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.
***John ch 10 speaks of proper Zoo habitat..***
John 10 first half is Jesus calling himself the Good Shepherd and all the people are His sheep (Jews) except for those that are not His sheep that do not belong to the Jewish fold that He still must go and lead.
Not sure where the zoophilia comes in.
I suppose the Reformer in me would have to say that God always gets His way. :) So, I guess it's sort of hard for me to picture God changing on the fly based on what man does. Since it is very clear that we do learn from our mistakes, and from our POV they can turn out for the good, that God already has those mistakes built right into His plan and everything goes exactly as He designed it from the beginning.
***the Reformer in me ***
Say ‘ahhh’ and I’ll look for him.
***God always gets His way.***
Rather anthropomorphic, wouldn’t you say?
***So, I guess it’s sort of hard for me to picture God changing on the fly based on what man does.***
Maybe He doesn’t. Maybe man’s free will is part of Creation.
***Since it is very clear that we do learn from our mistakes, and from our POV they can turn out for the good,***
They don’t, much of the time. Therefore any conclusion based upon this is really unsubstantiated.
***that God already has those mistakes built right into His plan and everything goes exactly as He designed it from the beginning.***
Maybe God simply wants us all to love Him unconditionally and His aim is to have that come about via our own free will as we walk (or don’t walk) the Via of Christianity.
Sheep in cages?.. Surely you are not that dense..
Also sheep "called out"(Ekkesia) of cages into the reletive freedom of the pasture(Ps 23)..
Actually its exactly like what christianity BECAME(and is)..(John ch 10)..
The sheep pens are metaphorically a zoo..
The pasture is something very different..
Actually, what Jesus says is:
John 10:
9
I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.
Come in and go out. From the pen to the pasture and back again. The Jews are the original sheep; the Gentiles are the others of which He speaks.
Jesus told the Apostles to take the species and eat them as a covenant with "many" (vv 17-19, cf. Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24). This is consistent with John 6:52 "if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever", and obviously refers to all believers. But in Luke 22:19 another commandment is given for the future, "do this for a commemoration of me"; that is a separate commandment given the apostles only, not to eat but to give the Eucharist, ...
So you are telling me that in the space between the bolded words that the audience changes from all believers to the Apostles only??? AND, that the Church has taught this for 2,000 years? Well, that is just another one for the books in Catholic Biblical interpretation. NO ONE on earth could POSSIBLY read that cold and come away with that interpretation. This bolsters my general contention that the text of the Bible is irrelevant in Catholic theology and that tradition completely overpowers scriptures. I can only imagine that you call this "plain reading" because there are thousands of like examples of the Church's interpretations.
What is killer for me is that it was YOUR GUYS whom you say we should thank for the scriptures. :) Yet, these same scriptures do not resemble the interpretations of the Church. Since this is SUCH against interest, it is another reason that I conclude that it was actually God who breathed both the individual books of the Bible, AND their assembly into one volume. It reminds me of the prominent role that women play in the Bible, which would be totally against interest if men were responsible for it. It is God we must thank for His own word, not your men.
FK: Your interpretation of John 20:23 makes the Apostles and your clergy equal with Christ.
Again it is not an interpretation but a direct and plain commandment to forgive or retain sins, and no it does not give the Apostles an equality with Christ.
Sure it does because only God can forgive sins:
Mark 2:7-11 : 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone ?" 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11 "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."
Notice that Jesus doesn't lift a finger to correct what for you must be one of the granddaddies of heresies, that your men cannot forgive sins. Yet Jesus let it COMPLETELY go without comment. And I'm sure that tells you NOTHING. :)
The Church gave you the New Testament and explained the Old. You are free to examine the Catechism and compare it with the Scripture. Where is the deception?
While I won't pretend to say that I have even read MOST of the Catechism, from what I have read I would say that it contains SOME truth, but that the majority of it is either extra-scriptural or anti-scriptural. Two examples of anti-scriptural holdings are in this post alone (artificially selective audience in Luke based on the predetermined theological need to justify the Eucharist, and John 20:23 making clergy equal with God).
Those on the path have the word of God taken away by the devil. Not true believers after he’s done with them.
Yes, anyone can know what the Bible says, but that does not make him a true believer. The true believer comes from good soil and produces good fruit. God will be with true believers always, even to the end of the age. He will not let satan take away His word from His children unto their destruction.
Those on rocky believe for a time. For a time, FK, they believe. Those in the thorns also believe for a time, and then fall away.
No they don't. Anyone can say the words "I believe". It continues to amaze me that in Catholicism that shallowness is all it takes to be a "true believer". The Bible specifically tells us all about the "Lord, Lord" crowd, but I guess there is no such thing in Catholicism until the very end. I think this is another example of forced interpretation to cover for extra-scriptural tradition. It makes no sense to say that being a true believer really IS all talk, yet that is what is required to say that true salvation can be lost for failing to follow and obey the men of the Church.
All the evidence, including much of Hebrews, says that it is possible for believers to fall away.
All the "evidence" first goes through the cleansing of the Church before it reaches Catholic ears. :) God's word does not need to be cleansed.
FK: ***Do you believe that God acts within time? If “yes” then God has a plan. ***
Do you have the details?
I said God has a plan and you said that He doesn't because for Him all time is now. The only reason I can think of for why Catholics always say this is to try to moot whatever the point is that a Protestant is trying to make. More specifically, I think Catholics are really getting to the idea that God has no plan because man LEADS God with man's decisions. Man must be in control and sovereign, thus God has no plan. However, this fails because of what we see in the real world.
So, I asked you if you think God acts within time. If you say "no" then that would be the Deist view, that God creates and then goes away. But if you say "yes" then God must have a plan because He causes things in succession. Was Jesus born before He was crucified and rose from the dead, or do you think all of those events are still going on right now for God? If you say the latter then it could be rationalized that Christ needs to keep being continuously re-sacrificed in order to earn salvation. If that is your belief then by definition God has never actually accomplished anything finally, ever. I suppose that's why we might need the men of your Church, to finish what God could not finish because He is outside of time.
If, OTOH, Christ died once and for all then things relating to it happened both before and after that event. A plan. God's plan involves a series of events that happen within time. If God does not have a plan, then it was His judgment that chaos should rule the earth concerning His children and we are completely on our own.
Rather anthropomorphic, wouldn’t you say?
I don't see how. The only premises needed are that God has a will and is omnipotent. I wouldn't expect you to disagree with either of those. :)
FK: ***So, I guess it’s sort of hard for me to picture God changing on the fly based on what man does.***
Maybe He doesn’t. Maybe man’s free will is part of Creation.
But that would be a surrender of God's free will, and an abdication of God's control over His creation. What kind of God would create a being in His own image only to turn it loose to go and do "whatever"? If we treated our own children like that we would rightfully be arrested.
FK: ***Since it is very clear that we do learn from our mistakes, and from our POV they can turn out for the good,***
They don’t, much of the time. Therefore any conclusion based upon this is really unsubstantiated.
Ah, that's why I carefully worded that. :) Many times our mistakes do not turn out for good from OUR POV. However, the Bible tells us:
Rom 8:28 : And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
If we accept that God is in control then we know that even mistakes that seem to hurt us ultimately work for our benefit in God's immense plan.
Maybe God simply wants us all to love Him unconditionally and His aim is to have that come about via our own free will as we walk (or don’t walk) the Via of Christianity.
That would require that God give up control of His creation, which would make Him both irresponsible and immoral. Humans HATE the idea of being controlled by anyone, including God. Much easier to believe is that we are sovereign and in control of our lives. Unfortunately for those many, the Bible just doesn't teach that.
1 Cor 6:19-20 : 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
Most men, indeed most Christians do believe that they ARE "their own". That is the Catholic/Arminian idea of free will.
It don't say that you added that.. or inferred it..
As Jesus said after saying this.. the apostles didn't understand this.. How could they?..
The sheep pens were not fully developed yet..
Even NOW most don't understand it..
The Body of Christ is given for apostles and also for all men of faith: I cited the similar scripture in the post you are responding to. The commandment to "do it" refers not to eating of the body (that is given in v.17) but to offering it "in commemoration", -- something that lay in the future at the moment. Yes, that is plain reading and paying attention to what is written.
I'm sure that tells you NOTHING.
The statement form a pharisee in Mark 2 indeed does not speak to whether the Apostles could forgive sins on the charge of Christ.
Two examples of anti-scriptural holdings are in this post alone
They are examples of your lack of understanding of the scripture.
***Rather anthropomorphic, wouldn’t you say?
I don’t see how. The only premises needed are that God has a will and is omnipotent. I wouldn’t expect you to disagree with either of those. :)***
It also assumes that God is a micromanager robot programmer.
***Maybe He doesn’t. Maybe man’s free will is part of Creation.
But that would be a surrender of God’s free will, and an abdication of God’s control over His creation. ***
But Jesus tells us throughout the Gospels what to do with our free will. Maybe the God of Scripture isn’t saddled with human insecurities about control.
***If we accept that God is in control then we know that even mistakes that seem to hurt us ultimately work for our benefit in God’s immense plan.***
He is the Creator; there is little evidence that He is a micromanager and there is a lot of evidence that He has endowed us with free will. Immense plan?
***Maybe God simply wants us all to love Him unconditionally and His aim is to have that come about via our own free will as we walk (or don’t walk) the Via of Christianity.
That would require that God give up control of His creation, which would make Him both irresponsible and immoral.***
God cannot be immoral. The words of Jesus make it plain that He has bestowed all the gifts that it takes for us.
(OLD REGGIE) "And the “bread” the Priest passes out is broken from a loaf?"
Matthew 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
Please note Jesus broke bread and passed it around. (He never, ever, said this is "my body and my blood" but that's another story.)
Please address the "authenticity" of the Eucharist as practiced in the Catholic Church as compared to the practice taught by Jesus.
Yes. Of course. No New Testament scripture existed for decades after the Pentecost. What do you think St. Paul based his letters on?
So, I asked you if you think God acts within time. If you say "no" then that would be the Deist view, that God creates and then goes away. But if you say "yes" then God must have a plan because He causes things in succession. Was Jesus born before He was crucified and rose from the dead, or do you think all of those events are still going on right now for God? If you say the latter then it could be rationalized that Christ needs to keep being continuously re-sacrificed in order to earn salvation. If that is your belief then by definition God has never actually accomplished anything finally, ever. I suppose that's why we might need the men of your Church, to finish what God could not finish because He is outside of time.
If, OTOH, Christ died once and for all then things relating to it happened both before and after that event. A plan. God's plan involves a series of events that happen within time. If God does not have a plan, then it was His judgment that chaos should rule the earth concerning His children and we are completely on our own.
AMEN!!!
Like many of us on these threads, I've also noticed the tendency of Rome to give the non-answer "God is timeless" when confronted by the actuality of God's sovereignty. They cannot justify their open-theism with the God of Scripture, so they ditch the Scriptures.
"God is outside of time" is an empty response that tries to sound intelligent, but ends up contradicting the very reason for the Scriptures -- to inform us of God's will and the purpose for our lives, all according to His plan of creation determined by Him from before the foundation of the world.
God exists within time and outside of time; but God created within time. At the moment of creation, God declared the universe and all that would ever occur. How could He not, and still remain God? How could an omnipotent, omniscient Creator not "know" every movement of every atom that would ever exist?
And that "foreknowledge" of all things is absolute because it has been determined by His will and purpose in creating life in the first place.
Or else things would be different. He's God. He gets what He wants because He already has it.
OLD REGGIE: Absolutely amazing! Scripture is secondary to this "Sacred Deposit of faith"?
Pretty astounding what men will cook up to deny God's word and will, isn't it?
Joseph Smith said the same thing. He "found" extra-Biblical "truth" outside the Scriptures. And we see how well that worked out for him.
I also seem to recall Roman Catholics on this forum telling us only the RCC contains the "true Gospels." And now we learn these "true Gospels" are somehow not enough, but only part of some "sacred deposit of faith."
As if God wrote in pencil, and skipped every other word to allow for the "deposit" of additional "truth." But that is not what God tells us about Himself or His creation...
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." -- 1 Peter 1:23-25"[You] being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Same question to y’all: how, do you think, St. Paul learned the doctrines he so ably explained in his letters?
***Pretty astounding what men will cook up to deny God’s word and will, isn’t it?***
More like what men will cook up to try and make themselves out to be equal to God. It is, after all, part of man’s fallen nature and straight from the serpent in Eden:
“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,....”
People who think that when God spoke it wasn’t enough are just living in their Adamic nature. Eventually, the Lord will sort them out. Scriptures are enough, which is why we are Sola Scriptura.
AMEN! All according to mercy, and not debt.
Huh? If that is the case then here is the passage again with what appears to be the Catholic interpretation in bolded parenthesis:
No, the plain reading is that He gave thanks for the wine and then they took it. Then He gave thanks for the bread and then they ate it. The instruction is for all believers to partake of the Supper. Then we wouldn't have to ignore anything. :)
The statement from a pharisee in Mark 2 indeed does not speak to whether the Apostles could forgive sins on the charge of Christ.
So the question "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" REALLY means "Who other than Roman Catholic clergy can forgive sins but God alone?". Is that what you are saying? I mean, this does sound like a perfectly typical plain meaning interpretation of the Church, but I just wanted to make sure I had it right. :)
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.