True believers vs partial believers. Can the "SAVED" be saved?


#1

In Mark 16:16, our Lord tells us: “whoever believes, and is baptized, will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”. However, in this statement there is a hidden question – “What exactly are we to believe”? if we go to the end of Matthew’s gospel our Lord is quite specific, and tells us that we are to believe everything - everything He taught the Apostles. “Then Jesus said, “All authority … teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you… (Matthew 28:18-20, and Mark 16:15).

If the apostles were commanded to teach us everything, then it is reasonable to expect that we are to believe everything they proclaim to us, Christ made it clear that we are to listen to them. He said: “He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you,… (Luke 10:16; Matt. 10:40)

From the foregoing discussion we see that to be saved we must believe everything that Christ taught. Consider some things Protestants do not believe. They do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (John 6: 40-59; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29), they reject five of the seven sacraments that Christ instituted, including confession (forgiveness) of sins in the manner Christ prescribed (John 20: 19-23, and 2 Corinthians 5:18-12). They do not believe in Purgatory, even though Purgatory is well documented in both the Old and New Testament… etc. While they may claim to be believers, in reality they are only partial believers.

In general, Protestantism is based on numerous violations of scripture. For example, private interpretation of scripture is one of the principle tenets of Protestantism, but the Bible condemns such private interpretation. See: 2 Pet 1:20; 2 Peter 3:15-16. Also see: 2 Thessalonians 2:15; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 1:9-11; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Timothy 4:3-4; Revelation 22:19, and Deuteronomy 4:2, and Proverbs 30:6; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 1:9-11; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

Objectively speaking, it appears that these non-believing “believers” will not be saved (Matthew 7:13-14). Notice I said objectively speaking. In the end, only God knows what a person understands. Most Protestants believe what they believe, because this is what they have been told, or taught all their life, and they have never made an in-depth study of scripture to verify the correctness of what they have been taught. So they may not be totally responsible for the errors they believe.

In any case, I would ask the following question. “Why take a chance on a man-made church, a man-made system of theology that for the last 500 years (from the time of Martin Luther) has produced one error upon another, an accumulation of hundreds of errors that has splintered into thousands of Protestant churches, teaching ideas that were never taught by the early church, or the apostles” (Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 1:9-11; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Timothy 4:3-4)?

If we are to be saved, we must accept all of Christ’s teachings, not just the ones we like. We cannot be cafeteria Christians – picking and choosing what we will believe or not believe. We cannot be Burger King Christians – having it our way. The last thing we should want to do, is leave this life singing “I Did It My Way”.


#2

Your entire post is built on the assumption that Catholic bishops are the successors to the Apostles and that it is they, not the Apostles, that we are to “believe everything they proclaim to us.” It’s a perfectly legitimate argument to make, namely Jesus gave teaching authority to Apostles who then passed said authority down the line of Catholic bishops so that today the only legitimate Christian authorities are those bishops who happen to be in communion with Rome. Protestants, however, will not share your assumptions.

So, when you ask Protestants why they take a chance on “a man-made church” and theology, the obvious reply is that the Catholic Church has been on a centuries old project of institutional and theological “development” that shows no sign of stopping anytime soon. I’m not sure how any institutional church or denomination can escape the accusation of being “man-made” since institutions are by definition created by people, as are theological systems, by the way.

Therefore, the supposed difference you see between the Catholic Church and other Christian churches are not as apparent as you may think. Just as Catholics choose to join/remain within the Catholic Church because they are convinced that its truth claims are justified, Protestants choose to join/remain within their churches because they are convinced that those churches’ teachings are truer than Catholicism.

For anyone truly concerned with their immortal soul, it has very little to do with “having it your way.” If Protestants wanted to have it our way, we wouldn’t have any religion at all or we’d go full on Unitarian Universalist and adopt their “build-a-bear” approach to religion.


#3

Dear Itwin,

First error - “Your entire post is built on the assumption that Catholic bishops are the successors to the Apostles” – Not true - The Catholic bishops are the successors to the Apostles. Apostolic Succession is not an assumption, but a scriptural fact! “The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach”.

For the complete article, see: https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession

Your basic error is in your statement; “the Catholic Church has been on a centuries old project of institutional and theological “development” that shows no sign of stopping anytime soon”.

For 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has always taught the same unchanging truths of Christ, from the time of the apostles till today - free from error as Christ promised - “And know that I am with you always, even to the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20). Also see Matthew 16:18.To suggest otherwise, is historically inaccurate, illogical, and scripturally incorrect.

The teaching authority of the Catholic Church is known as the Magisterium, and consists of all the bishops in union with the Pope, and this authority comes directly form Christ (Matt. 16:19; and Matt 18:18). The Catholic Church will never teach error, because Christ will not allow it to do so.

“Protestants choose to join/remain within their churches because they are convinced that those churches’ teachings are truer than Catholicism”. However, a close examination of those teachings would show that they are unscriptural. Remember that most Protestant beliefs are based on private interpretation of scripture (every Protestant is his own pope), a practice that scripture condemns (2 Peter 1:20, and 3:16-18). If you back at the teachings of the early church fathers, you would see that today’s Protestant beliefs, are nowhere to be found.

I once heard a sermon, which has some bearing on the topic we are discussing here. In regards to the pastor’s concluding statement, I have often wondered as to how many people it would apply to. Perhaps it would be good if we all asked ourselves to what extent his words apply to us! He said “In the end, they will be condemned, not because of what they didn’t know, but because of what they should have known, could have known, but choose not to know”.

You might find the following interview interesting, as it can shed much light on the above discussion. Dr. Anders was a Presbyterian historian who did his Ph.D. in Reformation history. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5NT32Y-Mrk


#4

Yes there are man made churches.
But they are not spiritually inspired by the holy spirit.
Its like the Elke’s club.
I like the spiritually inspired by the holy spirit.
That is so false and funny when someone says .
They are their own Pope.
Christianity is all about a personal relationship. By the anointing and revelation of the holy spirit.
That’s what “saved” is all about.

Jesus said . you will receive the holy spirit.
Not .only one person that you have to believe.
Pentecostals have a lot going for themselves


#5

The real problem on who can be saved and who cant is really all based on interpretation, if you are at the top of the pyramid, and you have the resources, connections, money or what have you, and you come up with a group of people who thusly interpret sacred scripture a certain way then ipsofacto only certain people are going to be saved.

The only honest answer is only God determines who is saved, and who isn’t , who goes to hell, and who goes to heaven. no one else. The church can write 4 novels detailing who goes to heaven and who goes to hell and why, and the church would still be superceded by God and his choice / decision. An there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell after God has ruled.

Doesnt mean that the church isnt correct about what is a sin and what isnt, and that doesnt mean we cant pray for the souls of the departed , because we can. but to debate endlessly about who is " saved " and " who isnt saved " based on interpretation I find to be devisive an merely a way for one religion to point at the other and say ah ha ! we are right you are wrong !


#6

Dear HS1,

Your last sentence makes it sound like you are saying that one religion is a s good as another. There is only one right (true) church, and that is the Roman Catholic Church. She alone has the fullness of Christ’s teachings. Remember, all Protestantism is a heresy. The main point of my post is that it is better to follow Christ’s Church, than a man-made heretical one.

zeland.


#7

That’s why half the threads on this site don’t work from the start and just cannot go anywhere. The whole assumption thing and then the poster just goes on as if that is a done deal. Itwin told you your entire post is based on this assumption. You can’t just go and say he is wrong and it is a fact. No actual discussion can actually take place if the underlying premise if the actual point isn’t agreed upon.

Just a reminder.


#8

???

What point are you trying to make? I said “Apostolic Succession is not an assumption, but a scriptural fact” Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
zeland


#9

I don’t really see that I am “trying” to do anything.

Just pointing out that assumptions are quite a problem in this part of CAF.

In other words, do not go and just assume things. Especially when people are pointing this out! Do not go and just use a premise not agreed on as a “source” of whatever you are saying.

Other than that I have no idea how to be more clear?

Regards


#10


#11

Your introductory paragraph is already problematic. “Baptize” comes from the greek “baptizo” meaning “to immerse”. Catholics “baptize” by either immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. So, already here’s an instance of the RCC not following the Lord.

Agree.

Let’s look at Biblical teachings that the RCC does not follow in addition to invalid baptism.

  1. The Bible teaches us to pray in the name of the Son only. Catholics pray in the name of the father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (John 14:13, John 16:23, and others)

  2. unmarried bishops (1 Tim 3:2)

  3. infants inherit original sin (2 Kings 14:6, Ezekiel 18:20)

  4. confirmation performed with a single hand (Acts 19:6)

  5. not requiring both bread and wine for communion (Mt 26:26, 27)

  6. incorrect organization - Ephesians 4:11-13 says “And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ

Clearly apostles were meant to continue in the Church “until we all attain a unity of faith” which has not yet happened. The RCC is run by bishops, not apostles.

As is the RCC…

Continued…


#12

The same goes for Catholics…

And why take a chance with the doctrinal errors in the Catholic Church?

Agree.


#13

Dear gazelam,

Perhaps true, but Catholics were taught the truth, not error initially.

“And why take a chance with the doctrinal errors in the Catholic Church?”

There are no doctrinal errors in the Catholic Church, otherwise Christ was not true to his word to preserve His Church from teaching error. Your statement is illogical, historically inaccurate, and un-scriptural. Show me an example of what you claim to be a doctrinal error?

zeland


#14

If you study the early church, you would see that all three forms of baptism were used. How do you immerse someone in a desert where there is only a cup of water available for baptism. For a complete discussion of this topic, see the link below.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/baptism-immersion-only

All of your objections are based on your incorrect, private interpretation of scripture. YES, the teachings of the Catholic Church will always disagree with incorrect, private interpretations of scripture.

Why do you claim to accept the authority of the Bible, and yet reject the authority of the Church that gave you the Bible? If the Catholic Church is wrong (in error), then the Bible is wrong (in error). A flawed Church can not produce an error free Bible…

Just out of curiosity, are you a Catholic or protestant?

zeland


#15

It is written, “If anyone thinks he is secure, he should take care not to fall.” That said, God judges justly, according to the measure of Truth the person has known.


#16

I liked the approach you used.
So what do you think of the SDA soul sleep doctrine ?
The scripture teaching is very convincing!

so is it the “build-a-bear” unification. Church?
I


#17

Basically @Zeland , read this again and then rethink your assumption approach!


#18

Okay. I found this. You do realise this is maybe the uttermost (maybe that is not an actual word but I really hope you get my point) example that can and does get used by ALL sides.


#19

Dear Harryguy,

I am not familiar with the SDA doctrine> Can you explain it.

What is the “build-a-bear” unification. Church?

Thanks.

Zeland


#20

That is yet ANOTHER one of your “assumption errors”. Have you ever wondered why a Protestant does not argue with those first Ecumenical councils?

In all honesty, I am really questioning your knowledge concerning any early Christian belief.

Please help me out @Itwin. You can help.


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.