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 does not reinterpret the Bible with any of that. The Bible continues to mean what it always said; we know the meaning by the witness of Sts Irenaeus, Ignatius, Cyprian, Basil, etc. — just like a conservative judge looks to the writings from late 17-early 18c to properly understand the constitution.
On the other hand, even the most conservative of judges has to now and then decide new cases, and so the Living Magisterium remains in session, and thank God for that.
He’s THAT old?
I hear tell some folks believe the ark is still floating and is the queen of the cruise line industry and old Noah is picking up all kinds of mangy critters.
It says the opposite. You are relying on the quotes from Romans 3 and 5 that do not support your interpretation in context.
Well, the opposite would be that we all are sinless. :) But putting that aside, where does the Bible say that not all are sinners? This is a good example of the conservative/liberal interpretation discussion. The liberal throws away what is in the four corners if it doesn't match the desired result and trumps it with outside writings.
I understand that in Catholicism Paul basically HAS no context since so many of his plain words specifically deny Catholic theology, but do you also simply declare out of thin air "no context" in this case?:
Isa 53:6 : 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
That all men are sinners is not just some note found in a passage somewhere in the Bible. It is THEMATIC. It is everywhere. To deny that is to prove the unrevealed nature of Christianity in Catholicism because it renders the Bible useless on a very basic level.
[Re: 2 Tim. 3:] The point is that it says the Scripture is "useful" or most translations say, "profitable". Nothing there says it is alone sufficient for faith formation. The scripture, this passage says, is something good in addition to other goods.
No, you have just surgically removed the second half of the thought. Verse 17 starts with "SO THAT". That explains the "useful". The structure of the thought is along the lines of "A hammer is useful so that you may drive in the nail." Nothing more is required. The Catholic interpretation is more like "A screwdriver is useful so that you may build a nuclear bomb." One makes much more sense than the other.
It is also a great prooftext for the Deuterocanon being inspired scripture.
No it's not since it doesn't define what scripture is specifically. That's a completely separate argument. All this says is that WHATEVER is scripture is useful, etc.
FK: The distribution of God's word is comparatively wide, but that of the deposit is comparatively narrow.
There is a Catholic Church in every town, at least in Catholic countries. What "narrow"?
My only point is that there are FAR FAR more Bibles in the hands of people than there are people who know anything of your deposit. Do you deny this?
And regardless of what Americans (for example) choose to be ignorant of, where is the secrecy?
I am saying it is comparatively secret based on the fact I assert above. For example, were it not for the extremely recent invention of the internet I don't think it any stretch to suppose that I never in my life would have otherwise been exposed to the faith of Catholicism in any way close to the extent I have been now. I mean, how many average non-Catholics do you think are walking around out there who know one tenth as much as I do about Catholicism (even throwing away the parts I twist around :) ? VERY FEW is my guess. That makes the deposit a comparative secret vs. the Bible itself.
You would have a point if the first organized Reformers were presenting something new. They were not, but only going back to the original scripture which had been so badly corrupted over the previous 1600 years. With humans as number one, we start with "Jesus is Lord" and wind up with "Get out of purgatory for the low low price of ...".
I continue to be grateful for every righteous post you make, my brother in Christ.
Opposite of "all are X" is "not all are X", that is, in this case, "not all have sinned".
But putting that aside, where does the Bible say that not all are sinners?
I have a feeling I am making the same post twice. The Bible says that by describing certain people as righteous; Noah is described as "perfect in every way" and Mary as "filled with grace".
you also simply declare out of thin air "no context" in this case?
Yes I do. The plain reading of Romans 3 does not allow for the interpretation that alll without a single exception have sinned, because then you will have to ignore the rest of the book of Psalms that St. Paul is quoting, which speaks of righteous people. Further, if Romans 3 is to be taken as an absolute rather than a generalized statement, then you -- for example -- do not seek God (Rom 3:11) and the Holy Innocents that Herod slaughtered were themselves murderers whose feet were "quick to shed blood" (Rom 3:15).
That all men are sinners is not just some note found in a passage somewhere in the Bible. It is THEMATIC
It is also true as a general proposition. Pease see my 3175, I am repeating myself.
you have just surgically removed the second half of the thought. Verse 17 starts with "SO THAT". That explains the "useful". The structure of the thought is along the lines of "A hammer is useful so that you may drive in the nail." Nothing more is required.
But it doesn't say that nothing more is required, nor give the hammer and nail analogy. It says, scripture is useful for perfection. It does not say it is all that is needed for perfection. Other scripture tells us to obey the apostolic tradition as well (2 Tess. 2:14). We do. You don't.
[2 Ti 3] doesn't define what scripture is specifically
Sure it does: "from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures"; beeing of mixed Greek-Jewish ancestry Timothy was certain to know the Septuagint. Another example of us reading what is written and the Protestants picking and choosing what to believe and what to ignore.
there are FAR FAR more Bibles in the hands of people than there are people who know anything of your deposit. Do you deny this?
That is true, but as we see that doesn't mean people who read these Bibles understand what they are reading. In your post alone you exhibited an absence of understanding of several passages you yourself chose to argue the points important to you.
comparatively secret
No it doesn't; it makes the Protestants comparatively ignorant.
The notion that Protestantism is in the least interested in the scripture is without foundation. The so-called reformers gathered a collection of out-of-context prooftexts and glued them together into several extrascriptural and ahistorical philosophical speculations, that's all.
It is statements like that that show me that you are not in the least interested in having an intelligent dialog.
Whatever happened to the verse: FOR ALL HAVE SINNED and come short of the glory of God? Did it disappear all of a sudden from the Bible? We are all sinners saved by Grace (at least those of us who have been saved...)
Why, I patiently and repeatingly explained several simple passages and am prepared to do so again, as necessary.
That assertion sounds like a huge blasphemous insult to Holy Spirit who Breathed The Word and brought it through whatever hazards sufficiently to every generation for God to always have at least a remnant.
It is statements like that that show me that you are not in the least interested in having an intelligent dialog.
= = =
Certainly a reasonable guess, anyway.
Patiently explained HOGWASH is still HOGWASH!
Oh well. Hades, make way. And would ya page Robert Johnson and Muddy Waters for me? Thanks.
For the so-called reformers to claim His leadership is insult to the Holy Spirit.
AND
2. The WORKS OF HOLY SPIRIT THROUGH THEM
The Vatican DISTORTIONS, DECEPTIONS, even lies result in a God that is tooooooooooooo small for the Bible, for the accurate history and for life.
And your model is________________?
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.