Catholics & Salvation; And the answer is: Maybe.

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.

Every single one of St. Paul’s doctrines must have come from the eleven Apostles, since Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ is described in full and did not contain any teaching.

So much outrageous rubber Bible stuff from the Vatican reps just has to be ignored else the wounded wailing would be endless. This, however, must be responded to forcefully. It is plainly and brazenly UNBiblical.

Galatians 1:11-12:
NIV:
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
THE MESSAGE:
Know this—I am most emphatic here, friends—this great Message I delivered to you is not mere human optimism. I didn't receive it through the traditions, and I wasn't taught it in some school. I got it straight from God, received the Message directly from Jesus Christ.
AMPLIFIED:
11For I want you to know, brethren, that the Gospel which was proclaimed and made known by me is not man's gospel [a human invention, according to or patterned after any human standard].
12For indeed I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through a [direct] revelation [given] by Jesus Christ (the Messiah)
NEW LIVING TRANSLATION:
12 I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.[a]

I realize that some Vatican reps are convinced [outrageously so] that !!!!TRADITION!!!! and RELIGIOUS political power-mongering magicstericals trump Scripture.

I have never observed God affirming such a crazy notion ever, at all in all my 61 years.

“Every single one of St. Paul’s doctrines must have come from the eleven Apostles, since Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ is described in full and did not contain any teaching.”

Yes, you are correct, Quix — Paul was given an abundance of revelations — and many of them were of things that had been kept hidden from the Twelve, including Peter, until revealed to Paul.

2Co 12:1 - It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. {I will come: Gr. For I will come}
2Co 12:7 - And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
(KJV)

And further, Peter writing, said that many of Paul's writings were hard to be understood. He wasn't just speaking for others. Peter himself had to be instructed by Paul on the more advanced revelation concerning the Body of Christ (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians).

Interesting that Peter wrote only TWO books, and in them the word “church” appears only one time (1 Peter 5:13), and it was not about a church of which he himself was the pastor or bishop. Peter wrote to “scattered” people (1 Peter 1:1). This is odd if a “universal church” is built on Peter.

Why, Paul wrote SEVEN TIMES more books than Peter, at a volume ratio even greater, and SEVEN(!) of his books are directly to churches (interestingly, to match the number of churches who received letters in Revelation chs. 2 and 3).

I believe that these facts have a great bearing on the position of the two Apostles for the Church Age.

Dr. E.: The same God who taught the disciples taught Paul.

Annalex: Right, but in case of the disciples the teaching of God is recorded in the Gospel. In the case of Paul it is not recorded. So what do you call the unrecorded Word of God?

Here we go again with the Latin idea of ranking scriptures according to relative truth. The Bible is the Holy word of God. The Gospels are God's truth. The Epistles are God's truth. The Psalms are God's truth. The Prophets are God's truth. The Law is God's truth. Once you start ranking God's truth, then you pit God against God. Paul's teachings of God's word are FULLY recorded in God's word according to the sovereign will of God.

I should also add that St. Paul received at least the approval of the Church’s “pillars” (Gal 2:9).

Yes, well if you're thinking of trying to claim that Paul thought himself below the other Apostles, and especially Peter, then that idea might last about two verses and then disappear:

Gal 2:11 : When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

So much for the idea that Paul bowed at Peter's feet as the "Vicar of Christ". :) And speaking of that title, and under that Wiki heading, Vicar of Christ, I stumbled across the following:

The title "Vicar of Christ" came into use in the fifth and sixth centuries. The Christian Church prior to Constantine reserved the titles, "Vicar of Christ" and "Vicar of the Lord" exclusively for the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus sent to His Apostles to complete their training (John 16:12-15). Tertullian demonstrates this fact in the following quotes: (emphasis added)

“ Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost ... He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ ...[1] ”

“ For what kind of (supposition) is it, that, while the devil is always operating and adding daily to the ingenuities of iniquity, the work of God should either have ceased, or else have desisted from advancing? whereas the reason why the Lord sent the Paraclete was, that, since human mediocrity was unable to take in all things at once, discipline should, little by little, be directed, and ordained, and carried on to perfection, by that Vicar of the Lord, the Holy Spirit.[2]

Fascinating. The only thing that is shocking is how not shocked I am. LOL! Just another in a long line of examples of pulling God down to raise men up. God must decrease so that men may increase.

Hey, Bro - - - just a little more between you and me, y’know . . .

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) (Gal. 1:1)

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11, 12)

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. (Gal. 1:15-17)

And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. (Gal. 2:2)

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (Gal. 2:6, 7)
* * * * * * * * * * * *

So, Paul had been out in Arabia getting special revelation directly from Jesus Christ. I wonder if it was not on Mt. Sinai like Moses and Elijah. And it may be that he was out there with the Lord for a length of time EQUAL to that that our Lord spent with the Twelve during His earthly ministry! It’s no wonder that the Apostles in Jerusalem could “add NOTHING” to him.

Then Paul had to go up to Jerusalem (The Lord sent him - - - it was BY REVELATION) to communicate to them the special revelation of the Gospel made to him from the Lord. Galatians chapter 2 marks a clear distinction between the ministries of Paul and the Three (Peter, James, and John). Paul would go to the UNCIRCUMCISION, and the Three to the CIRCUMCISION.

So, if Peter ever did go to Rome (only a subject of subjective elastic neoprene history books), then Peter’s mission in Rome would have been to go to the CIRCUMCISION (Jews) there, not to ‘bishop’ a Gentile organization.

***I guess I’ll repeat my question. You must have inadvertantly answered a question from another person. Certainly your answer had no relationship to my question and we all know you wouldn’t deliberately “spin”.***

Not I. Let’s see what your original question was:

***And the “bread” the Priest passes out is broken from a loaf?

2,857 posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:05:17 PM by OLD REGGIE***

And my reply?

***It is unleavened bread, most of the Latin churches use individual wafers. Leavened bread goes mouldy in that climate.

2,860 posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:50:34 PM by MarkBsnr***

So let’s see: You asked if they were broken from a loaf and I said that most of the Latin churches use individual wafers. I think that that constitutes a reasonable answer.

***Please address the “authenticity” of the Eucharist as practiced in the Catholic Church as compared to the practice taught by Jesus.***

A further question.

The Priest normally has a much larger wafer that he does break first down the middle and then into smaller pieces. The Priest will consume one himself and then put them into the cup along with the blessed individual hosts. Some of the Eucharist bread given out is broken from the main host, others are individual hosts. I’ve seen some references in the past about the loaves and fishes as to why not all of the bread is broken and individual small hosts are permitted, but in a hasty google search I did not turn up any information further on this.

Jesus says that they will believe for a time and then fall away. Believers believe. Non believers don’t believe.

Now we can fool around with definitions of ‘true believer’, as we wander from denomination to denomination, but the words of Jesus are plain.

***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”.***

Jesus is not talking about what people say. He says that some believe and then fall away. That is their state, not their words.

***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.***

Hebrews
Chapter 2
1
1 Therefore, we must attend all the more to what we have heard, so that we may not be carried away.
2
For if the word announced through angels proved firm, and every transgression and disobedience received its just recompense,
3
how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?

Hebrews
Chapter 3
1
1 Therefore, holy “brothers,” sharing in a heavenly calling, reflect on Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,
...
5
Moses was “faithful in all his house” as a “servant” to testify to what would be spoken,
6
2 but Christ was faithful as a son placed over his house. We are his house, if (only) we hold fast to our confidence and pride in our hope.

Hebrews
Chapter 4
1
Therefore, let us be on our guard while the promise of entering into his rest remains, that none of you seem to have failed.
2
For in fact we have received the good news just as they did. But the word that they heard did not profit them, for they were not united in faith with those who listened.
3
For we who believed enter into (that) rest, just as he has said: “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter into my rest,’” and yet his works were accomplished at the foundation of the world.
4
For he has spoken somewhere about the seventh day in this manner, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works”;
5
and again, in the previously mentioned place, “They shall not enter into my rest.”
6
Therefore, since it remains that some will enter into it, and those who formerly received the good news did not enter because of disobedience,
7
he once more set a day, “today,” when long afterwards he spoke through David, as already quoted: “Oh, that today you would hear his voice: ‘Harden not your hearts.’”
8
Now if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterwards of another day.
9
Therefore, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God.
10
And whoever enters into God’s rest, rests from his own works as God did from his.
11
Therefore, let us strive to enter into that rest, so that no one may fall after the same example of disobedience.

and so on.

If we are disobedient to God we will fall. If only the elite are saved, then all these exhortations are worthless. The Reformed elite cannot fail; therefore why speak of ‘so that no one may fall’?

***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? ***

Jesus Christ incarnated acted within time. God is extra-temporal. All time for Him is in an instant.

We know that God does not go away and leave His Creation alone. Yet we also know that God has given us free will. Therefore what we do with our free will is ours. God knows each movement of the sparrow and each blade of grass; yet He does not micromanage them and cause every movement of every electron in every atom.

You present two examples and say that the Catholic must adhere to either exclusively of the other. Neither is Scriptural and neither is true.

***If you say the latter then it could be rationalized that Christ needs to keep being continuously re-sacrificed in order to earn salvation. ***

Rationalization is the province of human beings, not God.

***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.***

Finish. Plan. All human things. The Catechism says:

759 “The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life,” to which he calls all men in his Son.

That is the ‘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.***

We’re trying to get you to understand a third direction. That is what we read in the Bible.

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.