be crucified …

 

[goout]

Faith in Christ is one with charity, and hope.
Faith, hope, and love come together.

The CCC passage on hope is especially edifying for this topic. We know there is a judgment, and we know hell is a real possibility. But what of the Gospel?
The Gospel is The Good News of Christ and should convey hope. What is that Good News? We can formulate the saving action of Christ in different ways by way of scripture and Tradition, and we live it out with different charisms in different circumstances. But when we speak about the Good News, we have an imperative to give others hope, not proclaim their condemnation. If we preach condemnation and exclusion we are not preaching the Gospel.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm
summarized:

[1821] We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will.92 In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end"93 and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for "all men to be saved."94

As in the parable of the laborers, the vineyard owner is gratuitous beyond our calculations, and we can rejoice for all those who enter.

 

[TULIPed]

Well said. Thanks for this. I’ve learned from our discussion.

 

[spbill]

If you research early Christianity, it is Catholic through and through. Where did your faith get the Bible? From the Catholic church.

If you study church history, you will see that the church is an ever evolving (hopefully maturing) thing. I don’t think anyone from 1000 or 2000 years ago would really recognize the culture of today. The church created the canon for a purpose. We are supposed to be in unity, but we too easily get off track. So the “Catholic Church” in time is not the churches of today. The Revelation is complete in the scriptures, that is why we should study them. The church becomes the Church when we partake and are witnesses, but if not we are cut off and tossed into the fire.
I think you’ll find this in the teachings of good churches.

Blessings in your Journey