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'”"
‘NOT justified’, is what I meant to type.
Fr. Robert,
That’s good to hear. I felt for a moment like I had dropped into an “alternate reality” where perhaps Luther died in that lightning storm or Mohammed became a Christian saint. (See Turtledove, Harry.)
I will still dissent from your claim that Paul VI thought about “getting rid” of indulgences. The concept of indulgences – apart from the myth or any abuse of the system – far too biblical for anyone to get rid of it.
But, hey, if you have a source, I’d like to see it.
Greg,
You initially asked about the “Gospel.” I answered that question.
I have seen “gospel” used by Protestants to refer to “salvation by faith alone” and “Christ and him crucified” as well as other things.
The gospel strictly speaking is the entirety of Jesus’ message, which includes his life. That’s why the Lord’s Prayer can be said to be a “summary of the Gospel.” I stand by that as “the Gospel.”
But if you want a bumper sticker slogan for the Catholic position on salvation, “faith working through love” works.
Obviously, therefore, one does not become a child of God because of natural descent or human action. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that.
It teaches that “faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.”
The Catholic Church also teaches that “Faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.”
You undoubtedly will agree with that when you think about. (See “Sanctification.”)
Concerning baptism, it sounds like the epitome of the free gift of the grace needed for faith which is beginning of human salvation.
Peter you said:
“Carrie, You say that ‘all sin is a grave matter.’ Why?”
I say:
Because sin is unrighteous. Sin is evil. Sin is contrary to God’s perfection and His holiness.
Peter said:
“Does Jesus stand in for those who do not have faith in him?”
I say:
Well yes and no.
Yes because anytime we as Christians sin, it shows a lack of faith. All sin is rooted in un-belief. Also, Scripture states that He is faithful even when we are not, for He can not deny Himself. He remains faithful to those who genuinely belong to Him. And His Holy Spirit brings about conviction on the hearts of believers to where they are prompted to repent. (In my case, on a daily basis.) The work of the Holy Spirit on the heart of the believer is evidence of God remaining faithful even when we fail to be.
Now I said yes but I also will say no.
No because when John was explaining that if we sin we have an advocate with the Father, he was explaining that to Christians. So that means for those who do not have faith in Him, they lack any representation.
And when I said those who do not have faith in Him I mean those who have never trusted in Him, those who have 1. never had knowledge of the truths of Christ 2. Believed those truths to be, true and 3. Willfully invested trust in Christ (as in trusted in Him alone for their justification – which entails a realization that Christ’s righteousness is the only righteousness that can possibly satisfy God’s holiness.)
That faith is the faith of a believer. So yes Christ stands in for believers but does not stand in for the unbeliever. Christ stands in for believers who sin (exhibit a level of unbelief) but Christ does not stand in for unbelievers who are sinners (those who never exhibited true faith in Christ.)
Peter said:
“Might it be that by sinning, one rejects God?”
I say:
Yes. I think what I have said above indicates I believe sinning is rejecting God.
Peter said:
“Could it be that intentionally, willfully disobeying God is – pace Augustine – inconsistent with a living faith in God?”
I say:
Yes absolutely. And I don’t simply agree because Augustine said it. Paul said it in Romans 7 (and elsewhere.)
Peter said:
“I’m engagement with my point – and that of Augustine and the Catholic Church – that morality and faith are two sides of a single coin not seeing any.”
I say:
I have no reason to engage with you on this. I explicitly stated that I am not arguing against doing good works or arguing against living a godly life. You are putting these quotes in from Augustine as though that somehow argues against my view.
I will say that if Augustine genuinely believed his justification was based on anything other than the perfect work of Christ, then he was genuinely wrong. But if Augustine means to say that works are a part of our salvation (as in our sanctification) then I have no disagreement with that. I can’t force my understanding of sanctification on Augustine’s writings however. I am simply ignorant of his motives in writing what he wrote as I am not sufficiently read in that area.
I believe fully we are too do good works, Peter. We are to live godly lives. We are also to examine ourselves to see that we are in the faith. Good works are the evidence of faith. They aren’t the cause of it. Good works are a result of our justification not the cause of it. Christ is the cause of our justification, and the works that stem from it simply show the world that we love Him and eagerly desire to follow Him and live a life for Him. We are to live a life worthy of the calling. We however are not Him and are not perfect, so when we fail (and believe you me, we do and will) thank God for Jesus.
Peter said:
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…
I say:
Yes he is in serious trouble. We all are. Which is why Paul says oh who will deliver me from this body of death. Peter, we are being saved from sin daily. But it is through Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts that is doing it. We are not being saved by our good works. We please God when we do good (as Scripture says our obedience pleases Him.) We however do not satisfy His wrath. Only Christ can do that. And he did. On the cross.
Who in the world said Protestantism or Evangelicalism is Christian? It is almost pitiful. It is close to Easter and while Christians are busy doing what Christians have always done during this time of the years – “christians by name only” are over here being occupied with absolute nonesense and being scared to death with the idea of actually being christian.
Today is Good Friday but going by your “church” or your “christianity”, the world would not know this Friday means something to Christians – shame on you Protestants.
Ouch
And Dozie what exactly is it you are doing? Dropping in to heap scorn on a system you disagree with.
What is being discussed is at the very heart of Good Friday and what better day to stand up for the truth of what the crucifixion actually means.
Thanks Carrie for the uplifting words. The Lord Jesus shines truth out from error so clearly – may God shine the light of the Gospel of grace into all hearts.
Peter, it seems unlikely that you agree with everything Augustine wrote, correct? You are comparing his writings to – what your organization currently teaches, right?
I’ll compare his writings to the writings of the Holy Spirit. And yours, the council of Trent and the CCC too. We are not ignorant of the quotes you produce from your organization’s writings. And No, I do not agree with the bad news you are preaching. You might think that trying to recruit people to your organization shows great zeal, but look at Romans 10. What is your rightousness before the all-Holy One? See my previous posts – I’ll pray for you that the Lord will open your eyes like Lydia, granting repentence and the gift of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God crucified for sinners, and raised gloriously from the dead. All who believed are justified from all things, everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. And yes, the only loving, gracious thing I can do is to give you the command that Paul (Acts 17) gave to all men: repentence towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. May the Lord open many eyes this weekend to see the crucified Christ, Who is the Lord our Righteousness.
C.S. Lewis denied the gospel at every point.
The Mass itself is a blasphemy. It is a re-sacrifice of Christ and denies His sufficiency. Purgatory likewise denies Christ’s work on the cross.
I believe the Gospel is proclaimed, believed, and denied from among RC, EO, and Protestantism. If it’s proclaimed, what Jesus fulfilled for us through his obedience, death, and resurrection is considered the foundation for our justification, sanctification, and glorification. If it’s believed, it’s because of God’s grace and mercy we have been made disciples of Christ. If it’s denied, it’s because of remaining dead in trespasses and sins.
Now come the raven anti-Catholics, which simply don’t have logic or truth on their side! Very sad! Has anybody on this side read a line of Melanchton?
@Chris: This statement is just your so-called theological (or really lack thereof) bigotry! C.S. Lewis may not have been a Christian fundamentalist, but anyone who has read some of his “depth”, certainly sees Christ! Wake up and smell the coffee!
Btw, I love coffee! 😉
“Christ died, not for valuable men, but for sinners – human souls whose value, out of relation to God, is zero.” (C.S. Lewis, WG 115)
C.S. Lewis denied penal substitutionary atonement, he proclaimed his belief in Purgatory and was an inclusivist/universalist who believed a merciful Buddhist could find salvation with out Christ. This is a whole sale rejection of the Gospel and the Mass is still, blasphemy, resacrificing my blessed Savior every day. It is just the Galatian heresy all over.
@Chris: Actually, this describes many Christians theologically today, even so-called evangelicals..like the emergents, etc. Thankfully it is CHRIST whom saves the sinner, and not really even our best or correct understanding of it. Though of course we want to be theologically correct as closely as possible, but again Christianity is Christ and not gnosticsim (just knowledge)! As St. Paul says, “For to me, to live is Christ” (Phil. 1:21).
I am myself, much more conservative biblically and theologically than many of my fellow Anglicans & British Christians, but this certainly does not save me more, or really make me better. This was one of the problems with the Judaizers. I can certainly appreciate for standing close to orthodoxy myself, I love the doctrine of God, and theology, etc. I am in fact myself very creedal and Trinitarian. But again, salvation is Christ, and Christ Incarnate is always central in Christology, and presses the rest of the work of Christ!
Btw, I am not a sacerdotalist myself, but I do believe strongly in the “mystery” of God! And our place is to be faithful as stewards of Christ therein, (1 Cor. 4:1-2).
C. Michael Patton: “When it comes to the Gospel, I believe Calvinist Evangelical Protestants have the “rightest” points of view”
In an Olympic Year, this is a Gold Medal statement!
There is a “rightest” ‘ordo salutis’ here, Protestant Evangelical Calvinists. 😉
Carrie,
We started with the statement that a person missing church could never be in danger of Hell. I offered a scenario where a person’s decision not to go to church was clear disobedience of God on a grave matter. You agreed that such a decision is inconsistent with a living faith. If this person does not have a living faith in God, then, presumably, you will agree that this person does not have a saving faith.
You beg the question by assuming that this person is still has “faith” in some sense. This contradicts your prior points that sins are “grave” and offend God’s perfection.
Sinners can be returned to justice through repentance and amendment, but if the person doesn’t repent, then the person is continuing to choose his sin over God and deny the living faith required for salvation.
You can save a “faith only” system by building in epicycles such as “Once saved, always saved” or “faith is an intellectual adherence.” Read Augustine on the problems with that.
So, for the hardliners (I would say “fundamentalist”, but I don’t want to stereotype), it would appear that we need to:
1. Ignore what Jesus referred to as “gospel”
2. Ignore how Jesus said to enter the Kingdom
3. Ignore the early sermons in Acts
4. Cite only Paul
5. Ignore early church disagreement (1 Cor. 10, Acts 15, Gal. 2) as evidence that brothers & sisters in Christ can reasonably disagree with Paul on some issues.
6. Ignore Paul’s warning not focus on him (Was Paul crucified for you?” – 1 Cor. 10:13)
7. Ignore the agreement on those things which Paul considers “of first importance” – 1 Cor. 15 (which certainly implies that everything else is of *less* importance).
8. Ignore James, who appears to be directly addressing Paul (or at least his theology)
9. Denounce all who disagree as heretics, including Augustine and C.S. Lewis. (would they have been considered an “anathema” by Paul – or just “severed from Christ”, I wonder?)
Call me crazy, but by “Christians” we are followers of Christ first, not Paul. I would suggest to those whose theology centers around Paul that if you could throw everything out of the NT except for Paul’s letters and have your theology remain unaffected, then you are quite possibly closer to the camp of Marcion than you should be comfortable with. Marcion believed that *only* Paul got the gospel right. So, I wonder if some commenting here would feel the same way?
Did Jesus have a correct understanding of the “gospel”? He seemed to place an awful lot of emphasis on deeds. Is it possible he even declared the sufficiency of the Law of Moses…? (Mark 10:17-27; Luke 16:17).
Did Peter have a correct understanding of the “gospel”? Then why was he still an observant Jew (Acts 10)?
Did James? Then why did he understand works to justify us? (James 2:24)
Did Jude (brother of Christ!)? Then why was he worried about “keeping yourselves in the Love of God” and “waiting”…
Last sentence should have ended with “waiting” for His Mercy
Did Paul write his epistles under the inspiration of the Triune God?
Please…enough of this fallacious “Paul vs. Jesus” nonsense.
I’m a follower of Jesus Christ. By extension, I am under the authority of His word…which includes Paul’s epistles.
If you are truly a born-again follower of Jesus Christ, you are, too.
If you are not, then please repent and believe in the Gospel.
In Christ,
– Shane
As for Paul, what was his understanding of the “gospel”? As far as I can tell, he explicitly summaries the “gospel” (using that term) in three spots: Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 15, and 2 Timothy 2. In both cases, although phrase differently, it is essentially boiled down to: Christ died and rose again for our sins.
In 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 (ESV), Paul specifically says that the “gospel” saves us, “…*if* you hold fast to the word I preached to you — *unless* you believed in vain.” [emphasis added]
“IF”?! “UNLESS”?! Sounds to me like RC caveats! And I’m pretty sure that RC’s preach Jesus’ death & resurrection for our sins. That – according to Paul – is the gospel that saves us.
In any case, I look forward to celebrating Jesus’ resurrection tomorrow. And I know I will be joined in that celebration with my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters – even if we don’t worship in the same building, and even if I disagree with them on a lot of other points (as I do with…
OK, character count is definitely off. Ugh. Happy Easter everybody!
@JB Chappell: This is certainly an overstatement! The theology of St. Paul in many ways is a spiritual complement of St. John’s, and vice versa! To miss the Hellenistic Greco-Roman backdrop of John’s Gospel, is a sure loss! Btw, it is here I would recommend the older book by the Brit and English Roman Catholic, Robert Sencourt: Saint Paul, Envoy Of Grace. There has been far too much division between the Pauline and the Johannine, the two really do have the same basic Christology!
JB…if your heart were to give out on you tonight (or whatever time it is where you’re at right now)…
Where would you spend eternity?
In Christ,
– Shane
Shane, are people who are “inspired” by God *infallible*? Did Paul claim to be infallible?
But in this case, I don’t think this debate matters. The fact of the matter is, inerrant scripture or not, those who restrict themselves to referencing only one source – in the Bible or elsewhere – are more likely to be wrong.
“those who restrict themselves to referencing only one source – in the Bible or elsewhere – are more likely to be wrong.”
A red herring, since nobody here is doing that.
Apparently, it’s okay for the RCC to embrace the person of Jesus Christ and His historicity, but deny His sacrifice as a full and complete payment for their sins,
Talk about restricting oneself…
In Christ,
– Shane
Fr. Robert, what exactly is an overstatement? Don’t think for a second that I don’t think that Paul, Jesus, John, etc. can’t be compatible in many ways. The main points I am trying to get across is that
1. Those trying to condemn RC’s to hell are being awfully selective in their quotations
2. For all their unity on other issues, the early Church clearly had tension disagreed on some points, even key ones.
Even as they did so, however, it doesn’t appear they were condemning each other to hell (with perhaps the one disputed exception in Galatians). Instead, it appears they met and tried to work out their differences. Apparently, this is a lost art, as we now simply resort to excommunication, condemning the other party to hell, or starting our own fork church.
Shane, I don’t doubt that I may have missed a reference or two, but those who are claiming RC’s are deficient in their “gospel” are almost – if not exclusively – quoting Paul to support their contention. That is one source.
And I would claim that even the quotations from this one source are rather selective.
I have caught other scripture references, but they were on peripheral issues. It’s hardly a red herring to point this out, as even CMP was advocating some to at least *consider* James (even as he advocated filtering his view through… guess who…).
I know of no RC (though I don’t know everyone) that denies the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. We all believe that he died “for our sins”. We also all believe that there is action required on our part to partake in this gift. Disagreeing on the nature or extent of our part does not make Christ’s sacrifice deficient.
Chris,
1. C.S. Lewis denied penal substitutionary atonement
The penal substitutionary theory wasn’t fully articulated until the Reformation. Prior to that there was the Satisfaction Theory, and prior to that almost all the Early Church accepted the Ransom Theory. Basically by insisting on this you are saying that nobody was saved prior to the Reformation
2. He proclaimed his belief in Purgatory
I’d be interested to know where he proclaimed this, but regardless I don’t see how believing that one must be sanctified after death rather than instantly being made pure makes one unsaved
3. Was an inclusivist/universalist who believed a merciful Buddhist could find salvation with out Christ
His statements concerning the “with their will or without it” makes it clear he was not a universalist. As to being an inclusivist it would be rather odd if believing that someone who doesn’t have explicit belief in Christ might be saved would undue the salvation of someone…
Re: C.S. Lewis
I realize this is off-topic, but it is interesting once one takes such a stringent stance on what “gospel”, just how far that takes us in dismissing other brothers and sisters in Christ. Whether you judge him by his fruits or by his words, the man made much of Christ.
I too was surprised at the comment that C.S. Lewis believed in purgatory. However, Scot McKnight seemed to document that reality pretty well here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/04/04/c-s-lewis-and-mere-purgatory/
But he clearly didn’t consider it a linchpin of his theology. And while inclusivism may be considered heterodox by many, it teaches that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. That hardly seems like grounds for saying he “rejected the gospel on every point.” If you’re going to judge him solely on correct knowledge, then that would seem to be at least a somewhat gnostic view.
JB – No, we don’t take the epistles of Paul only. Look at the lives of the millions of Christians. There is no way that we can throw out the rest of what God the Holy Spirit has told us – after all, the Author of these Scriptures dwells within us, as a temple. Per 2nd Peter, it is not only the writings of Paul that the unstable and untaught distort, but the rest of Scriptures. James, John, Peter all of the Apostolic writings are against the RC – as are the Prophets of the OT. Of course we agree with the ‘if’ and ‘unless’ of 1 Cor 15. The One Source we use is the Holy Spirit. Of course God spoke through many human authors. I just went to a service, where the Gospel of Mark was preached from. Of course Romans and Ephesians was preached from as well. Why not take the 25 hours or so to read through the NT, see the unity of the teaching, and the specific authority of the Apostles, who are the witnesses of the Lord’s resurrection.
Samuel, appealing to the Holy Spirit may convince those who are like-minded, but keep in mind what you have just claimed is that clearly I must NOT be using the Holy Spirit… apparently because I disagree with you.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that there is “no way that we can throw out the rest of what God the Holy Spirit has told us…”. Presumably, you mean the the entirety of scripture that is “against the RC”. Well, I don’t doubt that there is some scripture that is in opposition to RC teaching. I’m certainly not claiming that the RC church is infallible. The question is whether “their gospel” (which is already begging the question) saves. If you say no, then you need to both demonstrate a proper understanding of “their gospel” *and* the scripture.
So far I would say that those in the “No” camp seem to demonstrate neither. You can *say* that James stands against RC, but you need to demonstrate your point.
@Fr Robert:
“@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!”
Firstly Robert I didn’t ask the question about the R.C gospel Michael did. It is not a light topic of discussion it is about life and death in eternity. The question must be addressed by truth, which is to be found in the scriptures those scriptures would, to my understanding demolish every single doctrine and tradition of the R.C church with utmost clarity,as in the following.
1. the R.C priesthood and all that it entails.
2. Their doctrines of how one enters into salvation and a relationship with God via the sacraments.
3. Idol…
To any Roman Catholics reading this blog and possibly my comments:
May I say that I am not attacking Roman Catholic persons individually or en masse. I was at one time a Roman Catholic myself. My family members still are as are some of my friends. What I am against with all my heart is the teachings of the ordained body of the church. I believe that these teachings do not send people to hell as a persons unbelief in Jesus does and a persons refusal to have him as Lord over your life. I was once such a person.
I cried out to God for mercy and he answered me and revealed to me who Jesus is but also what real faith in him is.
What I do believe about R.C teachings is that it takes the truth about Jesus and covers it in a morass of tradition and also causes massive confusion as to how a person can find their way to God themselves. This is done I believe mainly by promoting the teachings about a false priesthood and a false leader and saying that only these men can bring you to…
My two posts above should have finished with:
Post 1.
3.Idol worship.
Post 2.
…bring you to God.
If any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
It is curious that when Paul referred to “another gospel”, he chose to identify it by its attack on grace-alone. And seeing that the word, “gospel”, means good news, the false gospel which added works wasn’t so good after all: if it is broken here, then any further debate is futile, in a sense.
On the other hand, if this part is kept inviolate, then we have a wealth of revelation about how to know and apply our salvation and faith in our lives to become disciples, and to dwell in Christ.
Therefore, in the RCC ( in which I was raised), if the “how to be saved” part is broken, all the corruption and syncretism are moot, logically.
Adding Mary as co-mediator (and a rather cultic Queen of Heaven), works-based salvation, and the infamy of elevating a man (Pope) to Godhead status are all symptoms that perhaps their “how to be saved” message is broken. I grew up Catholic, but had to hear the true, unadulterated Gospel before I was really saved, I believe.
@Greg: First, I am also one who was born, raised and baptised Roman Catholic, and this too in Dublin, Ireland. But my experience is not one of complete negativity, as you. With many other comments on this post, I think we can see that R. Catholicism certainly has the basis of the Gospel, with the biblical & theological Christ, incarnate.. God & Man, etc., and again the basic doctrine of Christ’s death for sinners, and the resurrection, etc. We have not mentioned the Trinity, which Rome certainly believes, as also most other orthodox Christians. But, we can certainly disagree with Rome’s lack of sufficiency and assurance from the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. And their lack of Christ’s medatiorship, alone! But to make Rome and the papacy, as THE Antichrist, as did Luther and Calvin, is more of a position of historicism, in the Book of Revelation, etc. Has R. Catholicism been anti-christian in their history? Certainly, but so has some of the Protestant Reformers.
Samuel,
Re Augustine on Faith and Works.
The problem for you is that Augustine was basing his conclusions on scripture. Read “On Faith and Works.”
Augustine was not reading scripture through Luther through “Paul alone,” as you are. Augustine was reading Jesus, and insofar as he was harmonizing, he was harmonizing Paul with Jesus, not vice versa.
How is this wrong?
The further problem is that you and others here are sending Augustine and everyone prior to Luther to Hell for not adhering to your narrow “gospel,” i.e., your creed.
Presumption and pride deny charity – love – and that is a sin.
I think Protestants have the faith part, and they may live faith through charity, but this error has caused Protestants I know to live without charity because they had faith alone.
There are many denominations of Protestants who believe that because they have “faith alone”, they can embrace sin – divorce, contracepton, abortion.
Jesus said faith must be…
Oh please Peter, this is a red herring, Protestants could fire back with the redundancy of the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of Penance! In the long past at least this Catholic doctrine has been used, excuse me, but like a potty chair! I know I was raised Irish Roman Catholic in the 50’s and early 60’s. Not to mention, if you had money, one could get an indulgence of marriage. And btw, many Roman Catholics practice contraception, and even pre-marital sex these days! We need to stop this tit for tat with each other.. Protestant verses Catholic, and vice versa!
*Though now, the so-called Sacrament of Penance is rarely used by many R. Catholics, at least in spiritual sense!
So, to conclude, in logic, IF A THEN B can be reversed to IF NOT B then NOT A. So, if a church has the correct Gospel, they will show the fruit of that Gospel, which includes repentance, charity, and other signs of a living faith in action.
If there is no spiritual fruit, you can suspect that the “gospel” they believe is false.
This is, I believe, the meaning of “know them by their fruit” – not spying on each other (personal conduct) but a corporate manifestation of works based on the action of fatih.
But, some might see my method as an end-run around a direct examiniation of doctrine, Aquinas be still! The RCC is not devoid of good fruit so we can suspect that the Gospel is yet preached within their walls, in spite of the syncretic and occult-based deviations in the official doctrine.
Fr. Robert,
As an attorney, I represent small local Protestant churches that seek to leave their denominations, such as the Episcopal, Methodist and Presbyterian denominations, because those denominations have embraced, inter alia, abortion and active homosexual clergy in the name of “faith alone.”
Unlike Catholicism, which has never taught that divorce, abortion and the gay lifestyle are not sins, most mainstream Protestant denominations now do, (See e.g., The Episcopal Church.)
In light of the arguments presented here, how are these denominations wrong? Does “faith alone” not save? Are “works” required?
Your outburst doesn’t engage the arguments that have actually been made here against Catholicism. Why don’t those arguments apply to Protestantism, which is willing to change its moral teachings to conform to the current age? Wasn’t that Augustine’s concern?
Many may argue that TEC, etc. are aberrations, but how can that be said without being “works…
Father Robert,
On further reflection, you seem to think that I’m tit for tatting about practice. But I’m addressing doctrines. The doctrine that I have been defending is Augustine’s position that moral practice cannot be excised from faith. I have learned here that I am going to Hell for saying that because I am teaching a “different Gospel.”
Protestants here have been more than willing to point to any flaw in Catholic practice to make their case. You lept in with both feet while brandishing your RC credentials with flourish, albeit what your experience have in common with my Post-V2 experience is a mystery to me.
After reading Augustine and Allister McGrath on “Christianity’s Dangerous Doctrine,” I have to wonder how I’m wrong. In Faith and Works, Augustine was dealing with unrepentant divorcees. Augustine said no, because faith and moral were linked. TEC and people here take the opposite view.
So, why am I wrong as a matter of doctrine?
@Peter: Your whole basic argument is simpy ad hoc, rather than really theological and historical! As indeed many of the posts on this tread. One of the many weakness of the blog I suspect? I just don’t like evidential arguments by themselves. And I have not tracked Augustine really either in your arguments? And I am an Augustinian certainly!
And yeah, my first degree was Roman Catholic, a BA in Philosophy, back in my 20’s. And Post Vatican II has yet to land, fully, that is for certain! To my mind, Rome has gravely exposed their errors since Vatican 1 (1869-1870). And Papal Infallibility looks even worse since the sexual sins of so many of those in the R. Catholic priesthood today. This sin reeks today!
Note, I speak of the general idea of the Roman Magisterium, and not just from the so-called Chair of Peter.
Fr. Robert,
Nonsense.
My argument re Augustine is based on quoting Augustine. I’m no very surprised that you haven’t read “On Faith and Works” because it hardly fits in well with sola fide.
My argument re the application of Augustine’s observations to the current state of American Protestantism is too well-established by evidence. Or are you unaware of the doctrinal positions taken by the Episcopal Church U.S.?
But rather than deal with those arguments you (a) don’t answer my questions about Protestant first principles and (b) drag a smelly red-herring across the trail vis a vis “sexual sins.”
I ask again, where in Catholic doctrine is sexual sin taught as moral?
But relative to the Episcopal Church, I will have no problem showing you that sexual sin is taught as being moral; there’s a US Episcopal bishop who is a practicing homosexual. I can show you where TEC accepts abortion.
If faith and morals are two different things, we should expect this…