Dr. Graham answered my letter

But is it the same Christ and conditions for salvation. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter into the kingdom, and the devil believes and trembles.

While a simple belief in Christ merits salvation, but there are conditions. One must truly receive Christ into their life, and not merely acknowledge the historical Jesus.

Cheers,

Jim

PS. They might be better off if they were a poor Catholic.

 

I am not convinced that the Christ of Romanism is the same Christ. I think there are some issues that call that into question, particularly with the mass and the surrounding accoutrements. And I don't think the conditions are the same. In Catholicism, the conditions are much more than "simple belief." The Bible teaches that simple belief is enough, and that the simple belief brings a life change because we have a new Father.

 

I cringe whenever I hear someone put it into terms. Christ is Christ. There is no Christ of Romanism, Presbyterianism, Anabaptistm, Methodism, Anglicanism, etc. Christ was a real, living, breathing, flesh and blood person, not belonging to any religion, denomination, or affiliation. When we do such categorizations, I think we belittle Christ.

Not that I'm singling you out. I've caught myself doing it many times, for which I should repent.

 

Was it not obvious that we were talking about the way that Christ is presented? I didn't think that would have been missed. Of course, Christ is Christ. But the Roman church teaches Christ in an entirely different way than the Bible does, and that is the problem. It is belittling Christ to present him differently than the Bible does. And it is to that that I was objecting.

 

I don't think the Catholic Church does present Christ differently than we do.

Read the Catechism. They are adamant that Christ is the only way to the Father, and they teach that Jesus is God the second person of the Trinity. They believe that he died on the cross for our sins, was buried, and rose again and is seated at the Father's right hand.

They only differ in how the grace of God is applied to the elect. Yes they have a more elaborate explanation, but it all hinges on God's grace and the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit.

Sacraments are signs and symbols that the Holy Spirit efficaciously uses. We preach the Word and believe that the Holy Spirit efficaciously uses it. No difference. They extend or expand the elements God's Spirit might use: baptism, eucharist, confirmation, holy matrimony, etc. So what. God can't use these means to communicate truth behind the symbols/signs?

They totally miss it on Mary, her immaculate conception, sinless life, perpetual virginity, etc. So what. God can't work around this misconception and misunderstanding to save the devout practicing Roman Catholic?

They blow it on purgatory. So what. God can't redeem the Roman Catholic who knows that he is a sinner, confesses his sin, turns to Jesus Christ for salvation, and obeys his church's teaching with the new found power of the Holy Spirit operating in his life?

Devout Roman Catholic believers aren't trusting in their works, they are trusting in the work of Christ on their behalf and rejoicing in the work that he is doing in and through them. This statement is repeated again and again in the Catechism.

God is at work, my friends, even in and through the Roman Catholic church.

Now there are millions of Roman Catholics who have a perverted view of their church and how one is saved, just like the millions of Baptists in the South and elsewhere who have a perverted view of what their church teaches about salvation.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. How much doctrine has to be correct before God can save me?

As a Calvinist, I allow room for my Arminian brothers to disagree with me and still be saved. IMO, it is no different with RC who believe their church's teaching as found in the Catechism. They believe in the same God and the same Christ. They only differ in how grace is applied, and then only in degree, not in kind. I submit that Baptists have their own formulas of salvation that they are trusting in that are or may be just as egregious to each other's ears (easy believism/Lordship salvation) as the Catechism appears to be.

I don't care what true Christian denomination a person is in, including RC, if a person tells me that salvation is by grace through faith and that they believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, are confessing him as Lord, and have called on his name, that's good enough for me. (I'm talking about orthodox churches, not cults that believe that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, God was once a man, etc.). We can disagree on charismatic gifts, eternal security, perseverance of the Saints, nature of the incarnation, nature of the trinity, eschatology, ecclesiology, and on and on. So what. None of this has any bearing on God regenerating a lost person.

Therefore, anything more than that is making "understanding right doctrine" a work and condition of salvation. And we are right back at doing what we accuse the Catholics of doing - adding to God's grace. In this case, grace plus "right understanding of how justification and sanctification work."

 

Your presentation of what the Catholic church teaches about Christ is markedly different from what both Catholics and Protestants have historically said. For them the sacraments are not mere signs and symbols but the work ex opere operato, meaning that they sign accomplishes what it signifies. Any way you cut it, that is adding works to faith.

To say that Jesus died and rose from the dead, confess Him as Lord, and call on his name in faith is not sufficient if you do not truly do that. A person who takes the sacraments for salvation, or who believes they must work for their salvation is not confessing Jesus as Lord. They are not placing their faith in Him and what He said. That is a serious difference.

I emphasize again that no one on either side believed what you wrote until just recent times. Catholics didn't believe they were essentially the same as Protestants (that's why they burned them). Protestants didn't believe they were the same as Catholics. Historical revisionism won't carry the day.

 

The sign accomplishes what it signifies only because of the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit and only in those who are rightly disposed.

1084 The sacraments are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace they signify.

In other words, Christ and the Holy Spirit mediate the grace that the signs signify.

1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.

In other words, if one comes to the church in an unworthy manner with an unbelieving heart, the sacraments are useless to him. Only those who come in faith, understanding the meaning behind the symbols, receives efficaciously the grace symbolized by the signs. This sounds very similar to Paul's words concerning the Lord's supper.

We don't have to agree with the sacramental system. However, understanding how a devout Catholic observes the sacraments makes us realize that he/she comes in faith believing in the efficacious grace of Christ and the Holy Spirit to perform the grace that the sacrament symbolizes.

I don't disagree with the fact that there were differences in how Catholics and Protestants viewed each other's doctrines. But today, the Catholic Church is trying real hard to find agreement. Maybe they have changed their position. But the point is, today, the Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses and reveals their position. Are they being disingenius? Maybe.

We forget that the disciples/apostles laid hands on different people and they received the Spirit. The catholic church believes in apostolic authority and that the church is charged with preserving the faith once for all delivered to the saints. It is not difficult to see how they arrived at their position.

Where we only see symbol, they see the power of God to move graciously for his people. I'll say it again, from beginning to end, the Catechism teaches that God is gracious and that salvation is all of God. We are disagreeing with how God mediates grace, but we are still talking about God's undeserved favor to man.

Larry, I appreciate your comments. Can you tell me when right doctrine isn't a work? I agree that doctrine matters. But when does doctrine matter so much that a devout Roman Catholic is pronounced lost?

 

Larry,

If I understand your position, Campbellites are lost because they believe in baptismal regeneration by immersion after confession in order to be saved.

Lutherans are lost because they believe in infant baptismal regeneration.

Romans Catholics are lost because of the sacramental system of grace.

Are Lordship proponents lost becaue they believe that Jesus must be not only Savior but Lord?

All Arminians must be lost because they believe that they "must believe" by their own free will in order to be saved. They have added to grace "their ability to respond!" Grace plus ability!

By the time we are done with this, only a select group of Calvinists who actually believe "correctly" will be allowed into heaven.

Right?

 

No, that is not correct at all. People are lost when they are trusting in the wrong thing for salvation. People who believe that anything besides faith in Christ alone is necessary for salvation have added to the gospel. I can't see any conclusion but that they are lost.

Lordship proponents, whatever that means, are simply teaching what the Bible says, that we must believe on the LORD Jesus Christ to be saved, that we must confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord. I am not sure how believing what the Bible says is the same as adding to what the Bible says while affirming what the Bible denies.

I don't think the Cathechism is disingenuous. I think it states exactly what the believe, and I think they believe it means something entirely different than what you are reading it to say. In other words, they are using the same words with different meanings.

As for right doctrien to be saved, I think at a minimum you cannot knowingly reject the explicit doctrines revealed in Scripture. And doctrines such as Christology require an understanding of what you are doing. It is necessary to "believe in your heart." That requires intellectual knowledge.

 

So if I have just heard you correctly, RC, Cambellites, Lutherans, and Arminians are lost because they have added to "faith in Christ alone."

I don't think that I have "read into" the Catechism. It's pretty easy to understand. Whether it represents historic Catholicism or not, it is their stated position today. The Catechism defines the words they are using. Yes, they define some words differently. So it is paramount that we seek to understand what they are saying within the context of their system.

Your last paragraph makes it clear that "right doctrine" is necessary for salvation. Grace plus right doctrine gets one into heaven. I agree that their are conditions for receiving eternal life. I would like to define them in terms of "salvation" texts. What must I do to be saved?

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
Believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord.
Call on the name of the Lord.
Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
Persevere to the end.
Stand firm.
Keep my commandments
Do what is right (1 John 3:10).

I throw those last five in to show that real grace and faith work. I think that's what the Catholics mean when they teach that Christ in you will produce works in keeping with faith.

Grace is undeserved favor
Faith is looking to Jesus for salvation.

The above mentioned groups all teach this and practice it.

I really think, Larry, that you are close to making "right doctrine" a requirement of salvation. If so, you have added to grace alone. You have also added to "faith in Christ alone." Your position seems to be "faith in Christ alone" as understood by Larry. The Catholic church says, "faith in Christ alone" as understood by the church. How are these positions differenet. I think that you would say, they are different because "I am holding to the simplicity of the Bible and not adding to it."

 

Larry, you are on Larry King Live. How would you answer his questions?

Larry King: Are practicing Roman Catholics who believe the doctrine of their church going to heaven?

What about Wisconsin or Missouri Synod Lutherans?

What about those who practice believer's baptism by immersion but think that the moment of regeneration takes place in the waters of baptism?

 

I think the point is, regardless of the wording one uses, what counts is the honest experience of grace.

Now, the individual in any organization may experience this grace despite what that organization puts into print. That person is in a state of redemption based on the promise of God and grace given through His Son, Jesus the Christ.

So let's leave all the organizations out of the equation, including Baptists, and allow for the same conditions: an act of grace on the part of God in Jesus Christ. It is, in the end, the prerogative of God who will be saved.

Cheers,

Jim

 

How is grace mediated to the believer?

How is "faith in Christ alone" possible without some means of communicating the gospel message?

The Bible says that we cannot hear and believe without a preacher - someone who preaches the gospel message that Jesus is Lord.

How does that look, Larry?

If I preach the gospel message and ask folks to raise their hands if they want to accept Christ, have I added to the Gospel?

Walk the aisle?

Pray the sinner's prayer?

Lead them in the sinner's prayer?

Give them a video to watch?

Give them a tract to read with warm devotional stories?

All of these things that we call methods, are they not adding to the Gospel?

It wasn't that long ago that no evangelist would ask people to raise their hands, come forward, pray the sinners prayer. If God was working in the heart of the one hearing the preaching of the Word, they would respond on their own. All of the "means" were simply seen as manipulative tools to get folks to do what the preacher wanted them to do. It was adding to grace and faith alone.

Whitefield and Wesley never called for an invitation!

The reason why the Catholic church's position seems more reasonable is because the fundamentalist Baptist church is doing the same thing as the Catholic church without realizing it.

We have our own "means" of grace without even knowing it. We know exactly how to "lead" a person to Christ, just like the Catholics know how to "lead" a person through the process of salvation.

Larry, by your definition, if you are doing anything more than preaching the Gospel that Jesus is Lord, you are adding to "faith" alone. If you have a process that people must go through to be saved after hearing you preach you are no different than the Catholic priest.

 

NO

Depends. I believe some Lutherans preach the gospel. Others do not.

No.

The Holy Spirit working through the Word.

It isn't. That is totally irrelevant to the point. The Bible is clear that there is something to be believed that must be communicated. We are not talking about the means of communication, but rather the "what" that must be believed.

Looks like what the Bible says.

No

The methods are not at issue. I am not sure why you are bringing this up. Each of these things have pros and cons. But this is not the point.

I think you are incorrect on this point. Their objection, for the most part, was not that it was adding to faith and grace I don't think. It was entirely different. The "walk the aisle" invitation is a modern invention.

In what way?

It is in no way similar. Some Baptists are very bad with evangelism, both in doing it wrongly and in not doing it at all. But evangelism is not a "means of grace" unless we are totally redefining the concept.

Then you haven't understood my definition. Or we differ on what "preaching the gospel" is.

Not at all. Not in any way. These are totally dissimilar. You are really reaching here Paul.

I agree with Jim's words, though he may mean something different than I mean. The experience of grace in the life that brings saving faith is what is important.

 

You obviously mean something different than Jim. I appreciate your frankness in your answers.

The catholic church believes that sacraments are signs and symbols that teach the truth found in God's Word. God uses the sacraments (illustrations, if you will) along with the Word to bestow his grace on those who hear the Gospel.

In once sense, we have methods, and the catholic church has methods. We don't like their methods, but the Puritans wouldn't like our methods.

The catholic church would say that the gospel message to be communicated is that God the Son, the second person of the trinity, became a man, died on the cross for our sins once for all, rose from the dead, sits at the Father's right hand and intercedes for all whom the Father has given to him. The "what" is no different than ours.

The means, on the other hand, is different. You say, Larry, that raising one's hand at the request of the pastor is acceptable. So is walking the aisle, praying a prayer, etc. The Puritans of the 1600s would have said absolutely not. Ironically in observing what true regeneration looked like, they developed their own ten step process (or whatever number they came up with). Edwards had three steps.

The catholic church has means as well. They see baptism, confirmation, communion as sacraments that bestow God's grace by the Holy Spirit on faithful parishioners who see and understand the spiritual truth being conveyed by the sacraments. The sacraments are useless without a proper disposition of faith to receive the spiritual truth symbolized by the sacraments and accompanied by the preaching of the Word.

So you have your illustrations or means, and catholics have theirs. Yours are right, though not historically accepted by the Puritans, and theirs are wrong (from our perspective, and historically from the perspective of the Puritans).

As to means being manipulative, you need to go back and read the controversy at both the first awakening with Edwards/Whitefield/Wesley and the second awakening under Finney. It was Finney who developed and used "rightly constituted means" to win souls to Christ. It was very controversial, but even Finney wouldn't presume to lead a sinner in prayer.

I do agree with Jim's words. God saves individuals through regeneration by the Holy Spirit. That will be born out in the life of the believer. I believe that can happen for a devout practicing Roman Catholic who truly understands that Christ is sufficient and that the sacraments aren't adding to that truth but revealing that truth in signs and symbols. I believe that can truly happen for Lutherans who believe in infant baptismal regeneration and a life that has been transformed because of that gift of grace - a life that bears the fruit of salvation as the child matures. I believe that can happen for a Campbellite who repents of sin, confesses that Jesus is Lord and is baptized in water for the forgiveness of sins!

Why do I believe this? Because in each case God's grace is granted to an individual, the church's "means" not withstanding.

Why even a Baptist can get saved by hearing the message, becoming convicted of sin, raising his hand at the pastor's request, walking the aisle at the pastor's request, repeating the sinner's prayer that the counselor is praying, shaking the hand of the counselor because "he really meant what he just prayed," signing the conversion card, and being presented to the church as one who has just prayed the sinner's prayer. God even saves some of these folks, the "means" not withstanding!

 

But the "means" that we use, and the "means" of Catholicism don't mean the same thing, no pun intended.

When I talked about means that manipulative, I was referring to things that designed to manipulate people's emotions. In that respect, that doesn't even enter into this conversation. Finney was a heretic in his theology, and believed that revival and God's Spirit could be brought down by certains means. That was manipulative. I don't think Finney is that controversial in most orthodox circles. But that's another conversation.

If a Catholic understands taht the sacraments are signs and symbols, then he disagree with the Catholic church because the church teaches that the are ex opere operato. That is distinctly different from what we believe about those things. They are not effective in themselves.

 

Phil. 1:15-18, "Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice."

 

Larry, you cannot pull "ex opere operator" out of context and then use it against Catholics. The Catechism clearly states that the sacraments are only efficacious because of the Holy Spirit and only to those who are disposed to receive the sacraments in faith. The sacraments are not effective in themselves if the conditions the Catechism puts on them is understood. You need to concede that point.

 

gb,

Amen.