Of course salvation is solely on the basis of the atonement of Christ. The Catholic Church, in fact, has condemned Pelagianism (salvation by works) as well as the variation called semi-Pelagianism.
As I understand it, Catholics consider "good works" to be the natural fruit of genuine faith, e.g., "For we are created unto good works" and "Faith without works is dead."
I understand that many Protestants believe (or are taught to believe) that Catholic Churches are filled with parishioners who are trusting wholly in their "good works" for salvation, as well as their membership in the Catholic Church.
However, many Protestants fail to grasp the very understandable concern on the part of Catholics regarding the dogmatic insistence that there is no relation whatsoever between good works and salvation. Unfortunately, this view can lead to "antinomianism" - the rejection of the moral law - and can lead in the flaunting of the moral commands of the law.
Jesus himself condemned this attitude: "Why do you call me Lord and do not do what I say?" We all know about the long list of famous Protestant pastors and evangelists who have fallen into sin and/or flagrantly show by their lifestyles that they love the "things of this world." (but we disregard such shameful excess because they are "spirit-filled", which apparently overrides the responsibility: "Do not love the things of this world)
On the other extreme, many Protestants - while condemning Catholics for believing in "good works" - evince a far greater legalism in their own lives. I grew up looking down my nose at Catholics who - gasp! - actually drank wine and beer! Just more evidence they aren't true Christians!
I frankly find embarrassing the arrogant and willfully ignorant attitudes of some on this board regarding Catholics - who (I cannot fail to notice) typically respond with grace and reason instead of knee-jerk condemnation.
Full disclosure: I was trained in well-known Evangelical colleges, have an earned Ph.D. in Theology, and have taught on the college level, served on the overseas mission field, and written extensively on theological subjects.
Hmmmm...
My best friend is a black guy! I have lots of black friends, but everybody knows they are the worst...
I sense a theme and a new direction!
**I frankly find embarrassing the arrogant and willfully ignorant attitudes of some on this board regarding Catholics - who (I cannot fail to notice) typically respond with grace and reason instead of knee-jerk condemnation.**
Thanks for the compliment!
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiment of the world, and not after Christ..." Col. 2:8.
And: "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts. EVER LEARNING, and NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH." 2 Tim. 3:5-7.
And of course there is:"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." 1 Cor. 1:26-29.
I could go on, but prayerfully you see yourself in these few posts of Scripture. If not, I'll be happy to continue..
“As a lifelong Protestant I have no problem with the Roman Catholic understanding of these verses in John.
Of course salvation is solely on the basis of the atonement of Christ. The Catholic Church, in fact, has condemned Pelagianism (salvation by works) as well as the variation called semi-Pelagianism.”
Personally, I find that Catholic theology is hardly logical or even consistent in their illogic, and so they deny Semi-Pelagianism, and Pelagianism, while simultaneously teaching it. A good example of this would be in Roman Catholic teaching that atheists, with “good will,” can be saved outside of Jesus Christ and the Church. This has been promoted by both John Paul II and now, recently, Pope Francis, as well as many Roman Catholics on this board. Though, perhaps John Paul affirms a “preceding grace” of some sort, when he asserted that the Holy Spirit was working within non-Christian religions.
“As I understand it, Catholics consider “good works” to be the natural fruit of genuine faith, e.g., “For we are created unto good works” and “Faith without works is dead.””
Which would basically put them on the same side as all the Reformed and other Protestant churches. Though, just at first glance, we know that certainly isn’t true.
“I understand that many Protestants believe (or are taught to believe) that Catholic Churches are filled with parishioners who are trusting wholly in their “good works” for salvation, as well as their membership in the Catholic Church.”
Speaking as a former Catholic and debating them almost every day, that is exactly the situation.
“However, many Protestants fail to grasp the very understandable concern on the part of Catholics regarding the dogmatic insistence that there is no relation whatsoever between good works and salvation.”
If you mean that good works result in salvation, and are not the purpose of salvation, then you would be utterly wrong, and you should go turn in your PhD for a Bible.
“Unfortunately, this view can lead to “antinomianism” - the rejection of the moral law “
No one here, as far as I can tell, is promoting antinomianism. So why even bring it up? Though, it seems to be the old accusation that has always been launched against Christians (Rom 3:8). I imagine if you can still manage to bring that against us, we must be doing something right.
“We all know about the long list of famous Protestant pastors and evangelists who have fallen into sin and/or flagrantly show by their lifestyles that they love the “things of this world.””
Since man is naturally evil, and there are many serpents crept in unawares, it’s a good thing Protestants aren’t in communion with a man who purports to be our single universal head over our entire religion. In which case, we’d have to deal with the embarrassment of our Pope eventually getting caught in bed with another man’s wife, and getting killed for it, just like the Papists have had to do historically with their Popes.
“(but we disregard such shameful excess because they are “spirit-filled”, which apparently overrides the responsibility”
No, we do not excuse this at all. We forgive. And we let the Spirit and Scripture direct us as to what action to take according to the sin.
All sin has consequences, even for a Spirit-filled believer. We are most certainly not given a pass by God nor should we be given one by our fellow believers. However, our salvation is never jeopardized as a result of our sin.
And one need no education or learned qualifications to understand the simple truth of the Gospel. It is so simple a small child can understand.
The passage reads as, “‘As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
Note please ... "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life."
Is given as if a comma should follow the word "believes", whereas in KJV the same passage reads,
"14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:"
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
I get my grammatical subjectives and objectives mixed up sometimes, but the NASB is a seriously flawed source for the exacting of doctrine.
I’m not sure I really get the Roman Catholic approach either. I am Eastern Orthodox and, as far as I can tell, we aren’t as legalistic about everyday theology as either RCs or Protestants.
In our view, faith and works are like oxygen and hydrogen in water. Sure, there are two oxygen atoms and you can’t have water without them, but you can’t have water without hydrogen either. Why make things that have to work together oppose each other? It makes no sense.
You almost sound like a Roman Catholic mole in Protestant church clothes.
When you write, “Of course salvation is solely on the basis of the atonement of Christ. The Catholic Church, in fact, has condemned Pelagianism (salvation by works) as well as the variation called semi-Pelagianism,” you seem to do a good job of glossing over the glaring theological differences that exist between Roman Catholic soteriology and that of the Protestant Reformation.
If you believe all that, why was there any need for a Protestant Reformation — and why was Luther not welcomed by Rome as a hero?
Actually, most Catholics are very concerned about the things that Mary accomplished, as well as her intercession for them. (I know: I used to share that concern.) Go to Lourdes, if you want a full taste of it, as I did in the days of my Catholic youth.
You must not have read many threads: There are many vicious, uppity, uncharitable attacks on Protestants by Roman Catholics on this board.
I do not look down my nose at Catholics: I remember where I came from. However, I am honest enough to know that most of them are not saved. I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church and taught by nuns. Nowhere was I ever taught the Gospel as St. Paul presents it in Romans Four — or all of Romans for that matter. In fact, I always envied the confidence my Protestant friends and neighbors enjoyed in their salvation.
Frankly, whether or not you “have a problem” with the Catholic view of the referenced passage in John Chapter 3 is beside the point. The issue is: Does what was presented in the original post on this passage represent sound exegesis of the biblical text? Methinks that it rather does not.
Considering converting to Romanism, by any chance? We do not need folks muddying the waters, as you appear to be doing rather skillfully. Not everyone has these things down, yet. You run the risk of leading others astray with your easy talk.
I equate it with being a member of a team (seeing how this is football season). If the coach tells you to learn the plays or get in condition or be at practice and you never do these things, then are you really on the team.
If Christ tells us to do certain things and we don’t do them, were we ever really on the team.
I agree you just can say I’m saved and then go on your merry little way. There should be some outward evidence of an inward conversion.
However, none of those things I do saves me. Salvation is from Christ and Christ alone. Nothing we can do to add to that.
I do find it interesting though that when I ask my Catholic friends how do they identify their religious affiliation they usually respond as Catholic....not Christian. It’s almost as if Catholicism trumps Christianity. It might be a semantic thing.