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.
There was a certain poster who felt it was a peach to dump these kind of articles during Holy Week.
It’s nothing we haven’t seen before.
“A Catholic has many things they feel compelled to do, that seem to be tied to their relationship with God and their salvation. Church attendance, confession, baptism, communion are all very important. I don’t presume that a Catholic who fails to meet those obligations would be at risk for eternal damnation, I suppose a learned Catholic here could enlighten me on that point.”
You perceive the question wrongly. Is confession a burden? Is attending mass a burden? Is praying to Christ a burden? Are the sacraments a burden?
We do these things not because we must or because we are compelled to do so, but because it’s like the courship between a husband and a wife. We love Christ, we want to spend time with him.
“Is there anything we lose in eternity because of our choice of denomination, from a Catholic perspective?”
I’ve been on both sides of the aisle. Protestantism to me is an idea, a concept, so to speak. Catholicism is a way of life. We believe that there is only one Christ and he is the head of His Church, and he calls us all to be in bodily communion with one another. I couldn’t justify my dissention, so I joined up.
Where am I in error Ann Archy?
?? Say what??
This whole article becomes pointless at the third sentence. It has always ever been Catholic teaching to worship God alone - not Mary or anyone or thing else. The moment that the author is corrected from his error on this point he can then concern himself with serious issues, though I doubt the "and so forth" contain any.
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'm guessing he would essentially have no hope for me! Though, technically, I'm "Byzantine" Catholic not "Roman" Catholic, it's all the same Church. I'll get over it. I'll pray for him. A special prayer for him to Christ through Mary on her feast of the Immaculate Conception! If he's to be saved at the end of the ages, she is his Mother too!
The stupidity demonstrated by people who read selected verses out of the redacted bible and misinterpret them is beyond amazing.
Some people seriously think that...Why do we always try to limit the Creator to our shortsightedness?
It happens whenever someone decides the religion forum beehive needs a kick.
Consequently there is a KIND of agreement that all, Catholic or not, are equally in the "sin" category, without God's doing something.
But I guess I'd say that it is not entirely meaningless to say that so and so is more virtuous, loving, reliable, honest, good-tempered, or fair than somebody else. Whether these instances or virtue are extraordinary gifts of God (sich as Faith is) or are acquired in a more usual way (as some kinds of fairness might be) they do not, in themselves achieve the forensic judgment of righteousness on us. But they're still meaningful.
How's that?
“It happens whenever someone decides the religion forum beehive needs a kick.”
Hunh...I wonder if the Alexa web traffic rating is down for FR.
Silly threads like these are usually good for 3500+ posts.
“Some people seriously think that...Why do we always try to limit the Creator to our shortsightedness?”
Dunno. I just know not to judge anyone. Even stating who is and who not a Christian christian could be very problematic in front of the Judge.
There are also those who live the natural law without Christianity and are holy. I’d be careful about judging them, too.
It's got 2,075+ views, so it's on its way...
“So when speaking to a beloved Freeper I often end my remark with a ‘dear’ such as ‘dear brother in Christ’ or ‘dear sitetest.’”
Frankly, Alamo-Girl, how you're using the word is very similar to how it is used in a salutation. It's being used as an adjective to modify the noun naming the person to whom something is addressed. Alex Murphy is using it as a noun to name the person.
The first use, as an adjective, is as a declaration to the other that one cares for the other, holds the other in high regard.
The second use, as a noun, names the other as an object of intimacy (that's why we call it a term of endearment - the two persons are endeared one to the other), of love already-established and mutually accepted.
That's why it sounds inappropriate to call someone "dear" who is not already an intimate. In fact, that's why it seems to be a sarcastic insult where the assurance of mutual love and regard don't already exist.
Think about dating a man who, at the end of the first date, called his date "dear." He says, "I had a nice evening with you, dear." Unless that was really one heck of a date, love at first sight accompanied by mutual gushed promises of eternal love and bliss, she might say to herself, "Well, he's rushing things, now isn't he?" She may well be put off because of his rush to intimacy, his attempt to force intimacy after such a short period.
Or, if she detects a note of sneer in his voice, she may think, "Oh, this date didn't go well, he can't wait to leave me, maybe he's even angry with me. I guess I'll never hear from him again."
Alex Murphy's use of the word would be as a term of endearment. It's difficult to ascribe a sincere meaning to his use, as there doesn't appear to be an assurance of mutual regard between him and Petronski. Thus, one interpretation is that he would like there to be such an intimacy, such an assured regard, but he is clearly inappropriately rushing or forcing it. The other is that he's just being sarcastic.
sitetest
I certainly think that there are great "helps" in the sacraments. After all, we hold them to be a kind of earnest money of the kingdom - true foretastes. Whether and how they relate to our, ahem, final destination is less clear to me. But when it comes to encouragement and lots of other helps, the gifts of what seem to outsiders (and to too many Catholics) like painful onerous duties are so real as to be remarkable. My thinking did not change all THAT much when I became a Catholic. My experience of blessings has changed remarkably.
Evangelism. Um, What do you think some of us are doing here? I trust in the power of the Truth. So I am not very inclined to try to ram my views down somebody else's throat. I do like clear conversation, and also I think that when people gather together with the serious purpose of ascertaining and articulating even some small fragment of the Truth, then they are joined willy-nilly in the worship of Christ, who is THE Truth through whom all truths are true.
Our experience in the US has been that often it has been said that one could not be Catholic and be a REAL American. It has even been said here on FR. And whether or not we are as loving as we should be, we do seem to face a lot of irrational opposition and inexplicable hatred. I don't think the Klan went after Episcopalians. And just as Anglicans and Catholics were martyred together in Uganda, we have often worked with Protestants to evangelize the unchurched.
Yes, there are lots of stories of Preotestants who once were Catholic, but there are also conversions the other way. And a lot of those seem to have been prompted by efforts which were not evangelism as such, but which had an evangelical effect.
I hope this is a useful response.
A document of any type is only as valuable as its comprehensibility, its ability to be understood and interpreted. We both believe the Bible to be the inspired, infallible Word of God. I would submit that a document that purports to be infallible needs an infallible interpreter. Otherwise, its very infallibility is rendered useless. Jesus does not generally come down personally, in visible, human form, to resolve Scriptural disputes. He has delegated that responsibility to His Church, and guides it to correct interpretation through His sending of the Holy Spirit. There is still an interpretation that is entirely authentic, but is delivered through the human agency He Himself has delegated.
This is only fitting, really, since we are to walk by faith and not by sight. It takes faith (and trust in that faith) to follow and embrace all that the Church teaches in its Deposit of Faith as coming from God Himself. But there is really no viable alternative short of God personally taking us individually by the hand and walking us through everything. But, for God to reveal Himself that explicitly would quite radically remove from us the free will to accept or reject Him, wouldn't it? Who could be free to choose Him or not, if He physically taught each one of us in this life? We would have no freedom at all. Which is why He teaches through the agency of His Church, established, as I already said, to teach all nations to the end of time all things that He and the Holy Spirit have taught, either directly from the Mouth of Christ Himself, or through the inspired oral and written teachings of the Apostles. In other words, to teach the Deposit of Faith, which can be found intact and entire from Pentecost until the end of time.
This flamebait doesn't merit serious discussion.
The Immaculate Conception is DOGMA. Today is the Holy Day of Obligation....did you go to Mass today??
No, but it does deserve the kind of rhetorical beat down it's been getting this evening...as does most of the poisonous misinformation about the Catholic Church that is excreted by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and its execrable minions.
An equivocation.
It's alien righteousness all the way through. No intrinsic righteousness. Every good work is grace and the only meaning is found in God.
Your argument lacks continuity. To accept that the Bible, as written and reproduced is a Divine work one must accept that the hand of the Holy Spirit guided a group of learned and pious men in determining which books to include and which to exclude. To then deny that the Holy Spirit retired and no longer guided similar groups of learned and pious men in the selection of St. Peter's successors and their continued interpretation of doctrine and writings before them doesn't compute.
As someone who is no longer Catholic, I don't claim to speak from a truly Catholic point of view but I'll do my best. Historically, Catholics and Protestants define salvation a little differently. Where Protestants often talk about salvation to refer to the moment when one has accepted and placed his or her Faith in Jesus Christ, Catholics see salvation as a combination of that (which is termed "justification") and sanctification. Protestants believe in sanctification as well, we don't necessarily consider it as part of the salvation process itself. Catholics do.
The sanctification process involves living one's life in such a way so as to be enriched by the Grace of God. One is obviously enriched through things that Protestants do - through prayer, through reading the Scriptures, through attending worship, through doing good deeds, through self-denial, etc. The most significant way in which one encounters and is enriched by God's Grace is through the Sacraments, which are basically physical manifestations of God's Grace. The more grace one receives in life, the more saintlike one becomes and the more blessed one is in the life hereafter. The only Protestant sacrament that Catholics believe to be valid is baptism, so from a Catholic point of view we are denied very essential spiritual food. This is all contrasted with a Protestant view which views sanctification as coming purely by the grace of God through Faith.
In addition, there is also the question of Purgatory. Purgatory is basically a state of purification that one goes through before one is admitted into Heaven, as those with even a speck of sin are not admitted into the heavenly gates. This is tied together with sanctification and is actually where indulgences come in. Indulgences are basically tied to prayers and good works and are basically a recognition that the temporal price of sin that would have otherwise had to have been paid in purgatory has actually been paid here on earth, either by one's self or by another person on behalf of one's self. It ties into another way by which one is sanctified in order to take that final step into heaven (and everyone in purgatory eventually goes to heaven). As Protestants, the fact that we do not believe in indulgences translates into a lack of willingness to pursue them, which means that, according to Catholic teaching, even if we are saved we will still most likely spend a considerable period of time in that state (I use the term "time" loosely, as time does not exist there in the conventional sense).
So, yes, if the Catholic Church is correct then there is quite a bit we are missing out on and Catholic efforts to bring us back into their fold are certainly well-intentioned, if perhaps at times lacking in charity. Protestants often are found lacking in that regard as well.
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.