• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Faith verses Practice: Salvation

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Okay. I don't know if this is the right thread and I don't know how to pm (if you can tell me how, please do), so here it is:

I went on a Christian chat room years ago and one person well, a couple people said, "you only need faith to be saved." While a Catholic (Orthodox, Roman, etc) said, you need the Church. One says only faith the other says practice.

What I don't understand is how a protestant sees that only faith can save a person when there is no action being done to accompany with that salvation. That is like my friend hanging on the cliff and I tell her, "if you have faith in me, I will save you" and I reach down to grab her but she doesn't use her other arm so I can pull her up. *To some protestants they feel they don't need to do anything and just wait).

How could I save her if she doesn't use her other hand to pull herself up? That doesn't mean, without her, I can't pull her up myself... it just means that with her help, I know she trusts me by putting her hand in mine as I put mine hand in hers.

Likewise in the protestant view. How can a person be saved by faith if he or she doesn't reach his or her hand to Jesus so He can pull them up?

In other words, shouldn't a Christian "show" that he/she loves Jesus and that showing is the faith that lets Him pull that Christian up? It's like the common phase, action speaks louder than words.

In the Catholic Church, on the other hand, when someone reaches out their hand for Jesus to pull them up, it means that person is taking the sacraments (reaching out their hand) and through those sacraments Jesus (the Church) pulls them up and by those sacraments--baptism (being born-again), confession (repenting ones sins to Christ), confirmation (saying "I want you Jesus to be my Lord and Savior), and communion (Taking in Jesus once one is born-again).

I don't see this profound action to be in a relationship with Jesus in protestant Churches. That doesn't mean they are not saved; it just means, I don't see it. Where is it?

When someone is with Christ, they have a relation ship with Him. It is not a one man's 'ship. A Catholic goes to Mass (some morning), prays, stays in direct communication with Jesus and His Father, his 'm'other, his friends, and his followers. It's a constant action that keeps that relationship going. Going to confession and telling their sins to Christ (doesn't always have to be in confession) they keep their tie with Him.

When I hear some protestants talk about their ties, its based on two things: Faith and scripture. I hear no actions done. I hear no prayers. No community "worship" interaction that's not Sunday Sermon and Wednesday night Bible Study/sermon.

Something seems missing in protestant fellowship (I can't generalize, sorry); and, I don't know what it is.
 
Last edited:

Theodore A. Jones

Active Member
Seem to have your mind set that RCCism is more valid than Protestantism. Fact is either soteriological assumption is unlawful and does not result in salvation. And no I am not Jewish or of any other religious affiliation.
 
Last edited:

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
What I don't understand is how a protestant sees that only faith can save a person when there is no action being done to accompany with that salvation.
Okay, here's the deal. Let's say that I've already fallen over the cliff and there's no way I can reach out and grab your hand. Either I am going to die or someone is down there at the bottom of the cliff ready to catch me with a giant net or something. Right as I am about to hit the ground I find myself bouncing into the net of my rescuer. What this illustration says is that humanity is unable to help themselves because in the eyes of God they are already condemned. (Romans 3:10) The next thing we see is that humanity would try to save themselves but to no avail. (Isaiah 64:6) We also see that man must accept the fact he is lost and helpless in and of himself in order to truly understand the grace of God. (1 John 1:9) Then there has to be a certain level of trust in the rescuer, Jesus. (1 John 5:12) When God sees that an individual has the trust in Jesus he adopts them, faith is the prerequisite of works and faith justifies once and for all. (John 1:12, Romans 3:28)
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I see your point. That makes sense. Once God grabs your hand to pick you up, you should be able to help out then. Either that, since Christians have a sinful nature, maybe helping out could mean paying God back for what He has done for you?

Do protestants give their gratitude (not just in worship) in return for God's help?

Since I don't believe I have a sinful nature, my falling off the cliff is something I did with my acknowledgement it. If I tripped and fell, it is my responsibility to help myself. It someone is already there to help me up and I can speak, then yes, I would say help me out. However, I wasn't born in the ditch. I just have a tendency to trip from time to time.

Other times, (in other cases more appropriate), I'd sin on my own accord. What I see is Christians depending on God to where they belittle themselves (say they have a sinful nature) so that God can help them. What I believe is I am in a relationship with God and we depend on each other to keep that relationship going--and that "keeping going" that action, is my salvation, not God helping me first.

Since I believe God is life and in order to depend on life--to live--I have to be in a relationship with myself, others, and all living. I have to give my blessings and graces to others and not just them (Abrahamic God included) depend on them to give me graces and blessings.



Okay, here's the deal. Let's say that I've already fallen over the cliff and there's no way I can reach out and grab your hand. Either I am going to die or someone is down there at the bottom of the cliff ready to catch me with a giant net or something. Right as I am about to hit the ground I find myself bouncing into the net of my rescuer. What this illustration says is that humanity is unable to help themselves because in the eyes of God they are already condemned. (Romans 3:10) The next thing we see is that humanity would try to save themselves but to no avail. (Isaiah 64:6) We also see that man must accept the fact he is lost and helpless in and of himself in order to truly understand the grace of God. (1 John 1:9) Then there has to be a certain level of trust in the rescuer, Jesus. (1 John 5:12) When God sees that an individual has the trust in Jesus he adopts them, faith is the prerequisite of works and faith justifies once and for all. (John 1:12, Romans 3:28)
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Seem to have your mind set that RCCism is more valid than Protestantism. Fact is either soteriological assumption is unlawful and does not result in salvation. And no I am not Jewish or of any other religious affiliation.

Is this post for me? If so, what is soteriogical? Yes, I do have a Catholic mindset. I hold the Catholic sacraments to heart, an experience I will never forget.
 

Theodore A. Jones

Active Member
Soteriology is the study of the proposed ways of salvation asserted by religious belief systems. In regard to your admissions of being a witch. RCCism being witchcraft does not affect the conscience of a witch. Protestanism' soteriological assumption having been derived from the soteriological system of RCCism is no better off.
 
Top