Posted on 12/08/2009 11:41:52 AM PST by Gamecock
I just came from a funeral service for an aunt of mine who was a staunch Catholic. I came out of that religion about 25 years ago after reading for myself what the Bible had to say. My question surrounds the actuality of salvation for all the millions who still practice Mary worship and so forth. Knowing that one cannot serve two masters, I wonder at how it is possible that the aforementioned can really experience Christ in a saving way, while they continue to believe that the church of Rome is solely responsible for their eternal welfare.
Answer:
Greetings in Christ Jesus our Lord and only Savior. Thank you for your question.
Unless a person is clearly outside the pale of the Christian faith, I do not believe that you can judge the "actuality" or "reality" of someone's salvation. You may judge the "credibility" of their faith; or you may question the "probability" of someone's salvation. You may also ask, as you have done, "how it is possible that the aforementioned can really experience Christ in a saving way."
None of us, however, can truly say that we are perfect in knowledge or practice. We are always growing both in wisdom and in the grace of God. Is it possible for someone who prays to Mary to be a true Christian? In other words, can someone who is truly saved be in error on such an issue?
Conscious compromise of God's truth can be serious and deadly, but we also see from Scripture that in his mercy God may (and does) choose to accept less than perfect understanding and obedience, even of his own people. (Indeed, isn't the salvation and the perseverance of the saints dependent upon that fact?) There will be growth in understanding and holiness, but perfection must await our going to be with Jesus or His return to take us unto himself (see 1 John 3:2).
In the Old Testament, consider Asa in 1 Kings 15. He removed the idols from the land, but he allowed the high places to remain. The high places were clearly unacceptable. But the text states that Asa was loyal to the Lord his entire life. How could this be? Had he not seriously compromised?
What about the New Testament? Consider the Corinthians. Was the church at Corinth an exemplary church? Did they not have many doctrinal problems, e.g., concerning the Lord's Supper and the doctrine of the resurrection? (See 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Cor. 15.) Did even the apostles fully understand? Even though what they wrote was protected from error, did they not grow and mature in their own understanding and obedience? Wasn't it necessary at one point, for instance, for Paul to rebuke Peter for his inconsistency? (See Gal. 2.)
My point is not to defend the doctrinal aberrations of Rome. I do not believe such is possible. I think, however, that people generally follow their leaders. They learn from them; they consider their arguments rational and coherent.
For example, consider devotion to Mary. I read Jarislov Pellikan's Mary Through the Centuries and I cannot get past page 10 before I am wondering why the author is so blind to the fallacies of his arguments. However, if I were not being so critical and I were already predisposed to the position, then his arguments would perhaps seem irrefutable. So then, we should boldly, patiently, and compassionately discuss these matters with our loved ones, praying that the Holy Spirit will grant them more understanding.
Whatever we may judge in terms of the "actuality" or "probability" or "possibility" of a person's salvation at the end of life is, in the end, academic, for God is the one who can look at the heart and only he can truly judge. (He is the One, in fact, who has chosen his elect.) "It is appointed to man once to die, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27), but "Today is the day of salvation" (Heb. 3:13). We should work, therefore, the works of him who sent us while it is light and point our neighbors and loved ones to Christ.
For myself, I too was a Roman Catholic. In the past six months, I have attended the funeral of two uncles and one aunt whom I loved very much. I had opportunity at each funeral to speak a word of testimony regarding the Savior. I stood in the pulpit of the church in which I had served mass as a young boy and in my eulogies spoke of my faith in Christ.
Was it as detailed as I wish it could have been? No, but I am thankful for the opportunity God gave. Do I believe that my family members went to heaven? For one I have hope; for the others, I have little hope. Upon what is my hope based? It is always and only grounded in Christ and the Gospel.
We may define Christianity broadly by including as Christians all who confess the Apostles' Creed. We may define Christianity narrowly by including as Christians only those who confess our particular denominational creed. We need to exercise care, because, if we are too narrow, we may find ourselves excluding someone like Augustine. On the other hand, if we are too broad, we may find ourselves including many who should be excluded.
Personally, therefore, I do not judge. I have either greater or lesser hope. For example, I have greater hope for my Roman Catholic family members who ignorantly follow their leaders without thinking. Many times I find these to be at least open to discussion regarding the Gospel. However, I have lesser hope for people who are self-consciously Roman Catholic; that is, they understand the issues yet continue in the way of the Papacy.
I recommend that you read the book Come out from among Them by John Calvin. I found it very helpful and it addresses somewhat the question that you have raised.
I hope that my answer helps. You are free to write for clarification. May our Lord bless you.
Anyone who so much as gives a cup of water in My name will have his reward.
The Boss.
“Dear” is a fairly common salutation used in correspondence. I know of someone who recently wrote both their US Senators and their US Representative. All three are liberals. Nonetheless, each was addressed as “dear.”
Thus, it’s hardly a term of abuse, error, fraud or lie, but merely a matter of preferred etiquette. Another valuable effect of this minor social grace is that it should serve as a reminder to try to write charitably to each other.
Thanks for putting my quote back up. I suppose it makes sense that the religion mod is more touchy about coarse language.
What part of “Eternal Life” don’t you get?
It’s kinda funny, in a sad sort of way, to watch the Romanist as they defend there Church as the supreme good fail to realize that it is a rejection of the Gospel.
Stop hitting on me. It's unwelcome and really rather creepy.
Anyone can be a Christian by believing and accepting Christ as their savior. Religion is religion, but a personal relationship with Christ is all it takes to be a Christian.
>>The tea kettle in that picture is brown.<<
*snicker*
Did you post to the wrong thread?
LOL
Sometimes, it’s the little things.
“Didn’t you know? Christians are judged by God, but Catholics are judged by Calvin.”
ROTFL!
>>Religion is religion, but a personal relationship with Christ is all it takes to be a Christian.<<
Merry Christmas Halls!!!!
You’re a wonderful FReeper and a great Christian.
Absolutely!
A better question is can you be a Christian outside the Catholic Church.
So what radio stations do they they get in heaven?
Do you actually seek to limit God, or suppose that He can be limited? Do you not suppose that it is within His power to allow those in Heaven the ability to hear when people still on this mortal coil address them? You might not agree that He does, but your statement appears to indicate that you do not think that He can.
You might want to read Revelation 5 from the POV that those in Heaven not only know what is going on on the earth, but receive prayers coming from us and present them to God. I won't tell you which verses support that; I'm sure you can be open-minded enough to figure them out for yourself.
Actually, us Catholics have much respect and admiration for the Anglicans. What we hate are the fundamentalists that either interpret the bible literally or think they can interpret the bible their own way with no historical or theological basis. There is not much difference between the Anglicans, the Catholics, the Lutherens and the Greeks other than the structure of the respective churches. I have always said if I wasn’t Catholic, I’d be Episcopal. A lot of respect and cohesion between the two, at least in my community.
Hey, no - not me. I was commenting on the absurdity of another post that seemed to presume that heavenly souls can’t hear prayers, that’s all.
With all due respect, I think that the author was referring to individuals who are aware of the differences between Catholics and Protestants and still insist upon being Catholic contrary to their conscience. (I am not saying here that someone would NECESSARILY have a conscientious objection, but merely that it is what the author seems to believe)
As a Catholic you most certainly believe this about Protestants. The Catechism of the Catholic Church allows for "Invincible Ignorance":
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
This reflects what the author was saying in regards to faithful Catholics who do not question their beliefs. It's the same statement but flipped as it is coming from a Protestant applying it to Catholics instead of the other way around.
The Catechism also states:
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
It stands to reason that, from a Catholic point of view, a Protestant who has taken the time to examine what the Catholic Church teaches, understands the reasons it teaches such, and refuses to be a part of her is culpable of mortal sin and places his or her salvation at risk. That education has dispelled all appeals for claims for ignorance. This is exactly what the author was stating, albeit from a Protestant point of view.
Respectfully, it does little good to be indignant about a Protestant teaching the same thing regarding Catholics that the Catholic Church teaches regarding Protestants. The author left the door open for individual Catholics to be saved in exactly the same manner that the Catholic Church leaves it open for Protestants to be saved. It's the same reasoning albeit applied from a different point of view.
Still out of ideas?
I understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.