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.
We can always hope. :)
Only
HOPE IN GOD
tends to be faithfully, persistently, reliably
fruitful.
Thanks for this post.
I have no problem with that..
Deep calls out to deep and shallow calls out to shallow..
"We" are where we are supposed to be..
Water seeks its own level..
Such distinction can be made, when for instance direct words of Christ are compared with someone else's speech, but I was not making it.
Then what does "God-breathed" mean to you? Do you think there were errors in truth in the original writings of the original books, as the Orthodox do? If so, do you think the Gospels are immune to those errors? The sections of the CCC I have read on the subject didn't leave me with the impression that the Church believes some parts of the Bible (NT) are "truer" than others.
FK: The word of God through Paul and the other Apostles is all written down.
Some of it is written down. Certainly not all of it: Christ taught the Apostles for three years and one can read the four gospels in three hours, and the Epistles in another hour.
We know that not every word Jesus ever said is recorded in scriptures, but we do know that God revealed everything He wanted us to know in scriptures. That's what 2 Timothy tells us. Am I to understand that there are secret teachings from Jesus to the Apostles, that we need, that are not in scriptures? And, that these secrets are only known through the Latin Church? That would make Christianity an unrevealed faith, and demand that God share our faith in Him with faith in your men. Only your men have the secrets of God so one must have faith in them. I'm afraid I am unable to share my faith in God with anyone.
Besides, the letters of Paul, especially, do not have the form of a recorded revelation: they address specific problems, refer to teaching done by him orally, make trivial references to his personal belongings, -- they are not written as a systematic re-telling of a revelation.
Who decided what the correct form was for God to use? The Church? I'm not sure I understand your criticism of scripture (Paul) here. Is some scripture of lesser value if it doesn't take a certain form?
I think it boils down to . . .
GOD BREATHED
is
INADEQUATE
compared to the political power-mongering bureaucratic committee of militarily supported self-serving rascals that appeared on the ecclesiastical scene around 300-400 AD so successfully. Just ask them.
Besides, having a flexible rubberized magicsterical continuously tweaking whatever unholy pontifications best serve their political interests is greatly better for their vain-glorious priorities than having to put up with the rather consistent and clear
GOD BREATHED WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD.
Exactly: the Federalist papers, the letters, etc., which explain the original intent of the constitutional clauses. We refer to the Fathers of the Church in the same way: they explain the intended meaning of the scripture.
No, the Fathers were commentators, NOT drafters. It is NOT the same and the distinction is clear. The place of the drafters would be taken by other scripture, the intent of the drafter HAS to be the intent of God. We look to God for that intent, and apparently you look to the Fathers for that intent. The liberal looks to outside sources, and the Fathers ARE outside sources, unless you want to put them on a par with the Holy Spirit.
Nothing in the later pronouncements, papal and consiliar, may contradict the earlier doctrine. One cannot get more conservative than that.
All this means is that no one commentator can contradict an earlier commentator. That is neither conservative nor liberal by itself. What is liberal is that the claimer of interpretation (the Church) is using these outside sources as authority in the same way Justice Breyer likes to use foreign law in his opinions.
These theologians wrote after the Scriptures had been written and as you previously stated their writings are not God Breathed. How does your church consider them equal to Scripture, which we both have agreed is God Breathed.
Also, how do you know what they claim is "tradition" is accurate since their writings are not God Breathed and are their opinions.
The Church did a lot of work to harmonize and sort out the memories of Jesus before it could arrive at the complete and accurate picture of the Christian Faith.
Are you claiming your church edited the Scriptures after the fact? We all know the qualifications of who wrote them, when they were written and who guided them in the writing of them. When exactly and who exactly edited them?
I know I sure don't want to be near those knuckle heads when they are judged.
Apparently the distinction is not clear, since the "tradition" that they wrote of is considered equal of Scripture. Although, their writings were their opinions and are not God Breathed.
Magesterium=Master. And didn’t the Word of God tell us NOT to call ANY man master? That word is reserved for HIM.
Sorry,, LoL.. WHat I meant was there are some things its good to be ignorant of.. whether they are true or not.. There is some nasty stuff "out there".. Just knowing about it can soil your mind..
LoL.....
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. - Matthew 5:28
LOL. I cite Scripture 10 times more often than you do. You cite the "church fathers." I responded to you yesterday with several Scriptures supporting the fact that Christ accomplished the salvation of all His flock. John and Hebrews testify to this fact.
Your single offering of Phil. 2:12 again shows an inability to understand the Scriptures. You conveniently omit the next verse...
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Phil 2:13
So just what is this "fear and termbling? We learn from Paul it is the proper perspective we should maintain in the face of the Almighty God of our salvation.
"And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him." -- 2 Corinthians 7:15
The RCC completely ignores the instructions of Christ who tells us there is only one requirement for our salvation -- God's free and merciful gift of grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
lol. Stalin was closer to Lenin than either of us were. That sure doesn't make Stalin more politically astute than you or me.
The gnostics were "nearer to the source of the teachings of Christ" than any of us, time-wise. Did they get it right?
Father Matthias Premm did not say that, and in fact the opposite is true.
Of course he said that, here is that part of the quote:
It is obvious that the "true meaning" is not apparent from the text because ONLY your Magisterium can see it. Therefore, the lay reader cannot possibly arrive at "the truth", your Church's interpretation, by simply reading the scriptures. He is fairly clear about this. How do you deny this?
Yes, that is exactly my assessment as well. Leave it to men to try to improve upon God's work. For some it doesn't appear that God can do anything without man's help.
Apparently the distinction is not clear, since the "tradition" that they wrote of is considered equal of Scripture. Although, their writings were their opinions and are not God Breathed.
Yes, that's all I can figure. That means that those writings of the Fathers that were the most popular, the ones that passed the vote, must be considered equal or superior to God's OWN word. But really, we already know the answer to that because extra-scriptural tradition declares what the scripture means without regard to other scripture. Therefore, that tradition trumps the scriptures. I think it would have been more sporting if they had let the Bible defend itself, but then that would have spoiled all the "secrets of the deposit of faith" which contradict scriptures. I guess if one has the power, why take any chances? :)
Well put.
In most respects . . . and usually in absolutely all respects . . .
God is not about to share HIS GLORY WITH ANYONE MORTAL.
The Jewish magicsterical 2000 years ago were
NOT
JUSTIFIED
by their . . .
1. lineage
2. theological education
3. Scripture memorization
4. Self-righteousness
5. Self-aggrandizing committee meetings
6. Roman or other armed guards
7. Ancestors
8. Moses
9. Their pretend IN-GROUP once having known God
10. Long flowing robes
11. Polished committee vetted prayers
12. Market place prayers with trumpet announcements and fanfares
13. Pomp and Circumstance
14. !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of Moses, of man, of demons, even of Scripture
15. The prayers of Moses et al
16. RELIGIOUS RITUALS, customs and habits ad nauseum
17. Their political clout
18. The size of their families
19. The size of their egos
20. The size of their cheekiness
21. The size of their bank accounts
22. The enormity of their arrogance
23. The enormity of their social manipulations
24. The enormity of their idolatries
RELIGION has ALWAYS been man reaching up to God according to man's terms and/or man's mangling of God's terms.
Authentic Christianity and Judaism has always been about GOD REACHING DOWN TO MAN IN RELATIONSHIP strictly according to God's terms.
Religion has always set in--throughout the Old Testament era and now for 2000 years in the NT era--shortly after every AUTHENTIC new revival; new move of God; new revelation; new miraculous manifestation of God and His Glory . . . God has PERSISTENTLY had to come down and shake up all the fossilized, calcified, encrusted, ritualized, INSTITUTIONALIZED, !!!!TRADITION!!!! bound hideocies pretending to be routes to HIM.
The Children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had not left the miracles of Egypt and the Red Sea very long before they were clamoring for TANGIBLE AIDS TO WORSHIP--yeah, right--a golden calf. And the earth swallowed a good chunk of them up--as it will again.
God has made abundantly clear in His Word . . . that the hills of Rome will be less than mole-hills.
His Holy Mountain--Mt Zion--will be the highest point in a list of ways.
WHATEVER Rome/The Vatican was AD 300-400 or represented then or now . . . or Canterbury . . . or Springfield . . . or Milwaukee . . . or Mecca . . . or Lhasa . . . or Salt Lake City . . . or . . .
Will be long blown away dust.
Folks would be wise do focus on God and HIS priorities and HIS WAYS vs RELIGION if they want to avoid being part of that blown away dust.
GOD ALONE
CHRIST ALONE
CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED
HIGH AND LIFTED UP
HIS TRAIN FILLING THE TEMPLE!
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.
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.