Can there be salvation?

I have been doing some private arguments and justifications with my once philosophy teacher, who happens to be a Protestant pastor. He tells me all justification should be found in the Bible Itself alone, that you do not need any institution to tell you what is right and wrong. Furthermore, he tells me that "the church did have the written scriptures from the beginning in the form of the Old Testament and within one generation the letters of the NT were circulating. To try and discredit the scriptures and make it sound like we need the Catholic Church to fill in what you claim is missing is out and out heresy. II Timothy 3:16-17 clearly states **“**All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Anything the church does, be it Catholic or any other must work in light of scripture and in unison with scripture, not to add to scripture with “tradition” that adds various doctrines that directly contradict scripture.
I honestly believe you need the Catholic Church for truth and salvation. How do I tell it in terms that Protestant could undestand? How can I justify ‘Tradition’ to a Protestant? Can there be salvation for a fervent Protestant who contradicts and condemns the Catholic Church by arguments, writings, and teachings? It was blasphemous for me even to read his chronicles condeming the teachings of the Church. Nevertheless, his intentions were not that ‘to destroy the Catholic Church.’ Can this be justified?

Here are a couple of tracts from Catholic Answers:
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp
Yes, there can be salvation for one who condemns the Catholic Church, provided that they really don’t know that they’re wrong.

Ask him what the pillar and foundation of truth is.

John

[quote=Lovez4God] II Timothy 3:16-17 clearly states **“**All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
[/quote]

So, he believes in a salvation by good works?

What it does not say is that Scripture Alone is all that is necessary. It says all Scriputure is inspired and profitable. . . . ., Not that it is all that is needed.

God bless.

[quote=Ignatius]So, he believes in a salvation by good works?

[/quote]

Yes, that would seem to be the argument. I’m surprised any protestant would get anywhere near that verse for that reason alone.

Hi Lovez4God

My Comment: This pastor quotes 2 Tim 3:16-17 but overlooks 2 Thess 2:14(15) which says, " Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the TRADITIONS which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." Tradition means both oral & written. Here’s a couple more: II Thess 3:6 " …that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the TRADITION which they have received from us." I Cor 11:2 " Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances (TRADITIONS) as I have delivered them to you." Ordinances oral and written. I Cor 5:9 " I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators." Paul’s earlier letter, which there is no record of, was just as binding as I Corinthians was. Col 4:16 “And when this epistle shall have been read with you, cause that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans: and that you read that which is of the Laodiceans.” Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans was just as binding. There is no record of this epistle. I Cor 4:16-17 " Wherefore, I beseech you , be ye followers of me, as I am also of Christ. For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful to the Lord; who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus; as I teach everywhere in every church." Timothy teaches the same as Paul. Timothy passed on the same faith. How? Orally. Timothy’s faith was binding. II Thess 2:1-12 V2-3 " That you be not easily moved from your sense…nor be terrified neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us…Let no man deceive you by any means for unless there come a revolt first…" Do not be deceived by false teachers. The “Revolt” spoken of here is the revolt against the true church. The way not to be deceived is to hold to “Both” Traditions. I Pet 1:25 " But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word by which the gospel hath been preached unto you." “Oral” word of God lasts forever – not just until the Apostles die. (Remember that 9 of the Apostles wrote nothing in the New Testament. They started churches and orally preached.)

The first book of the New Testament wasn’t written until around 49ad – the Book of Galations. This was 16 years after Christ’s Death and Ressurrection. The Church functioned during this time through ORAL TRADITION. The last book wasn’t written until around 90-100ad – The Book of Revelation. The first set wasn’t in existence until after the Church was spread throughout the whole known world.

There are approximately 33,000 Christian denominations and they mostly claim “Scripture Alone” yet they disagree on many of the most important doctrines which they say they get from Scripture. There is no unity of belief from Scripture alone.

May God bless,

James224

Hi Lovez___,

Your friend professor’s statement are par for the course. Presenting arguments will not change his mind.

Protestants are stuck in a Catch 22 situation. They have to use the Bible to prove the Bible; this assumes the conclusion that the Bible is the word of God. In reality, they accept it on the word of their parents of favorite teacher. Doing this, they take a step toward the Catholilc position, namely that we must accept the Bible on “human” authority, but not any human authority – a human authority that has God’s warranty. This is the Church founded by Christ, namely, the Catholic Church.

And why do we accept the Catholic Church? From the witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ who have succeeded one another for the last 65 generations or so. An unbroken chain for us, a broken chain for Protestants who set themselves adrift in the 16th century.

Verbum

First off no Church doctrine has ever contradicted scriptures, and no Church doctrine ever will. It is the policy of the Chruch to miticulously review any proposed doctrine in light of scriptures to make sure that it is consistent with scriptures.

Second, IF the Bible is as inviolate as your professor says, why did the Protestants remove books from the Bible, including several books from the Old Testament.

Third, it was the Catholic Chruch who determined which books to include in the Bible to begin with. There were, I think, over 130 works to be considered. Some of these were incomplete, some of them contradicted others. Although letters and books may have been distributed not all were considered inspired work from God, the Church had to determined which should be included and which to leave out.

Fourth, The Bible itself says to hold onto sacred traditions. While scriptures contains all that is sufficient to obtain salvation (as Mary mentions at Medjugore) it is not the only source for our faith. We need the Church to prevent the mass confusion when everyone has their own interpretation.

Hilter used his own interpretation of the Bible to try to exterminate the Jews. He claimed it was Biblical, the Church told him it was not. I’d much rather take the Church’s interpretation over any one individuals.

wc

*“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” *
**
It is interesting to note that why there are passages in the Bible saying that Scripture is “profitable for teaching” etc, there are no passages that say Scripture should be sufficient/the only basis of Church teaching.

[quote=VociMike]Yes, that would seem to be the argument. I’m surprised any protestant would get anywhere near that verse for that reason alone.
[/quote]

I see we don’t have an answer from Loves4God yet. Could he be one of those um . . . . , what is the term for people who give false profile information in order to deceive?

If he is going to play verses with you, scripturecatholic.com is usually a good reference :slight_smile:

I am sure the links already given to you will reference the Scripture that shows his fundamental premise is wrong: “He tells me all justification should be found in the Bible Itself alone, that you do not need any institution to tell you what is right and wrong.” - that is not what the Bible says at all!

Give a holler if you need some help tracking down verse…

Please forgive me if I reply late. I am new to the forums,very new. I would like to thank all of you for your thorough works with very unique individualities and perspectives. I am honored to be in a Church with so many geniuses.
First, I believe he disagrees with the Catholic Church on the main ground that there are too many manmade doctrines. That it continues to validate more and more doctrines each time in history. I suppose he finds that very contradictory with the essence of eternal biblical truth. Him being a Protestant pastor, I could understand his side of the view.
Second, he believes the truth of salvation in very light-hearted way. That the teachings of the Church about sins is obscured and confusing "whole new list of other words will have to be learned, defined, and understood before the evangelical can fully grasp how a Catholic is taught his sins (and the penalty due them) can be canceled out."
Now he takes the bible to define sin. "Bible makes no distinction between mortal and venial sins. There is in fact, no such thing as a venial sin. ALL SIN IS MORTAL! It is true that some sins are worse than others, but it is also true that all sins if not forgiven bring death to the soul. The Bible simply says: “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). And Ezekiel says: “The soul that sinneth,. it shall die” (18:4). James says that “whosoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” (2:10). He meant, not that the person who commits one sin is guilty of all other kinds of sin, but that even one sin unatoned for, shuts a person completely out of heaven and subjects him to punishment, just as surely as one misstep by the mountain climber plunges him to destruction in the canyon below. In the light of these biblical statements, the distinction between mortal and venial sins is shown to be completely absurd. In fact, the very act of classifying sins into “greater and lesser” is immoral in itself. We know how quick human nature is to grasp at any excuse for sin. Rome seems to be saying “these sins are really bad! But those? Well . . . you can get away with a few of them and not really suffer too much”. Speaking of “getting away” with something, let’s get right down to how Rome teaches you can “get rid of” your sins."
These quotes are from his chronicles. I have alot more topics from his chronicles, but due to the big volume that it is, we’ll just have to do with this for now. Having said that, he replies " In reality, the Roman Catholic traditions are authoritative and the Bible certainly takes a back seat."
So all I really need are proofs from the Bible on the authority of the Catholic Church. I don’t believe he’ll trust history. But only the Bible itself. Again, thank you for all of your works. I really enjoy reading all of them. Some of them are very well done. thanks…

[quote=wcknight]First off no Church doctrine has ever contradicted scriptures, and no Church doctrine ever will. It is the policy of the Chruch to miticulously review any proposed doctrine in light of scriptures to make sure that it is consistent with scriptures.

Second, IF the Bible is as inviolate as your professor says, why did the Protestants remove books from the Bible, including several books from the Old Testament.

Third, it was the Catholic Chruch who determined which books to include in the Bible to begin with. There were, I think, over 130 works to be considered. Some of these were incomplete, some of them contradicted others. Although letters and books may have been distributed not all were considered inspired work from God, the Church had to determined which should be included and which to leave out.

Fourth, The Bible itself says to hold onto sacred traditions. While scriptures contains all that is sufficient to obtain salvation (as Mary mentions at Medjugore) it is not the only source for our faith. We need the Church to prevent the mass confusion when everyone has their own interpretation.

Hilter used his own interpretation of the Bible to try to exterminate the Jews. He claimed it was Biblical, the Church told him it was not. I’d much rather take the Church’s interpretation over any one individuals.

wc
[/quote]


READ THIS AGAIN - IT IS TRUE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.

[quote=Lovez4God] I don’t believe he’ll trust history. But only the Bible itself. Again, thank you for all of your works. I really enjoy reading all of them. Some of them are very well done. thanks…
[/quote]

Where in the Bible does it say that all authority is in the Blble?
Or does it?

God Bless.

There are verses like Rev 22:18-19 when taken literally are the basis of people saying only the Bible WOrds count:

18 I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.%between% %between%
But then, you can view other verses literally which contradict - which is why they all have to be taken together in context. FOr example, in John 21:25 John says:

[left] 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [/left]

%between% %between%

  • so wouldn’t you want that passed on as well? Would you want the life of the greatest Human that ever lived on the earth only discussed in context of a couple of hundred pages in a book, when this passage would imply there was so much more? How did Jesus feel about this?

Well, check out Matthew 28:20 among other verses:
[left]19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
[/left]

[left]- notice He says teach them all I have commanded you, He does not say teach them all that you have written down in Scripture (which the NT didn’t exist then anyway).
[/left]

[left]Wait a second - if the NT didn’t exist yet when Jesus was in His post-ressurection days with the Apostles, and prior, then what He commanded them to teach had NOTHING to do with the Bible! The Bible was inspired Word of God that did not CONTRADICT this prior commandment, it complemented it!!
[/left]

%between% %between%

Lovez4God,

While inspired, the Bible was written with human words, which do not carry meaning like numbers and mathematical symbols.

Therefore, to read the Bible as though it does frequently entails error.

An additional consequence of the way the Bible had to be written, because of the non-mathematical nature of human language, is that the Bible is filled with verses characterized by apparent contradiction. In other words, when a Protestant Bible-pounder pounds on a particular verse, and imposes on that verse a seemingly strikingly clear radical meaning to prove his particular non-Catholic or anti-Catholic doctrine, it is usually not hard to find another verse which seems to squarely contradict the radical meaning imposed by the Protestant Bible pounder.

In this case, your teacher used this verse,

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17,

(ironically, a works verse!) to suggest that Scripture is “perfectly perfect” and “completely complete,” so that Catholic Tradition would be at most a dangerous redundancy, right?

Okay, then why does Jesus, in His Eschatalogical (“end-of-the-world”) Homily, talk about the Holy Ghost personally inspiring His Apostles after the gospel has been preached to all of the world (in other words, after the Biblical Canon has been closed)???

13:9* But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. cb(13,10);13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations. cb(13,11);13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost. Mark 13:9-11.*
**
What is the matter with Scripture? How come it did not equip these future Apostles, functioning after the Gospel has been “published among all nations,” “for every good work”?

The truth is that “every” in 2 Timothy 3:17 doesn’t mean “every.” Your Protestant teacher is unjustifiably radicalizing the meaning to smear Catholic theology.

In the end, the reason for the inspired teaching authority underlying Tradition is that Original Sin, activated by the refusal to befriend God and accept His grace, rears its ugly head in every single generation, crushing the truth, confusing folks, destroying faith, deceiving souls into Hellfire. When Christ created the Church, He created something that with the inspiration of the Spirit, will fight the good fight even to the end of time, on all fronts.

I still want an answer to the question:

Where in the Bible does it say that all authority is in the Blble?

[quote=Lovez4God]I have been doing some private arguments and justifications with my once philosophy teacher, who happens to be a Protestant pastor. He tells me all justification should be found in the Bible Itself alone, that you do not need any institution to tell you what is right and wrong.
[/quote]

Assuming the premise was true, which its not, the question still becomes, “who has the right to interpret the bible”? Calvnists, Armenians, Baptist, Anglicans, or Presbyterian? They all say different things, for instance, about whether justification is once for all. If there is such a thing as objective truth, then there is but one correct interpretation. Therefore, all but one are wrong. Who has the right one?

Originally Posted by Ignatius
I still want an answer to the question:

Quote:
Where in the Bible does it say that all authority is in the Blble?

I afraid you don’t understand what I’m trying to get across here. It is not me you’re trying to convert; I am only trying to get some knowledge and tips as to how I can make a protestant agree with the teachings of the Church. Whether it is by teachings of the Catholic Church or within the Bible. In order for us, Catholics, to convert hearts we must go into the mindset of other Christian denominations and express our thoughts in terms that they could understand.For we have the truth faith, we are entrusted with more duty.
In Christ:blessyou:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.