Are Roman Catholics Christians?

[Confessor]

Jeff,

Is it possible to hold to sola fide while being unaware that the notion of free will entails meritoriousness to an extent?

No. I might well ask you, "Is it possible to hold to sola fide while being unaware that the notion of "keeping the whole law" entails meritoriousness to an extent?" Just because one does not realize the damnable implications of his belief, does not excuse the fact that the implications are there. Ignorance is no excuse.

The two questions are not equivalent. First, sola fide is the fact that faith alone in Christ justifies irrespective of the source of that faith, and therefore it certainly seems plausible to say that Arminians can truly believe in sola fide while not understanding that free will is a denial of sola gratia.

Second, keeping the law is so obviously and unabashedly works-centered, whereas free will is much less so (Satan is deceptive). I have an Arminian friend who is absolutely on fire for Christ, and he has asked questions about Calvinism that shows that he simply does not understand the implications of free will. For example, he asked that if someone were in the desert and on the brink of death, and if someone else offered this person food and water, would it really be considered a "work" for him to accept the food and water? The truth is yes, it would, and we are too depraved to even accept anything from God of ourselves -- but nonetheless you can see a gaping difference between how perspicuously free will and law-keeping imply works-righteousness.

"All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved" -- not all who call and realize that this calling was initiated by God Himself.

That being said, I would add that many Arminians, if they are confronted by the clear and obvious truths of sovereign grace in the Bible and resist, are in a much more dangerous situation.

Confessor & Heidi,

Would either of you be able to show me any scriptural evidence for your assertions that ignorance excuses anyone, in any situation?

You can call me Ben if you want. And I would say that ignorance doesn't excuse us at any point, but it also is not capable of denying sovereign grace. I don't think that ignorance of doctrine to a certain extent would be fruit of unregeneracy.

 

[Romans 8 Verse 28]

If an Arminian trusts in Christ for his salvation, he is saved. I did not become "born again" when I become Reformed. It was a process.

If someone holds to the Christ-centred Gospel, then they're not truly an "Arminian" in the first place, In my humble opinion. And I try not to label folks "Arminians" that may be Biblical Christians.

 

[Nomad]

I think there is basic difference between Catholics and Arminians regarding justification that needs to be kept in mind when answering the OP. Again, putting aside the logical implications of Arminianism, on which I would agree with my reformed bretheren, let's look at what each actually believes.

Arminians believe wholeheartedly that they contribute nothing to their justification. While they are dead wrong about the source of faith, they believe that it is faith alone that receives justification. They would be horrified that anyone would charge them with a faith + works scheme. I know this is true because I was raised in Arminian churches and I've watched many Arminians go at it with Roman Catholics over this very issue.

Roman Catholics, on the other hand, embrace and acknowledge the idea that good works done in a state of grace are not only their good works, but that they are meritorious toward final justification and the gaining of eternal life. In other words, they do believe that they contribute something to their justification.

in my opinion, the difference between Catholics and Arminians on this particular point is clear. Arminians embrace sola fide, albeit with an unfortunate twist on the source of faith. Roman Catholics willingly and knowingly repudiate it, even in light of overwhelming Biblical evidence.

My point? While both hold a grave error, one is damnable and the other is not. I think there is a gigantic difference between gross error and damnable heresy. As it was said here in this thread already, if we're saved based on perfect theology then we're all in big trouble. I think a distinction needs to be made here.

 

[a mere housewife]

Having reread this thread, the confession on saving faith, Rich's (Semper Fidelis) post linked here, and quizzed my husband I think that it would have been better for me to have stayed closer to the confessional language of the content of saving faith as 'principal acts' (distinct from principal propositions). As an act, faith exists on a distinct and a more fundamental level than that of mental clarity. How much 'head knowledge' is necessary to receive and rest in the presence of a person? A baby rests in the arms of its mother because it knows her voice and the rhythm of her movements, and this knowledge is true knowledge of her, though lacking propositional form. As Jeff cited, the Westminster Confession goes on to say that these acts of saving faith can exist in varying degrees and are assaulted and weakened by many things, presumably by errors relevant to the acts, like subtle or less subtle ideas of merit. Since faith is a gift that God gives through appointed means, I would be far more willing to speak of the means of grace and the Word of God as necessary for saving faith than a certain degree of head knowledge; and of mental clarity regarding the gift as others here have spoken of it, as being a process of sanctification.

Jeff, thank you for your courteous post and the post you made elsewhere about charity -- I did not personally think you were behaving uncharitably, and I only felt that the position you were arguing would be uncharitable to others who have professed Christ. I do argue from experience -- I know Whom I have believed -- I don't believe knowledge in that regard to be invalid where it answers with assurance to the Word of God. In fact we are agreed in agreeing with the Confession, and the Scriptures you cited were not relevant to a person who is in the position of a disciple rather than a teacher. I believe Rich's arguments, linked to in Ruben's post, that a baptised professor is to be taught rather than judged, are more in keeping with Scripture (the Galatians were bewitched regarding false doctrines of works righteousness yet Paul still addresses them and teaches them as Christians). I truly don't mean to argue this further today (I was using the board as pain management yesterday and feel badly for thinking so unclearly) but I think it is a mis-statement to characterize my position as merely experiential, against one that is biblical and confessional.

I am sincerely grateful to understand this better and will be thinking about it more. I think it's important to be careful with this subject, because holding that we must bring to the table a certain degree of mental clarity about the proposition of justification by faith alone in order to be regenerated can be a subtle re-introduction of works righteousness, entailing a subtle denial of the doctrine of sola fide, and an attack on our faith.

 

[puritan lad]

If an Arminian trusts in Christ for his salvation, he is saved. I did not become "born again" when I become Reformed. It was a process.

If someone holds to the Christ-centred Gospel, then they're not truly an "Arminian" in the first place, In my humble opinion. And I try not to label folks "Arminians" that may be Biblical Christians.

Correct. This is why I suggest that there are very few pure Arminians today, (even though they may label themselves as Arminians out of ignorance).

The question is whether one can obtain saving faith and still be in error about how that faith was obtained. I would answer in the affirmative. The Galatian Church taught justification by works. Paul unapologetically refuted the error, but never once suggested that the Galatian Church was anything other than a true church. We need the grace to recognize that "The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error" (WCF Chapter XXV:V.).

I hold that Arminianism in any form is a gross error, and we should do all in our power to correct it. But the danger here is adding "Belief in Calvinism" to the Ordo Salutis, and teaching "Justification by Calvinism". I'm just not there.

 

[dr_parsley]

1. A sinner must be "convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition"

2. A sinner must "assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel"

3 A sinner must "receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation."

All three are doctrines of the gospel, without which, saving faith does not occur. In other words, content.

I took some days to consult some highly educated and committed Roman Catholic friends and they happily confirmed to me that they are people who fit the above three points. They are convinced that only Christ can save them from their sin, they receive and rest upon Christ for any accounting of righteousness. On what point, in your opinion, should Roman Catholics fail to agree? I'm often amazed when I read implications like that, which seem to suggest that group X believe Y, when I'm all but completely sure that members of group X whom I know and respect and love certainly do not believe Y and I wonder what basis the accuser is using.

I have another friend, a Zulu guy who I have reason to believe knows the Lord. He's 26 but was an AIDS orphan and head of a child headed household, so his education is lacking, but he's managed to get a good job through hard work and right living. I can talk to him and he can tell me spiritual impressions about this church or that church and his intuition about this teaching or that, and he gets it right. But if I tried to discuss with him the various aspects of atonement and pin down exactly which theory he applies in his faith, he would think I was mad foreigner talking nonsense, as foreigners often do. The nuances are so far beyond his experience and concerns that he simply wouldn't be interested. You seem to be saying that such a person, if they can't recognise the correct theory of justification in all its nuances, cannot be a saved person. Someone saying that should think very carefully about what God might say to someone discouraging some of His people. To be honest, that terrifies me. Let's leave people's status of salvation to God and get on with useful things for building up in Christ those who might know him, or who might not yet, and let's do it with all love and compassion.

I've started reading again Watson's "Doctrine of Repentance" and he says in his introduction, "If I am not mistaken, practical points are more needful in this age than controversial and polemical". Oh how no less true today! And, it made me think about all these people using up their energies endlessly discussing the nuances of justification. I wonder what would happen if people generally devoted 95% of that energy on building up the church - would the correct nuance come out from the Spirit of Truth as we progress and grow up into Him who is our head; would it at least have a higher probability than either side ever winning the argument?

 

[rbcbob]

1. A sinner must be "convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition"

2. A sinner must "assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel"

3 A sinner must "receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation."

All three are doctrines of the gospel, without which, saving faith does not occur. In other words, content.

I took some days to consult some highly educated and committed Roman Catholic friends and they happily confirmed to me that they are people who fit the above three points. They are convinced that only Christ can save them from their sin, they receive and rest upon Christ for any accounting of righteousness. On what point, in your opinion, should Roman Catholics fail to agree? I'm often amazed when I read implications like that, which seem to suggest that group X believe Y, when I'm all but completely sure that members of group X whom I know and respect and love certainly do not believe Y and I wonder what basis the accuser is using.

I have another friend, a Zulu guy who I have reason to believe knows the Lord. He's 26 but was an AIDS orphan and head of a child headed household, so his education is lacking, but he's managed to get a good job through hard work and right living. I can talk to him and he can tell me spiritual impressions about this church or that church and his intuition about this teaching or that, and he gets it right. But if I tried to discuss with him the various aspects of atonement and pin down exactly which theory he applies in his faith, he would think I was mad foreigner talking nonsense, as foreigners often do. The nuances are so far beyond his experience and concerns that he simply wouldn't be interested. You seem to be saying that such a person, if they can't recognise the correct theory of justification in all its nuances, cannot be a saved person. Someone saying that should think very carefully about what God might say to someone discouraging some of His people. To be honest, that terrifies me. Let's leave people's status of salvation to God and get on with useful things for building up in Christ those who might know him, or who might not yet, and let's do it with all love and compassion.

I've started reading again Watson's "Doctrine of Repentance" and he says in his introduction, "If I am not mistaken, practical points are more needful in this age than controversial and polemical". Oh how no less true today! And, it made me think about all these people using up their energies endlessly discussing the nuances of justification. I wonder what would happen if people generally devoted 95% of that energy on building up the church - would the correct nuance come out from the Spirit of Truth as we progress and grow up into Him who is our head; would it at least have a higher probability than either side ever winning the argument?

As a former Catholic and now Reformed Baptist, I ask if you think that devout, committed and intelligent Catholics (i.e. informed of Catholic doctrine) can have trusted on Christ ALONE for salvation, forsaking all others? Can a hybrid faith save them? See 2 Kings 2:24-41.

 

[dr_parsley]

As a former Catholic and now Reformed Baptist, I ask if you think that devout, committed and intelligent Catholics (i.e. informed of Catholic doctrine) can have trusted on Christ ALONE for salvation, forsaking all others? Can a hybrid faith save them? See 2 Kings 2:24-41.

I don't know what you mean by a hybrid faith, but yes I think a Roman Catholic can disagree with their church's teachings and choose to remain a Roman Catholic. I can respect such a decision if they've made it because they love the Lord's bride so much that it puts their soul in agony to see the bride torn into pieces, if it hurts more than patiently bearing with some wrong doctrines and waiting for regime change. I consider myself less advanced than they because the division of God's church does not cause me as much pain as it does they and I love to cling to my prideful understanding of doctrine even if it means damaging the bride.

Just because I'm right doesn't make me "right".

Of course there are times when standing up for the truth for the sake of the bride is the right thing to do, but it must be clear that it is not always the right thing to do and we all draw a line somewhere. Your line and mine are in a similar place, but I will not say to someone else "You are not a Christian because you've drawn a different line" just as I will not say "You are a Christian because you agree with me". I will say, "I can see evidences X, Y and Z which indicate that you may be a Christian" or "You have many more evidences of unregeneracy than of sanctification - beware lest you be deceived".

Oh, I couldn't find your quote; it may help me understand your point if you could provide the one you meant.

 

[A.J.]

1. A sinner must be "convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition"

2. A sinner must "assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel"

3 A sinner must "receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation."

All three are doctrines of the gospel, without which, saving faith does not occur. In other words, content.

I took some days to consult some highly educated and committed Roman Catholic friends and they happily confirmed to me that they are people who fit the above three points. They are convinced that only Christ can save them from their sin, they receive and rest upon Christ for any accounting of righteousness. On what point, in your opinion, should Roman Catholics fail to agree? I'm often amazed when I read implications like that, which seem to suggest that group X believe Y, when I'm all but completely sure that members of group X whom I know and respect and love certainly do not believe Y and I wonder what basis the accuser is using.

Jeff cites from one of the Reformed Confessions which accurately describe the nature of saving faith. We know from history that these documents were written by their authors with the views of Rome in mind. The Protestant view of justification which is explained in the Reformed Confessions is diametrically opposed to that Roman Catholic view. So I don't see how your conclusion regarding your Roman Catholic friends follows. You see, Protestants and Roman Catholics use the same terms. But they define these terms differently. The same applies whenever the word "gospel" is discussed. Do Protestants and your Roman Catholic friends agree on the same gospel? I don't think so.

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 09:41:44 EST-----

Here is what "committed" and consistent Roman Catholics actually believe.

The Council of Trent - The Sixth Session: Justification Canons

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of
glory; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

Compare it with the historic Protestant view.

The Westminister Confession

Chapter 11. Of Justification.

1. Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth;a not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous: not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,b they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.c

a. Rom 3:24; 8:30. • b. Jer 23:6; Rom 3:22, 24-25, 27-28; 4:5-8; 5:17-19; 1 Cor 1:30-31; 2 Cor 5:19, 21; Eph 1:7; Titus 3:5, 7. • c. Acts 10:44; 13:38-39; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:7-8; Phil 3:9.

2. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification;a yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.b

a. John 1:12; Rom 3:28; 5:1. • b. Gal 5:6; James 2:17, 22, 26.

3. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf.a Yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them,b and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead,c and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace;d that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.e

a. Isa 53:4-6, 10-12; Dan 9:24, 26; Rom 5:8-10, 19; 1 Tim 2:5-6; Heb 10:10, 14. • b. Rom 8:32. • c. Mat 3:17; 2 Cor 5:21; Eph 5:2. • d. Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7. • e. Rom 3:26; Eph 2:7.

4. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,a and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:b nevertheless, they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.c

a. Rom 8:30; Gal 3:8; 1 Pet 1:2, 19-20. • b. Rom 4:25; Gal 4:4; 1 Tim 2:6. • c. Gal 2:16; Col 1:21-22; Titus 3:4-7.

5. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;a and although they can never fall from the state of justification,b yet they may by their sins fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.c

a. Mat 6:12; 1 John 1:7, 9; 2:1-2. • b. Luke 22:32; John 10:28; Heb 10:14. • c. Psa 32:5; 51:7-12; 89:31-33; Mat 26:75; Luke 1:20; 1 Cor 11:30, 32.

6. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.a

a. Rom 4:22-24; Gal 3:9, 13-14; Heb 13:8.

From these statements, it is clear that "committed" and consistent Roman Catholics cannot and do not "assent to the truth of the promise of the gospel."

 

[John Weathersby]

1. A sinner must be "convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition"

2. A sinner must "assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel"

3 A sinner must "receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation."

All three are doctrines of the gospel, without which, saving faith does not occur. In other words, content.

I took some days to consult some highly educated and committed Roman Catholic friends and they happily confirmed to me that they are people who fit the above three points. They are convinced that only Christ can save them from their sin, they receive and rest upon Christ for any accounting of righteousness. On what point, in your opinion, should Roman Catholics fail to agree? I'm often amazed when I read implications like that, which seem to suggest that group X believe Y, when I'm all but completely sure that members of group X whom I know and respect and love certainly do not believe Y and I wonder what basis the accuser is using.

I have another friend, a Zulu guy who I have reason to believe knows the Lord. He's 26 but was an AIDS orphan and head of a child headed household, so his education is lacking, but he's managed to get a good job through hard work and right living. I can talk to him and he can tell me spiritual impressions about this church or that church and his intuition about this teaching or that, and he gets it right. But if I tried to discuss with him the various aspects of atonement and pin down exactly which theory he applies in his faith, he would think I was mad foreigner talking nonsense, as foreigners often do. The nuances are so far beyond his experience and concerns that he simply wouldn't be interested. You seem to be saying that such a person, if they can't recognise the correct theory of justification in all its nuances, cannot be a saved person. Someone saying that should think very carefully about what God might say to someone discouraging some of His people. To be honest, that terrifies me. Let's leave people's status of salvation to God and get on with useful things for building up in Christ those who might know him, or who might not yet, and let's do it with all love and compassion.

I've started reading again Watson's "Doctrine of Repentance" and he says in his introduction, "If I am not mistaken, practical points are more needful in this age than controversial and polemical". Oh how no less true today! And, it made me think about all these people using up their energies endlessly discussing the nuances of justification. I wonder what would happen if people generally devoted 95% of that energy on building up the church - would the correct nuance come out from the Spirit of Truth as we progress and grow up into Him who is our head; would it at least have a higher probability than either side ever winning the argument?

Dr. Parsley,

I see Mr. Martel’s post as illustrating the Gospel and stating in short, that one must be saved as presented in the Biblical Gospel of Christ. As this relates to the question of the ability of the Catholic to be saved; my position is that someone who is in the Catholic church can be saved, if they are saved under the pretences of the Gospel as presented in the 3 points provided by Mr. Bartel but ultimately by scripture (to avoid any potential for confusion there). However, under the teaching and authority of the Catholic Church, while affirming and holding to the Catholic Dogma one CANNOT be saved. Thus, when you said,

Let's leave people's status of salvation to God and get on with useful things for building up in Christ those who might know him, or who might not yet, and let's do it with all love and compassion.

I hope your desire would be to honor Christ and preach the gospel while contending for the faith as is illustrated in Jude 3, “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” Certainly the ‘Beloved’ are saved, yet there is contention for the faith.
Affirming the salvation of Catholics without taking exception to the teachings of the Catholic church is not helpful to those lost under its false teaching. I state after Paul the Apostle, “I decided to know nothing among you expect Jesus Christ and him crucified”, similarly when the Catholic church teaches that Mary is Co-Redemptrix I understand this to be another gospel in contradiction with 2 Timothy 2:15, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”, and in direct contradiction to 1 cor 15:3/4 “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures".
Acts 2:32 tells us what is of first importance, “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact” (Acts 2:32). “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”, no mention of Mary. This is a very large point of contention for me, yet only the beginning of the issues I take with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Constant elevation of tradition above scripture, which is sinful and adding to the cannon with the Apocrypha books, revelation 22:18, are a large source of concern for me.

I wonder what would happen if people generally devoted 95% of that energy on building up the church - would the correct nuance come out from the Spirit of Truth as we progress and grow up into Him who is our head; would it at least have a higher probability than either side ever winning the argument?

If we do not study to show our self approved, in scripture provided in the 66 books of the Cannon, we cannot discern if we have received a Spirit of Truth or a lying spirit, such as the Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness. We must contend for the faith, we must study scripture, and must not seek to please man by diluting His true Gospel!

 

[reformedminister]

I agree that the RCC is erroneous, however, there are many within it who do not hold to all of it's teachings and may have a saving faith in Christ. If this were not so, Christians ceased to exist for centuries. Luther became a Christian before he was excommunicated, this is how he embraced "justification by faith." I believe the Protestant Church (including all denominations) as a whole has just as much error as the RCC did in the days of Luther, only in different ways. My own mother recently converted to Catholicism because she could not stand the "praise bands" and "watered down" sermons that have become popular in many protestant churches I might add that her own church became "inclusive" and started promoting homosexuality as an "alternative lifestyle" equally blessed by God.

 

[VilnaGaon]

I agree that the RCC is erroneous, however, there are many within it who do not hold to all of it's teachings and may have a saving faith in Christ. If this were not so, Christians ceased to exist for centuries. Luther became a Christian before he was excommunicated, this is how he embraced "justification by faith." I believe the Protestant Church (including all denominations) as a whole has just as much error as the RCC did in the days of Luther, only in different ways. My own mother recently converted to Catholicism because she could not stand the "praise bands" and "watered down" sermons that have become popular in many protestant churches I might add that her own church became "inclusive" and started promoting homosexuality as an "alternative lifestyle" equally blessed by God.

In my humble opinion we should make a distinction between the Catholic Church before the Council of Trent in the late 16th Century and the Roman Catholic Church after the Council of Trent in which all the heresies of the Papacy received full canonical authority. Luther belonged to the former and if one reads the 95 theses, one gets the definite impression that Luther had no intention then of leaving the Pre-Trent Catholic Church, just reforming it. The Council of Trent sealed the complete apostasy of the Roman Church. We see in the centuries following Trent more and more blasphemous doctrines like Papal infallibility and Mary's immaculate conception and assumption added to the Standards of the Roman church. I predict that the next heresy to be added will be to proclaim Mary as God. There is already a movement in the Catholic church to that end.
As far as Mainline Protestantism today is concerned, the Pre-Tridentine Catholic Church was probably more theologically orthodox than much of Contemporary ""Protestantism"" today.

 

[reformedminister]

I agree that the RCC is erroneous, however, there are many within it who do not hold to all of it's teachings and may have a saving faith in Christ. If this were not so, Christians ceased to exist for centuries. Luther became a Christian before he was excommunicated, this is how he embraced "justification by faith." I believe the Protestant Church (including all denominations) as a whole has just as much error as the RCC did in the days of Luther, only in different ways. My own mother recently converted to Catholicism because she could not stand the "praise bands" and "watered down" sermons that have become popular in many protestant churches I might add that her own church became "inclusive" and started promoting homosexuality as an "alternative lifestyle" equally blessed by God.

In my humble opinion we should make a distinction between the Catholic Church before the Council of Trent in the late 16th Century and the Roman Catholic Church after the Council of Trent in which all the heresies of the Papacy received full canonical authority. Luther belonged to the former and if one reads the 95 theses, one gets the definite impression that Luther had no intention then of leaving the Pre-Trent Catholic Church, just reforming it. The Council of Trent sealed the complete apostasy of the Roman Church. We see in the centuries following Trent more and more blasphemous doctrines like Papal infallibility and Mary's immaculate conception and assumption added to the Standards of the Roman church. I predict that the next heresy to be added will be to proclaim Mary as God. There is already a movement in the Catholic church to that end.
As far as Mainline Protestantism today is concerned, the Pre-Tridentine Catholic Church was probably more theologically orthodox than much of Contemporary ""Protestantism"" today.

 

[Philip]

It really does depend on the Roman Catholic. I have known many who, by the grace of God, I have counted as brothers in Christ.

I would even venture to count Pope Benedict XVI as a brother after his endorsement of Luther's doctrine of Sola Fide last November. And we can't forget the contributions of Catholics like Blaise Pascal, Francois Fenelon, and G. K. Chesterton in areas like apologetics, Christian living, and Christian philosophy.

I also have reason for thinking that even heretics may be saved, in some cases. Nestorius seems to have been more Christian in his actions than the orthodox Cyril of Alexandria. God uses heresy to further His church and prepare it for trial. I think that God has used Catholism to keep some from worse errors.

 

[rbcbob]

As a former Catholic and now Reformed Baptist, I ask if you think that devout, committed and intelligent Catholics (i.e. informed of Catholic doctrine) can have trusted on Christ ALONE for salvation, forsaking all others? Can a hybrid faith save them? See 2 Kings 2:24-41.

I don't know what you mean by a hybrid faith, but yes I think a Roman Catholic can disagree with their church's teachings and choose to remain a Roman Catholic. I can respect such a decision if they've made it because they love the Lord's bride so much that it puts their soul in agony to see the bride torn into pieces, if it hurts more than patiently bearing with some wrong doctrines and waiting for regime change. I consider myself less advanced than they because the division of God's church does not cause me as much pain as it does they and I love to cling to my prideful understanding of doctrine even if it means damaging the bride.

Just because I'm right doesn't make me "right".

Of course there are times when standing up for the truth for the sake of the bride is the right thing to do, but it must be clear that it is not always the right thing to do and we all draw a line somewhere. Your line and mine are in a similar place, but I will not say to someone else "You are not a Christian because you've drawn a different line" just as I will not say "You are a Christian because you agree with me". I will say, "I can see evidences X, Y and Z which indicate that you may be a Christian" or "You have many more evidences of unregeneracy than of sanctification - beware lest you be deceived".

Oh, I couldn't find your quote; it may help me understand your point if you could provide the one you meant.

I apologize for mistyping the Scripture reference. Here is the passage:

2 Kings 17:24 Then the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they took possession of Samaria and dwelt in its cities. 25 And it was so, at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they did not fear the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which killed some of them. 26 So they spoke to the king of Assyria, saying, "The nations whom you have removed and placed in the cities of Samaria do not know the rituals of the God of the land; therefore He has sent lions among them, and indeed, they are killing them because they do not know the rituals of the God of the land." 27 Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, "Send there one of the priests whom you brought from there; let him go and dwell there, and let him teach them the rituals of the God of the land." 28 Then one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD. 29 However every nation continued to make gods of its own, and put them in the shrines on the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities where they dwelt. 30 The men of Babylon made Succoth Benoth, the men of Cuth made Nergal, the men of Hamath made Ashima, 31 and the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak; and the Sepharvites burned their children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. 32 So they feared the LORD, and from every class they appointed for themselves priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places. 33 They feared the LORD, yet served their own gods -- according to the rituals of the nations from among whom they were carried away. 34 To this day they continue practicing the former rituals; they do not fear the LORD, nor do they follow their statutes or their ordinances, or the law and commandment which the LORD had commanded the children of Jacob, whom He named Israel, 35 with whom the LORD had made a covenant and charged them, saying: "You shall not fear other gods, nor bow down to them nor serve them nor sacrifice to them; 36 "but the LORD, who brought you up from the land of Egypt with great power and an outstretched arm, Him you shall fear, Him you shall worship, and to Him you shall offer sacrifice. 37 "And the statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever; you shall not fear other gods. 38 "And the covenant that I have made with you, you shall not forget, nor shall you fear other gods. 39 "But the LORD your God you shall fear; and He will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies." 40 However they did not obey, but they followed their former rituals. 41 So these nations feared the LORD, yet served their carved images; also their children and their children's children have continued doing as their fathers did, even to this day.

 

[Cranmer1959]

Doctrinal beliefs determine who is a Christian and who is not a Christian. It's easy to see that Muslims and Mormons are not saved. So why is it so hard to say that those who reject the biblical teachings of Jesus and the Apostles on the subject of salvation and justification are not Christians?

If Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are all Christians, then the Gospel is just a matter of preference and theological relativism or reductionism is all that is necessary for salvation. But if the Protestant emphasis on the 5 solas of the Reformation are true, then simply adhering to the 3 ecumenical creeds mentioned in the 39 Articles of Religion or other Reformed confessions of faith are not enough. In fact, the 39 Articles and the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity spell out what seem to be necessary doctrine from the perspective of three different ecclesiastical communions within the Reformed camp. Admittedly, the Anglicans are in even worse shape than the two major Reformed confessional standards.

If justification is by faith alone and justification is also merited by doing good works, then Christianity is hopelessly ambiguous and relativistic. Both the Protestant view and the Roman Catholic view/Eastern Orthodox view cannot be correct. One or the other is false. Therefore, anyone who actually believes the doctrines taught by Rome is lost since Rome is teaching a false gospel of infused righteousness and merits, penances, purgatory, idolatrous veneration and prayers to the saints.

No, choose you this day whom you will serve. Will you stand for the doctrines of grace and the Gospel? Or will you stand for a false gospel? (Galatians 1:6-8).

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 09:46:49 EST-----

I might add that attending "mass" at a Catholic or Anglo-Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church is also idolatry since all three view the sacrament as the actual body and blood by either transubstantiantion or by real presence, which is pragmatically the same thing. The liturgy used in these churches is false.

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 10:02:50 EST-----

****
I am sincerely grateful to understand this better and will be thinking about it more. I think it's important to be careful with this subject, because holding that we must bring to the table a certain degree of mental clarity about the proposition of justification by faith alone in order to be regenerated can be a subtle re-introduction of works righteousness, entailing a subtle denial of the doctrine of sola fide, and an attack on our faith.

Right belief cannot be attributed to "works righteousness" since EVEN our believing or ability to believe the true Gospel IS a GIFT. There is absolutely no room for compromising the Gospel simply because we think God shouldn't damn someone who is reprobate. Remember many are blinded to the Gospel and God hardens the heart of the reprobate. In my opinion, if someone is indoctrinated with a false gospel and a false religion, whether it be Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism or Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy/Anglo-Catholicism, that person is reprobate. Show me someone praying to the saints and to Mary and I will show you an idolater.

I admit that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy believe the 3 ecumenical creeds. But the problem is they deny the Scriptural teaching on the doctrines of grace and they have institutionalized heresy to the point that the entire organization and every individual who believes its dogma is therefore under God's judgment unless and until they recant and return to the Gospel of grace.

God is sovereign in salvation. Some vessels are fitted for honor and others for justice and condemnation. But all show God's mercy or God's justice.

Even when I was a Pentecostal/Arminian I understood that justification is by faith alone and that Roman Catholics were lost. I over-emphasized my own contribution to sanctification and conversion but deep down I realized God was and is completely sovereign in my salvation and conversion.

The Gospel is so plain in Scripture that even a child can read the Old Testament account of the Gospel and be saved. (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

To God alone be all the glory,

Charlie

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 10:08:27 EST-----

I have a dear friend who is tired of shallow, man centered evangelicalism. His family is in the process of converting to Catholicism.

This upsets me greatly and I have told him he has lost his mind, but his mind is made up.

My wife (former RCC) says once he is completely in and sees how spiritually dead it is he might come to his senses.

I granted him that yes the RCC had beautifull stain glass windows but that's about it.

Your friend is a shallow, man-centered evangelical who does not have a clue as to what the Gospel actually is. IF he did, he most certainly would not be committing apostasy by joining with the synagogue of satan.

Justification by infused righteousness and meriting forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is a false gospel no matter how you slice it. Your friend is lost unless God reveals to him the true Gospel. He has been given a spirit of strong delusion.

Charlie

 

[Philip]

If Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are all Christians, then the Gospel is just a matter of preference and theological relativism or reductionism is all that is necessary for salvation.

In other words, only those with correct theology can be saved. If so, then we're all sunk.

Honestly, the Catholic and Arminian understandings of justification are (to my mind) equivalent in practice, if not in word. If an Arminian can be saved, then so can a Roman Catholic.

As for the Mass, I would be careful. Their understanding is flawed, but the substance of the Lord's Supper is the same. If they venerate the bread, it is only because they really think it is Christ. Is this idolatry? No, they just don't understand it properly.

And I disagree with Luther that the Church stands or falls on Sola Fide. The Church stands or falls on Sola Gratia, which has been debated in the RCC since Aquinas and Scotus. If you look carefully at the Council of Trent, you will find that, in fact, one can be a four-point Calvinist and be considered Orthodox within the Catholic Church. The problem is that Catholic theology has long been dominated by the Jesuits (since the time of Pascal) and their belief in Molinism, which stands in opposition to the traditional Catholic teaching on grace (which is what the Reformers/Pascal taught) which was taught by Aquinas and the Thomists. Thomism (in this area) has been in the minority since the Reformation, but is still well within Catholicism.

 

[dr_parsley]

Doctrinal beliefs determine who is a Christian and who is not a Christian.

Oh no they don't. (We are playing "assertion" aren't we?)

Seriously, doctrinal beliefs are an indicator of whether someone knows God, is reconciled with God and has genuine fellowship with God. It is a strong indicator but not an infallible one.

It's easy to see that Muslims and Mormons are not saved. So why is it so hard to say that those who reject the biblical teachings of Jesus and the Apostles on the subject of salvation and justification are not Christians?

The more doctrinal variance from the truth, the lower the probability of regneracy. For a Muslim or a Hindu, it is (almost) vanishingly small. I'm guessing here, but I think a member of the American Presbyterian Church might think a member of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church has a relatively small amount of error. Why hasn't God corrected it? They must be unregenerate! Is that what they say? But the small difference in doctrine should suggest there is only a small indicator of unregeneracy.

Now error in doctrine is one small subset of a man's sin and it is the sin that indicates unregeneracy in their mind, will and affections, it indicates unrepentance and it indicates that the Spirit is not working in them. For each individual, if you're interested to consider whether or not they are saved (and that can be a big "if"), you have to consider those negative indicators and also positive ones, evidences of the Spirit working in them. And then you've got to make a judgment - there is no "rule", like saying holding to Arminianism is worth 10 points, repeated adultery 50 points, irritability with spouse 2 points, etc and then you add them up and if they get more than 20 points they're not saved. It doesn't work like that. No less is it true that if someone holds to your particular hated error of doctrine, then they can't be saved. Can't you see that it is creating a new gospel consisting of a doctrine? The gospel is described by a doctrine, but it is not itself a doctrine.

Given that, it concerns me greatly that people go beyond what is known from the Bible and assert that millions of professing Christians cannot possibly be in a state of salvation. Paul gives us examples of who will certainly not enter the kingdom of God - the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulturers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers. If a man has any evidence of greed in his life, he should be more worried about his own state than the state of his Roman Catholic neighbour because it is stated in black and white he is in a perilous state. Paul doesn't mention doctrinal errors in his list - I think he sees doctrinal error as leading to unrepentance of sin which damns, not the doctrinal error itself as damning.

This is not a crafty call to chip away at the desire for doctrinal accuracy! Keep it and be jealous of it and teach it to all and defend it with all energy, but it needs to be done in such a way that we don't condemn ourselves in the very process and it needs to be done in such a way that doesn't go beyond the biblical witness for how to handle differences in doctrine of different degrees.

One last piece of advice and then I'm out, because I feel too strongly about this and don't want to fall into sin - have you ever worked in a huge company? I once worked in a firm with 200,000 people and that firm did obnoxious things and said frustrating things while the individuals were quite different. The individuals were affected by the institutional character, but they had their own identities. Just look at any government to see how an institution can be obnoxious and hateful while the people in it are somehow "doing their best" and shouldn't be individually condemned merely because they belong to the organisation. The Roman Catholic church as an institution is terribly lost and sinful more than words can say, but that doesn't tell me a huge amount about the individuals in it; it gives me some information but it's one piece of information among many.

 

[A.J.]

In other words, only those with correct theology can be saved. If so, then we're all sunk.

Philip, I am not sure what exactly you are saying here. What do you mean by "correct theology"? Of course, no one starts his Christian life with perfect knowledge of everything about Christianity. But being a Christian does involve a correct theology, that is, an adequate understanding of the truth of the gospel. And this is where consistent Roman Catholicism and consistent Roman Catholics fail.

Honestly, the Catholic and Arminian understandings of justification are (to my mind) equivalent in practice, if not in word. If an Arminian can be saved, then so can a Roman Catholic.

The Roman Catholic and Arminian understanding of justification are not equivalent. The Roman Catholic view is much more complicated. Rome's understanding of justification involves belief in the Mass, Penance, Purgatory, and many other heresies. These beliefs are rejected by Arminians.

As for the Mass, I would be careful. Their understanding is flawed, but the substance of the Lord's Supper is the same. If they venerate the bread, it is only because they really think it is Christ. Is this idolatry? No, they just don't understand it properly.

The Mass is idolatrous. This is the clear teaching of historic Protestantism. Notice the strong language the Reformed Confessions use when discussing the nature of the Roman Catholic Mass.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter 29: The Lord's Supper

4. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone;a as likewise the denial of the cup to the people;b worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.c

a. 1 Cor 10:6. • b. Mark 4:23; 1 Cor 11:25-29. • c. Mat 15:9.

....

6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.a

a. Luke 24:6, 39; Acts 3:21 with 1 Cor 11:24-26.

Heidelberg Catechism

Lord's Day 30

80. What difference is there between the Lord’s Supper and the Popish Mass?

The Lord’s Supper testifies to us, that we have complete forgiveness of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself has once accomplished on the cross;1 and that by the Holy Spirit we are grafted into Christ,2 who with His true body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father,3 and is to be worshipped there4. But the Mass teaches, that the living and the dead do not have forgiveness of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ He is still daily offered for them by the priests; and that Christ is bodily present under the form of bread and wine, and is therefore to be worshipped in them. Therefore, the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and passion of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.

1 Mt 26:28; Jn 19:30; Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10-18; 2 1 Cor 6:17, 10:16-17; 3 Jn 20:17; Acts 7:55-56; Heb 1:3, 8:1; 4 Jn 4:21-24; Php 3:20; Col 3:1; 1 Thes 1:10

The ignorance of many Roman Catholics on what the Mass really means is no excuse. Pagans worship creatures ignorantly thinking that they are gods. But their ignorance does not excuse them from their idolatry.

And I disagree with Luther that the Church stands or falls on Sola Fide. The Church stands or falls on Sola Gratia, which has been debated in the RCC since Aquinas and Scotus. If you look carefully at the Council of Trent, you will find that, in fact, one can be a four-point Calvinist and be considered Orthodox within the Catholic Church. The problem is that Catholic theology has long been dominated by the Jesuits (since the time of Pascal) and their belief in Molinism, which stands in opposition to the traditional Catholic teaching on grace (which is what the Reformers/Pascal taught) which was taught by Aquinas and the Thomists. Thomism (in this area) has been in the minority since the Reformation, but is still well within Catholicism.

Official Roman Catholic teaching rejects Calvinism as heretical. One reason is that Calvinism believes in Sola Fide which is rejected by Rome in the Council of Trent. Even those who claim to be "four-pointers" hold to justification by faith alone. So it is wrong to speak of four-point Calvinism as being within the bounds of Roman Catholic orthodoxy. You are being inaccurate here. No consistent Roman Catholic can hold even to a four-point Calvinism since he rejects the Protestant view of justification. Since you mentioned the Council of Trent, let me quote some of its strongest anathemas in its justification canons.

The Council of Trent

The Sixth Session: Justification Canons

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

There is absolutely no hint from these statements that a four-point Calvinism is an orthodox option within Roman Catholicism.

 

[cih1355]

The Roman Catholic church proclaims a false gospel; it has a false view of how people are justified before God. If there is a true Christian in the Roman Catholic church, then he is not really a Roman Catholic.

 

[SolaGratia]

From the OP:

Papist are not Christians until they come to embrace God's salvation found only in Christ, the only redeemer of God's elect PERIOD.

Next question!

 

[smhbbag]

As for the Mass, I would be careful. Their understanding is flawed, but the substance of the Lord's Supper is the same. If they venerate the bread, it is only because they really think it is Christ. Is this idolatry? No, they just don't understand it properly.

I'm at a loss for how falsely calling something Christ is not idolatry.

If I venerated my shoe and called it Christ would I be an idolater?

 

[dr_parsley]

Out of interest, let me give some comment on these:

The Council of Trent

The Sixth Session: Justification Canons

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

Are we justified without the grace given by the Holy Spirit? Surely not!

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

"Well done good and faithful servant". It is a mystery to us, but this would make no sense if our deeds done in the Spirit as regenerate persons with healed wills, affections and understandings were not attributed, in His great mercy, to us. Does the exercise of grace with our (being healed) faculties cause an increase? Well yes, in some definition of 'cause'. "You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much." It is certainly my experience that when I am faithful over a little, the Lord gives me much. It also agrees with other Christians I see.

You have to be careful with Roman Catholics when talking about causes because they won't want to stop at your usual definition of the word. (and neither will I, come to that).

CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.

Alright, this one is totally out of the ballpark! The most generous I can be is that this is like a political union demarkation - protecting the jobs of priests from Christ!

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

This is right out and I can't be generous at all.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

This again can be interpreted with the same viewpoint as canon 24. Language about the partnership between God and his regenerate children, what part our wills play, is fraught with extreme difficulties of interpretation.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

i.e. anyone who criticises the organisation in public is bringing it into disrepute and should be sacked... a common thing among any group.

Anyway, being new here it seems unwise to step into the ring of hungry carnivores wearing a suit made of meat, but I thought I'd try to defend the Council of Trent a bit! Anyway I think 4 out of 6 are potentially reconcilable given just the text itself. And if these are the worst 7, they don't seem so terrible. There are worse things going on all around. Just the other day I heard that a church here in the village that is highly rated(!) says 1) Members should give half their salary to the church and 2) If they can't sing in tongues on demand then they aren't Christians. (yes, that was "sing" in tongues). This quote from the Council of Trent seems mild in comparison!

 

[Confessor]

The Council of Trent

The Sixth Session: Justification Canons

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

Are we justified without the grace given by the Holy Spirit? Surely not!

I am fairly certain that the grace from the Holy Ghost referred to in Canon XI is that of infused righteousness.

 

[dr_parsley]

The Council of Trent

The Sixth Session: Justification Canons

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

Are we justified without the grace given by the Holy Spirit? Surely not!

I am fairly certain that the grace from the Holy Ghost referred to in Canon XI is that of infused righteousness.

I'm not sure that doesn't destroy the sanity of the text - does it even make sense when it means that? - but it would be interesting. Do you have a source or a rationale for that interpretation?

 

[Confessor]

Are we justified without the grace given by the Holy Spirit? Surely not!

I am fairly certain that the grace from the Holy Ghost referred to in Canon XI is that of infused righteousness.

I'm not sure that doesn't destroy the sanity of the text - does it even make sense when it means that? - but it would be interesting. Do you have a source or a rationale for that interpretation?

Justification is a purely legal process involving the imputation of Christ's righteousness and God's change of favor towards sinners. Certainly we are regenerated by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and certainly that leads to faith which leads to justification, but it doesn't follow that justification itself involves grace imparted to us by the Holy Spirit. Seeing as Romanists merge justification and sanctification and think that justification itself involves infused grace, we can see where the Protestant and Catholic teachings differ.

 

[Prufrock]

Mr. Dean, it's just a fact -- what that canon in Trent is claiming is that justification is not by imputation of righteousness, but by the infusion of a habit or principle of charity; that righteousness is not forensic, but physical, and that grace is a substance physically infused into a believer.

To save you the trouble, it will be a fruitless task to attempt to reconcile Trent with biblical teaching; and we do not need to attempt to grant a favorable or charitable reading to its wording -- we know what they intend. Trent did not happen in a vacuum. Nor were its authors poor with wording -- they communicated explicitly and clearly what they meant.

 

[dr_parsley]

I am fairly certain that the grace from the Holy Ghost referred to in Canon XI is that of infused righteousness.

I'm not sure that doesn't destroy the sanity of the text - does it even make sense when it means that? - but it would be interesting. Do you have a source or a rationale for that interpretation?

Justification is a purely legal process involving the imputation of Christ's righteousness and God's change of favor towards sinners. Certainly we are regenerated by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and certainly that leads to faith which leads to justification, but it doesn't follow that justification itself involves grace imparted to us by the Holy Spirit. Seeing as Romanists merge justification and sanctification and think that justification itself involves infused grace, we can see where the Protestant and Catholic teachings differ.

Strange - we could have missed out the last two posts without detriment to the exchange as your comments now applied to the original.

I feel like I've gone mad. You've said that the grace of the Holy Spirit => Regeneration => Faith => Justification, and you've said that Justification doesn't involve the grace of the Holy Spirit. We've moved into the territory of: which comes first, faith or regeneration? For sure the Reformed answer is that regeneration comes first and is by grace. So the explanation of Justification cannot exclude grace. No?

I took your post before last to indicate that taking "grace" to mean "infused righteousness", the canon implies that justification is a gradual process rather than an at-conversion verdict. Is there evidence to take "grace" to mean "infused righteousness" here? We're probably just multiplying words without genuine product. It hardly matters if one canon was wrong, we know that many were wrong. What I thought to indicate was that I couldn't understand why these 6 canons were taken as somehow earth-shattering, when they seem far from being so.

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 04:11:40 EST-----

Mr. Dean, it's just a fact -- what that canon in Trent is claiming is that justification is not by imputation of righteousness, but by the infusion of a habit or principle of charity; that righteousness is not forensic, but physical, and that grace is a substance physically infused into a believer.

Thanks, but I have absolutely no idea what you might mean when you indicate that grace is a physical substance.

 

[Confessor]

I'm not sure that doesn't destroy the sanity of the text - does it even make sense when it means that? - but it would be interesting. Do you have a source or a rationale for that interpretation?

Justification is a purely legal process involving the imputation of Christ's righteousness and God's change of favor towards sinners. Certainly we are regenerated by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and certainly that leads to faith which leads to justification, but it doesn't follow that justification itself involves grace imparted to us by the Holy Spirit. Seeing as Romanists merge justification and sanctification and think that justification itself involves infused grace, we can see where the Protestant and Catholic teachings differ.

Strange - we could have missed out the last two posts without detriment to the exchange as your comments now applied to the original.

I feel like I've gone mad. You've said that the grace of the Holy Spirit => Regeneration => Faith => Justification, and you've said that Justification doesn't involve the grace of the Holy Spirit. We've moved into the territory of: which comes first, faith or regeneration? For sure the Reformed answer is that regeneration comes first and is by grace. So the explanation of Justification cannot exclude grace. No?

I took your post before last to indicate that taking "grace" to mean "infused righteousness", the canon implies that justification is a gradual process rather than an at-conversion verdict. Is there evidence to take "grace" to mean "infused righteousness" here? We're probably just multiplying words without genuine product. It hardly matters if one canon was wrong, we know that many were wrong. What I thought to indicate was that I couldn't understand why these 6 canons were taken as somehow earth-shattering, when they seem far from being so.

There are two things wrong with the Catholic teaching: that it involves increasing justification, and that it involves infused righteousness rather than imputed righteousness. The two errors are distinct.

Otherwise, the distinction I made should not make you fear for your sanity. That justification is built on faith which is built on regeneration which is built on grace, but does not itself involve infused grace, is still cogent. Looking at the ordo salutis as a whole, it does involve grace; but looking at the specific component of the ordo salutis, it does not. The Catholics who wrote that canon were not trying to be ambiguous, and they were in fact opposing a specific (Protestant) doctrine. As Paul said, there really is not any charity to be given. They're not trying to gain approval of, but rather to anathemize, a Reformed audience.

 

[John Weathersby]

Thanks, but I have absolutely no idea what you might mean when you indicate that grace is a physical substance.

Infusion of grace describes the fact which recognizes that in our condition of faleness, grace is not present in the human heart and life, but rather, it is foreign to the substance of the heart and must be physically infused onto/into us which is a working of the Holy Spirit.

I believe that this is a principal that Edwards discusses, but I’ll leave that to the more knowledgeable about infused grace than I.