By this test we can know political truth, because the results of Marxism/Socialism/Leftism are always bad no matter who is in charge.
The same test can be applied to learn religious truth, but the results are often mixed here.
Then it becomes a question of determining if the bad result was a product of bad theology or, as is usually the case, the result of a bad or misguided person twisting said theology for their own nefarious purposes.
Any religion more than a few years old has ample examples.
And, even though I was raised Protestant and have real problems with certain Catholic theology, I find the extreme fundamentalist view that we will be assigned to heaven or hell entirely based on what we believe and not how we perform to be ludicrous.
For example, I can't see Mother Teresa approaching the pearly gates and being told by St. Peter to check into the other place because the doctrine of transubstantiation is wrong because the sacrament is only symbolic, not literal.
Nor can I see St. Peter admitting some murdering scumbag into heaven because at one time in his life, he signed the acceptance of Jesus Christ statement in the back of a Gideon New Testament and sincerely meant it.
And for holding above belief, some of the fundies have already consigned my soul to hell.
While Protestants and Catholics do not agree on this issue, I would say that the vast majority of Protestant individuals would not say anyone is going to hell because they believe in transubstantiation. (At least, I wouldn't.) I presume Catholics do not believe Protestants are going to hell because they don't. Is that presumption correct?
I think the key difference from a salvation perspective between Catholics and Protestants is "doing". Catholics believe you must do "stuff" in addition to having faith in Christ as Savior in order to make it to heaven. Protestants believe we get to heaven only because of Christ. We do "stuff" because of our love for Him and what He has done for us as well as because of the changes God has wrought in us since our salvation.
I think Catholics and Protestants agree that none of us would get to heaven if it weren't for Jesus and His atoning sacrifice.
Well, I think we’re going off on a bit of a tangent from the original question, but I’ll bite. The test in Matthew 7:16-20 is defined in scope by the preceding verse, Matthew 7:15, which demonstrates it is to be used to guard against false prophets. Now, we could surely apply the test in many areas of life in a beneficial way, but that is the specific Biblical context, and that’s the only context in which it is spiritually authoritative.
Granted, some churches would qualify as false prophets, and so that test can be appropriate. However the specific question at issue is how to, or who can, interpret Scripture. Unless one argues that merely questioning the Catholic church’s claims on the matter is equivalent to false prophecy, then I don’t see how the application of that law is warranted in an authoritative sense.
As for the question of who is going to heaven or hell based on what standard, well that’s a matter for a whole other thread (or a few thousand threads probably). Personally, I don’t like to take a position on what the fate of any individual person will be, since I am not the appointed judge of their fate, so I simply don’t know. So, I think it’s a bit fruitless to speculate on the fate of Mother Theresa, a criminal, or yourself. I will say that I think any “fundie” that has told you with certainty that they know where you’ll end up should probably spend more time worrying about where they will end up instead!
For example, I can't see Mother Teresa approaching the pearly gates and being told by St. Peter to check into the other place because the doctrine of transubstantiation is wrong because the sacrament is only symbolic, not literal.
Rome's caricature of heaven aside, Mother Teresa engaged in good old fashioned works-righteousness, a tenet of all pseudo-religions that estimates that one's works will somehow appease the gods. And she was a practical polytheist in that she sincerely believed in a Many Paths, One God soteriology. Her statements are pretty clear that she rejected Jesus Christ being the only way to salvation and she totally supported sincerity in any faith (whether it is Hindu, Muslim or Voodoo, as long as the believer is sincere). Now she did subscribe to a hodge-podge of Roman beliefs, and perhaps she may have believed in a real Jesus Christ, but she is also well known for pointing to the "least of these" and believing that they individually were Jesus Christ, sort of a wierd semi-pantheistic spirit blend theology. One thing is for certain, she rejected orthodox doctrines of Christianity. Her missions had nothing to do with salvation, it was very much a ministry of service.
Nor can I see St. Peter admitting some murdering scumbag into heaven because at one time in his life, he signed the acceptance of Jesus Christ statement in the back of a Gideon New Testament and sincerely meant it.
So St. Paul didn't make it to heaven for even he called himself the "chief of all sinners"; part of his résumé included the serial murder of Christians.
Thankfully, we don't have to rely on the heresies and blasphemies that have characterized Rome, rather we have the Scriptures and many generations of devout theologians including men of God such as Thomas Aquinas, who have debated extensively on every point of doctrine in the Bible and have left us their notes so that we can have a more comprehensive understanding of God.
As part of that heritage, we have a very mature understanding of the Doctrines of Grace that rely on the Grace of God through His Election according to His Purpose rather than relying on the moral relativity and subjectivity of fallen and corrupted man.