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 are both right, because "opposite" sometimes means "negation" and sometimes means "diametrically opposite". Negation of "all are X" is "not all are X", which is "some are not X". For example, to controvert the statement "all elephants are white" I have to show just one elephant of another color. Diametric opposite of "all are X" is indeed like you say.
None of your examples has any reasonable connection to sinlessness
It does. Perfection, fullness of grace, readiness for heaven all definitionally mean absence of sin. If you disagree here, you don't understand either what sin is, or what grace is, or what heaven is, or any two, or all three (careful Boolean logic here).
1 John 1:8-10 : 8 If we claim to be without sin
This teaches not to presume sinlessness for example, in order to avoid confession. We don't know what Mary presumed and confessed.
would you care to name all of those you believe were sinless like Mary?
The Bible only mentions Noah, but one can easily believe that John the Baptist was without actual sin, Abel, and of course countless infants who did not live ling enough to sin, of which the Holy Innocents are one example. The Church only counts Mary dogmatically, because that is something we know from the Holy Tradition, that is, from the Church herself. One is free to believe in actual sinlessness of others, unless it is positively known that they sinned.
The "righteous" label in the OT was used to describe how the person was seen by other men
That is true, righteousness can mean "righteous with respect to one decision or act, but not altogether". Such is "faithful to you and righteous" in your example of David. The significance of the Psalms mentioning righteousness is in that in Rom 3 St. Paul quotes the Psalms, and the Psalms are contructed very much in contrasts of wickedness and righteousness, so that becomes part of the context in Rom 3. Further, Rom 3 also says that none is righteous, whatever the precise meaning you think it has.
we are all born as lost and in need of a savior. This is perfectly consistent. I certainly did not seek God first
Needing a savior is another matter; of course Mary was sinless because she had a Savior, the fount of all righteousness. Rom. 3 does not say "none seek God first", it simply says "none seeks God". It also says that all have feet quick to murder. Do you think that the Holy Innocents were quick to murder? Who was Mary quick to murder? If you equivocate here then you are doing the same thing you accuse me of doing, except I showed you concrete scripture and you gave me first shmirst.
writings totally outside of the actual context
Examples of people described as perfect or filled with grace are scriptural and are relevant to Rom 3. They are context. So is "feet quick to shed blood" and "none seeking God", which is immediate context. The context invalidates the absolute meaning of "all" you insert here.
thousands of Catholics who work miracles
I said "saints". In order to be a canonized saint there must be either martyrdom, or several miracles have to be worked by that person in heaven.
No where does that passage say or imply that extra-scriptural tradition is being referred to.
Sure it does, it mentions tradition and scripture separately. It cannot say "tradition" and refer to OT because OT is scripture.
Please note the "traditions" Paul refers to are exclusively past and present tense. "Traditions" developed after the passing of the Apostles are not considered by Paul.
Amen.
"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." -- Matthew 15:9
Indeed, the Holy Tradition of the Church is all in the Deposit if Faith that the Church received from the Apostles. Traditions of the charlatans of the so called reformation are not contemplated here at all, and in fact Matthew 15:9, helpfully supplied here by the "doctor", condemns it outright.
And how, pray tell, did they know she was exalted by the Lord as Queen of all things? Who told them? Did Mary send an e-mail?
Who gave the church the Sacred Deposit of Faith? Did Jesus send it to you? Did the church fathers write it?
Can't prove it from Scripture?
Can't find corroboration from the Early Church Fathers?
Use "Imagination". Invent a catchall called "The Sacred Deposit Of Faith".
See how simple it is? the "Sacred Deposit Of Faith" is a catchall which can be used to justify anything the RCC wants it to say.
Yes, the Sacred Deposit of Faith is the sum total of what Jesus taught His disciples, whether recorded in inspired scripture or not.
Umm, if it’s not recorded in scripture, then where IS it recorded? If it’s not recorded in scripture, be very wary of it.
I still haven’t heard how they knew Mary was exalted by the Lord as Queen of all things...quite the imagination, I would think.
It was in the memory of the disciples and they passed it on as the Holy Tradition. Some of it, — we hope, all the essential parts — was recorded in inspired scripture, but some was mixed with less than perfect personal recollections which the Church chose not to canonize as books. A lot of it was never recorded, period, — these were people who taught and learned face to face and not from books.
The Sacred Deposit of Faith does not have a crisp boundary similar to the scripture and indeed it required the consensus of the Church before it is considered true. However, our faith today — even the parts we all agree on — is a product of it. This is “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude).
The acclamation “this is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Church” was a constant refrain in Church councils, without which you would not have the faith in the divinity of Christ, or in His humanity, or in the Trinity.
Personally annalex, and I mean no disrespect, you should stick to what scripture has to say about Jesus and not the memory of men. I believe scripture contains all that God wanted us to know, even if there was more that was never written. He made sure we got what we needed in His Word.
That’s what the scripture came out of, memory of men.
Personally annalex, and I mean no disrespect, you should stick to what scripture has to say about Jesus and not the memory of men.
I believe scripture contains all that God wanted us to know, even if there was more that was never written. He made sure we got what we needed in His Word.
****
Until the originals appear that is your opinion not a fact!
**That’s what the scripture came out of, memory of men.**
And the tradition comes from the creativity of men.
And yet Scripture doesn't saying that, meaning your premise is wrong.
My best guess is that it has been removed and sent to a Catholic "reinterpretation camp". It doesn't match the man-made traditions, so it has to be changed. Thank God that in spite of Catholicism we can have Bibles in the language we speak, so we can see what has been done. :)
Yes, but THOSE men were inspired by the Holy Spirit in their writings.
Does YOUR religion have the originals, restornu?
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.