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.
Good answer. However, I cannot help but wonder why Protestants haven’t demanded that these “idols” be removed from a this church. After all, this church is far more significant to Protestants than any Catholic church is.
What?
No altar to
KUM-BY-YA?
Someone obviously slipped up on the altar committee.
Huh?
Are you referring to the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation?
But since I must not tell a lie, I will not do so.
LOL Says who?
What is this obsession with falsely representing the beliefs of others?
Ganesha is specifically named as a deity in India and worshiped as such.
No one is saying that. None of us. Not one. As the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) reminds us, God's elect can be found in a variety of churches, some more and some less perfect according to their adherence to the word of God.
No church is perfect, but some churches are a lot closer to the truth than others. And some, sadly, turn the word of God into fables and superstitions and lies and inflict those errors on its members, to its shame.
I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1] II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6] III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7] IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9] V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]
Of the Church
Petronski can give you article VI. He seems to know it so well it's probably tatooed to his driver's license.
They are bigoted pests.
LOL. Not only do you bear false witness against us, your only defense seems to be smarmy name-calling.
As God wills.
Yes, they do.
I certainly can understand why you would be too ashamed to post it:
VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.[14]
How much can one say about a pink neon question mark?
LOL! Good grief! Thanks for posting the lowdown straight from the CCC and setting me straight. I don't know what I was thinking. :)
Remember; there is no teaching of the Catholic Church which is so clear it cannot be denied, modified, or reinterpreted as required.
Yes, it's worked so well with their Bible interpretation, why not apply the same to their internal documents? :)
I have said that I was considering it, yes....
But certainly that is a far cry from accepting the two ideas, that you mentioned....it may be those two ideas, which will wind up preventing me from converting....I don’t know yet....in fact, those are two ideas, which give me a great of trouble, and thus, I hope to read on my own, but also to read what is written on these threads....do a lot of readings, contemplate other peoples arguments, and then pray and ask for guidance...
I find many people on these threads, are absolutely 100 percent convinced that their perspective is the only true perspective and that everyone else is wrong, who disagrees with them...
Myself, I do not have that 100 percent surety, I am not as rock sold bound to one perspective or another, as others here seem to be...
If that is a fault in me, so be it....so I am at fault, it will not be the first time, nor the last....
What I am seeking to do, is understand....
And I take all what I consider to be worthwhile posts, from whatever poster, and think about them, pray about them, and hope to come to what I believe to be the correct perspective...
So it seems.
Marx was just a Johnny-come-lately to the magicsterical.
2 Cor 11:
:28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily , the care of all the churches.
Paul also repeatedly speaks of Christ's churches, now if there was just one, why didn't he know?
But the minute a person starts to sin again, that sin must be accounted for again, confessed again, and absolved again.
Baptism does not erase original sin. We carry the stain of our first father's transgression with us every day of our lives.
Miraculously, that stain, that human nature to disobey God, that desire for and doing of sin, are all forgiven us by Christ's righteousness imputed to our account so that we can stand acquitted of all our sins before God. Christ has paid for our sins, therefore we are redeemed by His righteousness and His sacrifice and His obedience.
Nothing in men can pay the debt they owe to God for their transgressions. Therefore, the only payment equal to the debt is God Himself, graciously made by God on behalf of His family.
The RCC tells you that baptism gives you entrance into His church by this ficticious erasure of original sin, and then it's up to you to acquit yourself of your sins by your good works and penance for the rest of your life.
That's not what the Bible tells us.
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Romans 5:12,15,17,19 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
False.
We carry the stain of our first father's transgression with us every day of our lives.
It is a condition of the fall, but not a persistence of original sin.
The rest of your post is Calvinist gobbledygook.
Repentance of sin is present in the Bible, yet seems to be absent from Calvinism.
Huh? What a bizarre statement. Of course I never said anything remotely like that. On the contrary, I explained the importance of baptism in Protestant churches.
You obviously didn't read my post, or else you're just providing the thread with false accusations because you've got nothing better to do.
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.