wturri78
Puritan Board Freshman
This may seem like an obscure question, but I've been thinking it through after some chats with a Catholic over salvation. It's obvious that we mean different things by the term "salvation" and we both include many aspects beneath that broader terms. And we both see salvation as more than simply "not going to hell," and more than just "going to heaven." Without question, Catholics believe that personal merit and works are a part of justification, whereas we obviously see Christ's merit imputed to us as the only ground--but then, we also define the term "justification" differently. But could there be some similarity? Let me try to lay this out:
Reformed: Once justified, a person is spared from God's eternal wrath and will not go to hell--even the weakest true faith will bring a person into heaven. Personal merit plays no role in being spared from hell.
Catholic: Once "initially justified," a person is spared from God's eternal wrath and will not go to hell--nor will they go to heaven. Purgatory is conveniently wedged in the middle to catch all the ones who aren't perfectly "justified" through merit and remission of "temporal punishments." Still, personal merit plays no role in being spared from hell.
Worlds apart, to be sure. However, setting aside the errors of purgatory (and infusion vs. imputation, and sacramental grace, etc.), in both views, the grace of God is sufficient to keep a person out of hell. The person is "saved" from eternal punishment by the grace of God, and without "works of the law" or earned merit.
So is it technically accurate to say the Catholic view requires works/merit for salvation, given that it appears not to require works/merit to stay out of hell? How much of the difference is semantic vs. substantial? And is the difference deep enough to say that Rome truly preaches "another gospel?"
Boy this stuff gets confusing sometimes!
Thoughts, anyone? Former Catholics?
Reformed: Once justified, a person is spared from God's eternal wrath and will not go to hell--even the weakest true faith will bring a person into heaven. Personal merit plays no role in being spared from hell.
Catholic: Once "initially justified," a person is spared from God's eternal wrath and will not go to hell--nor will they go to heaven. Purgatory is conveniently wedged in the middle to catch all the ones who aren't perfectly "justified" through merit and remission of "temporal punishments." Still, personal merit plays no role in being spared from hell.
Worlds apart, to be sure. However, setting aside the errors of purgatory (and infusion vs. imputation, and sacramental grace, etc.), in both views, the grace of God is sufficient to keep a person out of hell. The person is "saved" from eternal punishment by the grace of God, and without "works of the law" or earned merit.
So is it technically accurate to say the Catholic view requires works/merit for salvation, given that it appears not to require works/merit to stay out of hell? How much of the difference is semantic vs. substantial? And is the difference deep enough to say that Rome truly preaches "another gospel?"
Boy this stuff gets confusing sometimes!
Thoughts, anyone? Former Catholics?