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.
Nam Vet
"Show me where I referred to you."
Post 697, which you posted immediately after you had received multiple responses from Quix and Old Reggie.
To: Judith AnneThe brightest angel plays tricks. Witness the “responses” to me on this thread.
Thanks for your kind and accurate words.
Nice that some Prottys occasionally bother with such silliness.
Gotta keep the RC reps slightly thinking about maybe occasionally being on their toes on the other side.
Otherwise, they seem to get toooooo comfortable treating this like a Vatican website and Prottys like fodder for a new Inquisition.
What a strange spiritual economy! Couldn't pay for the sins of everyone? Just a few? How many?
Reformed theology holds that while Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to cover all the sins of everyone who has ever lived, it only applied to His elect. That's why only the elect get into Heaven. If it applied to everyone, then everyone would be in Heaven. Jesus died and paid for all the sins of His elect, past, present and future (both sins and elect).
Of course, we hold a different view. We believe He DID die, conquered death and the grave, to pay for all the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His supper!
What does "die for" and "pay for" mean to you? In the human examples I gave, one human died so that another person would necessarily live who would have certainly died but for the sacrifice. Is that what Catholicism means by "die for"? I don't think it is. I think Catholicism has redefined "die for" to mean something far far less than what the humans did in my examples.
And as for "pay for", since Catholicism believes that salvation can be lost through sin, that MUST mean that Jesus did not pay for those sins IN FULL. Perhaps in Catholicism it means that Jesus put forward a downpayment with the balance payable by the believer?
Please make sure that I am pinged in the event a RC answers the question of Infants and Baptism.
I’m discussing the finer points of Mormon theology elsewhere and don’t want to miss this one, if it’s ever answered.
I do wonder what significance you feel the Lord's Supper has. If you say all future sins are paid for, what would be the point?
Again, your post mentions nothing about shunning evils, self examination, repentance, temptations, prayer, changing ones life and forgiveness of sins as a result. "Forgive us our trespasses" is in the Lord's Prayer. Do you say the Lord's Prayer at your church?
John 5:33 You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. 35 He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light.John the Baptist preached repentance. Note well the 'may'.
As for what you think Catholics believe, save it. I can ask my wife or her family.
I made no reference by name.
Boy, that "Brightest Angel" sure can be tricky, can't he?
I can never understand how infant baptism is salvific to Catholics. Sigh. Such deception. The enemy of their souls is grinning from ear to ear...
Yes he can. The Catholic Church is his enemy.
Indeed, or Presbyterians, for that matter...
But Mary's church as a non Biblical dedication where the congregation "SWEARS"! Swearing in a Christian Church. Imagine that.
He is not there.
Powerful and true.
Why sacrifice again and again ad infinitum if the original sacrifice was sufficient. Why would anyone need "Grace refills" if the original sacrifice was sufficient. It strikes me that people caught up in these beliefs and practices do so because their parents did so and their parents before them. The institutional loyalty runs so deep defense of the institution is seen as defense of Faith in God.
My children (all but one, who was baptized near death, for my wife's sake) were all dedicated before a Presbyterian congregation. The vow of the congregation, baptism or dedication aside, is basically the same.
Good thing Catholics don't do that.
...if the original sacrifice was sufficient.
"If...?"
It is surprisingly honest of you to express your doubts so publicly.
Who does that?
I'm not Catholic. Many of my in-laws are and I really do not have any issue with how they worship. Are you trying to sow discord between myself and the Catholics? LOL.
I know you're not Catholic. That's why I said "their Church" (as opposed to your church). :) However, I do have to keep reminding myself of that since much of what you've been saying could easily pass for having come from a Catholic.
What I do have an issue with is those who put down others for partaking in the Sacraments.
Anything that is a glorifier of men as opposed to a glorifier of God is worthy of criticism.
The Holy Supper does have spiritual significance. For those that have repented, it's the in-flowing and conjunction with the Lord.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "in-flowing", but otherwise that sounds good. It's just that in the way some folks practice it man is unduly glorified, such as in the assumption of the title of "another Christ". The Westminster Confession says in part:
VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
So, if that's in-flowing, then great! :)
FK: Therefore, this is perfectly consistent with Reformed theology. Why do you think it isn't?
Well 'NO ONE CAN' kind of flies in the face of the commandments are not grievous, don't you think? I'm glad you now agree with it.
No one can keep the commandments perfectly. However, the reason that the burden Jesus puts on us is light is that Jesus carries the burden FOR US. :)
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.