The Catholics are not lost

[DHK]

Based on the red you're saying

1) Some can enter the kingdom of heaven, where they will have the 'opportunity' to be saved? You can be in heaven, and not be saved? And by 'opportunity' you mean it's not certain, so they can end up getting kicked out of heaven?

2) And what will be the criteria for their salvation?

I never said anything about being in heaven without being saved. Where do you get that from? When Christ comes for "his own" that is, the Jews, it will be on earth, at the end of the Tribulation Period. That has nothing to do with heaven (except that Christ is coming from heaven). The entire scene is on earth. The Millennial Kingdom is on earth. The Jews that enter the Kingdom will enter it from the earth, along with those who are called the sheep.

The criteria for their "salvation" is whether or not they have been friendly to the Jews. It is not speaking of a spiritual salvation. It is speaking of an entrance to the Kingdom.

 

[mrtumnus]

I never said anything about being in heaven without being saved. Where do you get that from? When Christ comes for "his own" that is, the Jews, it will be on earth, at the end of the Tribulation Period. That has nothing to do with heaven (except that Christ is coming from heaven). The entire scene is on earth. The Millennial Kingdom is on earth. The Jews that enter the Kingdom will enter it from the earth, along with those who are called the sheep.

The criteria for their "salvation" is whether or not they have been friendly to the Jews. It is not speaking of a spiritual salvation. It is speaking of an entrance to the Kingdom.

I got that because you said "the kingdom of heaven". Is the "kingdom of heaven" not heaven?

And then what happens to them concerning eternity once they're in the 'kingdom' that isn't heaven?

And this kingdom is the same thing as eternal life, but it isn't heaven?

 

[DHK]

I got that because you said "the kingdom of heaven". Is the "kingdom of heaven" not heaven?

And then what happens to them concerning eternity once they're in the 'kingdom' that isn't heaven?

And this kingdom is the same thing as eternal life, but it isn't heaven?

The Kingdom that I was referring to and that Jesus was referring to in those events in Matthew was the Millennial Kingdom on earth, often referred to as the Kingdom of Heaven, especially in the Book of Matthew. That is very much different than Heaven itself. The Jews look for the Kingdom--the Kingdom of Heaven: one thousand years of the reign of Christ on earth, when Christ Himself will literally sit on the Throne of David; when the curse will be lifted and the lion will lie with the lamb, etc.

 

[Matt Black]

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus is addressing NATIONAL salvation, not personal salvation. This is addressing the Judgment of the Nations. The NATIONS are being judged for their attitude towards God's people (Israel). This occurs when Christ returns after the 7 year tribulation period.

Whaaaat?! That's one of the most twisted views of this passage I've ever come across. There's absolutely no theological merit for that interpretation.

Try again

 

[Matt Black]

In my view, it's because thay are indeed necessary, just as faith is. There are too many scriptures that indicate otherwise.

However, that doesn't mean we merit or earn our salvation by works, and I've never understood why some insist it does.

If we say that faith and works are necessary for salvation, why does that translate to 'earning our salvation by works'?

If we say faith alone is necessary, why doesn't that then translate that we "earn our salvation by faith'??

Fact is, we are saved by grace alone, not by our faith or our works. Yet both faith and works are necessary responses to grace as scripture shows in many places. Just because faith is necessary, this doesn't mean we 'earn' our salvation that way. Just because works are necessary, this doesn't mean we 'earn' our salvation that way either.

That's why when Paul says that "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." he is sure to point out that faith is not from ourselves either, lest we end up thinking we're saved by our faith.

I've read much in this thread (mostly incorrect) but Catholic theology is that we are saved by grace alone. Period. Both faith and works are necessary responses to God's grace. This is quite scriptural. After all, Paul also says that "the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love". This is why the Bible gives us a definition of a 'useless faith' (one without works) and a 'saving faith' (one with works). I am always amazed when people take all the verses that speak about faith and then apply the Biblical definition of a 'useless faith' when interpreting their meaning.

:thumbs: :applause:

 

[Matt Black]

Two latin words: non sequitor.

It has nothing to do with this topic.

It is foundational to this topic.

It has nothing to do with salvation; is not speaking of salvation.

It has everything to do with salvation - the wording is quite clear

It is wrong to pull that parable out of its context.

No one has here. We're just trying as good Christians should to follow our Lord and Saviour. Believing in His words is, for me at least, pretty darn important on that front.

Remember that it is a parable.

Yes. And? Does that negate it's soteriological truth? I don't think so...

And whether or not you like or agree with dispensations, it is not even speaking of this time and period or this dispensation, but describes another event in another time period or dispensation.

I'm not a dispy so that won't wash. What is clear, whether you're a dispy or not, is that it speaks of future judgement for us all, based on what we've done.

That is what makes the parable totally non-applicable to our day and age.

So, OK, fine, do what you like now and hang the consequences in this life and try and forget about the Sheep and the Goats scene. Sounds like a type of credit-card morality and spirituality to me; thanks but no thanks - I prefer to build my faith on something more concrete than plastic.

It is the equivalent of saying that because God killed an animal and put coats made of skin on Adam and Eve then he must do the same for us. That was a work too. But a different story; a different time; a different purpose. You can't take Scripture out of context and make it say something that it is not saying.

I haven't - what it says is abundantly clear and it's a shame that some people are closing their eyes to God's word in this way.

 

[Matt Black]

"Salvation is of the Jews."
Christ was of Jewish descent. The context is speaking of "his brethren, the Jewish nation." In that context this event must be interpreted.

So does that mean that Oskar Schindler (notorious womaniser, not a Christian as far as we know, but saved hundreds of Jews from the shoah) will go to Heaven?

I reiterate - I'm no dispensationalist and am agnostic at best on the whole topic of millenialism; the Scriptures on this issue are manifestly unclear and apparently contradictory at times with each 'party' citing their own pet Scriptures to 'prove' their points (see the Baptist only fora from time to time by way of demonstration), so I stick with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan "and His Kingdom will have no end". Therefore, since this interpretation (of Matt 25) is based on the novel scheme of dispensationalism, I don't accept it.

 

[mrtumnus]

The Kingdom that I was referring to and that Jesus was referring to in those events in Matthew was the Millennial Kingdom on earth, often referred to as the Kingdom of Heaven, especially in the Book of Matthew. That is very much different than Heaven itself. The Jews look for the Kingdom--the Kingdom of Heaven: one thousand years of the reign of Christ on earth, when Christ Himself will literally sit on the Throne of David; when the curse will be lifted and the lion will lie with the lamb, etc.

And then what happens to these 'sheep' once the 1000 year reign is over? How is their eternity spent?

 

[David Lamb]

Whaaaat?! That's one of the most twisted views of this passage I've ever come across. There's absolutely no theological merit for that interpretation.

Try again

I agree, Matt. As I understand it, the Greek word translated in Matthew 24 as "nations" does not mean "nations" in the sense of "countries". Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world. Paul wrote to the Christians in Galatia, many of whom were not natural descendants of Abraham:

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:27-29)


​

Jesus told some of the Jews that they were not His sheep:

24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, "How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." (John 10:24-27)


​

And in Philippians 3, Paul, having listed his absolute "Jewishness" ("circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin"), he says:

7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ. (Philippians 3:7-8)



​

I agree with the words I found at http://www.theologue.org/SecondComingRaptureAndRevelation-TAdkins..html:

We should quickly acknowledge that there is no such thing as a “sheep nation” or “goat nation.” Jesus gave His life for men out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation. Some of all nations will be saved by God's grace. It would be impossible for entire nations to be cast into hell’s everlasting punishment without casting in certain ones who are redeemed, converted people. The word ‘nations’ must be understood to refer to all individuals of all the various nations of the earth, and from all the ages of human history. After all, that's what nations are, citizens, people! These, all, will be brought before the throne of the Lamb to be judged. And this judgment will be a righteous judgment of individuals, not a collective judgment based on appearances or on the political wrangling of the nation's various former leaders.

Neither America, England, Japan, nor Luxembourg will be collectively judged as righteous for having political policies showing excessive favor to the modern nation of Israel. While it is certain that God judges whole societies with temporal judgments because of cultural sins, no nation will be corporately judged regarding the state of its citizens’ souls in “the last day.” The whole concept of a national judgment, binding entire nations hand and foot and casting them into a never-ending hell, has sprang from the system of dispensationalism, not from the Bible.

​

 

[Matt Black]

Indeed; a correct reading would render it as 'people(s)'

 

[gb93433]

And we must remember that James said that faith without works is dead. That is a faith that does not result in good works is not a faith at all. Works does not save, but neither does a deat faith that brings about no good works.

As I have said in other posts, "Show me your works and I will show you your faith, or lack thereof."

You cannot read into James what it does not say. James is comparing a saving faith and a creedal faith. The Jews had a creedal faith while Christinas had a saving faith. From a saving faith comes good works. If a person claims to be saved and has no works then his faith is dead. He is not saying that when a person has good works it shows that a person is a Christian. Good works can come from Satan worshippers. However they are not saved.

 

[Matt Black]

And what's the difference between the two?

 

[DHK]

Whaaaat?! That's one of the most twisted views of this passage I've ever come across. There's absolutely no theological merit for that interpretation.

Try again

First I don't want to try again, and I was reluctant to try to explain it in the first place for precisely the "known" reactions that it would bring.
But this one thing we can agree on: it is an eschatological event. And being so, I don't believe it has a bearing in this conversation. Let's stick with Scripture that are not speaking of future events and are not parabolic in nature. Jesus was speaking of his Second Coming.
That is not what this thread is about. What on earth does that have to do with "The Catholics are not Lost"?

 

[Matt Black]

It's quite germane to the thread and its question for this simple reason: it is claimed by many evangelicals that Catholics are 'lost' since they attach some soteriological importance to 'works' as well as faith. The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats is important since, read in conjunction with James 2:12-26 and with the resurrection of the dead and the judgement of Rev 21-22 (and thus not taking it as a stand-alone passage as you earlier alleged but rather marrying both the eschatological and soteriological nature of the Parable) it puts forth at least some of the criteria by which that judgement will be performed, namely whether one has performed works of charity, and therefore is critical evidence, from the lips the Jesus Himself, that faith alone is insufficient for salvation, and that therefore the Catholics (on that theological front at least) might not be quite as leftfield as those many evangelicals would like to think.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It's quite germane to the thread and its question for this simple reason: it is claimed by many evangelicals that Catholics are 'lost' since they attach some soteriological importance to 'works' as well as faith. The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats is important since, read in conjunction with James 2:12-26 and with the resurrection of the dead and the judgement of Rev 21-22 (and thus not taking it as a stand-alone passage as you earlier alleged but rather marrying both the eschatological and soteriological nature of the Parable) it puts forth at least some of the criteria by which that judgement will be performed, namely whether one has performed works of charity, and therefore is critical evidence, from the lips the Jesus Himself, that faith alone is insufficient for salvation, and that therefore the Catholics (on that theological front at least) might not be quite as leftfield as those many evangelicals would like to think.

You are quite right in your analysis. We of the evangelical wing of Christians have, in large part, neglected this view in favor of the dip them and drop them approach. I have become aware, as I have grown older, that the more conservative and fundamental or our brethren the more they seem to dislike mankind in general and those who disagree with them on every jot and tiddle in particular. In fact, I have come to realize they take a very liberal approach to the Bible in attempting to force it to say what they want it to say. In other words, they preach to the Bible instead of letting the Bible preach to them.

The Bible is pretty clear that we will be judged as we judge others. That should give all of us pause in how we go about judging others. I believe if we took seriously the example of Christ in his approach to people then harsh judgements would be few and far between.

I'll duck now.

 

[Matt Black]

I'd get your coat as well!

 

[mrtumnus]

Part of the question here seems to me exactly what is meant by 'salvation'. For example, the SBC statement of faith say that:

In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification.


It seems to me using this as a guide, when most people say they have been 'saved' they are really referring to having been 'justified', because I don't think they see themselves as being sanctified or glorified at this point in time.

So am I way off base here?

 

[Amy.G]

It's quite germane to the thread and its question for this simple reason: it is claimed by many evangelicals that Catholics are 'lost' since they attach some soteriological importance to 'works' as well as faith. The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats is important since, read in conjunction with James 2:12-26 and with the resurrection of the dead and the judgement of Rev 21-22 (and thus not taking it as a stand-alone passage as you earlier alleged but rather marrying both the eschatological and soteriological nature of the Parable) it puts forth at least some of the criteria by which that judgement will be performed, namely whether one has performed works of charity, and therefore is critical evidence, from the lips the Jesus Himself, that faith alone is insufficient for salvation, and that therefore the Catholics (on that theological front at least) might not be quite as leftfield as those many evangelicals would like to think.

I agree with you in the sense that our faith will result in good works. So, in a sense, you could say that having faith + works is justification, because without works, you have shown that you did not put your faith in Christ, but it was a vain, worthless (faith in something else) faith. But you are not saved by good works. The works are a result of our love for Christ.
So faith and works are inseparable, but works do not save.

Jhn 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

If one has no good works, it is proof that he does not love Christ. First comes love, then comes works.

But the works do not save. We are not justified by our works, but by the work of Christ.

We may all be saying the same thing, but in a different way. Possible?

.

 

[Matt Black]

No, I don't think so; I think the SBC, in common with most Protestant denominations, would view justification and regeneration as part of the same 'event', with justification being forensically imputed, sanctification as being a like-long process, and glorification being post-death (quasi-Purgatory??); in Orthodox terms, 'sanctification' would be inter vivos and 'glorification' post-mortem theosis, I guess.

[ETA - above is reply to Mr Tumnus; cross-post with AmyG, with whom I am inclined to agree re 'talking past each other' - I think that was one of the things that the Joint Declaration on Justification agreed by Catholics and Lutherans acknowledged]

 

[Amy.G]

No, I don't think so; I think the SBC, in common with most Protestant denominations, would view justification and regeneration as part of the same 'event', with justification being forensically imputed, sanctification as being a like-long process, and glorification being post-death (quasi-Purgatory??); in Orthodox terms, 'sanctification' would be inter vivos and 'glorification' post-mortem theosis, I guess.

You lost me there. :laugh:

I think sanctification is a life long process because scripture says:
Hbr 2:11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified [are] all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Hbr 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

We are not perfected at the moment of salvation.