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.
The church began with calling of the first disciples, by definition, ecclesia are “called out ones”. By the time of Jesus statement (Mat 18:17) “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican”, the ranks of the church had grown to at least seventy supernaturally gifted followers (Luke 10) in spite of all of those who had left Him the previous year because of His message (John 6). Three months later, after the ascension, their numbers had grown to around 120. What Pentecost did was not the creation of the church/churches but the empowering of them to be witnesses and the evidence of that was God adding additional numbers to the existing church daily. The church had been gifted prior to the ascension, first to the twelve (Matt. 10) and then to the seventy (Luke 10).
“Not a universal priesthood of all believers”
Rev. 1:6 “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen” and Rev.5:10 “And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth” say otherwise.
Which is our position without accepting the label, “Protestant” (in the Geneva sense).
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking. I am great with being a Protestant, even though other Baptists think of it as a different category. I protest that which was objectionable in those times when the Reformers organized. I protest today what my brethren Reformed Protestants protest both then and now.
And I would add that we never use a water ceremony of any kind on anyone who can not make a personal confession of faith in Jesus Christ. So infants are not put through any water ceremony in our church(es), and rarely young children. We neither find precedent in Scripture for it, nor do we see any Scriptural necessity for it.
And I believe in, and my SBC church practices, exactly the same thing. :) My point is that I think that there are very many Bible-believing Christians who practice paedobaptism, AS LONG AS, they do not believe it has salvific properties, a la our Apostolic brethren. And, the Bible-believers don't believe that.
“I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re asking. I am great with being a Protestant, even though other Baptists think of it as a different category. I protest that which was objectionable in those times when the Reformers organized. I protest today what my brethren Reformed Protestants protest both then and now.”
Baptist histories published by SBC sources, by independent Baptist sources, Reformed Baptist sources, Anabaptist sources, in their content all pretty much dovetail when you go back bafore 1700 AD. And the documentation is plentiful that their were Christians believers existing, multiplying and advancing from the time of the Apostles that were never at all part of what is now called the Catholic Church.
That is why I PROTEST being called a Protestant in the Geneva sense of the term, because the heritage I claim goes much further back than the Protestants of Geneva.
Actually, while I'm not up on the "divine" thing, I wouldn't have a case if Mary reached theosis during life. If theosis is the equivalent of assured salvation, then I would assume she had that well before she died. However, if theosis is the equivalent of being equal with someone already in Heaven, then in the spirit of Matt. 11:11 I WOULD have a problem with that. :)
I don't know how theosis and salvation can be one and the same thing (although some Orthodox sources claim it is). If that is the case, no one is saved. Theosis means being without sin, being completely conformed to the likeness of Christ.
I would grant Kolo that Mary may have reached that stage, but no one else. Yet we believe she is not the only saint in heaven. As far as I know no one else besides her was sinless.
I think it is unclear what that means vis-a-vis Mary. We call her the saint of saints, but she is not divine because no matter how sinless she was by choice, only God can be without sin by nature.
Yet we know nothing about her. We don't even know her personality (which she would have lost through theosis). The only thing that defines her is her obedience to God.
I think she was way past salvation. If theosis is the ticket to get into heaven, we are all wasting our time.
Theosis is struggle that comes from true faith. We must struggle, aganst our corrupt nature, to conform to Christ out of love for Him, and out of our heart-felt revulsion at evil. We don't find in naturally in us to love our enemies, to bless those who hate us.
Only those we consider saints in heaven were like that duirng their life on earth. And they are our hope because they were human like we are. And Blessed Mary is our greatest hope among them.
But we believe that God saves us trough grace, through His forgiveness, through His injustice, because it is not just that any of us is saved. If we all had to reach theosis beforfe being saved, we might as well al throw in the towells right now!
***Most Protestants do not call themselves Calvinists. ***
Neither do they call themselves gourmands. And with good reason.
***Discard the empty baggage of free will, Petronski. It’s God’s creation and He does with it what He will.***
Without free will there is no responsibility. Are you advocating anarchy?
***Putting aside the Scriptural truth that God loves us before we love Him, does what you wrote mean God doesn’t get what He wants? Isn’t God capable of bringing all men to faith in Christ if that’s what He really “wants?”***
Then explain for us, from a Reformed point of view, why the Chosen People rejected Christ.
***And Lutheran and Anglicans do not believe priests forgive sins. The confessional booth belongs strictly to Rome.***
Well, strictly to Jesus, really, and the Church that He began.
***I’ve read all the Gospels ***
Then why not post them?
***Nobody gets everything right 100% of the time. ***
Except God.
You may wish to pay more attention to His Church.
I post from the Gospels every day on this forum.
If you haven't seen them, it's because they could well be unfamiliar to you.
Gibberish.
Read Hebrews.
“Without free will there is no responsibility. Are you advocating anarchy?”
No, what the good Dr. E. is advocating is the sovereignty of the counsel of God over all the thoughts and devises of His creation.
“Nothing is outside God’s perfect knowledge of all that exists or will exist......It’s God’s creation and He does with it what He will.”
Ps. 33:10-11, “The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect. The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.”
Ps. 94:10, “He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?”
Prov. 16:9, “A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.”
Prov. 19:21, “There are many devices in a man’s heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.”
Yes, I fully agree. It is not possible that Bible-based faith was invented 500 years ago. It goes all the way back to the beginning.
That is why I PROTEST being called a Protestant in the Geneva sense of the term, because the heritage I claim goes much further back than the Protestants of Geneva.
Well, I don't know all the history, but I can't imagine that the Geneva Protestants claimed that they were inventing something totally new. We know how approvingly Calvin and Luther quoted from Augustine, for example.
“Well, I don’t know all the history, but I can’t imagine that the Geneva Protestants claimed that they were inventing something totally new. We know how approvingly Calvin and Luther quoted from Augustine, for example.”
Well, as I have commented on before, the Bible has at least four different and proper uses of the concept of "saved". Your description would match one of them, glorification, i.e. literal entry into Heaven.
Yet we know nothing about [Mary]. We don't even know her personality (which she would have lost through theosis). The only thing that defines her is her obedience to God.
You know that I strongly disagree with this, but I'm wondering if it is mainline Orthodoxy that the personality is sacrificed in order to reach theosis or be saved. It just seems logical to me that if the personality is lost, then the person is lost. Certainly God can remove the sin without destroying the personality.
I think she was way past salvation. If theosis is the ticket to get into heaven, we are all wasting our time.
Oh, I thought that one MUST achieve theosis to get into Heaven, in this life or the next (through some equivalent of purgatory). That is not true?
If we all had to reach theosis before being saved, we might as well all throw in the towels right now!
I didn't realize there was a concept of "saved" in Orthodoxy that was separate from theosis.
Irrelevant. The Bible doesn't save. God does by His judgment. And judgment happens when you die, and is based on your deeds. That's what the Bible says. Now, surely Paul says something else...
You know that I strongly disagree with this, but I'm wondering if it is mainline Orthodoxy that the personality is sacrificed in order to reach theosis or be saved
There is no such thing as "mainline" Orthodoxy; there is simply Orthodoxy. Personality and ego, which is self-love, are one and the same thing.
As long as you have an ego you will have vestiges of desires to sin by considering yourself before God. Christ says "Love God with all your heart and mind and soul." He didn't say with most of them, but with ALL of them.
Similarly if you can love your neighbor as yourself, then you cease to exist as an object of (self) love. You have reached the ultimate humility; you died unto yourself.
Now, will you lose your identity? No. The Church always opposed the idea of re-incarnation precisely because it would involve loss of identity. I am sure Mary knows who she is, but she thinks nothing of it.
None of her holiness is any source of pride. As I said, we know nothing about her. Her personality is darkness. All we see in her the is the light of, and obedience to God.
The Gospels also tell us that we will not have wives and husbands but that we will all be "like angels." This is in response to the Sadducees (who did not believe in afterlife) question Jesus about a woman who married seven brothers, one after another, and they all died. "Whose wife," asked the priests, "shall she be in heaven?"
Obviously, Jesus implied that she will not be anyone's wife. So, banish any thought of having a heavenly family reunited with you. God will trump everything in heaven. If you find that objectionable, reexamine your faith.
Oh, I thought that one MUST achieve theosis to get into Heaven, in this life or the next (through some equivalent of purgatory). That is not true?
I think we all believe that only those souls that have been "cleansed" of any impurity enter into the heaven. Your side believes it happens immediately upon death of a Christian regardless of any unrepentant sin, regardless of deeds.
Your side believes "deeds" are judged as to who gets to live in hevanely penthouses with a "view," and who in basement studio apartments without a "view."
The Church, however, always taught that when we die we are judged as either saved or lost, depending on our spiritual state of repentance or non-repentance for our sins. Those souls who are saved will be purified before the Great (Dread) Judgement. It is only after the resurrection of the bodies and their unification with their souls that those who are saved will enter Heaven.
Now, only those souls reunited with their bodies that have been cleansed of all residual sin will enter heaven. By definition those souls will be in a state of theosis (sinless) by grace.
Our memorial services serve to ease the state of the soul while they stand "naked" before God and all the saints and their book is read. The "pain" we try to ease with our supplications to God has to do with their shame, not with being "roasted" by God. The pain will be experiencing the love of God (a purifying "fire"), which saved them, even though they didn't deserve to be saved.
So, while the Orthodox believe in the intermediate state of the souls departed (between the immediate judgment after death and the Final Judgment), we disagree with Catholics who believe that the fires of purification are real fire and that souls are literally "roasted" to God's "satisfaction."
I don't know, maybe the Catholics have attenuated their theology since I read it last, and perhaps don't insist on the real fire any longer, in which case our theology and their purgatory may be a lot closer than they were. Purgatory as taught by the Catholic Church was unknown to the East.
I didn't realize there was a concept of "saved" in Orthodoxy that was separate from theosis.
Those who have reached theosis (sinless state), fully conformed to the likeness of Christ, will have been saved. I only expressed doubt than anyone dies in a state of theosis.
My understanding as a Catholic is exactly the same as yours. The fires of purgation are not literal fires. Just as you said, the soul stands naked before God and terribly terribly ashamed of the wickedness it still has in the face of the eternal Goodness of God.
The shame of having one's sins exposed to God and the Universe causes great anguish--but we can then voluntarily accept that anguish in repentance for the sins of our life. This pain, then, becomes a kind of martyrdom and an act of great love for God--one which satisfies the divine justice and reconciles the sinner to God all at once. From evil we have brought good, and we are then permitted--perhaps permit ourselves would be a more apt phrase--to enter the joy of heaven unstained.
If there was any Catholic doctrine that said that Purgatory was a literal fire whose purpose was to exact satisfaction by "roasting", then I've never heard of it. It sounds entirely too crass.
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.