Are All Roman Catholics Going to Enter the Kingdom of God?

[Solo]

Will all Roman Catholics enter the Kingdom of God because they are members of the Roman Catholic Church? Why or why not? Please provide scriptural evidence for your belief, and please be respectful.

Thanks.

 

[McQuacks]

Jesus says that He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, that no one can come to the Father except by Him, and that He is the Resurrection and the Life. So therefore I believe that it is through Him and Him only that we can reach heaven - through faith in Him. John 3:16.
So my belief based on what Jesus has said is that it's not what church you belong to that matters. You can go to a Methodist or Presbyterian church and find someone who does not have a personal relationship with Jesus and go to a Catholic church and find someone who does, or vice versa. It's not the church/denomination that matters in God's eyes - it's the heart and where it's at with the Lord, whether it has accepted Him as Lord and Savior as He calls us to in His Word.
There certainly are Catholics who believe that (me being one of them), and I know that there are some on this board as well.
-McQ 8-)

 

[thessalonian]

In answer to your question Solo, we do not believe in OCAS (once Catholic Always Saved). We do not believe in Eternal Security and Catholics (as all Christians) can fall from grace.

McQuacks,

Your sounding a bit relativist. A bit like Billy Graham (if you read the thread that kinda ended abruptly when I posted that Billy was not universalism). So the question is what truths set us free? What list of truths are the ones that we must hold to?

 

[francisdesales]

my belief based on what Jesus has said is that it's not what church you belong to that matters

Jesus never made any mention about "churches". There is only ONE community of God, ONE people.

Before you jump to conclusions, that does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church IS the People of God. Vatican 2 was clear on this, saying that the People of God SUBSISTS in the Roman Catholic Church (rather than ...IS the Roman Catholic Church). What this means, in effect, is that everything necessary for salvation can be found in the teachings and life of the Roman Catholic Church. Whether a person utilizes the gifts that Christ has given mankind through the Church or not, that's another story.

Thus, ALL Roman Catholics will not enter heaven. The following verses are for those Catholics who think that going to Mass is enough:

When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all [ye] workers of iniquity. Luke 13: 25-27

Partaking in the Eucharist will not be enough. One must have "...faith working in love" to enter the Kingdom. cf Gal 5:6

It's not the church/denomination that matters in God's eyes - it's the heart and where it's at with the Lord, whether it has accepted Him as Lord and Savior as He calls us to in His Word

One can only wonder what is in the heart of a person who rejects the only Church that has been in existence for 2000 years, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. (Note, I didn't say "Roman Catholic"). Jesus doesn't take kindly to those who rejects the Apostles, His messengers and witnesses of the teachings that Christ wanted taught. Granted, some may be ignorant of the reality of the Church, refuting something that we might call a "strawman" called Catholicism. But those who KNOW what Catholicism is, and reject it, are in danger of losing their eternal salvation, no matter how good they think they are or their "relationship" with Christ is.

Regards

 

[thessalonian]

The story of the faithful servant who became unfaithful servant in Luke 12 is applicable as well.

47: And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating.
48: But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

Catholics are more accountable to the great grace we have been given. If we do not live up to it we will be judged at a stricter level.

Blessings

 

[francisdesales]

Catholics are more accountable to the great grace we have been given. If we do not live up to it we will be judged at a stricter level

True. Wasn't it St. John Chrysostom that said "the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops and priests"? God allows it to bring some good out of it, no doubt.


he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. Mat 18:6, cf Mk 9:42

Regards

 

[McQuacks]

McQuacks,

Your sounding a bit relativist. A bit like Billy Graham (if you read the thread that kinda ended abruptly when I posted that Billy was not universalism). So the question is what truths set us free? What list of truths are the ones that we must hold to?

Well, I definitely did not intend to sound like a relativist. But I follow the Bible first and foremost, and like the verses that I quoted say, Jesus is the way. He's the truth, as He claimed to be. I think what He meant by saying that was that the truth that every human soul is longing for, the truth of why we are here, our purpose, how to get to heaven, is all found in Him, in what He said, in the teachings that He gave us, because He is God. Do you mean what truths must we hold to in order to enter heaven, to be saved? I believe those would be that 1. Jesus is God (as the Catholic church teaches). 2. That He is the Savior, the Messiah Who was to come (as the Catholic church teaches). 3. That in order to get to heaven we must have faith in Him and Him only, and what He accomplished for us on the cross and resurrection (as I believe the Catholic church believes, but is not quite as expressive about as the Protestant churches). Those are the truths that we must hold to, that Jesus taught.
As francisdesales said,

Jesus never made any mention about "churches". There is only ONE community of God, ONE people.

Nope, Jesus never did make any mention about churches. To Him it wasn't the church that mattered, it was the state of the heart.

What this means, in effect, is that everything necessary for salvation can be found in the teachings and life of the Roman Catholic Church.

And I agree with that. I believe that in the Catholic doctrine you can find all of the teachings for salvation that I listed above (that Jesus is God, that He is the Christ, and that He is the way to salvation). I have no problem with that. What I do disagree with is when our Catholic doctrine takes the place of the inspired word of God. And I guess that's a whole other debate in itself.
-McQ 8-)

 

[thessalonian]

Those are the truths that we must hold to.

I have run in to various lists of things we must believe to be saved. I see yours does not include the trinity or virgin birth. There are lists of 20 and lists of 1 (just believe), lists of 6 and 10. Some say the Bible contains everything you need to know for salvation. What makes your list the right one? By what authority do you claim that only the parts of the Bible that support your list are neccessary and the rest are superfolous? Does error detract from salvation in any way?

Lot's of problems with lists. Sorry to raise them.

What I do disagree with is when our Catholic doctrine takes the place of the inspired word of God.

No, what you don't like is when Catholic interpretation of scripture counters yours, which you have elevated to the Word of God. Paul tells us "hold fast to the traditions you have recieved, whether BY WORD OF MOUTH or in writing from us. Now nowhere in scripture does scirpture equate scripture with the Word of God. Why? Becuase one must not only have the scriptures to have the Word of God but he must also have the correct understanding of the scriptures contained in the Oral Teachings of the Catholic Church that have been passed on for 2000 years by the Holy Spirit working in and through the Catholic Church. A mormon believes a verse in Corinthians justifies baptizing dead people. He has the scripture but does he have the word of God? I would hope you will say no. That should adequately illustrate the point.

 

[McQuacks]

True, there are lots of lists. And I have problems personally with those who say, "Just believe." I think in itself, accepting that Jesus is God acknowledges the trinity (at least at a starting point). Most people who don't believe in the trinity believe that Jesus is a god, not really the final authority, so they rarely hold to what He said concerning salvation to begin with. But I think that if you accept Jesus as God, the Son of God in human flesh, as the Bible teaches, then you will accept what He has to say concerning salvation.
Either way, I think you need to back it up with scripture. And scripture does not leave us blind on this issue. John 3:16 is definitely the most quoted. But there is also Romans 10:9-10, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, John 11:25, John 5:24-25. I think just from those few verses we can see that 1. Faith in Jesus is needed. 2. Faith that He is the Chirst, Lord, and God is needed. 3. Faith in His death and resurrection is needed.
I think if you acknowledge that Jesus is God, God in human flesh, you are acknowledging the trinity as welll as the virgin birth. If you deny either one of those it's pretty hard to believe that Jesus is God and the way to salvation.
I don't completely count works out either. In fact I actually like how the Catholic church emphasizes working your faith out, and not just "believing." And I love the passage in James where he stresses the fact that faith without works is dead. If you truly believe and have faith in God, then you need to work that faith out to show that it's true.

No, what you don't like is when Catholic interpretation of scripture counters yours, which you have elevated to the Word of God.

Sorry, I didn't see your edit until now. First, I would like to emphasize that I am in no way judging you, and I would appreciate it if you would not make statements that come across as judging me, as if I put my view of the Bible before seeking God's view. I find that offensive...I am in no way intending to judge you! I only want to have a friendly discussion pertaining to our Catholic faith, as fellow Christians and Catholics. If you think I am like other protestants and judging your faith, I am not. I am in no position to judge your heart. In fact, I have appreciated many of your posts here. So I would appreciate it if you would not make judgements pertaining to my faith.

I'd very much like to continue this discussion, and I plan on answering the rest of your post soon.
-McQ 8-)

 

[francisdesales]

To Him it wasn't the church that mattered, it was the state of the heart.

My brother, there is no need for such a separation. From your post, you sound very open to Christ and His teachings, but perhaps you have been misguided by those who attempt to separate Christ from His Body, the Church.

It is within this Church, this community, where we live out our faith. From within the heart, we love our neighbors as ourselves. And within the Liturgical celebration of worship, we experience the Risen Christ - not merely as an historical figure, but as One who comes to us and empowers us to live the Gospel. One's moral code is linked with this worship of God with the rest of His Community (both those on earth, and those in heaven).

What I do disagree with is when our Catholic doctrine takes the place of the inspired word of God.

Catholic Doctrine is merely the Community of God, the Church, coming to an understanding of God's Word given to the Apostles, whether orally or in written form. God guides the entire Church in its lived life, which we call "Tradition". This lived life includes the Liturgy, the Sacraments, Prayer, interpretation of Scriptures and our Morality. As a Body, the Church meditates and, guided by the Holy Spirit, makes definitions of our faith - Professions of our beliefs to the rest of the world. As God chose a people set apart in Israel, God continues to set apart a people from the world which now is CATHOLIC (UNIVERSAL). Doctrine does NOT override the Scriptures, but lovingly take them into account, explaining for the world the meaning of salvation and God's love for mankind.

An example of this development of doctrine is the Trinity, which you say you believe in. This portion of our faith is IMPLIED in Scriptures. It is NOT explicitly stated. From Scriptures alone, we do not find the relationship between Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit and how they interact or are related. Thus, the Church, through its lived life of worship, prayer and faith, pores over the Tradition (both oral and written) given to it by Jesus and lived by our fathers in faith. With the guidance of the Spirit, the entire Body DEFINES - hundreds of years later - what the Church has "always" believed, but had not put into words. Obviously, none of this is AGAINST what the Scriptures teach. It is merely coming to a greater understanding of what God has said through His Word, Jesus Christ.

Remember, Christianity is a religion cenered on a Person, Jesus Christ, not a book.

Regards

 

[thessalonian]

True, there are lots of lists. And I have problems personally with those who say, "Just believe." I think in itself, accepting that Jesus is God acknowledges the trinity (at least at a starting point). Most people who don't believe in the trinity believe that Jesus is a god, not really the final authority, so they rarely hold to what He said concerning salvation to begin with. But I think that if you accept Jesus as God, the Son of God in human flesh, as the Bible teaches, then you will accept what He has to say concerning salvation.

Not sure what you mean here. Oneness types believe Jesus is God. Yet deny the trinity. On the opposite end of the spectrum there are a few tritheists who believe Jesus is God. Though these are very rare. They do hold Jesus as God but as a lesser God. Of course this is problematic concerning the infinity of God.

Either way, I think you need to back it up with scripture. And scripture does not leave us blind on this issue. John 3:16 is definitely the most quoted. But there is also Romans 10:9-10, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, John 11:25, John 5:24-25. I think just from those few verses we can see that 1. Faith in Jesus is needed. 2. Faith that He is the Chirst, Lord, and God is needed. 3. Faith in His death and resurrection is needed.
I think if you acknowledge that Jesus is God, God in human flesh, you are acknowledging the trinity as welll as the virgin birth. If you deny either one of those it's pretty hard to believe that Jesus is God and the way to salvation.

Not for oneness types. They acknowledge Jesus as God in the flesh. They acknowledge the virgin birth (at least most do). They believe Jesus is the way to salvation. But they deny the trinity and think they can back it up with the Bible.

I don't completely count works out either. In fact I actually like how the Catholic church emphasizes working your faith out, and not just "believing." And I love the passage in James where he stresses the fact that faith without works is dead. If you truly believe and have faith in God, then you need to work that faith out to show that it's true.

If works are not counted out then they either are or are not neccessary for salvation. Those who count them out have a false list of what is neccessary for salvation or is yours false.. What you are doing here is broadening out your list. Now in John 6 Jesus says "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you". How does this fit your list? It has to be in their somehow don't you agree. And it must include "my flesh is true food" "my blood is true drink". If it is mearly believing (I think it is that an more, i.e. the Eucharist) then it is showing a depth of belief. Thus we must exapand our list to other passages that flesh out (pun intended) the level of belief that is required.

[quote:09c86]No, what you don't like is when Catholic interpretation of scripture counters yours, which you have elevated to the Word of God.

Sorry, I didn't see your edit until now. First, I would like to emphasize that I am in no way judging you, and I would appreciate it if you would not make statements that come across as judging me, as if I put my view of the Bible before seeking God's view. [/quote:09c86]

Well from my perspective I am juding your view, i.e. the fallacy of it and not you as to your eternal damnation. I either have to deny that the Eucharist is Christ's flesh and blood which is my biblical interpretation consistent with history and scripture and is the Catholic teaching, that you will claim is the Church putting itself above the Bible, or I have to acknowledge a relativistic sort of well your view that the Church puts itself above scirpture is true. Catholicism fits with scripture. It does not elevate itself above scripture. I am sorry you feel judged but that is the only conclusion I can draw.

I find that offensive...I am in no way intending to judge you!

Sorry you see it that way. I judge error not eternity. I leave that up to God. If you want to take your chances on your list of what is neccessary I can't help that. But it is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth and we are not to trust our own understanding (prv. 3:5). You may sincerely think that your views on the Bible and your list is correct. You may believe I'm okay and your okay (by your list) But that matters little in eternity.

I only want to have a friendly discussion pertaining to our Catholic faith, as fellow Christians and Catholics. If you think I am like other protestants and judging your faith, I am not. I am in no position to judge your heart. In fact, I have appreciated many of your posts here. So I would appreciate it if you would not make judgements pertaining to my faith.

I don't and neither am I able to judge your heart. I only judge truth, proclaim what I know it to be, point out inconsistencies to others when I see it in their thinking, and let the chips fall. You may well have stong faith in Christ. I don't know what he has given you as far as understanding. In my view you have some gaps.

I'd very much like to continue this discussion, and I plan on answering the rest of your post soon.
-McQ 8-)

I enjoy the discussion as well. Please try not to take such offense.

Blessings

 

[McQuacks]

Hello Thessalonian and francisdesales.

I think it’s clear we all have our lists. ;) I guess the debate comes down to which “list†is based on God’s truth, and I’m glad all three of us are eager and willing to find it. Where we disagree is to where the truth for salvation is contained, and I don’t think any of us see our opinion on that changing anytime soon.

Now nowhere in scripture does scirpture equate scripture with the Word of God. Why? Becuase one must not only have the scriptures to have the Word of God but he must also have the correct understanding of the scriptures contained in the Oral Teachings of the Catholic Church that have been passed on for 2000 years by the Holy Spirit working in and through the Catholic Church. A mormon believes a verse in Corinthians justifies baptizing dead people. He has the scripture but does he have the word of God? I would hope you will say no. That should adequately illustrate the point.

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:16-17.
The definition of scripture here is God-breathed. And I think this applies to the New Testement as well, to the disciples and apostles who were in contact with the Lord and inspired by His Spirit.

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeitâ€â€just as it has taught you, remain in him.

1 John 2:27.
True, a source of perspective like Tradition on interpreting Scripture can help in some cases, but ultimately, it has to be the Holy Spirit that teaches us, and if and when tradition conflicts with His Word, I think we need to evaluate.

Paul’s verse on tradition’s context:

“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.†2 Thessalonians 2:15.

First, this verse addresses salvation. According to Paul we are saved by the “sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth,†and we are called to this “through the gospel†and it is by this that we share in Jesus’ glory.
I think in the second bolded part, Paul is addressing those he has been teaching and visiting, those he has shared the gospel with through word of mouth and also letter (as we read here). These people were in a unique situation where they were actually in contact in person with the disciples and Paul, who would speak with them. So he’s telling them to hold onto the “tradition†(teaching) that he has passed onto them, whether orally (as in when he visited and talked to them) or written (when he wrote it in his letters, which we consider to be inspired by God and written by his authority as an apostle).

The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (1. 2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way.

http://www.carm.org/catholic/tradition.htm

Not sure what you mean here. Oneness types believe Jesus is God. Yet deny the trinity. On the opposite end of the spectrum there are a few tritheists who believe Jesus is God. Though these are very rare. They do hold Jesus as God but as a lesser God. Of course this is problematic concerning the infinity of God.

What I meant by my comment on the Trinity and salvation was, if you truly believe that Jesus is God, the Son of God, as the Bible teaches, then you will acknowledge that He is completely God, not somehow another manifestation of God as Oneness teaches. Ultimately Oneness teaching denies that Jesus was completely God incarnate, which is a necessary belief in order for salvation, for if God did not offer Himself as the atonement, it’s void.

Not for oneness types. They acknowledge Jesus as God in the flesh. They acknowledge the virgin birth (at least most do). They believe Jesus is the way to salvation. But they deny the trinity and think they can back it up with the Bible.

Jesus did not want to have to go to the cross and endure the suffering, but he submitted not to his own will, but the will of the Father. If this is so, then how can Jesus, who is the Father in flesh (and therefore, they are one person) have two separate and opposing wills on the same subject at the same time?
The response is generally that Jesus was fully a man and that in his humanity he was not the everlasting Father. But if this is so, then what was Jesus if not God incarnate? If He is not fully God incarnate, then the atonement is void since it isn't God making the sacrifice but a mere man. This is the danger of oneness theology. Ultimately, it denies the true incarnation of God.

http://www.carm.org/oneness/wills.htm

An example of this development of doctrine is the Trinity, which you say you believe in. This portion of our faith is IMPLIED in Scriptures. It is NOT explicitly stated. From Scriptures alone, we do not find the relationship between Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit and how they interact or are related.

Good point. The only place I would disagree (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) is pertaining to the last part, where you mentioned that from the scriptures we do not find the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that the Trinity defines. I think what the church did was honestly evaluate the scriptures and and in some cases early Christians beliefs, and came to a conclusion that what scripture supports is the idea of the Trinity. The Trinity is really just a way of defining a concept that is already contained in the Bible. I don't think it's something that is separate from the Bible, but simply a wise and eloquent way of defining what we see in Scripture.

Remember, Christianity is a religion cenered on a Person, Jesus Christ, not a book.

True. But I think He gave us His inspired Word for a reason - so we can know Him and learn about Him.

I know that we’ll end up agreeing to disagree most likely, but before ending the conversation I just want to thank you guys for your though-provoking posts and for considering mine as well. Oh, and I’m a girl. ;)
-McQ 8-)

 

[francisdesales]

I will only address your replies to me personally. I will let Thessalonian speak for himself...

...you mentioned that from the scriptures we do not find the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that the Trinity defines. I think what the church did was honestly evaluated the scriptures and early Christians beliefs and came to a conclusion that what scripture supports is the idea of the Trinity. The Trinity is really just a name for a concept that is already contained in the Bible. I don't think it's something that is separate from the Bible, but simply a wise and eloquent way of defining what we see in Scripture.

We do not have a clear definition from Scripture alone on the relationship between Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit. For example, the Arians used the SCRIPTURE to say that Jesus was NOT God. The Scriptures can be interpreted in many different ways. A passage that talks about the subordination of Jesus Christ to the Father can be taken to mean that the Two are not of the same essence, since something of the same essence is not subordinate to itself. The Church, however, using the Apostolic Tradition (in this case, meaning HOW we interpret Scriptures), said that these "subordinate" verses were to be applied to the fact that the Logos became flesh while the Father did not. It was not meant to imply that the Son's nature was inferior, but that His mission was different.

Thus, when the Church defines what it believes, it will use Scriptures and THEIR understanding of it, based on what was handed down by generations passed, guided by the Holy Spirit. The point is that Scripture alone is not self-interpretative. This is true on numerous issues.

Remember, Christianity is a religion cenered on a Person, Jesus Christ, not a book.

True. But I think He gave us His inspired Word for a reason - so we can know Him and learn about Him

Of course! But don't you think God wants us to interpret it correctly, as well? Take a simple example:

I did not say you stole the money...

What does that mean?

It can mean several things:

I did not say you stole the money, someone else said you did.
I did not say you stole the money, I wrote a letter to someone that you did.
I did not say you stole the money, I said someone else stole the money.
I did not say you stole the money, I said you borrowed it.
I did not say you stole the money, I said you stole the jewelry.


One simple sentence can mean quite a lot... Scripture is also NOT self-interpretative. One glance at Protestanism and its internal disagreement - people of good will who claim to have the Spirit of God guiding them to read a verse and coming up with TOTALLY different interpretations - leads me to believe that Scripture MUST be interpreted by the Church, the author of it.

Sorry if I called you a "he".

Regards