The Roman Catholic Teaching on Salvation and Justification (William Webster)

Christian Truth ^ | William Webster

[ksen]

I thought with all of the Protestant gushing over Pope John Paul the Great that we needed a reminder that even though he was a wonderful ally against communism when it came to matters of faith he was still the head of a system that is the antithesis of Evangelical Christianity.

[ksen]

Reformation reminder ping!

[biblewonk]

Does it really take this many words for an RC to say what it takes to be saved? No wonder I find so few RC's who have a clue whether they are saved or not.

[ksen]

I'd like to invite our Catholic FRiends to weigh in if they'd like on the merits or demerits of the article above.

(Please use your ping lists if you have them)

[ksen]

I wonder at times where are the modern William Webster's?

[ksen]

Oh, and there's no reason the discussion in here can't remain civil even if there is severe disagreement.

[Pyro7480]

The parallels are obvious. The Roman Catholic teaching on salvation is essentially the same as that preached by the Judaizers. Paul warned the Galatian believers that if they embraced this false gospel they would actually desert Christ (Gal. 1:6). Those evangelicals who would promote spiritual cohabitation with the Church of Rome need to heed to the warning of Paul. He saw no basis for unity with the Judaizers even though they professed faith in Christ. Likewise, there is no basis for unity with the Church of Rome today. If evangelicals jettison the Reformation gospel distinctives for so called unity with Rome they will deny Christ.

In not so many words, "the Catholic Church is too Jewish." That is an OLD accusation.

[murphE]

Roman Catholic theology does not embrace the interpretation of salvation and justification as that presented by Scripture and the Protestant Reformers.

Oh brother. Let's see here...

Roman Catholic theology does not embrace the interpretation of salvation and justification as presented by Scripture and the Protestant Reformers. presented by Protestant reformers through their own fallible interpretation of Scripture.

That's better. He was starting out with a false premise. Carry on.

[conservonator]

I don't see any quotes from the Catechism. Why not?

[ksen]

There are quotes from John Hardon's everyday Catechism. Which I assume, maybe falsely, correctly reflects what is in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[ksen]

Just because an accusation is old doesn't mean it is false.

And one minor correction, the assertion is not that the Catholic is too close to the Jews but that it is too close to the Judaizers of the New Testament era.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Basically, Jesus came, died, was resurrected, founded the church, and the Church, according to some people's interpretation of things, was totally wrong for at least since the time of Constantine (even though the early Church fathers don't signal any real shift in belief) to the protestant reformation. Some go as far as to push it back to the generation after the apostles where the church supposedly went apostate.

Some God, if he couldn't found a church that wouldn't be true to him for over 1200 years especially when he had promised that it would be true to him, and he to it!

Or so it seems to me.

[visually_augmented]

It is fascinating that many in the Roman Catholic Church can attest to the infallibility of their church and various councils and popes of the RC faith. But when it comes to anyone outside of that church, they are by definition tagged as fallible.

Are you an adherant to this way of thinking??

[FourtySeven]

Interesting. This seems to be a fair, if incomplete, representation of what Catholics believe.

I will echo what has been said on this thread already. This seems to be a criticism of the Catholic belief based on the "inherrent corectness" of sola scriptura. (as is common with many Catholic criticisms) That, and also the belief that "if it's not in the Bible, it must be wrong".

While Catholics believe that nothing can violate Scripture, it's not our belief that if it's "not in the Bible, it must not be believed". That, along with a rejection of the Luther invention of sola scriptura is where the author of this piece fails. He fails because by not taking this into account, he doesn't fully (accurately) depict Catholic teaching.

At best, this is a good depiction of different faith systems' view of Salvation. But there's no one, defining "Authority" that can be compared between the two, thus, it is little more than an interesting case study.

Put another way, it comes down to the same basic difference between Protestants and Catholics: Is sola scriptura specifically mandated in Scripture? I don't believe it is, not even in 2 Tim 3:16.

[conservonator]

It may or may not, but to be sure, quoting directly form the catechism would be more appropriate for such a discussion.

[Campion]

But when it comes to anyone outside of that church, they are by definition tagged as fallible.

They themselves admit that they are fallible. We are doing nothing but taking them at their word.

[Salvation]

BTTT! Your comments hit the nail on the head!

[ksen]

According to the Church of Rome, Christ did not accomplish a full, finished and completed salvation in his work of atonement. His death on the cross did not deal with the full penalty of man's sin. It merited grace for man which is then channeled to the individual through the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments. This grace then enables man to do works of righteousness in order to merit justification and eternal life.

Do you agree with the above statment?

[Salvation]

Way to go!