Posted on 12/08/2009 11:41:52 AM PST by Gamecock
I just came from a funeral service for an aunt of mine who was a staunch Catholic. I came out of that religion about 25 years ago after reading for myself what the Bible had to say. My question surrounds the actuality of salvation for all the millions who still practice Mary worship and so forth. Knowing that one cannot serve two masters, I wonder at how it is possible that the aforementioned can really experience Christ in a saving way, while they continue to believe that the church of Rome is solely responsible for their eternal welfare.
Answer:
Greetings in Christ Jesus our Lord and only Savior. Thank you for your question.
Unless a person is clearly outside the pale of the Christian faith, I do not believe that you can judge the "actuality" or "reality" of someone's salvation. You may judge the "credibility" of their faith; or you may question the "probability" of someone's salvation. You may also ask, as you have done, "how it is possible that the aforementioned can really experience Christ in a saving way."
None of us, however, can truly say that we are perfect in knowledge or practice. We are always growing both in wisdom and in the grace of God. Is it possible for someone who prays to Mary to be a true Christian? In other words, can someone who is truly saved be in error on such an issue?
Conscious compromise of God's truth can be serious and deadly, but we also see from Scripture that in his mercy God may (and does) choose to accept less than perfect understanding and obedience, even of his own people. (Indeed, isn't the salvation and the perseverance of the saints dependent upon that fact?) There will be growth in understanding and holiness, but perfection must await our going to be with Jesus or His return to take us unto himself (see 1 John 3:2).
In the Old Testament, consider Asa in 1 Kings 15. He removed the idols from the land, but he allowed the high places to remain. The high places were clearly unacceptable. But the text states that Asa was loyal to the Lord his entire life. How could this be? Had he not seriously compromised?
What about the New Testament? Consider the Corinthians. Was the church at Corinth an exemplary church? Did they not have many doctrinal problems, e.g., concerning the Lord's Supper and the doctrine of the resurrection? (See 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Cor. 15.) Did even the apostles fully understand? Even though what they wrote was protected from error, did they not grow and mature in their own understanding and obedience? Wasn't it necessary at one point, for instance, for Paul to rebuke Peter for his inconsistency? (See Gal. 2.)
My point is not to defend the doctrinal aberrations of Rome. I do not believe such is possible. I think, however, that people generally follow their leaders. They learn from them; they consider their arguments rational and coherent.
For example, consider devotion to Mary. I read Jarislov Pellikan's Mary Through the Centuries and I cannot get past page 10 before I am wondering why the author is so blind to the fallacies of his arguments. However, if I were not being so critical and I were already predisposed to the position, then his arguments would perhaps seem irrefutable. So then, we should boldly, patiently, and compassionately discuss these matters with our loved ones, praying that the Holy Spirit will grant them more understanding.
Whatever we may judge in terms of the "actuality" or "probability" or "possibility" of a person's salvation at the end of life is, in the end, academic, for God is the one who can look at the heart and only he can truly judge. (He is the One, in fact, who has chosen his elect.) "It is appointed to man once to die, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27), but "Today is the day of salvation" (Heb. 3:13). We should work, therefore, the works of him who sent us while it is light and point our neighbors and loved ones to Christ.
For myself, I too was a Roman Catholic. In the past six months, I have attended the funeral of two uncles and one aunt whom I loved very much. I had opportunity at each funeral to speak a word of testimony regarding the Savior. I stood in the pulpit of the church in which I had served mass as a young boy and in my eulogies spoke of my faith in Christ.
Was it as detailed as I wish it could have been? No, but I am thankful for the opportunity God gave. Do I believe that my family members went to heaven? For one I have hope; for the others, I have little hope. Upon what is my hope based? It is always and only grounded in Christ and the Gospel.
We may define Christianity broadly by including as Christians all who confess the Apostles' Creed. We may define Christianity narrowly by including as Christians only those who confess our particular denominational creed. We need to exercise care, because, if we are too narrow, we may find ourselves excluding someone like Augustine. On the other hand, if we are too broad, we may find ourselves including many who should be excluded.
Personally, therefore, I do not judge. I have either greater or lesser hope. For example, I have greater hope for my Roman Catholic family members who ignorantly follow their leaders without thinking. Many times I find these to be at least open to discussion regarding the Gospel. However, I have lesser hope for people who are self-consciously Roman Catholic; that is, they understand the issues yet continue in the way of the Papacy.
I recommend that you read the book Come out from among Them by John Calvin. I found it very helpful and it addresses somewhat the question that you have raised.
I hope that my answer helps. You are free to write for clarification. May our Lord bless you.
Not to mention the fact that the alleged goddess worshipping cult actually KICKS PEOPLE OUT FOR worshipping goddesses!! Which seem an odd thing to do if goddess worship is to be promoted. We can’t even get that right I suppose.
I can clarify this.
From the points of view against which you are arguing, a person need not be officially elevated to the status of "goddess" to be worshiped in what they consider to be an unlawful manner. These views do see, however, the "unlawful worship" as raising the individual to question to the place of God, even if not done officially.
The problem is, as I indicated before, the two sides of this debate have different paradigms and views of the Christian religion. You are all basically talking past each other without agreeing on initial premises and approaches. Until that happens, one side will never convince the other, you'll all continue to be merely preaching to the choir while going over the other side's head, and your efforts are tantamount to bashing your head against a wall.
I say this with all love and direct that comment to both Catholics and Protestants on this thread.
Was this what was printed on the coins celebrating the killing of non-RC Christians?
Oh yeah, we have eternal life, right now
So could you embark on a career of mass murder, proudly insist you did the right thing up until the end, then die and go straight to heaven?
(If you think I'm being flip, I'm not.)
"... lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected." -- 1 Cor 9:27
Iscool condemns Paul's position. Who'm I gonna trust?
Thanks for the post. I see your point, and while I can not be 100% certain, his story just seems false to me.
I have many Protestant friends and I am respectful of their beliefs as I am of yours. I would never “lash out” at someones religion.
I was just giving my opinion of the article. It doesn’t ring true to me.
I wouldn't continue going down that road if I were you.
There's no disconnect. It's just that in each of the posts, I'm discussing different regions of the same topic. It might require a little mental elbow grease to see how they fit together.
For one who is interested, one may note that once upon a time, good manners were also called “small morals.”
sitetest
They know when someone is throwing spitwads it means he doesn't have any ammunition. And they know when a post is mean or petty or childish. And most importantly, the way a Freeper behaves directly reflects on himself and his own beliefs.
Open RF threads are like town squares: everyone has a voice. But thick skin is required.
We sneaky devious Catholics think that deeds have at least two aspects, that part which can be photographed and the disposition of the person doing the deed. The "object" of the deed, what the person doing it thinks he's doing and intends by it, is greatly determinative of what the deed actually is, If a person does not INTEND to pay divine honors, does not think the person in front of whose image he is to be divine, then I think it's not a stretch to say he is not paying divine honors.
Somewhat similarly, some pacifists insist that any killing of a human being is murder, while people accustomed to making reasonable distinctions can see the difference between defense of the weak and murder.
I enjoy the "I'm a poor old simple country boy and I don't know none o' that there book larnin' stuff," act, but since even poor ole country boys know the difference between a righteous shoot and murder, I'm thinking the distinction is probably pretty easy to get.
Expressing it, however, that might be a challenge.
FWIW, everyone has heard the old refrain "we only venerate her". However, if you ascribe powers to her that are divine you no longer venerate, but now worship.
“Your post raises a technical question that i want to ask, as a way of understanding how a church claims a path back to the original church.”
The process is through Apostolic Succession. What this means is that Priest A was ordained by Bishop X, who was ordained in turn by Bishop Y all the way back to St. Peter.
As far as I’m aware, only two retain this succession, the Catholics and Orthodox.
The reason the Protestant orders are invalid is because somewhere along the line a priest (not a bishop), left the church and started ordaining other people, and elevated himself to a bishop. This is true for Anglicanism, for Lutheranism, and for Calvinism.
Or, as in the case of the anabaptists, that they avoided the issue altogether by arguing there was no need for a heirarchy. So after the death of Menno Simons, their apostolicity was broken.
“Suppose a significant part of the Church had decided at that time to reject that teaching, and had made their own church but otherwise held to every tenet of the Catholic faith and tradition.”
They would need to have bishops go along. As far as I’m aware the last time that occurred was at the schism. Prior to that you have the anti-nicenes and the anti-chalcedonians, both of whom have orders that still exist today, but they aren’t considered to have the succession (mostly because of the Arab conquest) and other such niceties.
“Or the one which is exactly the same except that they don’t accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which means they still practice the faith just as it was for 1822 years after the foundation of the church?”
Well the problem with the Orthodox is that they don’t practice the faith as it was back prior to the schism. For one, they reject the primacy of the Pope. Two, who’s the head, Patriarch of Moscow or Patriarch of Constantinople? What about the Alexandrines and the Antiochines? The old system was the Pope as one of the five (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem), but the chief among them is Rome.
You are correct that the Catholic church has proclaimed the authority of the Immaculate conception, but that is a teaching that was affirmed by the church fathers prior to the schism. It isn’t an issue of division between Catholics and the Orthodox.
“In my opinion, no church seems to have a pure bloodline of doctrinal teaching that mirrors the original church — but that is an opinion based partly out of ignorance of the details of doctrine of every church in the world.”
There are two, and I have examined this question closely. The Catholics and the Orthodox. Yes, there have been changes over the last while, but the doctrine remains the same in both as before. I encourage you to go back and examine things, and raise the questions that you think the Catholic church has broken from the early church. You will find that they preach what was preached before.
That is too funny! Shoot and move — again!
Gambit declined. I don’t think the Klan actually coined money, after all ...
"They" and "them" are real people for whom Christ died, whether we specify their names or not.
And to whatever extent I am guilty of the same sin, may I please ask everyone's forgiveness.
Now, I am recovering from surgery and feel poorly, and I'm going to go away and try to get some rest. Ora pro me.
I’m sorry. I don’t understand the question.
Greta van Susteren is nuts!
I know. Bless you for your patience with me.
Hmmmmm . . . is that evidence of an assumption that I’m NOT having my yes be yes and my no be no?
I work pretty hard at following The Bible on that score!
“Never said it wasn’t. The point that doesn’t get made enough is there was a basis for fearing the RC’s and the RCC. If RC posters want to start with the “everybody is picking on me” nonsense then we should look at why there was a fear.”
Well it starts with Napoleon. Is that liberty? He tried to destroy the church altogether in France. Everywhere we have seen the French Revolution and their ideals, we have seen anti-catholicism hand in hand.
You should read Edmund Burke on his response to the revolution in France. Liberty and the Catholic church are not by any means opposed. Liberty in the form of Revolution as in the French Revolution, and the Catholic church are diametrically opposed, and have slugged it out for at least 200 years already.
Liberty does not equate with Modernity, although Modernity claims such. Liberty, can be acheived in harmony with the teachings of the Church.
I think that is when the RM jumps in and someone can get banned. You don't want Quix banned do you?
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.