Thanks for reading. Protestants, have you ever heard a Protestant preacher endorse a Catholic Priest or influencer as being "One of the best preachers of the Gospel?" I could be wrong. Let me know!
Catholics, do you think I'm too harsh here? What do you think? How should we answer the question "Do I need to become Catholic to go to Heaven?"
I enjoyed the read. Protestant here. I think the biggest distinction is ‘which protestant’ because Allie Beth (imo) is a very bad representation of protestantism but rather is the hyper American, individualistic, product of protestantism in America after 250 years. Unfortunately her views are becoming more common, especially among conservatives who hold certain issues as “divisive issues (think women clergy and abortion).” I actually agree with you against Trent Horns recommendation, I think she often dilutes and perverts the true meaning of the Gospel for life and faith (think hyper conservative, lack of charity, etc..). But I will say this, I have come across two types of protestants - those who adamantly oppose Catholicism (like baptists who generally are adamantly against lutherans and calvinists as well) and those who are adamantly for their own tradition (think Methodists, Lutherans, Presbys who think their system of doctrine is most biblical but dont see Rome as ‘apostate’ or ‘heretical’ in nature but see it as a different tradition). I’m more of the latter, and among those there is a strong sense of ‘why the necessity to return to Rome.’ Those protestants would (and have) recommended things like Father Mile Schmitz’ reading of the Bible as well as people like Trent Horn or other Priests who act in accordance with Christ.
Really well said. I think Allie is pretty charitable, depending on the topic, but I think that Catholicism is one in which she is the least. She did a pretty good job from clips I saw on Jubilee.
I think the main thing is that institutionally these denominations, whether Catholic or not, have specific doctrinal commitments, and it feels like the ecumenical dialogue is taking the “easy way out” by pretending that we basically think the same thing, when in fact our institutions, which scripturally speaking and from a natural law perspective have unique authority to define what individuals must adhere to, even if that authority is not infallible.
I would agree, I do think there are major distinctive that separate Protestants and Catholics (unfortunately). I have also witnessed many redactions by Protestants in their doctrinal commitments against Catholics. For example the American Westminster Confession of Faith edited in 1788 removed the statement about the Pope being “the Antichrist, that son of perdition” and simply affirmed Jesus as head of the Church.
I also wanted to address the issue: Do Rome and Protestants preach different gospels? I think it depends on the parish and the church honestly. A good protestant, with historic protestant beliefs argues that true saving faith (i.e. think of the substance of “faith” in the phrase “faith alone”) necessarily produces good works. A lack of good works is evidence of no true saving faith. Therefore, dissecting them into two aspects of salvation is like saying “can you create a square circle?” The answer is “no” because of a contradiction of definitions. The confusing part comes with the book of James when James is speaking about a certain type of faith, one that does not submit in obedience, but rather is “simple faith” that acknowledges with the mind but doesn’t follow through. Hence James is saying that particular faith, does not save. Can Rome teach such a faith? Of Course. Does it always? Not necessarily. Do all protestant churches also teach such a faith? Not necessarily - some do not, some definitely do.
Well said. I think that’s why all preachers are compared with their institutional dogmas. One can always find “heretics” within the ranks but it is by comparing what they are preaching to the teachings of the institution that has platformed them. But I think Trent is right, if we say “Gospel” just means the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, then we can agree academically/technically speaking, Protestants and Catholics do preach the same gospel. But practically speaking, no Catholic would content with someone they were evangelizing “accepting Jesus” and then going to whatever Church they felt like. Similarly, I don’t think a Baptist would evangelize someone and be content with that person “accepting Jesus” and then becoming Catholic. Wes Huff and Allie both make this clear, as do the traditional Protestant confessions.
Evangelicalism and Catholicism is a different topic.
You need to be a Catholic to be in the Kingdom and to abide in Christ. To go to Heaven you must not die in unrepentant mortal sin. That’s very hard to do outside of the Church. But that’s only part of the gospel. Before the Cross, no one went to Heaven. They went to Sheol. The only way to Heaven is through the Cross.
Some do, some don’t. I used to wake up to a Catholic radio program (I am an evangelical protestant but reception was difficult where we lived). I remember one priest gave a sermon Billy Graham would have approved of. The next morning another priest gave one stating that works was the only way to God. I’ve had good friends that were Catholic and definitely committed Christians who had faith. I’ve met other Catholics who “hope” that their good works will outweigh their bad, don’t read or believe the Bible, and might as well be atheists as far as their lifestyles go. I am sure the same could be said for many protestants, but the question doesn’t have a firm answer.
You point out a good distinction between institutions and individuals. Individuals have theological opinions, but institutions have doctrines they can enforce.
This is why the question needs to be around individuals who represent institutional doctrines, not their own opinions.
For example, a Baptist who believes baptism saves, is not representing Baptist teaching. Similarly, a Catholic who thinks the Eucharist is not Jesus, is not representing Catholic teaching.
In my long form version of this excerpt, I go into more detail. Individuals are great to use in rebuttals if they recognize their positions as inline with their churches teachings, but they are not useful in these kinds of conversations if they simply wear the label of said denomination while pedaling their own personal opinions as dogmas promulgated by their affiliated institutions.
In the simplest terms possible, what is salvation according to Catholic doctrine? A person can put their salvation at risk by doing certain things, so please, in the simplest terms possible, what can an individual do to secure their salvation after doing these activities that have put their salvation at risk. Just wondering.
Receive - receive the teaching and sacraments of the Church
Remain - Persevere
Another way you could phrase it is:
Believe that Jesus is God ,
Be Baptized for the forgiveness of your sins (This is the point Catholics would say someone is “saved”, but they don’t mean it the way Protestants do),
Persevere in the faith — be Peter, not Judas.
The main contention salvation for Protestants and Catholics on salvation is that many Protestants believe salvation happens in an instance. Catholics believe that you become a child of God but that salavation is a process. A person is not “saved” in the strictest sense until they are in heaven.
Thanks for reading. Protestants, have you ever heard a Protestant preacher endorse a Catholic Priest or influencer as being "One of the best preachers of the Gospel?" I could be wrong. Let me know!
Catholics, do you think I'm too harsh here? What do you think? How should we answer the question "Do I need to become Catholic to go to Heaven?"
I enjoyed the read. Protestant here. I think the biggest distinction is ‘which protestant’ because Allie Beth (imo) is a very bad representation of protestantism but rather is the hyper American, individualistic, product of protestantism in America after 250 years. Unfortunately her views are becoming more common, especially among conservatives who hold certain issues as “divisive issues (think women clergy and abortion).” I actually agree with you against Trent Horns recommendation, I think she often dilutes and perverts the true meaning of the Gospel for life and faith (think hyper conservative, lack of charity, etc..). But I will say this, I have come across two types of protestants - those who adamantly oppose Catholicism (like baptists who generally are adamantly against lutherans and calvinists as well) and those who are adamantly for their own tradition (think Methodists, Lutherans, Presbys who think their system of doctrine is most biblical but dont see Rome as ‘apostate’ or ‘heretical’ in nature but see it as a different tradition). I’m more of the latter, and among those there is a strong sense of ‘why the necessity to return to Rome.’ Those protestants would (and have) recommended things like Father Mile Schmitz’ reading of the Bible as well as people like Trent Horn or other Priests who act in accordance with Christ.
Really well said. I think Allie is pretty charitable, depending on the topic, but I think that Catholicism is one in which she is the least. She did a pretty good job from clips I saw on Jubilee.
I think the main thing is that institutionally these denominations, whether Catholic or not, have specific doctrinal commitments, and it feels like the ecumenical dialogue is taking the “easy way out” by pretending that we basically think the same thing, when in fact our institutions, which scripturally speaking and from a natural law perspective have unique authority to define what individuals must adhere to, even if that authority is not infallible.
Thank you again for reading and for commenting!
I would agree, I do think there are major distinctive that separate Protestants and Catholics (unfortunately). I have also witnessed many redactions by Protestants in their doctrinal commitments against Catholics. For example the American Westminster Confession of Faith edited in 1788 removed the statement about the Pope being “the Antichrist, that son of perdition” and simply affirmed Jesus as head of the Church.
I also wanted to address the issue: Do Rome and Protestants preach different gospels? I think it depends on the parish and the church honestly. A good protestant, with historic protestant beliefs argues that true saving faith (i.e. think of the substance of “faith” in the phrase “faith alone”) necessarily produces good works. A lack of good works is evidence of no true saving faith. Therefore, dissecting them into two aspects of salvation is like saying “can you create a square circle?” The answer is “no” because of a contradiction of definitions. The confusing part comes with the book of James when James is speaking about a certain type of faith, one that does not submit in obedience, but rather is “simple faith” that acknowledges with the mind but doesn’t follow through. Hence James is saying that particular faith, does not save. Can Rome teach such a faith? Of Course. Does it always? Not necessarily. Do all protestant churches also teach such a faith? Not necessarily - some do not, some definitely do.
Well said. I think that’s why all preachers are compared with their institutional dogmas. One can always find “heretics” within the ranks but it is by comparing what they are preaching to the teachings of the institution that has platformed them. But I think Trent is right, if we say “Gospel” just means the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, then we can agree academically/technically speaking, Protestants and Catholics do preach the same gospel. But practically speaking, no Catholic would content with someone they were evangelizing “accepting Jesus” and then going to whatever Church they felt like. Similarly, I don’t think a Baptist would evangelize someone and be content with that person “accepting Jesus” and then becoming Catholic. Wes Huff and Allie both make this clear, as do the traditional Protestant confessions.
Evangelicalism and Catholicism is a different topic.
You need to be a Catholic to be in the Kingdom and to abide in Christ. To go to Heaven you must not die in unrepentant mortal sin. That’s very hard to do outside of the Church. But that’s only part of the gospel. Before the Cross, no one went to Heaven. They went to Sheol. The only way to Heaven is through the Cross.
I think you’re right. This is a succinct way to say it. Risk is high outside the Church.
I would rather talk about the Eucharist and sacraments and how they change the lives of people more, but this topic seems relavent these days.
Some do, some don’t. I used to wake up to a Catholic radio program (I am an evangelical protestant but reception was difficult where we lived). I remember one priest gave a sermon Billy Graham would have approved of. The next morning another priest gave one stating that works was the only way to God. I’ve had good friends that were Catholic and definitely committed Christians who had faith. I’ve met other Catholics who “hope” that their good works will outweigh their bad, don’t read or believe the Bible, and might as well be atheists as far as their lifestyles go. I am sure the same could be said for many protestants, but the question doesn’t have a firm answer.
Thanks for the comment. Well said.
You point out a good distinction between institutions and individuals. Individuals have theological opinions, but institutions have doctrines they can enforce.
This is why the question needs to be around individuals who represent institutional doctrines, not their own opinions.
For example, a Baptist who believes baptism saves, is not representing Baptist teaching. Similarly, a Catholic who thinks the Eucharist is not Jesus, is not representing Catholic teaching.
In my long form version of this excerpt, I go into more detail. Individuals are great to use in rebuttals if they recognize their positions as inline with their churches teachings, but they are not useful in these kinds of conversations if they simply wear the label of said denomination while pedaling their own personal opinions as dogmas promulgated by their affiliated institutions.
In the simplest terms possible, what is salvation according to Catholic doctrine? A person can put their salvation at risk by doing certain things, so please, in the simplest terms possible, what can an individual do to secure their salvation after doing these activities that have put their salvation at risk. Just wondering.
I like how Trent Horn puts it:
Repent - You need to recognize you’re a sinner.
Receive - receive the teaching and sacraments of the Church
Remain - Persevere
Another way you could phrase it is:
Believe that Jesus is God ,
Be Baptized for the forgiveness of your sins (This is the point Catholics would say someone is “saved”, but they don’t mean it the way Protestants do),
Persevere in the faith — be Peter, not Judas.
The main contention salvation for Protestants and Catholics on salvation is that many Protestants believe salvation happens in an instance. Catholics believe that you become a child of God but that salavation is a process. A person is not “saved” in the strictest sense until they are in heaven.