Posted on 07/07/2008 10:39:05 PM PDT by Gamecock
A caller to our weekly radio program asked a question that has come up before: Are Roman Catholics saved? Let me respond to this as best I can. But I need to offer a qualifier because I think this is going to be somewhat dissatisfying for some because I am not going to say a simple "aye" or "nay." My answer is: It kind of depends. The reason I'm saying that is because of certain ambiguities.
My point is this, I think that in the area of the doctrine of salvation, Roman Catholic theology, as I understand it, is unbiblical because salvation depends on faith and works, not just faith alone. This was the specific problem Paul addressed in the book of Galatians and was the subject of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15: Is simple faith in Jesus adequate, or must gentile followers of Christ now keep the Law as a standard of acceptance before God?
I know not all Catholics would agree that this is a fair way of putting it, but I think that most Catholics would actually say the faith/works equation is accurate. Your faith and your works are what save you. I was raised Catholic and that’s what I was taught. (For my take on the biblical relationship between faith and works, see “Faith & Works: Paul vs. James.”)
Now, I need to add this too. Many Protestants feel the same way. Many Protestants are confused on this issue, so this is not a Catholic vs. Protestant concern so much. It's just that Catholicism across the board has more of an official position that amounts this, where Protestants have a more diversity of views, some that don't even seem to be consistent with Protestantism.
But the fact that one believes Jesus is the Messiah and that He is the savior, not our own efforts, is critical. If you reject this notion, like the Jews do, then as far as I can tell from the biblical revelation, there is no hope for you. That seems to be clear. But when somebody says they believe in Jesus and He is their Savior, but somehow works are mingled in with the picture, then I can't really say to you how much faith that person is putting in Jesus and how much faith that person is putting in their own efforts to satisfy God. If a person has all their faith in their own efforts, then they are going to be judged by their own efforts. It's as simple as that. If they have their faith in Jesus, they will be judged by the merits of Jesus. Anyone judged by their own merits is going to be found wanting. Anyone who is judged by the merits of Jesus is not going to be found wanting because Jesus is not wanting.
What if you are kind of a mixture? I think most Catholics are, frankly. Many Protestants are, as well.
I reflect often on a comment that was made by a friend of mine named Dennis. He was a Roman Catholic brother in Christ that I knew when I was a brand new Christian. He asked me this: "Greg, how much faith does it take to be saved?" I said, "A mustard seed." And he said, "There you go."
And so, it seems to me, there are many Christians—Protestant and Catholic—who believe in Jesus as their savior and have a mustard seed of faith, but are confused about the role of works. I think that Jesus is still Savior in those cases.
Yawn.
So your argument is the Lord lied to people in His own Word? This is how you reconcile the Gospels to Paul's epistles? And we're "lost"?
I really hope not, for if that is the formula you follow for salvation then you are like those men
The 'formula' for salvation is the same for each and every one of us. The Lord responded differently to each depending where they were on their own path. Therefore, to start at the beginning, one must look to the most complete answer. Shun evils as sins, repent and do the commandments and perform good works because they are of God -- being of service.
Seems I recall a President who said he knew Jesus and was born again named Bill Clinton. He's still talking about himself. Presume he's saved? I use him as an example because his life is very public.
And indeed the path is narrow. That's one way we KNOW that God did not predestine all people to be saved,
Not sure how you got from here to there but I figure it's a Calvinist thing. Sorry, I like my systematic theology where the Lord is upfront in what He expects of me.
False. That's somebody reading their own rationalizations based upon their own presuppositions into Scripture and personally deducing their doctrine, nstead of allowing God the Holy Spirit to grow that doctrine in them. All faith is from God, including doctrine.
The obvious support that God loved ALL men is John 3:16. As sinners we are condemned already. All of us had that from our birth and in our old sin nature, the natural man. All soulish and physical life is permeated by that scarring. He didn't come for the righteous, He came to redeem the sinners. Calvin may have had it right, but Beza amplified it and got it wrong when he promoted a doctrine of double predestination. There will be judgment. The bema seat for believers and the Great White Throne Judgment for unbelievers. Forgiveness of all past sins at the moment of salvation saves us from the Great White Throne Judgment and the Lake of Fire. Salvation from the consequences of post salvation sin and the scarring of our souls from past sins is a continuing process understood in Protestant circles as sanctification. The goal after salvation isn't eternal life. That is simply our first hope. After salvation, we have good works to do through faith in Christ. In order to perform what is considered divinely good as opposed to humanly good, we have to know what God wants. In order to know what He wants, we must remain in fellowship with Him and understand and learn what He reveals to us, both by the ministry of God the Holy Spirit and by His Word. His Word is available to us through Scripture, hence the importance of daily study of Bible doctrine. Salvation is spoken of in three fashions in Scripture and the word refers to and act of saving. Just as we are not the ones saving ourselves, neither are we able to remove the eternal life He creates. We might separate ourselves from fellowship with Him, but that merely results in shame at the bema seat for the believer and judgment at the Great White THrone Judgment for the unbeliever.
Anything added to faith in Christ alone, changes that thinking from faith and belief in Christ to something which considers Christ is insufficient to provide salvation.
God doesn’t need our help in salvation, nor are any works we might perform allowed to influence what He gives us by grace, otherwise it becomes a debt.
I felt that was an objective statement, not a reading of her mind. The issue was finding a proper interpretive authority for Scripture outside of one’s own personal interpretation. What I was getting at was the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It is manifestly clear that she refuses to consider this. That is hardly attempting to read her mind.
God doesn’t need our help to save us but he does require our cooperation if our free will is to mean anything. Works are our response to the gift of faith, the proof that this faith is more than lip service or a mental exercise. Of course, we cannot do anything pleasing to God without His grace, which means that these works are themselves further evidence of the grace He gives us. Also, the works that we do could never make God indebted to us for anything since there is nothing that we can do on our own to merit salvation, to merit heaven because we are still sinners.
Amen.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do because I go to My Father" (John 14:12)
I think we agree, but I discern human spirit regeneration and unction or the indwelling of the Holy Ghost occurs at the same time, and the life therein is eternal.
Indwelling is not the same as fellowship or being filled with the Spirit, which ceases when we grieve the Holy Spirit when we sin.
Our cooperation or remaining in fellowship with Him allows Him the freedom to continually sanctify us.
FWIW, you are cursed by the RCC because of this belief.
Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."
Agreed.
Now for your assertions. Of course we all need Christ for our Savior, what Christian, paying the least bit of attention, denies this? But, contrary to what you say, baptism - through the merits of Christ - does save you. This is explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21, though harmonizing this passage with the rest of the NT makes it clear that, while baptism infuses sanctifying grace, such grace is not incapable of being lost, hence, it is necessary to confess one's post-baptismal sins (John 20:21-23).
The Eucharist, worthily received, likewise brings people to eternal life (John 6, the entire chapter), while 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 makes it clear that the unworthy reception of the Eucharist brings condemnation to the soul.
No pope saves anyone, and no Catholic claims anything like this. That is simply a strawman. So is your assertion about the Rosary. No one claims the Rosary saves anyone, though, certainly, prayer - wherever and however it is offered - is a good thing, no? Further, your hyperbole about "15 times a day" is not borne out in anyone's practical experience; you simply do not know what you are talking about there.
As for works, it has been posted here on FR at least a thousand times by now that the Catholic Faith is not Pelagianism, and that works by themselves save no one. However, post-justification works are the fruit of that justification, and, as the visible fruit of the grace of God working in the soul of one in sanctifying grace, are, in fact, meritorious. Not so much of themsleves as works, but because the are the fruit of the combination of God's grace working in a soul whose interior will desires to cooperate with that grace.
All of the foregoing presupposes that God is at work in the soul that uses or undertakes these actions and Sacraments. Jesus Christ is at work in all of them, so why your implicit objection that He is not?
FWIW, I can't find the book of Canon in my Bible. FWIW, I can find that Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man, so praying to Mary is blasphemy to God. I can find where Bishops are to have one wife and you shouldn't deny to marry. I can find that you aren't supposed to add or subtract from the Bible. I can find where the church of the 7 hills is the Whore of Babylon and God begs you to come out of her. I can't find any popes, nuns, monks, or cardinals, etc, mentioned in my Bible.
All unrighteousness you have committed up until then.
Fiat misericordia tua Domini super eos.
Rather than go through the usual hoops, suffice it to say my answer to your questions are backed up in Scripture and prove the Proddie POV.
You are now free to trot out councils, popes, obscure teachings in an effort to refute.
It would not have been reading the poster's mind if you had said "I believe that you know and refuse..." or "Evidently, you know and refuse..."
So your argument is the Lord lied to people in His own Word?
Not at all. I used the word "straightforward" very specifically. One can tell the absolute truth without being straightforward. For example, imagine that I am sporting the most hideously ugly tie you have ever seen, while wearing the most hideously ugly suit you have ever seen. When I ask you what you think of the tie you respond: "It matches you suit perfectly, it's great!". That can be a perfectly true statement, but you weren't exactly being straightforward with me. :)
Now, and loosely, compare that to how Jesus treats certain questioners. His answers to the lovers of money all amounted to "follow the Law (perfectly) and you will be saved". This is a TRUE statement, as Harley was talking about, but Jesus did not include the information that what He suggested was impossible!!! :) I would say that counts as not being straightforward. :) Undoubtedly, Jesus treated many questioners in a like manner. But not all. For example, He treated Nicodemus VERY differently (John 3:16). That statement was both true AND straightforward.
This is how you reconcile the Gospels to Paul's epistles? And we're "lost"?
I don't understand the reconciliation you speak of, and who do you believe I think are "lost"?
The 'formula' for salvation is the same for each and every one of us. The Lord responded differently to each depending where they were on their own path. Therefore, to start at the beginning, one must look to the most complete answer. Shun evils as sins, repent and do the commandments and perform good works because they are of God -- being of service.
In the interests of Christian decency I shall refrain from commenting on this until your amendment. You just told me that the start of salvation is shunning evil. :)
Seems I recall a President who said he knew Jesus and was born again named Bill Clinton. He's still talking about himself. Presume he's saved? I use him as an example because his life is very public.
He's the worst because he claimed at the time to be a Southern Baptist, which happens to be my denominational faith. :) I don't presume he is saved for a minute. My general rule of thumb is that if someone tells me he is saved I will assume it until he gives me strong reason to doubt it. Clinton has perhaps worked harder than any other self-proclaimed Southern Baptist I can think of in convincing me that he is not saved. When I think of him, the last person in the universe I think of is Christ.
Parts of Scripture, if you delete the Epistle of Straw, seven books of the Old Testament, and if you ignore the parts of Paul's Epistles that trouble your forced, imposed interpretation.
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.