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.
It’s really rather simple when you realize the key word is “Treasury”. The bottomless Treasury of Merit was/is instrumental in enhancing the Treasury of the RCC.
Brilliant concept isn’t it? Without the invention of the Treasury of Merit Indulgences could not have been sold to build St. Peters.
%%%%%%%%%
INDEED. Have been convinced of such for a long time.
And the clique hereon have energetically convinced me to be fiercely assertive about such truths in behalf of the lurkers and others not particularly well read or given to critical thinking about such.
You make a great point.
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.
Until Trent they always had the opportunity to reform. In many ways Vatican II was an opening towards trying to be a part of the Christian community as a whole. I think the fear of not being dominant has doomed that effort and the Trent type mentality is back in charge.
The irony is all they are doing is segregating themselves and further diminishing their influence.
ROTFLOL!
Well put.
Thx.
LOL! Sounds about right. :)
I thought it was proper to combat YOPIOS with MOPIOS, don’t you?
The introduction to those OT quotes is this:
Rom 3:9-10 : 9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written: ......
Paul is saying that NO ONE is better than another because ALL have sinned, Jew and Gentile alike. This is the nature ALL are born with, no exceptions other than Christ (which exception Paul mentions). Mary is included since she was a Jew. It is sophistry for anyone to assert that this doesn't "count" unless we have all literally wanted to murder someone. The point is plain, we ALL do evil in our hearts. One sin against God is equivalent to all sins against God.
And as lost people, there is NO ONE who seeks God. Paul explains this when he speaks of the transition of going from being slaves to sin to slaves of righteousness. Only then do we seek after God and do what is pleasing to Him. All true believers seek God. All non-believers do not seek God.
Sadly, for the RC, that sentence needs to be filtered through the magisterium in order to be properly understood...
Yes, it is sad because it amounts to a faith in men instead of God. Who do they have to believe to get into Heaven?
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.
Yes, and of course whose fault is this? Why, it's God's fault of course because He set it up that way. Don't blame us for God abdicating His office, it was God who wanted to pass the buck. Unbelievable. :)
This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
Yes, and the "deposit of divine Revelation" extends, ........., FOREVER, of course. Otherwise, what would a Pope have to do to make himself feel important. :)
"...some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm...
No one can say that God didn't know this was coming and that He warned us to recognize it. Thanks for bringing all of this easily into the light! :)
Excellent post, WM. Thanks for the historical synopsis. I totally agree it makes no logical sense to argue what they argue today, but they are forced by the obstinacy of their fore-bearers in faith. "Defend this ridiculous thing or find a new line of work." :) And of course politics and power play supreme roles, just as you said.
They are in an impossible position. The Scriptures are wide spread. Literacy is widespread and growing. Communication via the Internet makes interaction with people from all over possible. All these things act to present the truth. Thus, when we hear the tired old falsehoods "we formed, edited the canon", "these things were always believed", "the first Pope was Peter", etc. those that want to know the truth of it can actually find out these claims aren't true and never have been.
It would seem that if the above is true that the only refuge that is left in discussing these falsehoods would be to accuse those that are pointing out how they are not consistent with Scripture and not historically accurate of being hateful bigots. Time and again I think we have all seen this play out.
How they play out?
They are an obsessive, knee-jerk
MANTRA
more common than “OOOOHMMMMMMMMMM!”
Time and again these doctrines/dogmas are shown for what they are, false. Yet they cling to them. Why?
I believe you will find these mistaken beliefs fall into two categories. One, beliefs that became a part of this church to make it easier for large numbers of people who had previously believed something else to feel at home. The worship of Mary was very appealing to all the goddess cults that existed in the Greco-Roman empire. The praying to saints was appealing to the polytheists. The second, are the beliefs that empower those in the chain of the hierarchy. Transubstantiation, alter Christus, deposit of faith just to name a few.
When we show how these beliefs are not found in Scripture they are left with two choices; denigrate the messenger (what better way than to call them a bigot), or admit these beliefs are wrong and leave the RCC. Having family members who have done the latter and attending a church where 25% or more of our members converted, I've seen it is hard to do.
MOPIOS incarnate (Magesterium’s own personal interpretation of scripture).
impressive insights, imho.
Thx.
“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.”
Excellent analysis. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
This quote you provided with my emphasis is the key to understanding the Romanist mind.
The Roman Church, with it's belief in Natural Religion, believes that if a good syllogism of Christianity is presented, or I should say the Roman religion, then any man using appropriate cognitive faculties will necessarily profess the Roman religion.
No need for the Holy Ghost just a primer in logic will lead to a servile devotion to the hierarchy.
INDEED.
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.