Catholics & Salvation; And the answer is: Maybe.

Stand To Reason ^ | Gregory Koukl

[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.

[Marysecretary]

Will I die for Him? Will I LIVE for Him. That’s even harder in today’s world. We’re all swimming upstream against a strong tide when we become Christians. But, think of the muscles we’re gettin’ along the way! LOL.

[Marysecretary]

Man, I’d go nuts if I had to worry about whether or not a sin I’ve committed wasn’t covered by the Blood of the Lamb. I can go right to God through our intercessor, Jesus, and pray for forgiveness, repent, and He forgives and cleanses. Wow.

[Marysecretary]

It’s not in my Bible. My Bible says to BELIEVE and be baptized.

[Marysecretary]

My church would never look down on me. We aren’t that way. We dedicate our babies to the Lord and the congregation swears to be an encouragement and guide to the child and parents. Later, after salvation, we are baptized.

[Marysecretary]

The folks in our church know we don’t baptize babies. I’ve never known one to ask. I suppose if someone really wanted the pastor to do it, he would, but I can’t speak for him.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: Yup, a term some Latins have used to me is to say that at infant baptism the person is "initially saved". That means their original sin is then covered by the ritual, and they are OK until their first mortal sin. At that time they are instantly damned, UNTIL, they are absolved by a priest and then they are saved again, UNTIL, ... You get the idea.

Who are the "Latins" who say anything like this? What "Latin" ever wrote or said something so ridiculous? I think someone has to be putting words in the "Latin's" mouths, because I know of no religion that teaches anything remotely resembling this bizarre teaching.

This is standard Catholic theology that I have learned right here on FR. We can start with your Catechism:

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell (emphasis added)

Bingo. One loses his salvation for mortal sin. Why do you call it "mortal"? Further, I have been told a thousand times by Catholics that baptism is salvational. They have used the term "initial salvation" to me to show the belief that salvation is a process, and can be lost along the way, via mortal sin. This is what Catholics have taught me here. While I don't agree with this theology, this has always been very standard stuff. I would be very interested in hearing if you disagree with it, and why.

Finally, I hope you were not put off by my use of the term "Latin". I meant no disrespect by it at all, and I've seen many other Freepers use it casually, including Catholics and the Orthodox. I have seen a Catholic take offense at the term "ROMAN Catholic", and I have seen Orthodox say that the term "Catholic" is imprecise because they are "catholic" too. I used Latin here to distinguish between the Orthodox because they have a very different salvation model and what I was saying only applied to Catholics. Ultimately, I will use whatever term of reference anyone wants me to use. :)

[Judith Anne]

That means their original sin is then covered by the ritual, and they are OK until their first mortal sin. At that time they are instantly damned, UNTIL, they are absolved by a priest and then they are saved again, UNTIL, ... You get the idea.

Completely inaccurate and very bizarre. For those who actually want to know the truth, instead of what some posters declare is Catholic belief about infant baptism based on a strange catechesis (not a Catholic catechesis) the information is available online. I caution any such searcher to use Catholic sources, unless they want to fall into the same bizarre error.

But anyone who wants to make up their own set of "What Catholics Believe About Infant Baptism and Salvation" is free to take FK's word for it.

[Marysecretary]

He simply asked you a question, Petronski. Can you answer it or not???

[Marysecretary]

What about BELIEVE AND BE BAPTIZED don’t you get???

[Petronski]

I did answer it. Right there in that post.

Sorry you missed it.

[Marysecretary]

You are the winner! Give that man a ceegar.

[Marysecretary]

You are the winner! Give that man a ceegar.

[Marysecretary]

thank you. Great explanation.

[Petronski]

Those who want to understand the Sacrament of Baptism as taught by the Catholic Church can click here and read the real thing, rather than what it is so often twisted to be in the hands of others.

[Marysecretary]

You are so right. God did it ALL. He drew us to Himself, He convicted us of sin through the Holy Spirit, He gave us works to do in His Name, He guides our steps and keeps us...what did we do?

[Judith Anne]

Would that be the symbolic blood of Jesus? Or the real presence of His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist?

I mean, is it a REAL washing with REAL blood? Or is this song symbolic?

[Judith Anne]

Thanks for the convenient link, Petronski. Real seekers after the truth will use it.

[Quix]

The song is about real Biblical spiritual truth.

[Quix]

[Forest Keeper]

FK: It sounds like you repent now BECAUSE you believe that Christ did not die to pay for those sins. The sins you repent of now are totally ON YOU to pay for because that was not Christ's business. That's YOUR business with God, on your own because you have a free will. All I can do is to wish you luck. :)

I've read and re-read this, and do not see where this conclusion comes from. Could you be a bit more specific, and tie this more closely into what DaveMSmith said, because it looks like a giant leap from what he said to this confusing conclusion.

Sure. Dave said:

We repent our sins now so we don't have to deal with them at our last judgment.

That sounded very "Catholic" to me, and so my criticism was really against Catholicism, although, as I understand it, Dave is not a Catholic. Anyway, since the Catechism tells us that salvation can be lost during life that MUST mean that Christ did NOT die and pay for post-salvation sins. Those (mortal) sins must normally be dealt with by the person and be absolved by a priest. So, I thought that Dave was saying that SINCE Jesus does not pay for those sins, that he repents of them now, so they do not keep him out of Heaven later. The Catechism says basically that in the normal course that unconfessed mortal post-salvation sins WILL keep a person out of Heaven. That could NOT be true IF Jesus died for and paid for those sins on the cross. We believe He DID die and pay for all the sins of the elect.