It seems that just about every week a new book comes out on the subject of how we are getting the Gospel wrong. I am getting tired of it. Once I read a book and adjust my thinking to getting the Gospel right, I find out in the next book I read that I got it wrong again! Is the Gospel that difficult? Does every generation get the Gospel wrong, thus requiring the next enlightened generation to get them back on course?
Last week, I wrote a post about whether or not Roman Catholics are saved. I chose this topic because, within the past couple of weeks, I had been asked this question (or some variation of it) four times. It is an important question, which caused quite a conversation. I had to close the comments down on this blog topic within 24 hours of posting it! The reason for closing the comments was not so much the belligerence of Roman Catholics who did not agree with what I had written, but because of some very (ahem…) committed Protestants who were being less than gracious. James White did a thoughtful Dividing Line broadcast, where he strongly disagreed with me. Over the last week, the most common objection I received about what I had written was that I had been asking the wrong question. What is the right question? Well, the consensus seemed to be this: “Does the Roman Catholic Church have the right Gospel?”, not, “are Roman Catholics Saved?” There are myriad ways I could have phrased it:
“Are Roman Catholics saved?”
“Can Roman Catholics be saved?”
“Does the Roman Catholic Gospel save?”
“Does Roman Catholicism have the right Gospel?”
All of these require a slight variation in response. Most of my Protestant friends are more than willing to admit that Catholics could be saved, and that some are saved. However, they are quick to point out that “Rome’s Gospel does not save.” Of course, in order to make such a comment, the assumption is that we already have the “right” Gospel, which begs the question: “How much of the Gospel do we have to get right?” Another way to put it: “How much of the Gospel can we get wrong and still have the right Gospel?”
Head hurt? Mine too. But stay with me.
The Gospel is simply the “good news” of God. However, there is so much to it. We can boil the Gospel down to its basic essentials, or we can expand it to include all of its implications and benefits. If we take the former, then it is absolutely necessary to have the right Gospel. However, if we take the latter, how can we ever expect to have the “right” Gospel? I don’t have everything right. I don’t necessarily know what I have wrong, but I like to think that I am open to change, and am willing to nuance my views as I learn. In other words, “Do we have the right Gospel?” is not as black and white an issue as we may be inclined to assume. There is so much of the Gospel in which all of us can improve our understanding. In other words, I think we could all have a “righter” Gospel today than we did yesterday.
Paul speaks of the Gospel in two ways. His letter to the Romans, the entire book, is the Gospel (Rom. 1:15-17). Romans 1:17 makes it clear that, in this context, the vindication of God’s righteousness (which is, I believe, the essence of chapters 1-11) is part of the Gospel message. Here, sin (Rom. 3:23), justification by faith alone (Rom. 3:21), imputation of sin (Rom. 5:18), imputation of righteousness (Rom. 4:1-5; Rom. 5:18), the vindication of creation (Rom. 8:16), the freedom from bondage (Rom. 7), the power of the Spirit (Rom. 8), the security of the believer in Christ (Rom. 8:28-39), and, I believe, the eternal elective decree of salvation which vindicates God’s faithfulness (Rom. 9-11) are all part of the Gospel message. However, in 1 Cor. 15:1-8, Paul seems to suggest that there are issues within the Gospel that are of “first importance.” These issues surround Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Was Paul saying that these were the only issues which were of “first importance”? Here, he does not mention (much less emphasize) faith, grace, imputation, Christ’s humanity and deity, or Christ second coming. All of these, we would say, are integral parts of the “good news.” All of us would say that getting the Gospel “right” needs to include these things.
We could also do a study based on the sermons in Acts. I count thirteen evangelistic sermons in Acts (meaning they were speeches given to those who were unbelievers). Most likely, Luke summarized these sermons, frequently giving just the essence of what the Apostle taught (Acts 9:20; Acts 10:42; Acts 20:21). Therefore, it is difficult to make too many theological conclusions, or even draw out a definite kyrugma (essential preaching). Similarly, these sermons were highly contextualized, often being given exclusively to Jews, Gentiles, philosophers, or kings. For example, I can only identify one place where freedom from the law is explicitly mentioned (Acts 13:39). In a similar sense, I don’t find substitutionary atonement explicitly mentioned in any sermons recorded in Acts. In addition, it is interesting that the deity of Christ, in the strictest sense of the term, is mentioned on just one occasion (Acts 9:20). In all but two sermons, I find the subject of the death and resurrection of Christ addressed. In about half of the sermons, I find repentance and forgiveness being part of the focus. And in many messages (especially to the Jews), Christ’s messiahship (kingship) is mentioned. It is of further interest to note what aspects of the Gospel are included, but it is just as interesting to see which are left out.
What does all of this mean? How do we know when we have the right Gospel? Are we supposed to find the least common denominator and then focus exclusively on that? Or are we supposed to see letters, like Romans, as the most developed and comprehensive of all, and use them as models?
When we ask questions like, “Does Rome have the right Gospel?”, I am not sure what is being implied. “Do they have a right enough Gospel?” Right enough for what? Normally, we mean “right enough to save.” Which aspects of the Gospel are we questioning? Are we getting the essence of the Gospel from Acts? If so, then yes, Catholics seem to be OK. Are we getting it from Paul in Romans? If so, I would say comme si, comme ca. However, if that is the case, one could just as easily assert that Arminians receive the wrong Gospel, since they fail to see (generally speaking) the “good news” of security and/or the “good news” of sovereign election. Furthermore, is a Gospel that does not support the doctrine of the security of the believer really a Gospel at all? Well, yes and no. It could be “more right”. It could be “better news.” Finally, to those who deny these aspects of the Gospel (security and eternal election), using the standard above, one could call upon them to experience a “righter” Gospel.
When it comes to the Gospel, I believe Calvinist Evangelical Protestants have the “rightest” points of view, but I think there are certain aspects of the Gospel we can overemphasize to such a degree that we lose focus on more central components. Moreover, I think we can also lose sight of important (not central) components that other traditions are more faithful to preserve. For example, I believe that substitutionary atonement is the essence of the “for” in Christ, who gave himself up “for me” (Gal. 2:20) as payment for sin. Protestants and Catholics do well to see this doctrine, while the Eastern Orthodox church outright deny this substitutionary aspect of the Gospel in particular. Do they have the wrong Gospel? In one sense, yes. However, in another sense, I think they have a “righter” Gospel in that they call upon people to see the “recapitulation” aspect of Christ’s life. Protestant and Catholics, in my opinion, are very deficient in understanding how Christ qualified to be our substitute. Therefore, Eastern Orthodox traditionally have “better news” with regard to the humanity of Christ.
What is the solution? Well, I don’t like the least common denominator approach, since it suggests that having the entire Gospel is not that important, i.e., only those things to which we can boil it all down (i.e. sin, messiahship, death, burial, resurrection, faith). The entire message is the Gospel. Therefore, “getting the Gospel wrong” is not an option. Yet, it has to be. Catholics miss grace and, in this sense, have a different Gospel. Their Gospel needs to be “righter”, and this causes serious concern. Preterists, who deny Christ’s future coming, have a different Gospel. Their Gospel needs to be “righter” and their position should be considered serious. Universalists, who deny the reality of an eternal punishment, have a different Gospel. Their Gospel needs to be “righter” and its ramifications are similarly serious. Arminians, who deny sovereign election, have a different Gospel. Their Gospel needs to be “righter”, and it is (Are you getting my point?) serious. From a charismatic perspective, cessationists, who do not believe in the continuation of certain gifts of the Spirit, have a different Gospel. Maybe our Gospel needs to be “righter.” Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox all have different Gospels in some respects. All of these traditions emphasize different aspects of the Gospel and need to be anathematized in some ways.
So, “Does the Roman Catholic Gospel save?” is such a loaded question for me. People can antagonistically ask everyone all of these questions: “Does the Calvinist Gospel save?” “Does the Arminian Gospel save?” “Does the fundamentalist Gospel save?” “Does the Church of Christ Gospel save?” “Does the Eastern Orthodox Gospel save?” “Does the Universalist Gospel save?” I don’t even know what the Roman Catholic Gospel is these days. It has quite a bit of dynamic progression throughout history. Is there one sentence you could write which would clearly articulate the essence of their Gospel? I doubt it. And if you did, the next Roman Catholic apologist would write it down differently. “Does Rome have the wrong Gospel?” Certain aspects of their doctrines are wrong, yes. However, in the real world, people are not asking these questions. They are asking something more specific. Concerning Calvinism, what one is really saying is, “Can one deny libertarian free will and be saved?” Concerning Arminianism, “Can one believe that salvation can be lost, yet still be saved?” Concerning fundamentalism, “Can one who is a separationist be saved?” Concerning the Church of Christ, “Can one believe in baptismal regeneration and still be saved?” Concerning Eastern Orthodoxy, “Can one believe in deification and be saved?” Concerning Universalism (of the Christian variety), “Can one deny hell and be saved?” And concerning Roman Catholics, “Can one who believes that works contribute to their justification be saved?” That is what people are really asking.
The broader question is always: “Can one have bad doctrine and be saved?” All but the most ardent maximalists would say “yes.” But where do we cross the line? And I don’t really like the false dichotomy which says, “doctrine does not save . . . God does.” That misses the point of the conversation, as it discredits the necessity of faith in God altogether. If faith is necessary in any sense, that faith must have content. And it is that very content on which this discussion centers. In other words, if faith is important, then content is, as well.
There is definitely a line that can be crossed. I can’t always tell you where that line is, exactly. I know that the center of the Gospel is the person and work of Christ. In addition, I would contend that one must accept who Christ is (the God-man), and what he did (died for our sins and rose from the grave). Acceptance of these requires, I believe, the presence of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14). I believe that it is a “wronger” Gospel when works are added as a factor to justification. I believe that Protestant Evangelicals have the “rightest” Gospel. I think that Evangelical Protestants have a better answer for the history of the church, the development of doctrine, and the systematic nature of canonical truth. That said, I also know that we can all have a “righter” Gospel. Indeed, one day we will all stand before God and see this “righter” Gospel more clearly. Does the Roman Catholic Gospel save? To the degree that the individual Catholic is trusting in the God-man who takes away the sins of the world, it can. All of us (Protestant and Catholic) can and should trust Christ more, but Catholics need to get the Gospel “righter” by abandoning their denial of justification by faith alone. Their application of the Gospel is not very good news.
Grace is incredibly mind blowing.
224 replies to "Does the Roman Catholic Gospel Save? or “Getting the Gospel ‘Righter'”"
One thing to note is that while I do appreciate Catholics and am closer to them than hard liberals, this issue of not accepting grace does create quite a gulf. I would not sign ECT. So I am not really THAT ecumenical (at least as much as Chuck Colson and JI Packer). When missing Mass without a valid excuse is a mortal sin that can send one to hell if left unconfessed is part of one’s system, no matter how one words it, grace is not in the building.
“Do this and live the law demands, but it gives me neither feet nor hands. A better word God’s grace doth bring, it bids me fly and it gives me wings.”
CMP: Indeed as Calvin said of the RCC in his time, it had become a system of Judaization. Such legal statements are still on the books in Catholicism. And sadly, in the Irish Church I grew-up in works-righteousness really did exist. I am not being anti-Catholic here, just speaking the historical aspects and certain theological realities.
“Verse 4. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Paul in this verse discloses that he is not speaking so much of circumcision as the trust which men repose in the outward act. We can hear him say: “I do not condemn the Law in itself; what I condemn is that men seek to be justified by the Law, as if Christ were still to come, or as if He alone were unable to justify sinners. It is this that I condemn, because it makes Christ of no effect. It makes you void of Christ so that Christ is not in you, nor can you be partakers of the knowledge, the spirit, the fellowship, the liberty, the life, or the achievements of Christ. You are completely separated from Him, so much so that He has nothing to do with you any more, or for that matter you with Him.” Can anything worse be said against the Law? If you think Christ and the Law can dwell together in your heart, you may be sure that Christ dwells not in your heart. For if Christ is in your heart He neither condemns you, nor does He ever bid you to trust in your own good works. If you know Christ at all, you know that good works do not serve unto righteousness, nor evil works unto condemnation. I do not want to withhold from good works their due praise, nor do I wish to encourage evil works. But when it comes to justification, I say, we must concentrate upon Christ alone, or else we make Him non-effective.”(Luther,Galatians)
The issue is strikingly simple…
Grace is not only necessary, but it is sufficient.
Rome would agree with the former, but not the latter.
Thus, the most loving thing we can do to our Roman Catholic friends/neighbors/relatives is to evangelize them.
They need the Gospel.
In Christ,
– Shane
CMP said, “Grace is incredibly mind blowing.”
yep! 🙂
Indeed, Roman Catholicism does not teach a gospel of assurance in salvation, but they have always taught the doctrine of Christ, Incarnate Son of God (Virgin Birth), God & Man, Savior, Lord & Redeemer!
I have said this before, but growing up Irish Roman Catholic in Dublin (50’s early 60’s), my pastor and priest, Fr. Sweeny was a Catholic Augustinian, both in his education and his order. When I was about 6 years old, I asked him who was this man hanging and nailed on the Cross or Crucifix? I never forgot what he told me: He is Jesus, God Incarnate who died for your sins! My first gospel sermon!
I can myself, be critical of Rome and Catholicism, but I will never call them a negative cult! As they preach the biblical Christ: the God-Man, and Savior & Lord, etc.
Btw, we had a Reformation, not a reformulation of the Church. No Radical Reformation for me! As Melanchton, I can accept the Bishop of Rome, but not the “papacy” in toto. And as I have said, they do have certain non-biblical (Judaistic) doctrines, but they do have the Christ of the Gospel!
When I was about 6 years old, I asked him who was this man hanging and nailed on the Cross or Crucifix? I never forgot what he told me: He is Jesus, God Incarnate who died for your sins! My first gospel sermon!
That’s touching, Fr Robert…I grew up Lutheran, from tot to adult, and I’ll never forget my pastor. I still think of him as one of the best men I ever knew. He taught me to love God and his Word. Another little note– when I was married in the Catholic Church, there were three ordained Lutheran ministers in the congregation (not presiding). That’s a precious memory to me.
I appreciate your disposition toward Catholicism. While yes, distinctions must be made for truth’s sake, division never should be the goal.
I applaud CMP’s acknowledgement that one can interpret James differently and honestly, without sacrificing the authority scripture. With all due respect to Shane, what appears to him to be a “strikingly simple” thing is obviously anything but, otherwise we wouldn’t have this huge schism in the Church. And let’s be honest, when most people refer to something along the lines of “strikingly simple”, it’s usually anything but.
I was struck by CMP’s comment, however, that “of course” we don’t interpret James to mean, well, what he certainly seems to mean. Because, apparently, we need to filter James through Paul, due to Paul being “the” NT theologian. It strikes me as obviously false that Paul is “the” NT theologian. That isn’t to be meant as a slight to his contributions! But surely the mere fact that he was more prolific or that his writings were better preserved does not necessitate that we filter everything through his theology. Do we need to filter Jesus through Paul?
For what it’s worth, I do think Paul and James can be reconciled to a certain extent. James claims that faith and works are inextricably linked, not that you can gain your salvation through works. Different concepts. Likewise, Paul in Galatians 5:6 claims that the only thing that counts is “faith working through love” (ESV). Yes, that’s right… a *working faith* is the only thing that counts. Faith without works is not faith at all.
Nevertheless, let’s not ignore the fact that James seems to deliberately use Paul’s example of Abraham to emphasize the opposite side of the coin. Perhaps those questioning why someone would set “scripture against scripture” need look no further than James and Paul.
James would certainly seem to emphasize the ethical nature of Christianity more so than Paul. And not just in a casual way. Yes, it is possible that this could entirely be the result of James merely addressing the concerning matter at hand in his congregation. Even Martin Luther suspected James felt this way. But, of course, it is equally possible that James felt Paul’s emphasis was wrong. It could also be both. Those who would filter James through Paul can simply hand-wave this away, but I suspect this is more due to preference than it is due to any justification. But, to be fair, I also suspect there is more to CMP’s justification than just his few-sentence blurb. And he is honest enough to admit that there is another way to look at it, even if he disagrees.
May you preach the Gospel to many people Shane. This whole discussion encouraged me to read Galatians again. May we all be encouraged to do so. I also pulled out my copy of the God who Justifies by James White (have you all read it?) as there is detailed discussion of the passages in Galatians that seem to anticipate this discussion well. I’d encourage Mr. Patton to look at this issue like he looks at the Trinity: doesn’t he look at all the passages systematically? If you were reasoning with an JW or a UPC Modalist, wouldn’t you take all the passages about the identity of Christ and present a systematic portrait? You would say ‘this other view of Jesus is another Jesus, it crosses the line,’ right? Presenting the two natures & two wills of Christ in one person? Why can’t we do the same with defining the true gospel/false gospel? I pray for you as you consider our questions and encourage you to keep looking at Galatians.
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
Sorry, I got my sentences jumbled above. When referring to Martin Luther, I meant to say that even he suspected that James disagreed with Paul, or was even attempting to refute him.
Christ commanded the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion..so they are not add-on’s.
Christ knows our hearts and He will judge who is saved.
Roman Catholics are Christ +…that is for sure. But so are most Christians. Whether it be ‘one’s decision for Christ’, or particular fingertips having to touch clergy (the historic episcopate, or an inerrant text, or one’s seriousness and cooperation…all add-on’s to Christ.
And Christ can save in spite of it all. Will He? Only He knows the answer.
I have a relative who recently paid for a Mass for a loved one. Indulgences are real. The RCC has doubled down on its blasphemy and heresy since the Reformation. The Mass is a blasphemy all by itself, as it rejects Christs sufficiency. This article is just post modern gobbledygook. Just as C.S. Lewis begat Rob Bell, so this jibberish was begat by the same lies we’ve heard forever, “did God really say.”
“Christ commanded the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion..so they are not add-on’s.”
Neither of those justify us before a holy God.
In Christ,
– Shane
@ Fr.Robert..
I can myself, be critical of Rome and Catholicism, but I will never call them a negative cult! As they preach the biblical Christ: the God-Man, and Savior & Lord, etc.
Btw, we had a Reformation, not a reformulation of the Church. No Radical Reformation for me! As Melanchton, I can accept the Bishop of Rome, but not the “papacy” in toto. And as I have said, they do have certain non-biblical (Judaistic) doctrines, but they do have the Christ of the Gospel!
As I said in my post above I was saved in Ireland and was brought up in the RC religion of which I had no choice. The RC may preach Jesus but he is made null and void by their traditions and extrabiblical teachings concerning salvation, redemption, mediation, works, false worship of saints and angels, false priesthood, forgiveness through the intercession of a false priesthood, false depiction of sanctification and sainthood, false depiction of baptism (believers only should be baptised), false communion (administered to anyone born into the RC church whether they truly believe or not, non addressing of sin (e.g a priest will marry people who are living together), non fellowship with other RC members outside of the mass, false depiction of celibacy, false understanding of being born again and receiving the spirit. And you say RC is not a cult???!!!
And may I ask respectfully Robert why you yourself are an ordained priest? Can you show me such a thing from scripture?
The Biblical Sacraments are hardly add-ons, but the will and purpose of God! Neglect of them in their proper place certainly robs the Christian life! This has somewhat been the bane of many Protestant & so-called Evangelical Churches. We can see that St. Paul even sees their foreshadows & figures in the OT, 1 Cor. 10: 1-4.
@Greg: This is not the place (blog) to respond to my place as an Anglican priest/presbyter, sadly however I get this question quite often, from “fundamentalists” on the blogs.
And the RCC has several doctrinal ideas and practices that I myself don’t believe or follow. But again, no historical Church is without poor, sometimes wrong, and even false doctrine. Note the “emergent church”!
Re-my post above, the first paragraph is from a post by Fr Robert’s and should be within quotation marks. Apologies.
@Fr Robert,
I believe my question to you is very relevant as you are commentating here as a representative of Christ and in a form of priesthood that I would contend is unscriptural. There is only one Fundamental view of priesthood in the scriptures and that is the priesthood of all believers. One does not need to be ordained and given a title and have oneself addressed as father as in meaning a holy father and with a need for a uniform which depicts an upper echelon of priesthood.
I say all this for the benefit of those who have escaped the cage of religion and who have come into a freedom with Christ and may be vulnerable as yet to being persuaded that any alternative to the priesthood depicted within scripture is acceptable which it is not. Any religion which depicts a priest to be a special rank over and above any true believer is a false priesthood I contend.
Secondly your affirmation it seems that the RC church has the essential truth about Christ and is therefore ok is misleading. I have named several things above which should clearly show that those teachings of the RC church are fundamental to it’s very existence. And if one does not hold to them then one can not be a Roman Catholic any longer. Tell me..how can a RC priest dedicate the mass to Mary and the saints and state that we(Roman Catholics) rely on their prayers and intercsessions for us before God?
And this priest, any! RC priest is supposedly born again and has the holy spirit?
“When missing Mass without a valid excuse is a mortal sin that can send one to hell if left unconfessed is part of one’s system, no matter how one words it, grace is not in the building.”
Can one go to Hell for disobeying Christ?
Can one be saved by faith if one is slothful about one’s faith?
Does faith have to be “living” or is intellectual assent sufficient?
Is the problem with “confession” and if it is, what if the believer actually believes that Christ meant what was reported in John 20:23? Is such a belief within the realm of permissible “private interpretation”? If not, why not?
Was Augustine – the person the Reformers relied on for their understanding of grace – just having a bad day when he wrote, “In the first place, we feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they actd on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved.” On Faith and Works, 21.
Does it not take grace to have a living faith?
My point is to suggest that there is a deeper nuance to the issue than the strawman characterization about going to Hell because one has missed mass without a valid excuse, i.e., choosing a worldly and trivial end at the expense of worshipping God may point to the absence of a living faith in a rather more direct way than the issue is formulated in the initial statement.
@Greg: I can see that you are somewhat ignorant of the history of the Anglican Communion! I am myself one that believes in the ‘priesthood of all believers’, but that does not negate the place of Christian ministry, and the pastor-teacher, etc. and here is the NT “presbyter”. For the Low Church Anglican the term “priest” is seen more within the biblical word and place of “presbyter”. I am not a Roman Catholic or a High Church Anglican priest. But, I am a classic type Anglican, which is historically both “catholic” and “reformed”. And I am also Reformed and Calvinist. But again, in the history of Anglicanism, there are actually three places historically in ministry and belief, i.e. The Evangelical or so-called ‘Low Church’ (where I am at), the High Church, or Anglo-Catholics, and then the Broad Church, or more liberal. Sometimes these aspects bleed together, but not so much in my case.
As to the term “Father”, St. Paul used such in his statement about the pastoral ministry to the Corinthians, (1 Cor. 4:15).
Btw, if you were raised in Ireland, you should know the majority are Roman Catholic, but as in Belfast, and that area, there are certainly Protestant Irish also. And then there is the Church of Ireland, which is generally classic Anglican Protestant, being both “catholic” and “reformed”. But there too, many are somewhat High Church, etc. And of course there are some Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. And too some Independent type Christians.
And btw Greg, I have been a ‘High Church’ Anglican “priest”, in my long Anglican history, but I am not so any longer. And I have also been close to the EO, or Orthodoxy in my past. Check out my wee little blog, to see some of my history and belief, etc. 🙂
@Peter
“Can one go to Hell for disobeying Christ?
Can one be saved by faith if one is slothful about one’s faith?
Does faith have to be “living” or is intellectual assent sufficient?”
1. One goes to Hell for rejecting God. One can disobey God but by way of conviction of the Holy Spirit feel sorrowful and and repentant. One Who has rejected God has rejected the Holy Spirit and thus does not fall under His conviction. Disobedience is not a total an utter rejection of God. And when we are disobedient we have an advocate with the Father who steps in on our behalf, and covers our unrighteousness with His complete and perfect righteousness. Which is why if one misses mass, or Sunday service, they are not in danger of hell fire.
2. If one is slothful about their faith, their faith should be in question. If they are not actively living out what they profess to believe in then there is a red flag. This is why Paul tells us to examine ourselves to see that we are in the faith.
3. Faith is both intellectual and volitional. We trust in Christ and act upon that trust. If we are not acting upon that trust then … (see answer #2.)
If anyone think it right to trust in Christ’s work and their own good works as a means of being justified before a holy God, they have been deceived.
Repent and trust in Christ alone for salvation. Once we have truly trusted the living Christ, it will then transfer over into a living faith.
Does it not strike you as odd that in your entire post on “the Gospel” you never once cite or reference any of The Gospels or what Jesus said was the Gospel?
In The Gospels (i.e., Κατα Μαθθαιον, Κατα Μαρκον, Κατα Λουκαν, Κατα Ιωαννην – i.e., THE GOSPEL According to Matthew, According to Mark, According to Luke, According to John … because they each tell what THE GOSPEL is) Jesus talks about “the Gospel” and “the Gospel of the Kingdom” and what it is and what it means and what one’s response to it and acceptance of it involves and what one’s salvation in relation to it involves.
Yet you never once cite or reference what Jesus said is The Gospel, what Mark explicitly calls The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Carrie,
I appreciate your attempt at an answer, but I think you are making things easy for yourself, as was the case with Mr. Patton.
I should not have to remind anyone that one doesn’t commit mortal sins by accident. “Mortal sin” is not the default setting. For there to be a mortal sin, the intellect must perceive and judge the morality of the act, and the will must freely elect it, and it must concern a “grave matter.”
I take it that everyone would agree that disobeying Christ is a grave matter. So, if one assumes that (a) do this in memory of me and (b) those who hear you hear me means going to church on Sunday, the issue is not missing church without a “valid excuse” but one’s knowledge and intent in missing church.
Can one never be in danger of going to hell for missing church? What if a person says, I know that Christ commanded me to go to church on Sunday and receive him in the Eucharist, but I’m not going because while I have faith in him, I just don’t want to go because I want to watch football.
Are you so certain, that such a person is in no danger of going to Hell? I’m not. I would question that person’s faith as shown by their works.
Would you counsel that person to change his ways?
If so, why?
The uncharitable characterizations of Catholic belief that spring up in these Protestant kaffeklatches about how Catholics are not saved are uncharitable. They are a kind of pharasaic gossip, rather than an attempt to understand,…
@Robert..
I appreciate the time you took to explain the Anglican community to me. But! I am sorry to say that whether it is high or low or whatever it is still a religious system in the sense of manmade tradition. If you are saying that because you are in some kind of a teaching/elder role you should formally be given the title “Father” and introduce yourself and your role as that of being a priest then should one who is a prophet or evangelist also be called “Father” and have a formal ordination?
In Corinthians 1:4 Paul was challenging their following of certain leaders over others. He pointed out that this was nonesense and that he was like a father to them through the gospel. He taught them and corrected them. But the term “father” was a euphimism and not an office. He was not saying he gave their faith birth but that he was a protector and teacher until they grew up in their faith. And Paul was specifically sent to them. Likewise Timothy was a teacher but was never addressed as or given the title “Father” such a title as a biblical office such as “elder” does not exist.
I am afraid to say the Robert that what any religious system that uses formal ordination to confer priesthood is not in step with the depiction of priesthood in the scriptures. If you are a teacher and an elder than you should simply call yourself as such. But you cannot..because you are tied to a manmade system of religion. Anglicanism perpetuates false religion…to me.
So the question remains… “Does the Roman Catholic gospel save?” So here is my challenge. Can anyone articulate the Roman Catholic gospel?? i.e the Roman Catholic version of the good news about Christ and how one receives eternal life, how one passes over from death to life never to see decay?
Hi… are you all sure that Rom. 3:21 implies “justification by faith alone”? Maybe I have a different text here because in it I can only read that there’s no justification outside of faith…
Sorry once again… do you think that RC religion defends justification by faith and works?
Peter, I am certain that anyone who has fully trusted Christ as savior, can miss church for a football game. I don’t agree with their actions, but I don’t think them to be damnable.
That is grace though. True grace.
“Can anyone articulate the Roman Catholic gospel??”
Well, in one sense there are four of them, “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”
In another sense, there is only one gospel, i.e., Jesus Christ himself.
“…the Roman Catholic version of the good news about Christ and how one receives eternal life, how one passes over from death to life never to see decay?”
Presumably, the answer includes what Jesus taught, such as Luke 18 and Matthew 25.
If by “gospel” we mean a “bumper sticker” slogan, then the closest thing might be “faith working through love.”
Augustine suggests a longer answer in On Faith and Works 27 when discussing the rich young man:
“It should be evident to our opponents that he did not tell him to believe and be baptized – according to them a man would not have to do any more than this to obtain eternal life. On the contrary, He gave them precepts of morality which, certainly, one cannot observe unless he has faith also. For we do not want anyone to think that, because the Lord says nothing here about faith, we say and maintain therfore that it is not necessary to instruct a person who desires to obtain eternal life in anything but morals. Both are necessary, morals and faith, for they are mutually connected, as I said before. A man who does not love God does not love his neighbor; and he who does not love his neighbor does not love God.”
It doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker and is more complicated than faith alone, but it pays…
@Greg: Indeed there is no such thing even in Christianity, which does not touch and include “Man” or humanity! This is certainly one of the reasons that Christ Himself became man and incarnate, of course “sin apart”! Your arguments are circular, for the world we live in is sinful, including the historical Church! So if you keep “separating” yourself, you must needs as Paul said, “then must ye needs go out of the world.” (1 Cor. 5:10) Btw, I am not unaware of this kind of “fundamentalist” Christianity, as my greatgram was among the PB’s or Plymouth Brethren (so-called ‘Kelly Brethren’ to be exact). And surely they have had some profound Christians…JND (John Nelson Darby, William Kelly, etc.) My last name is Darby and my middle is Kelly, but no relation. 😉 Though JND was a Irish Anglican priest at one time!
And there can be no false religion really with the “Biblical” Christ, for it is HE we worship and are tethered (bonded), if we are real Christians! GOD, the Triune God, makes and sustains the Christian, and the Christian life!
Carrie,
Is your position really that a person who wilfully and intentionally disobeys Christ with respect to a grave matter is in no danger of damnation?
That should be a very easy answer, and the answer should be “No, no one who disobeys Christ can be said to have faith in Christ.” Ironically, since I’m quoting him, Augustine was dealing with your position in On Faith and Works, and he concluded that “they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient and that they need not perform good works in order to be saved.” (Augustine’s issue was whether remarried people could be baptized. His answer was “no” because he felt that no one could affirm faith in Christ and reject his teachings.)
I think you are making your life easy by saying “Gee, it’s just one time going to church and it’s only a football game. Heck, I do that all the time, so who am I to judge him.”
But what I asked you to assume was that this person really knows that the obligation to worship God each and every week is a really, really big deal.
If you make the assumption that worshipping God is a “grave matter” that is commanded by God, can you see that an intentional and deliberate choice to disobey God might put a person in danger of Hell?
Obviously, if you disagree with the gravity of the matter, you might come up with a different answer. But what if you are wrong? What if it is a grave matter? Is there then no…
And again Greg note we are “baptised” in the “name” singular of “the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19) Always the mystery of the Triune God, One in Three, Three in One! Sadly, so many professing Christians are ignorant of their Baptism! A profound ‘sign & seal’ of their salvation itself! And we can note, this is a “covenantal” act/action, and of itself does not save, (Heb. 10: 29). But, surely we must not take lightly the sacrament of Baptism!
*And just a note, the R. Catholic Church does surely baptise in the name of the Trinity of God! Do you? And yes, I believe in padeo-baptism!
Peter, all sin is a grave matter.
Not all sin is equal, but all sin is a grave matter.
Which is why no amount of good we can do, can negate the rancid darkness of our sin. Which is why we need a savior.
We don’t merely need a savior to give us the ability to do enough good to be saved. We don’t need a savior to infuse us with grace gas, to fill up the tank for us to run on.
We need someone to completely and wholly stand before us on our behalf to defend us. We need someone who is perfect and right. We need God himself to appease His own sense of righteousness. Which is why we need Christ.
If we have Him, when we do sin, it is His righteousness that covers us when we need forgiveness. It is by His righteousness we can even begin to ask forgiveness. It is not by our own.
So when we fail to desire to worship God as we should we should 1. Ask ourselves why – examine ourselves to see that we are in the faith more or less and 2. Find forgiveness where it is given freely and 3. Strive to cease from such behavior.
Grave matter…. Peter, all our sin is grave before a perfect God. Which is why our less than perfect works can never undo the graveness of our wretched sinfulness.
This is not an argument against doing works… it is not an argument against living a godly life … it is an argument for who truly justifies us. Jesus Christ, Him alone … not ourselves.
Rome has it wrong. And, Peter, that really sucks!
@Fernando: Yes, I believe the RCC teaches ‘faith & works’. As in fact so does the Reformed theology & churches, but they do so with the Law/Gospel distinction! Roman has the doctrine of “merit”!
Ouch Carrie! lol But I agree! 🙂
And btw, just to jump into the Indulgence question, here is something that really does “suck”! Sorry, that system needs to go! Sad, the papacy under Pope Paul the VII, thought about getting rid of it? but they did not. Note John Paul I’s affirmation of it. Sad, and wrong to my mind! I don’t see a bit how this thing can be defended!
*VI
Carrie,
You say that “all sin is a grave matter.”
Why?
Does Jesus stand in for those who do not have faith in him?
Might it be that by sinning, one rejects God?
Could it be that intentionally, willfully disobeying God is – pace Augustine – inconsistent with a living faith in God?
I’m not seeing any engagement with my point – and that of Augustine and the Catholic Church – that morality and faith are two sides of a single coin. To crib Augustine:
“…morals and faith […] are mutually connected, as I said before. A man who does not love God does not love his neighbor; and he who does not love his neighbor does not love God.”
Also, you know what really sucks – being on the side of the wrong side at Christ’s last judgment because one didn’t pay attention to Augustine’s warning:
“In the first place, we feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved.” On Faith and Works, 21.
If as you say, all sin is a serious matter, and if intentionally and deliberately disobeying God in one thing is a rejection of God, and if Christ doesn’t intervene for those who reject him, I’m thinking that the guy who deliberately stayed hom to watch football knowing he was disobeying God would be in some serious trouble.
Even if he believed that faith alone is sufficient…
Pope Paul the VII???
John Paul I was thinking of getting rid of indulgences during his 30 day pontificate???? Evidence please?
Also, having a Mass said for the dead is not what is meant by an “indulgence.” Certainly, a donation is made when the mass is requested, but it is not a matter of paying for the mass. People are rememberd and prayed for in Masses all the time gratis.
Admittedly, the idea of indulgences and praying for the dead as a way of helping them in their sanctification have common roots. Roots found in the Bible:
2 Maccabees 12:43 And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
2 Maccabees 12:45 And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
The only point, really, that I hope to get across here is that a prudent critic ought to distinguish between “indulgences” and “praying for the dead,” and not be so uncouth as to suggest that Masses are bought like a commodity, any more than good tithe paying Protestants “buy” prayers when they tithe…
*Of course that was Pope Paul the VI, and John Paul II, my typing “sucks”! 😉
@Robert
Robert you said: @Greg: Indeed there is no such thing even in Christianity, which does not touch and include “Man” or humanity! This is certainly one of the reasons that Christ Himself became man and incarnate, of course “sin apart”! Your arguments are circular, for the world we live in is sinful, including the historical Church! So if you keep “separating” yourself, you must needs as Paul said, “then must ye needs go out of the world.” (1 Cor. 5:10) Btw, I am not unaware of this kind of “fundamentalist” Christianity,
Robert…what do you mean by my arguments are circular? and what are you implying that I am “Separating” myself?? I do not understand your use of 1 Cor 5:10 in relation to me. I certainly do associate with unbelievers and do not cut myself off from them as Paul was saying we should not do.
But as far as separating myself from the teachings of the RC church I am a million miles away. You do not seem to answer the questions I ask which is to justify from scripture an ordained office of priesthood. I also named doctrines of the RC church which I believe are unscriptural and which need to be justified from scripture for me to accept them. These doctrines are essential for salvation according to Roman Cannon Law.
Also I did not ask you about what baptism is about I asked in general about the RC churches interpretation of what baptism is about and what it effects. I think Believers full well understand what their baptism is about as I have…
Btw, we Anglicans know the “tithe” is a OT injunction!
@Peter Sean Bradley
Peter I didn’t ask what Jesus taught or what it says in the four gospels I asked what the roman Catholic church says Jesus taught, “the roman Catholic version” I believe I said.
In other words how does the R.C church believe one receives eternal life? Lets start here Peter…is it confered at infant baptism? does one enter into a life with Christ when one is baptised as a baby? because the R.C church instructs it followers that this is what they should do with their children in order for them to enter in to the life of the church?
So yes..Jesus said to be baptised so is this how the R.C church interprets what he said?
Here is what scripture says about receiving eternal life and becoming a child of God.
John 1:12;13 “12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
Not born of Natural descent: “I am a Roman catholic and therefore a Christian because my parents were”
Nor of human decision” I just woke up one morning and decided I was a Christian”
Nor of a husbands will: ” Well my father decided I was going to become a Christian so I was baptised as a baby into the Christian church”
In other words Peter no one can decide for you…not even yourself. The Holy spirit convicts you that you are a sinner and your heart calls out to Jesus and he answers you…
@Greg: Your “methods” are simply “fundamentalist”! And I am not a Roman Catholic “priest”. I will let the Roman Catholics here speak for their Church and doctrine (though I am not unaware of Catholicism myself). I consider your approach towards the RCC, to be archaic somewhat, and just completely negative. We must always beware of bigotry in what we disagree with! Truth is not our truth, but God’s truth, wherever we find it!
Shane Dodson,
How do you know that we are justified in our Baptisms?
Acts 2:38 says that we receive forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit in Baptism. 1st Peter says that “Baptism now saves you”
In Galatians, Paul says that “those of us who have been baptized have put on Christ”.
You are pretty cock sure of yourself. But the Scriptures bear out a different reality.
Like I said before. Our Lord is NOT into empty religious ritual. He commanded Baptism (and the Supper), and He’s at work there…for us.