Dr. Graham answered my letter

Agreed.

But when does a faulty view of doctrine keep us from heaven?

Because they think justification is God infusing us with Christ's righteousness, they are right to think that they will justified by the works of Christ in them. In other words, the saved person will be obedient to God because the righteousness of Christ has been given to them in such a way that they will obey.

I disagree with their view, but does their believing it result in their being eternally lost?

I don't think so. We are saved by grace through faith regardless of how faulty our doctrine may be in some of these areas. We are saved when we believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, confess that Jesus is Lord, and call on his name.

Where does it say that we are saved by the "works" of having perfect understanding of doctrine?

Apparently, Larry, you would say that until one understands justification correctly, one cannot be saved. So the "work" of perfect belief is required for salvation?

So much for "grace through faith."

I would like to keep the requirements of salvation the same as the Bible. When the Philippian jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?" the answer wasn't "Understand that justification means 'declared righteous' and you shall be saved. The answer was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ . . . "

Salvation is granted to those who call on the name of the Lord. Salvation happens to those who recognize that Jesus is Lord and turn to him in submission. Something sorely lacking in both Catholic and Protestant churches.

 

I think the net result of their view, Paul, is that it undermines the sufficiency of Christ's atonement and contradicts the explicit scriptural teaching on the matter. There are certain things about which Scripture is not clear. For instance, whether Jesus was crucified on Wednesday or Friday is not a salvific issue. Whether or not he paid the whole price for sins so that we do not have to work for salvation is.

You say that we are saved when we "believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, confess that Jesus is Lord, and call on his name." I would absolutely agree. The Catholics don't believe that however, in reality. They believe you must call on his name and do good works including the sacraments. To "call on the name of Jesus" is to believe in who he is and what he did. For the Catholics that is insufficient. For them, you must add the works and sacraments. And that is a clear violation of many passages in Scripture such as Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; Rom 3:24ff; etc.

I agree that the answer to the Philippian jailer is sufficient: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. The Catholics don't believe that belief is sufficient. They believe that you need works added to that belief. And that is the problem.

 

There is a lot in Catholicism I don't agree with.

Your statement is like saying all Baptists believe in eternal security. We know so many do not. In fact, in a very large fundamental Baptist church I attended in TN one of the deacons became a Christian while I was there. From that alone we know not all Baptist are Christians. What we see in practice among so many Baptists is more practical atheism. How many in your church have actually led someone to Christ? The SBC recently apologized for slavery but many Baptists still see nothing wrong with that.

Not all Catholics believe what you claim. Even my mother who is 74 has told me many times she used to believe ... but doesn't now. She attended Catholic school and has been a Catholic all her life.

 

I believe that Pastor Larry is quite correct in what he offers. Where I differ is that I dissociate the individual from the corporate church, and make that allowance that when they say they trust Jesus to be their Saviour the trappings do not enter the picture. The priest has no excuse, and indeed will be found accountable for misleading the people.

I always feared "easy believism" and never gave an invitation to come forward in my entire ministry. I did entreat people to seek the Lord, and if someone did come forward, I would rejoice with them.

Sometimes I think we allow semantics to divide us.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim, I think your position is not all that much different than mine, unless I misunderstand you (something entirely possible). I believe a Catholic can be saved, and I believe a practicing Catholic might be saved. But I believe that they are not saved if they understand and believe what the Catholic church teaches. Like you, I believe the priest has no excuse. He does know what they teach. But people in teh pew might not.

 

It is actually entirely dissimilar. The Baptists don't believe "one thing" on very many things (with a few exceptions). The Catholic church has a Catechism that lays out the official teaching of the Catholic church, and it is that teaching to which I refer. Baptists have no such teaching on eternal security. A better analogy would have been to say that Baptists believe in baptism by immersion. That is a recognized distinctive without which one is not a Baptist.

You keep going back to this but it is off topic. I don't think many will disagree with you that most believers are not living their faith very well. But that is not the discussion here. And neither is slavery, although I don't know and haven't heard of any Baptists who think slavery is still alright.

But the Catholic church does and taht was my point. BTW, Catholics are not permitted to disagree with the "church and her bishops."

 

I believe we are saved by faith alone but don't know what to do with all the verses that seem to imply works as well.

What about Jesus saying "if you love me, keep my commandments"? There are MANY verses like that and I got saved in a pentecostal church that doesn't believe in eternal security so my conscience and fear really mess with my head.

 

KJ,
One verse does not a doctrine make. We develop theology through verses that confirm the thoughts collectively.

The old saying, "context is everything" is so true, and sometimes that can be confusing because it is dealing with the fruits of the believer, including works.

I realized Christ at my confirmation in the Church of England. I don't know when I actually received Christ because I always believed and knew the scriptures. I did make a conscious commitment to Christ at that time though.

If I say I love my wife that does not give me liberty to look askance....my love for my wife is demonstrated by my commitment to her. So I demonstrate my love for God by attempting to keep His commandments.

Cheers, and God bless,

Jim

PS. Larry, you read me correctly.

 

This is a great question and a common one.

With respect to the particular verse, notice what it is saying. If you do this, then do this. It is a cause affect: the cause of obedience is the prior love. That shows the order of salvation: We are saved, then we obey because we are saved. We don't obey in order to be saved.

In many of these passages, you must ask the question: What question is the author answering? Is he answering the question, "How do we get saved?" Or the question, "How do saved people act?" This is a vital part of Bible study. We have to kind of recreate the conversation in our mind in order to understand the passage.

Reading much of Scripture is like listening to someone talk on the phone. You hear what they are saying, but you can't hear the other party. And so you are reconstructing the other parties comments in your mind based on the responses of the person you can hear. That is the way epistles are. For instance, Paul sometimes writes "Now concerning the things you wrote to me about," or a similar phrase. Sometimes it is just an understood question that he is addressing.

But all that to say this: Make sure you ask the right questions of the text in order to get the right understanding.

Works, in the Bible, are always the result and evidence of faith. Titus 2:11-12 makes this clear in a beautiful way:

Titus 2:11-14 11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Notice how the grace that saves is also the grace that teaches us to "deny" and "live." That shows the proper order of things: salvation is followed by grace taught living.

Notice that the motivation of our living is hope of Christ's coming.

Notice that Christ died to redeem us for himself from lawlessness to righteousness. Again, notice that it is the redemption, or the salvation that we have in Christ that makes us change. We are not saved by works, and we don't hold on to it by works. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

 

Thank you Larry and Jim. You both did a great job of explaining it.

I may print out your answers...we can do that eh?

I don't want to take this off topic but I have a quick question and then I will let y'all get back. Where should I start in studying the Bible and what questions should I ask of the text? Or do you want me to start a whole new thread on that so people can give their input? Whatever you want.

 

KJ,

I recommend buying a book on biblical interpretation such as Grasping God's Word by Duvall and Hays. It is a hands on approach to reading and understanding the word of God.

Cheers, and good studying,

Jim

One book I used to give to all new believers was The Fight by the late Dr. John White. He was a professor at Regent College in B.C.

 

In the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, "good works" in the life of the one justified is possible only because of Christ. "Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispostions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit" (486:2008).

It doesn't appear to be quite accurate that Catholics believe that their works will save them. They seem to believe that it is Christ's work in them that saves them and that any merit they have is purely an act of grace. 2010 says, "Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of converstion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life." Since conversion is past, present and future, the Catechism seems to be saying that initial conversion is from God, his grace then enables you to become progressively sanctified, and finally to attain eternal life.

But 2011 then says, "The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace."

An accurate "Catholic" understanding of justification and sanctification (which I'm sure I still don't have) seems to indicate salvation along Arminian lines, which is not outside the fold of evangelical faith. Sometimes it appears that they use justification where we would use "regeneration." Sometimes they use justification where we would use "sanctification." I need to do more re-reading of the Cathechism.

But assuming that someone believes what the Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism on "Merit," including priests, how does that belief disqualify them from being "saved by grace through faith?"

 

Another good book is "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth" by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. There is another book that I can't remember right now. I will try to find it.

 

I think this is what is tripping many people up today. The Catholics uses these words, and they sound very good, but when you think about what they are actually saying, it is a far different story.

As I originally pointed out, they believe that the infused righteousness of Christ creates meritorious works that are attributed to Christ. It sounds good, but partakes of the fatal flaw that it is still salvation by an individual's work, not by Christ's righteousness. Romans 5 teaches the MO of imputation. We become righteous in the same way we become sinners. There, Christ's obedience is the ground of our justification, not our obedience through Christ or the Spirit.

This is key because it demonstrates my assertion that their salvaton is merited "for ourselves." Eternal life is based on Christ however, not on us. And again, that is the key distinction that is being overlooked.

This is true for them, but not for us. Conversion is the faith/repentance step of the ordo salutis. Sanctification is past, present, and future to be sure, but not conversion. This is where the Catholics confuse justification and sanctification. They blur the line.

It doesn't. It disqualifies them from being saved by grace alone through faith alone. We cannot omit that very important word. The Bible teaches the "aloneness" of grace and faith and specifically excludes works of any type from justification. They often reply that "faith alone" is only found in James where they believe it supports their point. On that, see my earlier response, but more importantly, notice how they focus on a particular word to the exclusion of the concept. The concept itself of "faith alone apart from works" is explicit in Scripture. For that reason, one who believes what they believe cannot at the same time have the salvation given in Jesus Christ.

 

I've heard that was a good one.

 

Another recommendation for Fee and Stuart here.

 

Yes, but.

We need to let Catholics speak for themselves. When they say that good actions are pure grace, they are affirming what the apostle Paul said in Gal. 2:20 and Ephesians 2:8-10.

To be fair to Catholics, we need to accept that they believe that any merit they have comes from Christ who does it in and through them by faith.

Even though I don't agree with the sacramental system of RC, I can't see where someone who believes that sacraments are a means of grace is lost. The sacraments are efficacious because of the Holy Spirit.

A truly devout practicing Roman Catholic is most definately "saved" if what I'm reading in the Catechism is a correct presentation of RC doctrine. From beginning to end, it lifts up Christ and teaches that grace is the means of salvation to those who believe because God has enabled them to believe through faith.

All of their other misunderstandings not withstanding, RC theology emphasizes grace throughout. Actually, despite their faulty understanding of Protestant Doctrine, there is much to commend itself in the RC church.

We could learn from them.

 

The premise we are debating is: Can a practicing Roman Catholic who believes the teaching of his church be saved.

I have spent the morning reading the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, and I have to say this: A devout practicing RC has a better chance of being saved than a baptist who walked the aisle, said a prayer, was baptized, joined the church and never attended again.

Why do I say this? Because RC doctrine emphasizes the need to live in Christ and walk in grace. Therefore the premise of this debate must be denied; namely, that RC who believe their church's doctrine cannot be saved.

 

I dispute your middle paragraph. I think both have no chance of being saved. The fact that someone lives a moral life and attributes it to Christ does not indicate salvation. And I think that letting the Catholic church speak for themselves is the right thing to do. Which is why I say we have to look at the totality of their doctrine, not a few isolated statements, but how they fit into everything they teach.

Have you read Sproul's book?