Can Roman Catholics be saved? (Open)

Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry ^ | 2013 | Matt Slick

[WVKayaker]

Can Roman Catholics be saved? Yes they can but not if they adhere to Roman Catholic theology. Like anyone else, salvation is found only through faith in Christ alone. ...

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.

[detch]

You are right. Sorry.

How about James, then...
[14] What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?
[15] And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:
[16] And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?
[17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
[18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
[19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.
[20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

[daniel1212]

The question is, did the church begin under the premise of the assured veracity of the magisterium that was the steward of Scripture, or on the basis of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and testifying to Scripture being the supreme transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God?

If there’s a disagreement between two parties then it obviously necessitates a third to resolve this difference.

It just seems to me though there is no way to determine truth from Scripture alone as opinions are like noses, to use an old euphemism

no one single individual is perfect all the time and therefore everyone needs correction...if one doesn’t accept these two as plainly obvious through reason and experience then there really isn’t much left to say anyway.

The issue is not the warrant for the teaching office, and for synods to settle disputes, which Westminster itself affirms as being Scriptural, but that an infallible magisterium is essential for this, for determination of assurance of Truth.

Do you understand this is your position?

[FourtySeven]

Yes I understand that is my position.

[daniel1212]

The issue is not the warrant for the teaching office, and for synods to settle disputes, which Westminster itself affirms as being Scriptural, but that an infallible magisterium is essential for this, for determination of assurance of Truth. Do you understand this is your position?

Yes I understand that is my position.

That an infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth is indeed the premise behind the RC rejection of "private interpretation" (which means apart from the infallible magisterium), and which argues that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

However, if so then how could any souls before Christ have assurance that Elijah or John were prophets, and that Jesus indeed the very Christ? How could both writings and men of God be recognized as being so before there was a church in Rome?

But if an infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and the stewards of Scripture are it, then it follows that the church began upon a faulty foundation, as the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34) following an itinerant Preacher who reproved them by Scripture, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

The fact is that it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God (like men of God) being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

Do you understand the problems with your position?

[redleghunter]

Hmmm...still no reply to your challenging comments. Shocking! Except from Elsie of course:)

[strider44]

Keeping the stain on Freerepublic alive one catholic v Protestant thread at a time. When will you bozos (Freeper Catholics and Protestants alike) give this crap a rest?!

[redleghunter]

How about James, then...

James consistently applied the teachings of Jesus Christ along with His apostles. When we abide in Christ Jesus and He abides in us, He is our Lord and Savior. Lord meaning we are His subjects and we obey His sayings, words and commands. The works we do as born from above (born again) believers are the works of Christ Jesus not of our own lest we should boast.

More specifically, the command Jesus Christ gave to His disciples was to love each other as HE LOVED them ( loves us). That is James' point in his entire epistle.

So if your point is works is a cause for salvation I will say no. If you are saying works are an effect of salvation then I would say yes.

[Elsie]

"Please refrain from making personal attacks.", says the Master of them!

[Elsie]

No...

[WVKayaker]

Keeping the stain on Freerepublic alive one catholic v Protestant thread at a time. When will you bozos (Freeper Catholics and Protestants alike) give this crap a rest?!

The term Protestant is derived from the word protest.

Dictionary.com provides this:

pro·test

noun
1. an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid: a protest against increased taxation.

verb (used without object)
5. to give manifest expression to objection or disapproval; remonstrate.
6. to make solemn or earnest declaration.

FreeRepublic has noticeably become a CONSTANT vehicle to promote Roman Catholicism, which many of us find repugnant and not in line with what is PLAINLY found in Holy Scripture. WE are inundated daily with RC this and RC that, and must endure it because we choose to visit AND SUPPORT FR.

So, because I/we feel a need to balance the heresies promoted on the RC threads, such as worship and elevation of dead people to special status, perverting Scripture to fall in line with baseless traditions, and just plain in-your-face RC promotion, many of us feel necessary to refute and properly define them as cultists. Naturally, they wish us to go away, just as you apparently do!

But, it isn't going to happen. As long as UNSCRIPTURAL error is promoted as a truth, we will remain true to the Word of God. We do not promote any denomination, only try to represent the Gospel and bind ourselves in the truth of Scripture, just as Jesus did when He was walking the earth.

Cults are based on following men who declare they are the ONLY source of truth. Protestantism is based on following what God has given us, the Scriptures, and the leadings of the active Holy Spirit in our lives. It is the difference that brings this constant back-and-forth, which will only end when we stand in front of the Great White Throne. Until then, we have an obligation to teach truth against heresy, no matter how large the group promoting it!

2 Timothy 3: 1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone. ...

... 12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Acts 3:4 ... Then Peter said, “Look at us!” 5 So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them.
6 Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you. ...

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“Time you turn off Joel the Grinning Horse Osteen and get right with the Lord. Your immortal soul is at stake!! Repent now!!”

Attack, attack, but there is no substance in your attack. You obviously represent the occult as evidenced by your protestations. You can’t hide Vettie, your ‘see the fight through’ attitude demeans you and what you claim to espouse.

[Elsie]

Attack, attack, but there is no substance in your attack.

"What they say about a breakthrough [in Najaf] is completely an illusion. They are sending their warplanes to fly very low in order to have vibrations on these sacred places . . . they are trying to crack the buildings by flying low over them."

[daniel1212]

Hmmm...still no reply to your challenging comments. Shocking! Except from Elsie of course:)

Well, a couple finally did, one asserted there was no basis, but a gift, and the other actually affirmed this description, and then tried to argue for it more, with some nice straw men included, despite the ignored fact that he nuked the church by his means for assurance of Truth.

[Elsie]

bttt

[Mark17]

BTTT. Keeping track of it.

[Gamecock]

Grace and peace to you.

[Elsie]

I guess I missed a rant by going out to eat this evening!