Shhhh!
Posted by JohnD on Jul 24th, 2007
2007
Jul 24
And so the story goes: Rob Bell is being shown around heaven by Peter. Pointing to a large group of people, Peter says: “That’s the Baptists. Over there are the Catholics. Next to them are the Pentecostals. And around the corner, you’ll find the Non-denominationalists.”
Rob scratches his head and asks, “But who is that tiny little group tucked away in the corner over there?”
Peter replies: “Shhhh! That’s Pope Benedict, Ingrid and Ken. . .they think they’re the only ones up here.”
July 24th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Hmmm…
July 24th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
John D, consider yourself rebuked in the name of the Lord.
Placing ingrid and ken in a group with a man whose doctrine and teaching has damned innumberable people to an eternity in a real place called hell? Your sense of humor is greatly lacking. Think about what are going to type before you touch a keyboard.
Positive comments here will only expose true character…
July 24th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Clearly,
I guess looking at the list of three, I would have thought that the Pope’s supporters would have been more upset.
July 24th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
With that said, I have seen this joke expressed a number of ways, and while I think that it’s unfortunate that names have been named, the overall message of the joke still rings true about folks who think they’ve gotten a peek into the Book of Life and found it to be much more exclusive than what Jesus taught…
July 24th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
This is a very OLD joke! I’m a very OLD guy! And to Clearly’s point, many have wondered out loud about my sense of humor or lack thereof.
But I couldn’t resist. I’m annoyed at the Pope for taking the position that he did. I’m annoyed at Ken for suggesting that salvation is an either/or proposition between McManus and Bell on the one side and Spurgeon and MacArthur on the other side. I’m annoyed at Ingrid for taking a cheap shot at Tammy Faye.
Notice, ALL three of them are still in Heaven. That’s the good news. I suspect alot of us, myself included, are going to have a good laugh with those we disagreed with here on earth. Unless of course, there is no humor in heaven?
July 24th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Agreed, John.
It surprises me how many people fail to see humor as one of the emotions expressed within scripture, and as totally appropriate in life…
July 24th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
You guys are missing the point completely. If the pope actually believes what he and the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, he won’t be there. Instead (and I say this with a frown on my face and longing to reach Catholics with the true gospel), he and all the ones he has lead will spend eternity in a place where the worms doesn’t die and the fire isn’t quenched. That’s reality. To place Ingrid and Ken in the same category as the pope shows an extreme lack of judgment on your part, however old you may be.
July 24th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I can harldy stand to read my last post…the grammar is terrible. That’s what happens when you type with your little nephew jumping all over you:)
July 24th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Clearly,
I have a huge number of issues with the Catholic church, but when I have sat down to address the single issue of ‘works salvation’ with some local priests who claim to be in line with Catholic teaching, I get a different answer about “grace” and “works” than the one given for them by “Reformed” folks - one not out of line with Jesus’ teaching (dealing with proper orthopraxy as ‘earthly salvation’ demonstrating what is in the heart).
Personally, it’s not my place to figure out who’s going to hell. It’s my place to live as instructed and to lift Christ up in my words and actions (which I often fail to do), and to let others who claim Christ do the same.
July 24th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I’d add that it seems quite often that the watchdoggies are quite good at pointing out that people’s works aren’t good enough to get them into the kingdom. Oh sure I know they’ll turn around and say its not the works that do it, but they’re quite clear that they’re not calling Christians to repentance, but rather warning people about wolves in sheeps clothings.
July 24th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Here is a direct quote from the Catholic Catechism that you might find interesting. Quite frankly, Catholics are more inclusive than I am but to echo what Chris just posted, they definitely believe in the sufficiency of grace:
“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly IF they had known its necessity.” (Article 1260)
This paragraph can be found in the section talking about the necessity of Baptism. And even though they talk about Baptism as being a necessary part of salvation, they also in effect, acknowledge here that the lack of baptism will not prevent someone from going to heaven.
As a good Baptist, I do not personally view Baptism as a sacrament but I do view it as an ordinance and at the risk of proof texting, Jesus did say: “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15)
July 24th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
BTW Clearly,
You being the Greek buff and all, I read the Great Commission as a command to “make disciples” and how I do that is by “going”, “baptizing”, and “teaching”.
Pretty much where our Catholic friends are coming from.
July 24th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
JohnD,
I am shocked that you would follow your little joke so far as to defend Catholic doctrine — really shows us from where you are coming.
I don’t claim to be a Greek buff at all — I am simply trying to grow in understanding. I don’t really disagree with your grammatical assesment of Matthew 28:19-20 (”going” is a participle in structure, but since it appears in a narrative, it probably carries more of an imperatival force), but you haven’t even begun interpreting the text.
July 24th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
clearly,
Please enlighten us with why God is sending Catholics to hell and how you have come upon this knowledge rather than just denigrating John for suggesting that their belief in grace and works has been mischaracterized by the “Truly Reformed” (which would not be a first, by any means).
July 24th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Clearly,
I am shocked you didn’t bother addressing what JohnD said about the Catholic Church. He’s quoting source documents, you’re assuming you’re right.
July 24th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Chris L,
First of all, God sends nobody to hell for being Catholic. God sends people to hell for being sinners. If sin is not dealt with God’s way (repentance and faith), then God will deal with them for eternity in hell. If a Catholic truly believes that salvation = faith + works, then their church is dragging them to eternal hell.
Tim Reed,
As far as demonstrating why Catholic theology is flawed, I really don’t think we have to re-invent the reformation every time something like this comes up. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as revealed in the Scriptures alone. JohnD claims to be a good Baptist; I’m not going to tell him anything he doesn’t already know.
July 24th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Clearly,
In other words you’re right you know it, no reason to explain it.
July 24th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Ah, the pride.
July 24th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I just don’t think God requires perfect theology for entrance into the Kingdom. I have certainly met a number of Catholic people who seem to have a real relationship with Christ, and I’ve met a lot who are just cultural Catholics. I could say the same for Methodists, Baptists, etc.
As an institution, yes, I would say there are some big problems with the RCC. Any human institution seems doomed to that fate, really. It’s interesting to me that the Church is always described a living entity, rather than an institution in Scripture. To me that proves that proves that entrance to the Kingdom is based on relationship rather more than airtight theology.
July 24th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Phil,
I’m not talking about the 6th toe on the beast in Revelation here — you make it sound like I’m discussing obscure theology. We are talking about salvation — it’s supposed to be so easy that a child can understand it. I’m not talking about perfect theology — I’m talking about justification by faith alone. It’s the clear message of both Galatians and Romans.
Joe, call me prideful if you wish, but I believe that I’m standing for truth.
July 24th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I guess I have gotten used to the NIV and not the TRV (Totally Reformed Version) translation of the Bible. Without the TRV, you’ll miss things like:
versus
Or, for example, the differences in translations of Mark 16:16
versus
I guess I need to switch to the TRV to be saved… or is that a “work”, too?
July 24th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Chris,
You are completely misrepresting my position — showing that you really don’t understand how I view issues in Scripture. I’m not even a Calvinist; there are parts of the Calvinistic soteriological system that I downright repudiate. I don’t walk around with a “C” on my chest and you will rarely see me quote any of the reformers. Actually, on my blog, I challenge you to find one time I have quoted a Reformer or called myself a Calvinist. Calvinists and Arminians alike understand that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. I shouldn’t have to explain this to you guys. If we try to be justified by the works of the flesh, then Christ is dead in vain.
July 25th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Clearly,
While I did add in the Calvinist bits (my apologies for the assumption), the general sentiment still stands, though. Salvation comes through trusting Jesus, alone, and cannot be earned. I am not sure that my Catholic friends would disagree with me on that point (and they have not).
One question I have heard asked is “at what point does bad theology become damnable?” (which, in itself, is not all that good of a question, but I’m not going to dress it up). The answer to this question is in God’s hands alone as to how far His grace extends to misunderstanding His nature.
I have a number of friends who are one-time Catholics who have migrated to protestant denominations. In my discussions with them, what has been most effective (for me, at least) has been in talking about scripture and its availability to the “laymen”, and in their dawning realization that they don’t need the church leadership to interpret “officially” what the Bible says.
My apologies again for going too far down the Calvinist rathole…
July 25th, 2007 at 10:00 am
“One question I have heard asked is “at what point does bad theology become damnable?†(which, in itself, is not all that good of a question, but I’m not going to dress it up). The answer to this question is in God’s hands alone as to how far His grace extends to misunderstanding His nature.”
Tim, the answer is in God’s hands, agreed. However, God has told us this answer in Galatians 1. If anyone preaches another gospel, they are to be anathema.
Trusting Jesus alone does not leave room for trusting sacraments too…then Christ is dead in vain.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Also, if you guys want to play this source document game, we can. Article 977 of the Catholic Catechism reads, “Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ…”
Also in section 405 says, “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God”
Baptism erases original sin? Hmm, from reading the Bible, I learned that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses our sin (1 John 1:7, Romans 5:9).
Let’s get back to the main issue. JohnD’s joke was rediculous for the following reasons:
1. He placed the pope in heaven. The pope and his apostate church have lead countless souls to an eternity in hell because they have perverted the gospel of Jesus Christ.
2. He placed Ken and Ingrid in the same group as the pope.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Uh, Clearly, pretty much every European denomination as well as the Restoration movement teaches baptismal regeneration.
And while I’m not going to grant #1, I will say that Ken and Ingrid have, in all likelihood, driven away many people from the gospel with their hateful rhetoric and general spitefulness.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Clearly,
I guess I see your point. He probably shouldn’t have placed Ken and Ingrid in heaven…
(rimshot)
Seriously, though, I think the point Chris, me and some others are getting at is that it is not our job to decide who’s in and who’s out. We can proclaim the Gospel based on our best understanding of Scripture, and God will sort everything out.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Clearly,
Twice you used the phrase “then Christ is dead in vain.”
Christ is not dead.
Besides, there is much more to Jesus Christ than his substitutionary death on the cross.
Rod
July 25th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Rod,
Rod said: Clearly, Twice you used the phrase “then Christ is dead in vain.†Christ is not dead”.
Please. This is a clear allusion to Galatians 2:21 - “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” I would give Clearly the benefit of the doubt. I doubt he/she thinks Jesus is dead.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Clearly,
“then Christ is dead in vain.” I do hope you meant “Christ died in vain.” if not He has risen…
to which you would respond
He has risen indeed!
Oh and Clearly… i quote you here:
“Think about what are going to type before you touch a keyboard.”
Blessings,
iggy
July 25th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I’m just glad I got to skip Purgatory because I received a plenary indulgence by attending a special high mass at Easter during the time I used to live in New Orleans. (Which reminds me, I did go by “Orleans John” for a short time, but that conjured up too many innuendos but that corrected itself when I moved to Houston, but I digress). I didn’t , however, go up and kiss the foot of the Jesus statue with the rest of the audience so maybe I do get a few thousand years in Purgatory after all . . .dang!
But never fear, I am wearing a scapular of our Lady of Mt. Carmel which guarantees I will not go to hell if I have it on when I die. (No, really, it does Pope Leo XIII said so). AND possibly, get out of Purgatory on the 1st Saturday after my death so maybe even though I didn’t kiss the icon’s foot that indulgence in addition to the scapular will assure I pass right on through. But on the other hand, the scapular is not efficacious if you’re not wearing it at the time of death so I can only hope I don’t drown while bathing or such.
Anyway, this, combined with the taking that particular transubstantiated wafer (a daily re-offering of the sacrifice of Christ), should ensure I’m OK with God, Right?
July 25th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
here below is the missing part of my comment after the quote.
here is my question for you, Clearly. What will you do when ( or is it if?) you get to Heaven and you find there are some Catholics there? will you ask to be let out of Heaven to the other place…… I mean what do you have that you did not receive by Grace. If indeed your salvation is not your own doing, but a gift of God why are you so upset at the possibilility that this gift of salvation has been freely given to some people, even possibly the Pope, in the Roman Catholic Church?
Until you answer the question posed to you above to enlighten readers on why you think God is sending Catholics to Hell, all I can see from where I am sitting (on vacation)is pride, pride in something that was given to you as a free gift. But because pride is easier to recognize in someone else, and I want to keep to the high standards requested by Chris L for commenters on this blog I will hold back on typing everything I want to say to you.
John D, I take it that your last post is meant to be humor/parody so you do not need an answer to your question.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
On top of that, maybe the Pope will get “saving faith” and become a member of the “regenerate” before he dies. I could definitely see him hanging out with Ken and Ingrid.
July 25th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Robbo,
Did you mean “Houston John” when you said “John D”? If so I really would like an answer.
Paragraph 1 regarding the plenary indulgence I supposidely received by attending this event was an absolutely true story (printed right there in the newspaper ad that advertised the event). The special mass was held at Loyolla Univeristy in New Orleans.
The scapular part was also factually accurate although a hypothetical situation as I do not actually wear one (they make me itch and besides, they only come in a limited selection of colors depending on the confraternity issuing them (unless it is a mystery or devotion scapular), and you have to keep them up, they can’t get frayed. etc., etc. Waayyyy too much upkeep for me). Catholic “truth” is stranger than fiction. You don’t need to make this stuff up.
And the eucharist part speaks for itself. Sort of trashes Christ’s “one sacrifice” for “all time” argument in Hebrews. And I kind of have a problem with venerating and genuflecting to a cracker stored in a fancy box. (I know, I know - how closed minded)!
So am I OK with God by doing these things or not?
(Separate, but associated topic. I was assisting in serving communion at church a couple of weeks ago and one lady took a HANDFULL of the crackers. I had NEVER seen THAT before in all my 52 years).
.
July 25th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
First of all, to all who are jumping on me for saying “Christ is dead in vain:”
Houston John got it right. I was actually quoting a translation of Galatians 2:21 which rendered the aorist verbal απεθανεν in the English present. If I had it to do over again, I would have quoted another faithful translation which reads, “then Christ died for no purpose.”
Iggy, my words about thinking before you type, still stand. I can’t help the fact that I think in Scripture verses.
Now to Robo’s post:
In spite of the pope and the rcc, there will be Catholics in heaven. I praise God for that. Do you think I’m all worked up because I hate Catholics and want them all to burn? I think not — I am worked up because if those in Catholic church actually believe what their church teaches, they will be in hell one day. I am a preacher of the gospel, and a teacher of the Word — I do what I do because I love people and care about their lives now as well as their eternal destiny — and I have a burden for all those who embrace error and are on their way to eternal suffering. I am worked up because for centuries, the rcc has perverted the gospel of Christ and even persecuted those true believers who wished propagate the true gospel. I am also worked up because of this terribly distasteful joke wherein JohnD lumps the pope together with Ingrid and Ken. So you think Ingrid and Ken are a bit harsh sometimes. You’re entitled to your opinion. However, to place them in a category with the pope and the rcc is rediculous at best.
July 25th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Yes, I meant “Houston John” not “John D”.
My short answer to you is this, if you believe in Jesus Christ crucified for your sins and you are not counting on your own righteousness than you are “OK with God”. But of course you know that already so if you want the long answer send email to Pope at Vatican dot org.
I retain a certain fondness for the faith of my parents, Roman Catholicism, and I appreciate the role they played in shaping my own faith in Christ. Unfortunately my Catholic upbringing taught me little about indulgences, so I can’t help you there. I do know a lot about scapulae (shoulder blades) because I work in that field but I think that is different from what you are asking.
Grace and peace to you- Robbo
July 25th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Houston John,
To begin with, your attempt at humor seems to be as unredeemed as my own so I feel a certain kinship with you.
I’m not much into jewelry either, gold, fabric or otherwise.
Moreover, as Chris L. mentioned earlier, I also have a huge number of issues with the Catholic church and Catholic theology. My poor attempt at humor was not to suggest that there is no difference between us (evangelical Protestants)and them.
But to your point on the selling of plenary indulgences, even the Catholic church condemns that. I quote from my handy dandy copy of “Catholicism for Dummies”: “Telling people, ‘If you donate some silver pieces for this project, you can use the indulgence to get grandma out of purgatory,’ is a mortal sin. Indulgences don’t work that way. . .”
With regard to their views on the Eucharist, while I certainly don’t agree with the implications of trans-substantiation, I do find in Paul a sense that in his service to our Lord he was completing or extending the reach of the Pashcal suffering (2 Cor. 4 and elsewhere). I don’t think Paul meant to contradict the finality of Christ’s sacrifice nor do I believe that Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is contradicting that belief either.
As for the rest, this discussion regarding what we have in common with our Catholic brothers and sisters is much more beneficial than whether or not my OLD joke was funny or not.
My ongoing conversation with Catholics continues to remind me of what Jesus said in Mark in response to John’s concern that some who were not part of the “in crowd” so to speak, were casting out demons in Jesus’ name. Shouldn’t they be stopped? (Or railed against in the blogosphere?) Jesus said: “Do not stop them for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us.” (Mark 10:38-41)
July 25th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Robbo,
So the Catholic who is depending on his scapular and devotion to the immaculate heart of Mary is not OK? And if this one Catholic doctine out of all the hundreds they propagate is false, isn’t there a serious problem indicated for their system as a whole?
P.S. Not to trash any fond memories nor to denegrate your partents in any way, but sentiment, no matter how sincere, will not get you in to heaven. It sounds like, however, your parents were actually born again, which would be in spite of and not because of their Church. Your comment regarding not knowing about scapulars exposes one of the root problems with Catholics - they don’t know what their own religion teaches — although to be fair the average evangelical couldn’t defend his beliefs either just as the average emergent with his “we only know for certain we can’t be certain regarding what we know” approach to theology can’t definitively define his either. (Fortunately, however, we have the Calvinists who are right about EVERYTHING to set us ALL straight).
July 25th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
John Houston,
is there anyone at all, any Christian, who can say that ” I am born again because of my Church” or to put it another way, are Lutherans or Methodists or Baptists born again “because of their Church, not in spite of it”? Or you mean that one is far more likely to be saved in a Baptist Church than in an RC Church, in which case you may have a point but if we start talking probabilities, this discussion will take a different path.
PS. If I was depending on sentiment to get me or anyone dear to me into heaven, then ” Christ died for no purpose”.
PSS. Well said, John D above
July 25th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
John D. I did not say anything about SELLING indulgences. The Catholics hierarchy repudiates that, but not the efficacy of a legitimately issued indulgence. For example from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The most important distinction, however, is that between plenary indulgences and partial. By a plenary indulgence is meant the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory. A partial indulgence commutes only a certain portion of the penalty; and this portion is determined in accordance with the penitential discipline of the early Church. To say that an indulgence of so many days or years is granted means that it cancels an amount of purgatorial punishment equivalent to that which would have been remitted, in the sight of God, by the performance of so many days or years of the ancient canonical penance.” and
“In the Bull “Exsurge Domine”, 15 June, 1520, Leo X condemned Luther’s assertions that “Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful”; and that “Indulgences do not avail those who really gain them for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of God’s justice” (Enchiridion, 75S, 759), The Council of Trent (Sess, XXV, 3-4, Dec., 1563) declared: “Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them (Enchridion, 989). It is therefore of faith (de fide) - that the Church has received from Christ the power to grant indulgences, and that the use of indulgences is salutary for the faithful.”
So please don’t try to say the Catholic church does not practice indulgences anymore. I personally participated as an observer in one which was advertised as such. I also personally had Catholic acquaintences in N.O. who wore scapulars who believed they had a get out of hell free card.
This is just one of hundreds of the false and damming doctrines of the Church of Rome.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Houston John,
I did not say that the Catholic church does not practice indulgences anymore. And I apologize for inferring that you had in mind, the “selling” of indulgences.
I am not here to defend the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:19,20 or John 20:23. Nor am I trying to defend the purity of belief in the Catholic ranks anymore than I would try to defend the purity of belief at say, Bob Jones University.
What I am saying is this: the unmerited free gift of salvation can be found and is being found in every part of the universal Body of Christ, “in spite of” (to quote you) our various takes on the finer points of systematic theology.
If you call Jesus Lord, then you are my brother or you are my sister. Period!
So brother, peace be with you.
July 25th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Clearly,
Noted: You are quoting the KJV…
I apologize.
iggy
July 25th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
John D: “If you call Jesus Lord, then you are my brother or you are my sister. Period!”
I can certainly agree with that!
July 25th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Then what if a Catholic calls Jesus, Lord then is he your brother also?
; )
iggy
July 25th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Also, if a group of JW’s who claim Jesus as their “Lord” showed up at your church, would you still call them “brothers”?
how about them Mormons…. brothers?
; ) again,
iggy
I had a good friend in college named Dan Mormon who was a Christian and loved Jesus greatly… just thought I’d throw that out too!
LOL!
July 25th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Iggy,
If your friend calls Jesus “Lord” as in a member of the Trinity, then he is my brother. Unfortunately, most Mormons don’t.
Peace,
July 25th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
My friend was not a Mormon… his family name was Mormon…
sheesh!
And how do you know his family to be able to say that? My impression was that his family love Jesus much.
So can you say with confidence that most Mormons don’t?
Now the Mormon religion I might agree with… but not my old friend Dan’s family.
; )
Blessings,
iggy
July 26th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Sorry Iggy,
In your post, you started out with a reference to JWs. I just concluded that you were talking about Latter Day Saints who do in fact deny the Trinity.
My best to Dan and his family.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:40 am
I did mention them… but you referred to my friend Dan Mormon who is a Christian not a Mormon (other than his family name)
Now i am playing a bit but it is all true.
Blessings,
iggy
July 26th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Iggy said: “Then what if a Catholic calls Jesus, Lord then is he your brother also?”
If anyone says to me that Jesus is their Lord and Savior and they confess their belief that Jesus died for their sins and rose again on the 3rd day, then yes, I will take it at face value and accept them as a brother in Christ until I see or hear evidence that indicates otherwise. I have known and currently have Catholic friends about whom I have no doubts are born again. My acceptance of a person’s confession of faith does not take place in a vacuum, however.
For example, I would frankly and bluntly tell a Mormon he is not saved if his belief is in the Jesus of the Mormons no matter how he touted Jesus is Lord. His “Jesus” is not the Lord of the Bible.
With Catholics, it is a little more problematic. They are orthodox in many of the core doctrines of the Bible regarding God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit for example, but way off in their soterology. It is possible to hear the true Gospel in a Catholic church because the Gospels are read in their services and God’s word stands on its own and accomplishes God’s desire. But their system as a whole is corrupt, heretical and partly responsible for the spiritual bondage of millions and millons of people and I am not going to give the formal Church of Rome ecclesiastical “system” a free pass and overlook the elephant in the room just because a remant of true believers are Catholic.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Houston John,
I would be interested in your take on this addendum (http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9801/articles/gift.html) to the ECT document signed in 1994. This document, “The Gift of Salvation” is pretty remarkable in that it supports most of the “only’s” Clearly mentioned earlier:
“Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone . . .”
July 26th, 2007 at 11:18 am
John D,
Yes I know, but then you get to the fine print like how is that grace received, applied and effected and the heresies of the RCC become clear — suddenly you find the Reformation was not just “one big understanding” afterall. There is a lot of redefinition of terms in their theology and such so it rarely is as straight forward as first appears. You have to peel the onion and it does not take many layers before you can see the onion is bad. But there are whole websites on these issues and I studied all this in dept a decade ago when I was living in New Orleans and had so many Catholic acquaintences and friends and I’ve slept since then so please don’t make me go drag out my notes :-).
July 26th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I find it interesting that some are quite to condemn Catholics then when things are pointed out as above they still find a way to say they are not saved…
I think it also interesting that many other groups are not vilified as them yet have some pretty bad theology behind their “saved by grace through faith”.
A Calvinist has a different view than a Quaker, a Baptist has a different view than a Lutheran, and an Assembly of God person different from an evangelical… and so on all have a bit of a different take on the topic.
Yet, we seem to not accept who we think is the worse when in the end John states that the two things that are the “commandments” are, “Believe in Jesus, and love one another”…
It seems that only because other groups in the early church began to claim and add other teachings… as in the Gnostic, that the Christian church began adding other “qualifiers”… none of which make a person saved or not, but are there to help identify one who is an authentic believer in Jesus. They were road markers to show that one is on the right road, but they are not spots that prove one is saved… that is a logical leap.
We seemed to have added to the teachings of what it takes to become a Christian. We seemed to miss that though these road markers are there to show us direction that one does not need to fully believe and understand these to be saved. It is as if we are asking some to become theologians before they can get saved… yet then we turn around and just say, “You need to accept Jesus into your heart.
Now even that is technically wrong! Jesus does not come to live in the kingdom or our hearts; He came to bring our hearts into His Kingdom! He did not come to live and dwell in our pathetic little lives; He came to give us New Life… His Life… and make us New Creations… we did not give our life to Jesus, we had no life as the bible teaches… we gave our death to Jesus or rather we acknowledged our death and turned to Jesus to receive His Life Eternal.
Yet, we speak and act and teach and promote un biblical ideas every day… and then turn and condemn other for doing the same thing.
There is a big difference between one who promotes another Jesus… and one who believes on Jesus of the bible for salvation… and there seems to be a huge lack of understanding and trust of the Holy Spirit in how a person need grow in Christ.
Blessing,
iggy
July 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
ROFL!
July 26th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Dave,
“ROFL!”
Can you unpack your comment a bit?
LOL!
iggy