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.
Must now be MOPIOS, Magesterium own personal interpretation of scripture.
The Holy Tradition IS the memory of the apostles and other disciples. The scripture is an inspired product thereof.
Forest and I have been discussing Romans 3 in several recent posts on this thread. If you read the entire chapter you will agree that this is a generalization rather than a statement that bears no exception. Consider that in the same passage all men are described as not seeking God and quick to murder. Do you seek God? Are your feet "quick to shed blood"?
Yes, I seek God. No, I haven’t wanted to murder anyone (except maybe a couple of posters...LOL. JUST KIDDING.)
Thanks, QED.
Uh, oh. Now you have to tell me what QED means...LOL.
Quod erat demonstrandum, — which was to be proven.
thanks...
Ah, OK. Thanks for the explanation.
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).
I see none of those terms defined in conformity with Catholicism in the Bible, so I suppose that I don't understand them. No one could, it seems you are saying, without the secrets held by your men outside of the Bible. :)
FK: ... 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.
You earlier said that Biblical "perfection" made one sinless, so you would have to include Job. I am surprised, though, at your list. Do you really think that all of these men went through their whole lives without committing a single sin? The NT destroys that idea, and I have recently quoted the relevant passages. We are reprimanded for supposing that we are without sin.
One is free to believe in actual sinlessness of others, unless it is positively known that they sinned.
Would that include relatives from the past, or Mother Theresa, etc., FROM the knowledge of the person believing? If you confirm, I had no idea that the potential for sinlessness was this wide spread in the Catholic faith.
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?
Paul was quoting from IS. 59. The topic is commission of sin, and yes, Mary did that too like the rest of us. Come on, the verse is no good unless all people literally go out and 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.
I don't know what you think your scripture means. But in any case, what is shmirst? If it's something I can grill and put mustard on, then OK. :)
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.
By my own profession, all scripture is eligible as context for any particular scripture. The raising of people like Noah, or Abel, or JTB to the level of sinlessness is trashed by other scripture which I have provided. I'm afraid I don't see what you're doing with "none seeking God", etc. That describes ALL lost persons, including those you listed, until they are converted by God.
FK: 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.
Well, are you saying that when I talk about Catholic tradition, it is assumed that I mean extra-scriptural?
Just comment on “no one seeks God” and “their feet quick to shed blood” and cut the buffoonery.
Exactly! The word of God made alive in the believer's heart by the Holy Spirit is not enough information for the RC. He must have the magisterium to "interpret" all those difficult passages like...
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
Sadly, for the RC, that sentence needs to be filtered through the magisterium in order to be properly understood...
2034 - The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.
The magisterium "teaches...the truth to believe."
Yet God's word tells us the Scriptures teach us the truth by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This error alone is enough to condemn Rome.
890 - The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
So the Holy Spirit doesn't protect the believer? Instead, some earthly body of self-appointed men protects men's "faith and morals?"
The real problem here is that this self-appointed group of men admit they do not follow the word of God alone, but that they follow and require others to follow their own "infallible" pronouncements which by definition, are not necessarily the words of God.
Instead, these "other words" are based on 1) something called extra-Biblical "tradition," and 2) on speculation as to "other things" Christ may have said which weren't written down and thus have no basis is fact.
Imagine the license these men give themselves to "propose doctrine" based on "other words" Christ "might have said." lol. No wonder the RCC is filled with so much fiction and fantasy. Anything goes.
891 - "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
lol. The magisterium "proposes doctrines." No kidding.
May we all "flee from idolatry" and the fables and lies of those who have been blinded.
Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm... This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen." -- 1 Timothy 1:6-7,15-17"...some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
Try understanding the "Treasury of Merit" sometime. :-)
As usual you make a great point FK. In my readings I'm increasingly coming to believe the RCC is a church that became more of a political entity than a church and then as it lost it's political authority has begun to try and return to it's role as a church.
From 100 AD to 330 AD the Roman church was one among many. It had a lot of prestige because it was wealthy and was located at the seat of power of the Roman Empire. It did not have any secular authority behind it or corresponding power.
From about 400 AD to 1600 AD it was a political entity that used it's religious practices to keep sovereigns and peasants in line. All dissent was treated as traitorous.
From about 1600 AD on the concept of freedom of religion took root and it's last vestiges of political authority ended with WWI.
Now it's stuck trying to explain away all it's convoluted doctrines that were created as political tools to maintain it's supreme authority in that period from about 400 AD to 1600 AD. They are really stuck because the Scriptures are wide spread and well read. It is especially tough because they can't admit that these doctrines are wrong. Thus we end up with explanations about the "secret understanding" that only the few have. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Wow, William. Thanks for that concise history of the RCC. It’s an excellent teaching tool.
From 100 AD to 330 AD the Roman church was one among many. It had a lot of prestige because it was wealthy and was located at the seat of power of the Roman Empire. It did not have any secular authority behind it or corresponding power.
From about 400 AD to 1600 AD it was a political entity that used it's religious practices to keep sovereigns and peasants in line. All dissent was treated as traitorous.
From about 1600 AD on the concept of freedom of religion took root and it's last vestiges of political authority ended with WWI.
Now it's stuck trying to explain away all it's convoluted doctrines that were created as political tools to maintain it's supreme authority in that period from about 400 AD to 1600 AD. They are really stuck because the Scriptures are wide spread and well read. It is especially tough because they can't admit that these doctrines are wrong. Thus we end up with explanations about the "secret understanding" that only the few have. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Brilliant analysis, and masterfully said. Thank you for the ping!
Thank you both. I value your thoughts and especially your witness.
I’m still waiting for an answer. Chirping in background....
Brilliant concept isn't it? Without the invention of the Treasury of Merit Indulgences could not have been sold to build St. Peters.
That is an excellent point and the same conclusion I've reached wmfight. I also believe your timetable is very accurate.
Where our Catholic friends problem lie is in the Pope issuing the "Infallibility" creed. Had they not done this, they could have been like the Orthodox and simply say, "Ah, we've changed our minds and we have every right to do so." Essentially, the Catholics could have admitted they made a mistake in a backhanded way and nullify Church doctrine that was clearly wrong. I think Luther gave them an opportunity when he posted his 95 Theses. Instead they dug in their heels and decreed the Church to be infallible. Now every time they issue some sort of proclamation they pretend it's tied to something someone said back when. The rest is history.
Instead they dug in their heels and decreed the Church to be infallible. Now every time they issue some sort of proclamation they pretend it’s tied to something someone said back when. The rest is history.
= = =
INDEED! Quite correct, imho. As is:
I’m increasingly coming to believe the RCC is a church that became more of a political entity than a church and then as it lost it’s political authority has begun to try and return to it’s role as a church....It is especially tough because they can’t admit that these doctrines are wrong.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Man is off on a suicidal trek of folly whenever he concludes he’s infallible. And a collection of bureaucrats deciding that is about equal to a collection of demons in hell agreeing together about something.
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.