# Most Evangelicals are "Catholics in practice"?



## buggy (Oct 13, 2010)

Okay, I encountered an ex-reformed Anglo-Catholic guy whom I have the feeling may cross the Tiber in the future. He's deep into philosophy and raised some issues and questions I find interesting. 

He says that most Evangelicals today are Protestant on the outside but are in reality functional Catholics - they only don't like Rome's external worship but actually agree with Catholicism that works play a part in salvation. 

He argues that this is true because he sees many evangelicals are "fruit inspectors" just like how a RC priest scrutinizes a person who goes to confession - they believe that actually have the right (instead of God) to judge whether someone is saved based on their external conduct - do they go to church, do they read the Bible etc etc. In addition, he also says that there is no semantical difference between Rome's view on salvation and the traditional Evangelical view that "good works prove one's faith" since good works play a part in validating one's spiritual condition. 

Any answers to these claims?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 13, 2010)

He's right.

It's the natural religion of those born in Adam to reject grace alone.

His view only echoes what Christ had to fight against with the Pharisees or what Paul had to fight against throughout his career. Men cannot see the Kingdom of God unless they are born again.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Oct 13, 2010)

He's right. Several years ago, a group of us went door-to-door near Greenville, SC. We met many professing Protestant Christians (some on their way to church activities) who talked about good works as the way to salvation. I know our team never heard a biblical exposition of the gospel from any of them; I can't remember if other teams did.


----------



## Staphlobob (Oct 13, 2010)

buggy said:


> good works play a part in validating one's spiritual condition.



That's an interesting phrase because of what it doesn't say, i.e., "good works is essential to salvation." Can good works be a sign pointing to the character of one's spiritual condition, but not their salvation? Can good works, using John 15:5 as a basis, be evidence, but not proof, of one's salvation? Yesterday I heard a very good talk on the 12 Steps (NA & AA & others use them) based on Luke 17:11-19. The first 3 steps are meaningless without God's response. And the evidence of that response is found in the 4th step. 

What did Jesus say in Matthew 7:15-29? Rome, and those who follow her, are to be found in v.15 and in vv.21-23. But what about the rest of the verses? What did the Reformers, and especially the Puritan, say about them? 

Anyway, I agree that most "Evangelicals" have their family Bibles on the tables with enough dust on them so that one could write the word "damnation" in it (thank you Spurgeon). Which means they neither know - and probably don't care - about salvation by grace alone through faith alone. And not knowing the first thing about Scripture, they don't know anything about theology. 

However, I would say that if one is Roman then the Bible is completely unnecessary. One merely listens to what the magisterium says in their "official" interpretation, and then does that. A "pray, pay, obey" approach to things.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Oct 13, 2010)

Staphlobob said:


> buggy said:
> 
> 
> > good works play a part in validating one's spiritual condition.
> ...



Kevin the same applies to everyone else even some in our Reformed churches. There are plenty of people who merely listen to what the pastor says in their sermon and then tries to follow that. If they are unable then clearly the pastor's interpretation was too extreme and God will understand. So ours is more a _pray, disobey, pay_.


----------



## CharlieJ (Oct 13, 2010)

Regardless of how any given demographic may live, there is a world of difference between Roman and Lutheran/Reformed teaching. Granted, there are some individuals on both sides who have moved theologically toward the other (Anglo-Catholics, Jansenists), but there is a great gulf fixed between Trent and Augsburg/Heidelberg. (Sorry Hans Kung.)


----------



## Scottish Lass (Oct 13, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> Regardless of how any given demographic may live, there is a world of difference between Roman and Lutheran/Reformed teaching. Granted, there are some individuals on both sides who have moved theologically toward the other (Anglo-Catholics, Jansenists), but there is a great gulf fixed between Trent and Augsburg/Heidelberg. (Sorry Hans Kung.)


 
Between the teachings, yes. Between the practices of the laity, not so much.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 13, 2010)

Actually, I find that evangelicals tend to miss the gospel in two main ways, only the first of which makes them functional Catholics in terms of works being necessary for salvation.

The first is works-oriented moralism, where your moral lifestyle makes you one of the acceptable ones and provides a basis for judging yourself and others. God's free grace may be given lip service, but functionally it's seen as a sort of grudging forgiveness on his part, where he'll stay pretty displeased with you unless you're being good at the moment.

The second is a cheap grace that finds hope in religious experience rather than in Christ. The doctrines of grace get distorted so that once you've responded to an altar call, holy living is nice but not really essential for you. This may become therapeutic religion, where the Christian life means finding the right kind of prayer, worship services, teaching and other Jesus stuff that'll make you feel good.

All of us, especially including us reformed folk, are always tempted toward the first. Increasingly, I find the second must also be resisted.


----------



## Berean (Oct 13, 2010)

buggy said:


> he sees many evangelicals are "fruit inspectors"



Love that terminology.


----------



## EricP (Oct 13, 2010)

Recent "mainline" protestant trends in America would support a PINO parallel to CINO--we protestants in northern climes have become casual enough about our lives and religion that we're successfully vying with Catholics in more southern areas in the "old, stale, dead orthodoxy" department. Salvation by works (with a cheery nod to all dedicated followers of Islam) has always been and likely will be, until the trumpets of heaven sound, far more natural and self-satisfying to us fallen sinners than the terrible and humiliating thought that we can do nothing of ourselves to save ourselves--goodness, we have to rely on someone else! One has to wonder whether or not salvation by grace alone is being thundered from North American pulpits the way it ought and has been in the past--pew follows pulpit, no matter what many think. Liberalism is so easy....can't we all just get along?


----------



## Staphlobob (Oct 13, 2010)

SemperEruditio said:


> Kevin the same applies to everyone else even some in our Reformed churches. There are plenty of people who merely listen to what the pastor says in their sermon and then tries to follow that. If they are unable then clearly the pastor's interpretation was too extreme and God will understand. So ours is more a pray, disobey, pay.



You are correct. Sad to say, that's the way things are with so many protestants. I hate to say it, but where I work these ideas are _rampant!!!_ Our library has copies of "The Shack," Rick Warren's opinions are being taught as gospel truth, Tony Evans is adored, T. D. Jakes is the final word on everything. Sad. Very sad.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 13, 2010)

*Quote from Jack*


> The first is works-oriented moralism, where your moral lifestyle makes you one of the acceptable ones and provides a basis for judging yourself and others. God's free grace may be given lip service, but functionally it's seen as a sort of grudging forgiveness on his part, where he'll stay pretty displeased with you unless you're being good at the moment.



There needs to be more emphasis on the fact that the believer is no longer under the law as a covenant of works in some Reformed circles and churches, but that he remains under the law as a rule of life alone; alongside the usual emphasis that the believer is justified by faith alone through grace alone.

*Quote from Buggy*


> he sees many evangelicals are "fruit inspectors" just like how a RC priest scrutinizes a person who goes to confession - they believe that actually have the right (instead of God) to judge whether someone is saved based on their external conduct - do they go to church, do they read the Bible etc etc.



There has to be some fruit inspection, although not too close - e.g. the Parable of the Good and Bad Fish - especially by the elders, because if there appears to be no fruit then the person appears to not be being sanctified, and if it appears that they are not being sanctified then maybe they are not justified. Also the elders are to use loving church discipline and sanctions re grosser offences against the 10C. All these things require great wisdom and discernment on the part of minister and elders. There's no infallibility in this.

More importantly, individual professors of faith - Christians and "Christians" - should be taught about the Marks of Grace, Assurance of Faith, and to inspect their own fruit.


----------



## Rich Koster (Oct 14, 2010)

The fruit inspection that I believe is proper may be summarized as this: the general direction that a person is oriented to. Are they generally heading toward Jesus or always making excuses and running circles around him in an increasingly distant orbit.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 14, 2010)

I think this guy is missing a huge logical point in his argument. To say that two statments which appear to be expressing two different things are said to be only semantically different in the sense that we are saying the same thing in two different ways. This is an especially loved form of argmentation by post-modern christians who believe in euchemenicalism ubove all else. So how does his argument hold up?

When making that claim the person must first show that there is no qualitative difference between the two statements. In this case he might point too the shared phrase "looking at one's fruit to see if one is saved" that both doctrinal communities use or can use. But his argument is true if and only if they are expressing the same idea which they are not, as pointed out in the above posts. What we mean or can mean by that phrase is different from what a RC would mean by the same phrase. The Rformed use the same words but have different meanings than the RCC. Hence there is a qualitative distinction here in that we both may use the same phrase but mean two different things by it. If he is into philosophy tell him he ought to study contemporary language philosophy, especially ordinary language philosophy, he will understand a little better on how to analyze what we say and what it means. Hope that helps in your discussion, remember the two different statements are talking about two different things so they can not be mearly semantically related or explained away.


----------



## cih1355 (Oct 14, 2010)

> In addition, he also says that there is no semantical difference between Rome's view on salvation and the traditional Evangelical view that "good works prove one's faith" since good works play a part in validating one's spiritual condition.



Rome teaches that justification is a process that can be increased by doing good works and that God makes you have your own righteousness so that you can merit in part your salvation. The traditional evangelical view teaches no such thing. The evangelical view says that justification is not a process and that our good works do not contribute to our salvation. Believers do not have their own righteousness; they have the imputed righteousness of Christ. Good works are the evidence of salvation. They do not contribute to our salvation nor do they increase the right standing we have before God.


----------



## dudley (Oct 14, 2010)

Staphlobob said:


> buggy said:
> 
> 
> > good works play a part in validating one's spiritual condition.
> ...



Amen to what Kevin said above and as an ex Roman catholic myself and now a Presbyterian who attends Bible classes weekly at my Presbyterian church and services every Sunday ,I can only say Amen and agree completely when Kevin said: *:"However, I would say that if one is Roman then the Bible is completely unnecessary. One merely listens to what the magisterium says in their "official" interpretation, and then does that. A "pray, pay, obey" approach to things."* 

As an ex Roman Catholic I was attracted to the Presbyterian church and my current congregation because I was looking for a good Bible based Gospel church where I could learn the Gospel, the Good news as Christ intended it to be. 

I actually look forward to church service on Sunday morning now at First Presbyterian and I look forward to the Gospel reading and the sermon either the pastor or associate pastor delivers

Becoming a Presbyterian and a Reformed Protestant and going to First Presbyterian church has sparked a greater interest in the Gospel and scripture than I ever believed would be possible for me. Unfortuantely I am also fiding many cradle Protestants have lost the love for the truths of the Protestant reformation. 

I am a convert to Presbyterianism. I have studied the Protestant Reformation & different branches of Protestantism. I made a decision to become a Presbyterian after studying John Calvin and Reformed theology; I became convinced in the doctrine of Justification by faith alone in Christ alone & the 5 solas of the Reformation. The Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith alone in Christ alone and the 5 solas of the Reformation are the pillars of strength our Christian faith is based on. We are the heirs of the true Gospel and the Good news as Christ intended it. The Protestant Reformers restored that basis which was lost by over 1000 years of Roman catholic distortions of the truth. By the way we as Protestants are “catholic” in the universal meaning of the word from the Greek. When you say “catholic” Buggy I think you mean “Roman catholic“. I also reject the Roman catholic teaching on Justification as well as Roman Catholicism because it never affirms our rebirth and being born again in Christ as a basis of our salvation. The Roman church uses works to keep its people in bondage to the “papist magisterium“. We as Protestants “do good works” on the other hand because we have accepted the Gospel of Christ and been born again. I am thankful to God I am a Protestant and am coming to understand the Gospel and the truth of salvation. More cradle Protestants need to re learn that truth.


----------



## Rook (Oct 15, 2010)

Faith = justification + works (correct)

contrary

Justification = Faith + works (wrong)

Would this scheme properly show the difference between the two? 

Ephesians 2:10, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand." 

Only faith, not works, can bring us acceptance with God. But good works are the vital consequence and evidence of life with God. 

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works." - Titus 2:11-14

1. Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention. WCF 16.1

2. These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto; that, having their fruit of holiness, they may have the end, eternal life. WCF 16.2

5. We cannot, by our best works, merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins, but when we have done all we can, we ahve done but out duty, and are unprofitable servants; and because, as they are good, they proceed from the Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God's judgment. WCF 16.5


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 16, 2010)

The same faith which is implanted in our hearts by regeneration and lays hold on Christ for justification, always also results in sanctification.

We are sanctified by faith in Christ, but not faith alone. But all the glory goes to God because we would do no good works at all without regeneration and the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit.

*Quote from Buggy*


> In addition, he also says that there is no semantical difference between Rome's view on salvation and the traditional Evangelical view that "good works prove one's faith" since good works play a part in validating one's spiritual condition.



Rome says that good works contribute to one's justification. The Reformed say that they contribute nothing to one's justification, but that they almost always accompany salvation. Almost always, because if someone passes away shortly after regeneration, he/she doesn't have much time for any good works.

There is a world of a difference here, but it has to be clearly explained from Scripture and taught by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 16, 2010)

I have heard from some Reformed folk of "vindication" as distinct from justification. Vindication being the final pronouncement of one's justification which will happen at judgment day. This, it is argued, is the kind of "justification" of which James speaks in his epistle, which avoids the contradiction with Paul.

First, is this correct?
Second, could this be the sense of the meaning of "justification" that Rome uses which is the cause of confusion with the Reformed view? 

thanks.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 16, 2010)

Evangelicals have Rome beat. Rome has seven sacraments, but the evangelical world comes out with several new ones annually.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 17, 2010)

Nova said:


> I have heard from some Reformed folk of "vindication" as distinct from justification. Vindication being the final pronouncement of one's justification which will happen at judgment day. This, it is argued, is the kind of "justification" of which James speaks in his epistle, which avoids the contradiction with Paul.
> 
> First, is this correct?
> Second, could this be the sense of the meaning of "justification" that Rome uses which is the cause of confusion with the Reformed view?
> ...


 
We are completely justified the moment we truly believe in Jesus Christ. Our good works subsequent to this can't add to our justification, and our sins can't take away from our justification. If we have trusted in Christ we are as right with God as the saints in Heaven - or if you like - as right with God as Christ is.

James is using the word, "justification", in a different sense to being made right with God, when he says, 



> Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.



He obviously had a problem with those who abused the doctrine of justification by faith alone to back up their ungodlyl lifestyle. Therefore he points out that the fruits of sanctification vindicate or "justify" to others one's claim to have true justifying faith, and if these are not there then our faith is dead i.e. it is so-called faith.

James isn't talking about the judgment day - we won't need good works to justify our claims to have living faith on that day - and although there is a sense that we will be vindicated on that day and that our good works done from a regenerate heart to God's glory by the power of the Spirit, will be rewarded, we are fully justified now if we have true faith, and have full title to Heaven now.

There is no conflict between Paul and James. Viz. the many practical injunctions in Paul's letters. Also texts like this:

_For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (Galatians 5:6, ESV)_

If your faith doesn't also sanctify you, then it is not faith which makes you right with God.

The Roman Catholic error is even more fundamental than what you mention, in that they mix grace and works and justification and works. In Roman Catholic theology justification involves an infusion or impartation of God's goodness into the sinner which makes the sinner just in his own nature and then is recognised by God.

Check out this link:-

The Roman Catholic view on justification | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

and some others

Monergism :: RCC & Justification


----------



## JBaldwin (Oct 17, 2010)

What a good discussion. We have been discussing this topic in some detail in Sunday School, and it was pointed out this morning that there really are only two types of people, 1) those who live by trying to be good and blame the ills of society on those who are immoral, and 2) those who live immorally and blame the ills of society on those who are forcing restrictions on everyone. Church people, whether RCC, protestant or even Presbyterian, tend to fall into the category of those who live morally. 
Even those of us who know God and understand His grace will tend toward one side or another, just by our personalities. 

I can see this clearly in my husband and I. I tend to be the legalist who finds myself falling into the trap of wanting to please God by my good works rather than by trusting in His grace. I will hide my sin, before I let anyone see it. My husband falls into the opposite. He leans toward to wildness. If push comes to shove, and he is not relying on God's grace, he will be very open about his sin.

Neither is right, the Gospel of Christ gives us another way competely. We live by His strength grace, neither trusting in our good works (not even for our sanctification) nor taking advantage of His grace.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 17, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > I have heard from some Reformed folk of "vindication" as distinct from justification. Vindication being the final pronouncement of one's justification which will happen at judgment day. This, it is argued, is the kind of "justification" of which James speaks in his epistle, which avoids the contradiction with Paul.
> ...


 
Thanks Richard. So, it seems that the Roman church has simply taken James' sense of a sanctification-validated vindication and absolutized it to their understanding of Pauline justification? In terms of infusion/impartation of grace, I would venture a guess that hardly a Roman Catholic knows that's what the magisterium teaches. Functionally, they look at justification with a completely Jamesian lens.

Paul, I'd like to discuss your definition of


> Faith = justification + works (correct)



I think what you're getting at here is that faith is one that works. But I take issue that works is being included in the equation that defines faith. As the WLC states,


> Question 72: What is justifying faith?
> 
> Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests 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.


 Faith is by definition a receiving and a resting; works is a natural consequence of faith, but it cannot be a component in the definition, can it? Unless you are speaking of a faith that sanctifies, which I'm fine with.


----------



## buggy (Oct 17, 2010)

Thanks for the posts here. 
Well, one reason I asked these questions were I indeed found out that some Christians play "fruit inspectors" and scrutinize other people's lives in a very intrusive manner. They intrude into people's blogs, Facebook posts, and secretly talk about others' spiritual condition (as the 'judge' perceives) with trusted friends behind their backs. I find that unacceptable. It is gossip. It may even amount to slander!
These are paraphrases of actual people who spoke to me about other Christians, many in my fundy Baptist days:

"X is not saved. He does not believe repentance is required for salvation. I went through with him the Bible and he does not want to listen to me. Pray for his salvation."
"I visited someone who's a long-time professing Christian dying of cancer. He's suffering real badly, and he's reading Nietzsche's "God is Dead" Book. NO CHILD OF GOD will ever touch that book."
"Ever wonder why Lady Y is comes to church so tired? She's out at 2am. Doing what? Probably drinking, clubbing and partying. How can a child of God has such poor spiritual foresight? Now she's attending a soft church that's weak on repentance. She's probably lost."

As if the judger is God himself and speaks "ex cathedra". There are things we may not see that God sees. May I quote this verse.
"Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God." - 1 Cor. 4:5.


----------



## jayce475 (Oct 18, 2010)

While I acknowledge that there are many who almost think that they can read hearts, it's not necessarily a bad thing to point out a person's poor spiritual condition if the intention is indeed to help this person in some way. However, the person being talked about should also be approached and corrected by an appropriate person. Church discipline is very important. That said, it is of course not right to think that we can be the judges of the authenticity of a professing believer's faith unless there is clearly something very wrong with the very substance of his or her faith, such as the outright denial of the fundamentals of the faith. E.g. for the sake of a Mormon, I cannot tell him that he is in Christ, because he is not and I desire for him to come to know the Lord. Reading a book or getting drawn away by the world are acts of sins, but believers do sin. Correction and rebuke are in order, not the pronouncement of a judgment that he or she is lost. Many less mature believers in bible-believing fundamentalist churches, and even many in broad evangelical churches, fail to understand the difference and so we ought to them understand this.



buggy said:


> "X is not saved. He does not believe repentance is required for salvation. I went through with him the Bible and he does not want to listen to me. Pray for his salvation."



I don't necessarily think that this is wrong. It depends on what the person who "believes repentance is required for salvation" was really conveying in the interactions with the person being quoted. If it was meant that he does not doctrinally believe that repentance is a part of the salvific process but in practice does personally repent of his sins, it may be a case of him being theologically misguided and he needs to be corrected. But there are no grounds to judge such a one to be unsaved. On the other hand, if a person refuses to personally repent of his sins and clearly articulates that he wants a Saviour who accepts him without the need for him to repent, then the person making the quote is absolutely right. He needs to repent and be saved. Luke 13:2-3 "And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."


----------



## louis_jp (Oct 18, 2010)

Yes, we're just like Rome, except for all that idolatry, deification of Mary, prayer to dead saints, view of the supper as a continuing sacrifice, purgatory (because even good works are not enough to save in this life), worship of the church itself, with the pope as "Christ on earth," etc. Or are those "only... Rome's external worship," as if they were a minor thing? Rome's view of justification is part of a comprehensive system. It's an apologetic gimick to claim functional equivalence due to one subtle theological distinction (as important as it is), when there is in fact a world of difference between us and them. 

Besides, once could just as easily claim that most Roman Catholics are "functional Protestants" since studies consistently show that most them have no idea what their church teaches. The average RC lay-person has never even heard of transubstantiation, for example.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 22, 2010)

buggy said:


> and he's reading Nietzsche's "God is Dead" Book. NO CHILD OF GOD will ever touch that book."



I own most of Nietzche's books .


----------



## yoyoceramic (Oct 22, 2010)

Not to derail the conversation here, but if a Christian shows no fruit, or does not obey the law as a rule of life, would you say, "Based on your fruit/bad fruit/no fruit I cannot affirm you in your salvation."? What is the role in correlating fruits with assurance of salvation?


----------

