How Can Protestants Be Saved?

http://www.thecatholicthing.org ^ | May 9, 2014 | Howard Kainz

[NKP_Vet]

When I, a “cradle Catholic,” am accosted by a “born again” Christian, and asked whether I am “saved,” my thoughts usually go to St. Paul’s frequent admonitions to work out your salvation in “fear and trembling.” Even St. Paul, after having been raised to the “seventh heaven,” felt it necessary to chastise his body, lest he become a castaway. (1Cor. 9:27)

The conviction that one is “saved” may be the result of a powerful religious experience. (Catholics have those too!) But people sometimes interpret it like Freud, as something psychological, or just some friendly divine encouragement to keep trying, or perhaps as a sign of God’s mercy in spite of one’s sins.

Personally, I am convinced that, if two-thirds of the angels, who never had to suffer, and had clear insight into what would happen if they rebelled, were saved (Rev. 12:4) – certainly at least that percentage or more of us humans, working our way with limited vision through suffering and often messy lives and bad choices, will be saved. Of course, I try to stand clear of the “universal salvation” heresy of Origen and others, condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 543.

That said, it seems to me that Protestants are really missing out on the multiform assistance that the Church could provide, if they were open to it.

[DungeonMaster]

John 6:

28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

[ZinGirl]

I have no idea how you came up with that one. You might as well have asked, "are you saying you don't like pizza?".

Cannot answer that question for you as stated. Rephrase and we can give it a go.

[martiangohome]

You are correct. Most likely all three involved, Jesus included, were charged as insurrectionists against Rome. The notion that the Jews in charge at the time were in cahoots with Pilate is, let’s just say, highly unlikely.

[vladimir998]

“My Lord gave Himself as a perfect and complete sacrifice one time, so I have no need for any further sacrifices.”

There are no further sacrifices. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice re-presented.

http://onemoresoul.com/catalog/science-tests-faith-dvd-p1125.html This is similar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz9L2EYjjsc

[vladimir998]

“That’s Rome’s invention based largely on a misunderstanding of the 6th chapter of John.”

Then why do Protestants such as Lutherans and Anglicans have the same “misunderstanding” yet believe in multiple Protestant doctrines? Why do all - that’s ALL - of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox from Ethiopia to China have the same “misunderstanding”? I don’t think you know nearly as much as you think you know.

“The Roman mass is what happens when adherents of a religion take Scripture out-of-context.”

So you’re also saying that Anglicans and Lutherans have also taken it out of context? If major doctrine creating groups in Protestantism are - according to your own Protestant standard - mistaken about the Bible in such an important way, then how can any Protestant group be trusted with anything in scripture?

[Not gonna take it anymore]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3160008/posts

How a Protestant spin machine hid the truth about the English Reformation

[GeronL]

Yet another Protestant bashing article?

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

It is ahorrent to God to eat flesh and to drink blood. It is forbidden.

Transubstantiation makes zero sense. Wine cannot become blood and bread cannot become flesh.

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

I’m no longer a Christian so what the “New” Testament says has no meaning to me.

God’s Torah came 2,000 years before the “New” Testament and it applies for ETERNITY. Nothing is to be changed and nothing is to be added.

His Law is PERFECT and ETERNAL.

[.45 Long Colt]

Isn’t that a distinction without a difference? And if it’s not a sacrifice, why call it a bloodless sacrifice?

[vladimir998]

“Isn’t that a distinction without a difference?”

No. It would be if we were not presenting entirely different ideas - but we are.

“And if it’s not a sacrifice, why call it a bloodless sacrifice?”

It is a re-presentation of a sacrifice. It just isn’t a further sacrifice. It is called bloodless because that is what it is - bloodless - except for those rare occasions when God has chosen to bolster the faith of specific doubters. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

[Old Yeller]

But I don’t think they believe in the Real Presence, as in the bread and wine actually becoming the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus.

You're correct. Transubstantiation is a Catholic thing. Christians know that God is omnipresent.

[Old Yeller]

Nicodemus reminds me of most Catholics.

John 3:1-15

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d]

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[e] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”[g]

[.45 Long Colt]

I can’t speak for Lutherans and Anglicans and certainly not the Orthodox. However, based on God’s Word I believe they are wrong as well.

The Bible says: “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:14)

Any belief shared by ALL or a majority of religionists should be carefully examined in light of the Word. The Enemy is a deceiver and the father of lies. He often works through subtle deception in the arena of religion. We should never seek affirmation of our beliefs from a group. We should be Bereans (Acts 17) and work to verify that what we have been taught is so.

As for you doubting what I know...1 Corinthians 4:3

[vladimir998]

“I can’t speak for Lutherans and Anglicans and certainly not the Orthodox. However, based on God’s Word I believe they are wrong as well.”

Okay, so many of the world’s oldest Christian groups have always been wrong you’re saying? And this is really not based on God’s Word so much as your own opinion of God’s Word, correct? After all, so many stand against you and they probably know the Bible far better than you probably ever will. In any case, what we see is that Protestants - preaching sola scriptura - still can’t agree on even the most basic of teachings. And in the end, clearly, sola scriptura is nothing but Protestant opinions on God’s Word rather than what God’s Word really says.

[af_vet_1981]

The Romans didn’t execute common criminals by that method. Crucifixion was reserved for crimes against Rome. So it is highly unlikely that Jesus was flanked on Cavalry by thieves. You know, I suppose I could have been charged with heresy and burned for saying such things not too very long ago, or at least flogged. But that was then and this is now. Today, you may not have enough self-respect to control yourself by not making outlandish statements—such as that Welch’s grape juice and unsalted crackers actually become flesh & blood—but if you do, you’ve got to expect to be called on it by those of us who do have some respect for ourselves and the truth.

Are you arguing for a better English word to use for the Greek words given or denying the Gospels ? And if you don't have the faith to believe the Gospels, why should anyone listen to you about what Jesus told us in the Gospels ?

Matthew and Mark use 3027 lēstḗs – a thief ("robber"), stealing out in the open (typically with violence). 3027 /lēstḗs ("a bandit, briard") is a thief who also plunders and pillages – an unscrupulous marauder (malefactor), exploiting the vulnerable without hesitating to use violence.

Luke uses 2557 kakoúrgos (from 2556 /kakós, "a malignant disposition") – "a malefactor; a technical word implying criminality. William Ramsay noted this term "marks exactly the tone of the Neronian period, and . . . refers expressly to the flagitia, for which the Christians were condemned under Nero, and for which they were no longer condemned in ad 112" (WS).

John uses both words when discussing Jesus being subject to crucifixion and the release of Barabbas from crucifixion.

• Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
• And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
• And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
• And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
• They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
• Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
• Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

[.45 Long Colt]

Believe as you will, FRiend. My family is about to leave town, so I’m not going to keep responding. I urge you to be a Berean and make sure you know what the Bible really teaches for yourself. You will stand in judgment alone. Popes and priests won’t be able to do a thing to help you at the Judgment. Don’t be one of the vast majority who will one day find out after it’s too late that they were led astray.

Please make sure you know THE Gospel. There is only one saving gospel that Paul referred to as the “power of God unto salvation.” (Romans 1:16)

The Gospel Defined and Discerned
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=81901181950

Unmasking the False Gospel
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1010665821

[vladimir998]

I know THE Gospel. It’s not Protestantism.

[.45 Long Colt]

Proverbs 18:13

[dmz]

Perhaps so, but that’s not how I learned it back when I was a episcopalian youngster - admittedly a long time ago.