Great article that delves into some major differences into how Catholics and Protestants understand salvation...

The entire article is at http://cathvprot.blogspot.com/



The classical Protestant position, still articulated in some form by Evangelicals can be summarized by an acronym: TULIP

Tulip stands for the following:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

Let's look at these fundamental principles doing a compare and contrast for clarification.

Total Depravity

PROTESTANT VIEW: Rom 5:12 says that all people are sinners. Protestants believe that the works of humanity are totally depraved, and even good works are performed with impure motives. We are sinners to the core, incapable of salvation on our own. We each deserve eternal damnation under the law of justice. So deep is our sin that Luther described the human condition after salvation as dung covered in snow. In our fall into sin, Protestants see the image of God as a shattered mirror. Protestants believe that the world is deeply effected by sin, and salvation occurs solus Chistri, or in Christ alone. Protestants are Christo-monic.

CATHOLIC VIEW: Catholics believe in original sin as well as Protestants. However, Catholics focus much more on the Biblical language of humanity as the image of God (Gen 1:26). Even after the fall, Catholics believe that some inherent goodness adheres to the human soul. Rather than dung covered in snow, Catholics see the human person as a weakened rose bud under a pile of dung. Rather than a shattered mirror, Catholics see the human person as a warped mirror. Original sin effects everyone, but not quite to the depth of depravity described by Protestants. This is why Catholicism is so much more "worldly" and almost "pagan" (smells and bells) compared to the starkness of the Protestant experience. Catholics believe the world is effected by sin, but basically good. Rather than being Christo-monic, Catholics are Christo-centric.

Unconditional Election

PROTESTANT VIEW: Rom 9:15-18. God condescended to take on human flesh and live the perfect life on our behalf. He bore the penalty that we all deserve on the cross, effecting the complete remission of sins for all who believe. The grace of God is completely unmerited, and the act of atonement is offered to us as an absolutely free gift. So why do some people reject this free gift?

CATHOLIC VIEW: James 2:17 says faith without works is dead. Catholics believe that initial justification is unconditional, and ultimately God's love is unconditional. However, Catholics also emphasize that with the call comes the responsibility to respond. Even if this response is made easier by grace, it is the human person cooperating with God, though God initiates and completes the work. Indeed, Catholics also point out that in the experience of many people, though we know in faith that God is the one doing the work, it feels like we do almost everything. Rather than beating people up for feeling this way, Catholics simply acknowledge that the human person does play a role in working out their own salvation.

Limited Atonement

PROTESTANT VIEW: Protestants believe that election is God's calling to salvation, and while it is a free gift to those who receive it, it may not even be offered to those who would reject it. The gift is not offered to everyone, but only to those who confess the lordship of Christ. John 10:12 calls those trying to get into the kingdom without going through the gate "wolves".

CATHOLIC VIEW: Catholics focus on several passages of the Bible such as 1 Tim 2:4 that state that God desires the salvation of all people. Catholics see the unconditional election or intial call of God to salvation as something offered to every living person. Even those who may never hear the name of Christ are offered enough grace in an ineffable way that salvation becomes a possibility.

Irresistible Grace

PROTESTANT VIEW: 1 John 4:18 states that perfect love drives out all fear. Protestants see it as a denial of faith to believe that one can lose the gift of salvation. Protestants are fond of a saying that God's trees are evergreen. By this is meant that once a person is saved, they cannot lose their salvation. For the believer, the attraction of grace is irresistible. Faith is trusting that the one who died for you will bring his work to completion. Faith is the act of believing that you are saved based on the promises of Christ despite all other evidence to the contrary.

CATHOLIC VIEW: Catholics believe that grace is God's life in the heart of the believer. Yet, if a person commits sin, we know that God cannot co-exist with sin. According to 1 John 5:16 some sins are called deadly sins (mortal sin). Catholics believe that a person can sin after initial justification in such a way that God's life is driven out of the soul. Even in this situation, Catholics believe that the gift of faith continues to linger in the soul making the re-entry of grace possible through the sacramental system. However, as long as one is alive, it is possible to choose against God and stop the salvation process.

Perseverance of the Saints

PROTESTANT VIEW: The notion of the perseverence of the saints flows from the notion of irresistible grace. You must know that you are saved with absolute assurance, even when you fall into sin or encounter any outward hardship. The believer will repent of sin and do good works as a result of God's irresistible grace and in thanksgiving for what Christ has already done. However, the works of repentance are not what saves one. Rather, they are the result of having already been saved. John 10:28 says that none of Christ's own will be snatched from his hand.

Justification is forensic, rather than intrinsic. A foreign righteousness is credited to our account. This is an imputed righteousness, whereby our sins are covered in Christ's blood. When God the Father looks on the sinner who is saved by Christ, he sees the perfection of Christ.

Grace is God's favor on the believer, but has no ontological or intrinsic effect in the sinner, who remains a sinner before, during and after salvation. The gift of salvation is granted as a free gift by God's own volition, and there is a sense in which all believers were predestined to salvation, though Protestants will argue amongst one another about just how much free will plays in the process.

CATHOLIC VIEW: From the divine perspective, God knows exactly who will be saved. However, in the temporal sphere, we work out our salvation, sometimes in fear and trembling, as a process (Philippians 2:12). Catholics do not believe that it is a sign of a lack of faith to question your own salvation. Indeed, since self-righteousness and presumption are so often condemned in Scripture, Catholics see it as a sign of humility and spiritual maturity to leave even your own personal salvation in the hands of God without knowing that you are saved. To a Catholic, perseverance expresses itself through doing the works of grace even when you do not necessarily feel it and are not particularly sure of yourself.

Hmmm....I think your brush is far too broad!

My problems with the Catholic church are 1) the belief that the Pope is infallible; 2) the belief that if a priest at the local church decides that I am damned then I will be damned; 3) the belief that Mary will intervene on my behalf with God.

The other stuff is much more grey. Many protestants argue between the "grace alone" versus "grace plus works" positions, etc.

on #3, why can't Mary intervene on your behalf?

Concerning your points - A Catholic priest has the power given him by Jesus to bind and loose. A priest does not decide that someone is damned, as that would be judgemental. He can refuse absolution to an unrepentant sinner in the confessional, and he can withhold the Eucharist from a public sinner during Communion. In fact, he has to, otherwise he wouldn't be doing his duty.

The Pope is only considered infallible when he is speaking ex-cathedra, or from the chair. That has only happened 2 or 3 times in all of the papacy, I believe.

Mary's soul magnifies the Lord. God is not the God of the dead, but of the Living. We are surrounded by a crowd of witnesses. What do witnesses do? They testify on someone's behalf to a judge. This would include Mary, the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12, and the woman at enmity with the devil in Genesis 3:15.

BMX, I don't see the need for her to intervene on my behalf.

Jesus himself said that John the Baptist was the greatest of all men prior to Him. I don't pray to John to intervene on my behalf. I don't pray to Moses to intervene on my behalf.

I pray directly to my Father and in the name of Jesus Christ! Why would I do otherwise??

have you ever asked another person to pray for you?

True. Good point.

I'm glad everyone fits into such nice cute boxes...

Sorry, but this difference only covers the Calvinist portion of Protestantism.

Well that would be the classical Protestant position.

Calvinists are a small minority in Protestantism.

Texasag73,

Do you recall my posting this link to you last year?
It seems like they kind of ripped of Akin a bit.


http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

t73, the prot/cath comparison is simply inaccurate in places. I used to be an Assembly of God minister, and as a denomination, they have as much in common with your Catholic take in many areas as they do with the protestant take.

Many Baptist don't even know what irresistable grace is. Assembly of God don't believe in it, and neither do the Church of Christ. It looks like this comparison is between Calvinism and the Catholic church. But you have some other major theologians influencing protestant thought.

Lone Stranger is correct: this is a Calvinist v. Catholic comparison. America is full of non-Calvinist Protestants today. This would have been a complete comparison 300 years ago, yet the Protestant schism which started half a century ago has continued to splinter, resulting in what we see today. Today's Protestant is not the same as tomorrow's. This illustrates one of the great qualities of the Universal (Catholic) Church: it's unwillingness to devolve.

Is it significant that there is such strong disagreement among honest, smart Protestants about fundamental theological matters, all using the same Bible?

quote:

---

Well that would be the classical Protestant position.

---

No, it would not be the classical Protestant position. If one really wanted to discuss the classical position between Catholics and Protestants, then use the various "sola" points. Using a Reformed teaching called TULIP, which appeared 200 years or so after the break between Rome and Luther/Zwingli/Luther/others, as the all encompassing blanket for Protestants does disservice to the early Lutherans and Anabaptists (let alone the organized free-will groups, pentacostal, and others that came later).

The original comment(s) about the differences is a syllogism.

quote:

---

Is it significant that there is such strong disagreement among honest, smart Protestants about fundamental theological matters, all using the same Bible?

---

Bait material for a pounce?

EDIT - I do not have my books with me, so the 200 years stated above really may be in the ballpark of 100-150 years. Regardless, TULIP became instutionalized well after the break between the early Reformers and the Roman Church. That is the gist of my comment.

[This message has been edited by Ft Worth Ag (edited 1/4/2006 9:47a).]

[This message has been edited by Ft Worth Ag (edited 1/4/2006 9:51a).]

Redstone raises a legitimate question as to the signficance of the disagreement among Protestants and I assume Catholics. When I was in school in the late 50's I took 6 hours of religion classes at the Baptist Student Union (3 hrs. on the New Testament, 2 hrs. on the life of Christ and 1 hr. on the book of Revelation) under Dr. Arthur Smith (a good man). I was recruited that following summer to sell family bibles and other books by the Southwestern Publishing Company who used exclusively college students to do this. My fellow students who recruited me were Church of Christ boys who believed that if you did not belong to their Church, then do not pass Go or collect $200. My roommate that first summer was Catholic whose Church at the time also declared that if you were not a member of their church you were big time lost. I wondered who was right. Upon graduation I went to work for IBM in sales in Hattiesburg, Miss. and after a few years came into contact for the first time with missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Although I admired their dedication and sincerety I figured I could show them the error of their ways and send them on their way. Boy, did I figure it wrong!!

As they were teaching me about the great apostacy, I discussed this point of view with the secretary of the president of my largest customer, The University of Southern Mississippi. She lived in Richton which was 15 miles south and attended the Rocky Creek Baptist Church while my wife and I attended the 1st Baptist Church in Hattiesburg. What was interesting to me about this and very troubling was that the pastor at Rocky Creek Baptist taught his members that if they smoked, drank or danced thy would not pass Go or collect $200 ie. they were going straight to hell. The pastor at 1st Baptist taught if you did these things, although not necessarily desireable, they in no way affected your salvation. I thought back to my college days and the conflict btween my Catholic and Church of Christ buddies and the obvious conflict that I was hearing about from the President's secretary. If the the Rocky Creek pastor was correct then there was a bunch of people at 1st Baptist who were in a world of hurt but if the 1st baptist pastor was right then the only effect upon the members of Rocky Creek Baptist was the loss of what ever pleasure these activities gave. I realized that both pastors could not be right. They could both be wrong but certainly not both be right.

I wondered how God could be so confused if I was to assume that God was the author of their belief system. I knew from my study of the scriptures that God is not the author of confusion. I was aware of the Saviour declaring that if His followers were not one they were not His. With the Catholics judging protestants to hell and vice a versa, one had to declare that there was something wrong with this picture. Over the centuries they had killed each other with great enthusiasm along with the infidels (I used to refer to these events as the "kill for Christ syndrome"so this just did not seem like God's Kingdom here on earth to me. I learned that the Christian churches of today may be generally classified as follows:
1. The Catholic Church, which contends that it has an uninterupted existence upon the earth since it was originally founded by Jesus Christ.
2.Protestant churches founded by reformers who contend that the original church fell into apostasy, and who, therefore, through a study of the Bible have attempted to return to the original teachings and practices of the church. The number of these churches is evidence of how impossible it is to agree upon the teachings of the bible when left to the wisdom of man to interpret and understand them. Because of this lack of unity, chuches have continued to multiply in a further effort to return to what they consider the original teachings of the Christ.
3. Those who believe that the church established by Jesus Christ while he was on the earth fell into an apostate condition as predicted by the apostles, and that the church could not be reestablished upon the earth merely through a reformation but ONLY through a restoration.

I submit to you that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints stands alone in this latter classification.

When one considers these three claims, it is obvious that if the first be true there is no excuse for the existence of any other Christian church. If the original church had gone astray, could a reformation restore its power? Can a living branch be taken from a dead tree?

In the 1930's an outstanding Catholic scholar spoke from the stand at the Salt Lake Tabernacle. He was very learned with 12 languages at his disposal and seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. He declared to Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Council of the Twelve the following: "You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that 's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not the succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the peretuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days".

Obviously, after a year of study with the original intent to show the missionaries the errors of their ways and the falseness of their religious beliefs, I joined the Church. I can promise you that there is not a human being walking the face of the earth who could have convinced me that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ appeared to a 14 year old boy and begin the process of the restoration of the original Church of Jesus Christ upon the earth today. I was associated for 26 years with the finest marketeers who ever trod the planet -the IBM Office Products Division sales force-and not one of them could have ever convinced me of the truthfulness of these events, much less 19 and 20 year old boys, but the Holy Ghost did and has for over thiry seven years. I count my decision to be baptised the greatest decision that I have ever made (along with marrying my wife). It is impossible to describe or ennumerate the blessings that came into our lives and the eternal perspective we have towards each other, our children and grandchildren and life itself. I invite each of you to meet with the missionaries and learn for your self about the Church. You wouldn't base your decision to play football at Texas A&M based on what the tu coaches told you about A&M. I promise you that if you read the Book of Mormon with real intent you will learn of its truthfulness by the power of the Holy Ghost and it will be apparent that no wicked man could have ever written it not would any good man write it unless he would have been commanded to do so. I share these things with you humbly and in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen! Bob Dunn '60



[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 1/4/2006 12:20p).]

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 1/4/2006 12:22p).]

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 1/4/2006 1:50p).]

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 1/4/2006 3:37p).]

ibmagg,

The Mormon church is not immune from the same type of disagreements over biblical interpretation that plagues protestant churches. There is no official Mormon doctrine. What was a valid interpretation 50 years ago is not a valid interpretation today. Two examples are most frustrating for me. According to Mormons, prophets don't always have to be correct. Take the view of the geography of the events outlined in the Book of Mormon. Since the beginning of the Mormon church, church prophets have claimed that the Book of Mormon covers the entire continent of America. Now, most mormons believe that it covers only a limit amount of space. See also McConkies' Mormon Doctrine, which is still sold by the church and is praised yet Mormons in internet debates are quick to distant themselves from it.

Second, if something in the Bible doesn't mesh with a Mormon's view on things, he/she simply says "well we know there are errors in translation." Without an official doctrine that doesn't change, the LDS church is no different than protestants. In fact, Mormons are worse off, because you have no standard to go by.

Notafraid - I had forgotten about that article. I simply read too much stuff to remember it all.

Learning a lot on this thread, and I would be interested to hear a lot more from non-Calvinist protestants on how they view biblical salvation, since the article seems to already address Calvinist theology.

How many different protestant theologies are there anyhow?

Patriarch, you are mistaken about no official Church Doctrine. I would refer you to the offical LDS.org webb site. The opinion of Elder McConkie and his speculation as to the exact lands referred to in the Book of Mormon have nothing to do with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Plan of Salvation. If you will read the forward in his book he explains he assumes sole and full responsibility for the work itself. Playmyra, New York is where the last great conflict takes place between the Nephites and Lamanites. The early centuries is in South and Central America. I have found no place where the Bible and the Book of Mormon are in real conflict, althought we know the Bible has gone thru many translations and there was no access to copying machines. I urge you to read this great Book carefully. It is what it claims to be, a 2nd witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ and written for our profit in these the last days. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have but remember the central question; Was the first vision true? If it was, it is the greatest message to come to the earth since the Ressurection itself. If not, then the Church is the greatest fraud and evil on the earth since the First Vision and the translation of the Book of Mormon would form the basis of a Church thus founded on lies and hyprocisy. But remember one guiding test - By their fruits ye shall know the. An evil tree can not bring forth good fruit. And by every social measurement the LDS Church ranks #1 in what is desireable and last in that which is undesireable!

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 1/4/2006 9:54p).]

quote:

---

Is it significant that there is such strong disagreement among honest, smart Protestants about fundamental theological matters, all using the same Bible?

---

This is an important misunderstanding that Redstone and Texasag73 seem to have. The fact is that Thomist’s and Franciscan’s are both considered valid schools of Catholic thought, and they would widely differ on these points as much as a Calvinistic, or Arminian would. Understanding that would potentially be a key to much more knowledge for you guys. Instead of seeing differences in Protestant views simply as a club with which to bash us, you might even begin to expand your own theological horizons. I know things like that were key for posters like Tuag, and Physics96, who grew so immensely from discussions where they learned to respect, and grow from their opponents points that they have now been published in various places, and have become established in RC theological circles.

There are several schools of Catholic thought. Physics96 considers himself a Zubizantine.
http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot.com

All schools of thought, however, are Catholic - there are means to reign in anyone who dances on the edge, the most prominent of late being Kung a few decades ago.

I fail to see how this equates at all to Protestants, where new churches are formed based on serious and deep disagreements over fundamental matters of faith and doctrine, and where a wide array of social ills can find acceptability (or even promotion).

Notafraid - I don't have any large problem with Protestants in general, unless they're bigoted toward my Church, or unless their services center around a personality cult of their charismatic preacher.

A true protestant church, like yours with its Westminster Confession of Faith, is one that I consider to be valid, because everyone who joins it signs up to a common set of principles. Too many "Bible Churches" I see on TV and at funerals/weddings I go to center around the personality and speaking style of the pastor, rather than on biblical principles.

Having said all of that, I will disagree with what's in the WCOF below concerning the Holy Mass instituted by Jesus Christ on Holy Thursday until the day that I die, and probably even after that.

CHAPTER XXIX.
Of the Lord's Supper.
II. In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

quote:

---

Having said all of that, I will disagree with what's in the WCOF below concerning the Holy Mass instituted by Jesus Christ on Holy Thursday until the day that I die, and probably even after that.

---

What holy mass?

What's Holy Thursday?

I only need a brief answer. I just am not sure what you are talking about or exactly where it comes from.

Holy Mass is what I attend on Sunday and during the week, when the priest changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, through the mystical power of God and transubstantiation.

Holy Thursday is the day before Good Friday, when Jesus initiated the Eucharist, changing the Passover meal of the Old Covenant into Holy Communion of the New Covenant. It's when Jesus held up a piece of bread and said "This IS my body", not "This is a symbol of my body"....

[This message has been edited by texasag73 (edited 1/5/2006 7:57p).]

Redstone,

quote:

---

I fail to see how this equates at all to Protestants, where new churches are formed based on serious and deep disagreements over fundamental matters of faith and doctrine, and where a wide array of social ills can find acceptability (or even promotion).

---

Well, I believe I covered the differences between a Calvinist, and an Arminian, which some people with an agenda, or a shallow understanding of it might call a “deep difference” or a “serious difference” , and now I will cover what more rational people might call “deep differences”, such as the differences between more orthodox (ie: Mainline prots - who would agree with orthodox creeds) and more “fringe groups”… That might compare with the millions of Latin American Catholics who are aligned with Liberation Theology, or with some Syncretistic RCism where “Our Mother of Guadalupe” is at the center of it, or it has been mixed with Voodoo, and such. Actually when one looks at the entire world and all of the syncretism within the RC movements around the world, I’ll bet there are a lot more who would align themselves with Rome who hold much more deep and serious errors, but if you choose to only look at a top down standard, put on blinders, and refuse to acknowledge the practical outworkings of RCism around the world, or the significance of that, then I don’t know what else I can say.

quote:

---

Holy Mass is what I attend on Sunday and during the week, when the priest changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, through the mystical power of God and transubstantiation.

Holy Thursday is the day before Good Friday, when Jesus initiated the Eucharist, changing the Passover meal of the Old Covenant into Holy Communion of the New Covenant. It's when Jesus held up a piece of bread and said "This IS my body", not "This is a symbol of my body"....

---

This, along with the Rosary beads, prayers to the saints, and the Immaculate Conception are what make it very difficult for me to consider Catholicism to be any form of Christianity. It is paganism with the name "Jesus" written on in crayon.

Bracy - I will offer up my next Rosary for your soul...

As R.C. Sproul once said:

The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism -

Protestants: Focus is on pulpit
Catholics: Focus is on alter


I thought it was one of the most objective and fair commentaries I have heard on the subject.

Aggie4Life - That sounds about right - In the protestant church, the emphasis is on the Word of God and great preaching, while in the Catholic Church the emphasis is on receiving Jesus in the Eucharist.

One thing which I wish Catholic priests would do is to place more emphasis on great preaching. Too many times I have heard homilies in God's Church that delve into the latest e-mails the priest received, the latest joke, or the latest personal story- In short, the priest kind of does stand up comedy instead of preaching the Word.

What I really like about the Anglican Use Catholic Church is that you not only have Jesus in the Eucharist, but great preaching based on the 3 bible readings at that Mass...

notafraid,

Anyone can mix whatever at any time and still call themselves Catholic. That doesn't mean they are. If you wander outside the Catechism, you are not. The larger point is that there is a means to determine if someone is drifting outside the bounds of orthodoxy. And John Kerry can call himself a Catholic, for example, but he should not receive the Eucharist because he advances abortion and homosexuality. If he were honest with himself he would become an Anglican or join some other organization. This doesn't mean he will or won't, but that's a different story.

This is quite different than remaining within the bounds of "mainstream" Protestantism - especially when those churches define themselves by autonomy.

Life,

That is a good one sentence summation. One of the main reasons I left Protestantism was the focus on the pulpit and the large importance of the individual in it.

quote:

---

This, along with the Rosary beads, prayers to the saints, and the Immaculate Conception are what make it very difficult for me to consider Catholicism to be any form of Christianity. It is paganism with the name "Jesus" written on in crayon.

---

I've always seen catholicism as a cult. Much like the mormons.

quote:

---

Bracy - I will offer up my next Rosary for your soul...

---

That's ok, I'm sure he can pray for himself.

Redstone: hope you are applying that same "logic" to Justice Scalia. He is on record as saying abortion on demand would be okay as state law.