# Do you think a follower in the Catholic church can be a saved Christian?



## Shane (Apr 3, 2005)

I was catholic and I am wondering what the boards opinion would be on this question. I thought it would be interesting in light of the attention the catholic church is getting at the moment.

I am also concerned at the liberal view amongst so called christians when you are told you are being unloving and divisive when you stand up against Catholic theology.

[Edited on 4-3-2005 by Shane]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 3, 2005)

Yes. One can be regenerated within the realms of error; the RC church does read the gospels during their _masses_. However, one whom is truly regenerated will not remain in Rome!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 3, 2005)

Well, I didn't vote for the moment, because I am sure what I believe about it, but the answer depends on what is meant by a "follower in the Catholic Church." If that means anyone who is a professing and even regularly practicing Catholic, I would say yes. If, however, it means someone who fully understands the meaning and claims of the Mass and other Catholic doctrines and continues to fully embrace them as well, I would have to say no - furthermore, even those in the former group that are saved are so _in spite of_ their church's teachings, not _because of_ them.


----------



## pastorway (Apr 3, 2005)

The Holy Spirit can call His people to life and convert them wherever they are - the RCC, a cult, the world, church of satan, mormon tabernacle, new age movement, in the gutter, or even in the pews of a Reformed church........the power of Christ to save is not in any way hindered by where we are when He saves us.

Does He use the false gospel of Rome to save? Of course not. A false gospel is no gospel at all. (Gal 1:6-9) But where the Word is, the Spirit is able to bring life (Ps 19:7; Rom 1:16; Is 55:10-11).

However, I have not met a person yet who was saved while a Catholic who is still a Catholic......once they are in Christ it is not long before they leave Rome.

Phillip


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Well, I didn't vote for the moment, because I am sure what I believe about it, but the answer depends on what is meant by a "follower in the Catholic Church." If that means anyone who is a professing and even regularly practicing Catholic, I would say yes. If, however, it means someone who fully understands the meaning and claims of the Mass and other Catholic doctrines and continues to fully embrace them as well, I would have to say no - furthermore, even those in the former group that are saved are so _in spite of_ their church's teachings, not _because of_ them.


----------



## Scot (Apr 3, 2005)

I'm not sure how to vote either. I agree with the other responses that a person may become saved while belonging to the catholic church BUT they will not remain there if truly saved.


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 3, 2005)

I also would agree that those who recieve the true gospel would not remain in the romish church. So can they come to saving truth in the romish church, absolutly, or course it would not be through Rome that they would come to saving faith. They would have to encounter the saving truth of God somewhere else.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 3, 2005)

Was Blaise Pascal, a Roman Catholic Jansenist, a true believer?


----------



## Average Joey (Apr 3, 2005)

I agree with also with what you guys are saying.I answered Not Sure.I agree that if a catholic who suddenly knows the gospel could not bare to stay in RCC.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Was Blaise Pascal, a Roman Catholic Jansenist, a true believer?


 I think so. The Jansenists were probably the last institutional gospel witness in Rome. But there are none left today. They were ousted long ago.


----------



## VanVos (Apr 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Well, I didn't vote for the moment, because I am sure what I believe about it, but the answer depends on what is meant by a "follower in the Catholic Church." If that means anyone who is a professing and even regularly practicing Catholic, I would say yes. If, however, it means someone who fully understands the meaning and claims of the Mass and other Catholic doctrines and continues to fully embrace them as well, I would have to say no - furthermore, even those in the former group that are saved are so _in spite of_ their church's teachings, not _because of_ them.



Ditto...

That's the same query I had. That's why I voted no, thinking you were asking the question based on the latter definition given by Chris. But based the on former definition I would definitely say yes.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 4, 2005)

Belgic Confession, Article 28

We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and outside of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it; maintaining the unity of the Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; and as mutual members of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them.
And that this may be the more effectually observed, _it is the duty of all believers, according to the Word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the Church, and to join themselves to this congregation,_ wheresoever God has established it, even though the magistrates and edicts of princes were against it, yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment. Therefore all those who separate themselves from the same or do not join themselves to it act contrary to the ordinance of God.

[Edited on 4-4-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Shane (Apr 4, 2005)

Well I was a Catholic that started asking questions. When by Gods grace I realized that much of the catholic faith just did not add up to what is read in the bible I realized I had to leave. After a short stint in one of those awfull Charismatic churches I found the reformed faith and have truly started to understand Christianity for the first time. 

Truly amazing how God works, the SAD part for me is that most of my family are either Catholic or have no belief. I dont believe they are saved and pray for them regularly.

My question was really more on the lines of if somoned died a catholic could they have been a saved Christian today. I emphasise today because I honestly think many in the church before the reformation could have been Christian when you looked at their lives and love for the Lord.

[Edited on 4-4-2005 by Shane]


----------



## Average Joey (Apr 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Shane_
> Well I was a Catholic that started asking questions. When by Gods grace I realized that much of the catholic faith just did not add up to what is read in the bible I realized I had to leave. After a short stint in one of those awfull Charismatic churches I found the reformed faith and have truly started to understand Christianity for the first time.
> 
> Truly amazing how God works, the SAD part for me is that most of my family are either Catholic or have no belief. I dont believe they are saved and pray for them regularly.
> ...



That`s with a lot of us brother.My wife in particular has Muslims in her family,her mother included.It breaks her heart.Her father died when she was a child and he was a bhuddist


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 4, 2005)

Are any of you familiar with the Christian Singing artist John Michael Talbot?
He is a RCC Fransican monk.
I have almost every one of his albums. I see Christ glorified in the style and way he sings much more than I do the modern day Christian artist pop culture of the day. He sings a lot of scripture and doesn't focus on Mary. His music focuses on the Person of Christ. 

Believe me, I am not in favor of allowing anyone to remain in the RCC dogma without exposing it's unscripturalness. But I believe JMT is truly regenerate.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> > Well, I didn't vote for the moment, because I am sure what I believe about it, but the answer depends on what is meant by a "follower in the Catholic Church." If that means anyone who is a professing and even regularly practicing Catholic, I would say yes. If, however, it means someone who fully understands the meaning and claims of the Mass and other Catholic doctrines and continues to fully embrace them as well, I would have to say no - furthermore, even those in the former group that are saved are so _in spite of_ their church's teachings, not _because of_ them.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Are any of you familiar with the Christian Singing artist John Michael Talbot?
> He is a RCC Fransican monk.
> I have almost every one of his albums. I see Christ glorified in the style and way he sings much more than I do the modern day Christian artist pop culture of the day. He sings a lot of scripture and doesn't focus on Mary. His music focuses on the Person of Christ.
> ...



Randy,
One whom is RC trusts in their works to accomplish salvation. There is no justification by faith alone, it is solely justification by works. The scriptures define truth; the scriptures undermine what Rome teaches. If this man is truly regenerate, he will possess the _truth_ according to Gods word and not Rome. hence, he will leave Rome..........

[Edited on 4-4-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Of Course I understand that Scott. Wesley and Semi-Pelagians trust in their free will plus works also. Don't you think they are going to be found wrapped in God's glory and amazement that they had it wrong also. Whitfield thought Wesley was justified before God. Shouldn't the same be true for Wesleyans then? Shouldn't they abandon their denomination and its soteriology if they are truly regenerate. If what you are saying is true, Wesley wouldn't have made it to glory either.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 5, 2005)

Conservative Protestant Arminianistic soteriology is not within a hundred miles of the soteriology of Rome - the former do not understand the source of their faith in Christ (monergistic regeneration), and also do not fully understand that it was actually purchased for them by Christ and is the result of their being atoned for, rather than vice-versa.

Those errors, unbiblical and dishonoring to God as they are, have nothing to do with Roman soteriology simply because they still maintain Christ's atonement to be the sole judicial ground on which they are justified, while Rome explicitly makes all a person's works a full, legal part of that ground, and also gives Mary a position right beside Christ in helping them to achieve it.

The key difference is that someone like Wesley would not call his faith a direct part of what actually atones for his sin, even though he misunderstands the nature and cause of that faith and its relation to the atonement. But the Roman Catholic considers all of his good works and services to the Church to be part and parcel of the atonement that saves them by _infused_ faith, meaning the faith only saves through what it continually produces over their whole lives. Add Mary's co-Redemptrix status to that, and it's clear how far Wesleyan soteriology is from the heresy of Rome.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 5, 2005)

> Those errors, unbiblical and dishonoring to God as they are, have nothing to do with Roman soteriology simply because they still maintain Christ's atonement to be the sole judicial ground on which they are justified, while Rome explicitly makes all a person's works a full, legal part of that ground



Chris,
I have been around many a Weslyan and or arminian theologians and I am telling you they believe their works are just as important as Christ dying for their confessed sins. Catholics maintain the same. Grant it Mary worship is idolatry.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > Those errors, unbiblical and dishonoring to God as they are, have nothing to do with Roman soteriology simply because they still maintain Christ's atonement to be the sole judicial ground on which they are justified, while Rome explicitly makes all a person's works a full, legal part of that ground
> ...



Regarding certain such people that believe their works are part of the same justifying package as Christ's work, _if_ they actually understand what that means, I would place them in the same unregerate category as true, at-heart Roman Catholics, or Catholics who likewise understand what their claims actually mean. Most Arminianistic people I have encountered, however, either don't claim their works to be in the same ballpark as Christ's work and atonement, or else it becomes clear after talking with them that they don't actually understand what it means to put them "in the same boat" even if they do claim to do so.

Now I don't doubt that many Wesleyans and Arminians you have encountered do claim such, but because there is so much vagueness in the evangelical realm today (not that the so-called Reformed realm is immune to that either), I doubt most of them actually understand the meaning and implications of such a claim, and I think many or most of them actually have full hope in Christ for their salvation, even if they poorly articulate that concept in their minds and words. And that all-too-common vagueness and misunderstanding of even one's own confessed position is the very same reason I believe there can be and are many true believers inside the Roman Catholic Church - but such people are only such because they don't understand and don't actually hold to Rome's soteriological position, and if they did they would be lost. Likewise, if evangelicals claim to depend on their works just as much as on Christ's work, they are lost if and only if they understand what they mean.

Because Rome's officially-stated position is heresy, though, while the majority of evangelicalism's officially-stated position is a saving (albeit often erred) Gospel, I naturally believe the tendency to actually believe the damning false Gospel in one's heart is much, much more common among professing Catholics than professing evangelicals (even though there are saved and lost people in both camps who misunderstand their stated positions). Someone such as the Pope is a good example of a Roman Catholic who certainly does understand the meaning and implications of his officially-stated position, and is thus damned by it, as is any true, at-heart Catholic.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 5, 2005)

If Wesley thought he was justified by his works alone, he is in a place where the worm dieth not. Rome trusts in justification by works.........


----------



## blhowes (Apr 5, 2005)

Just curious. I was reading a day or two ago that a church in Poland requested that the pope's heart be buried at their church, where he served as cardinal. Apparently, up unitl a few centuries ago, it was common practice for the body and the heart to be buried in separate locations. Anybody know any background for this 'interesting' custom?

BTW, it doesn't look like the request will be granted.

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Just curious. I was reading a day or two ago that a church in Poland requested that the pope's heart be buried at their church, where he served as cardinal. Apparently, up unitl a few centuries ago, it was common practice for the body and the heart to be buried in separate locations. Anybody know any background for this 'interesting' custom?
> 
> BTW, it doesn't look like the request will be granted.
> ...



Here is some background on the custom:



> Many instances are on record of this once common practice of burying the heart apart from the corpse. The tradition is still carried out by the Saxon royal family. Directly death is assured the body is opened and the heart and entrails removed. The heart is enclosed in a casket and placed on a white satin cushion on one side of the coffin, and the entrails in a white satin-covered jar on the other side. When the coffin is deposited in the vault these unpleasant objects repose on a bracket beside it.
> 
> The heart as the legendary seat of the emotions has often been buried in some favoured spot to which it has been impossible to remove the body. The usage is also connected with the desire that premature burial would thus be avoided.
> 
> ...


----------



## blhowes (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Here is some background on the custom:...


Thanks for the info.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > Those errors, unbiblical and dishonoring to God as they are, have nothing to do with Roman soteriology simply because they still maintain Christ's atonement to be the sole judicial ground on which they are justified, while Rome explicitly makes all a person's works a full, legal part of that ground
> ...



I agree completely. While I disagree with extremists like Marc Carpenter and the like, I also believe (being a former Arminian myself) that Arminians (or synergists) believe that something THEY DO merits salvation. As Packer states in his introduction to the Bondage of the Will, the Arminian view turns faith into a meritorious work. 

As Sproul says in "Willing to Believe," because Arminians believe in Sola Fide, but reject Sola Gratia he labels them as "barely saved." But can a person be "barely saved?" Either his faith is in the merits and work of Christ ALONE, or they are partially (or wholly) in himself.

This is an area where I would like to see more discussion (In love of course!).


----------



## PASSION4TRUTH (Apr 6, 2005)

Please Please....Some scholar help me. I am now working and living in the most atheistic country in Europe (the Czech Republic) where there are hardly any Christians but some Roman Catholic influence. Let me confess that I have memorized most of the gospels and believe that I understand the nature of saving faith having read so much on this issue, and I wholeheartedly affirm the true gospel (reformed gospel of grace) but I dont know or exactly still understand the main issue of what the knowledge aspect of faith must be. The three traditional aspects of true saving faith as described by the Reformers are mental. emotional, and volitional. But what exactly does each aspect involve? What do you need to know? what do you need to feel? what do you need to do or how do you need to act? at what times? how often? For example my Catholic friend Jenyk has told me he believes a man is saved only based on the merits of Jesus and yet he still goes to a Catholic church he knows teaches wrong things. I dont quite understand what is going on in his heart, and as we would all affirm, we dont know another persons heart, but of course we do know and hear what they confess and see how they live. His life is exemplary and I just dont know about a "truly saved person" always being able to leave Rome? How can we make such blind comments about those who literally speaking (I hope you dont think I am too subjective) are confessing the gospel but support those who dont? is this a minor sin like like one of presumption due to ignorance or is it different? If I must be perfectly correct in my understanding to be saved, then there really is no hope. I love Catholic writers, especially Thomas Merton. I do not agreew with all of their doctrine but I dont think I have enough guts to say if he is in heaven or not. Please forgive me if I am a weak evanjelyfish. I am struggling on earth like everyone else and I need grace to understand. I have really wept my eyeballs out for this country and for all of Europe, which is more postmodern than America in many ways. Sorry to rant but my main question is "how (to what extent) can a person be confused and still be saved if part of saving faith involves scientia (knowledge)?

Please help and pleas pray for Catholics and for the Czech Republic.


----------



## pastorway (Apr 6, 2005)

Saving faith is faith in Christ (alone), not doctrine. It is trusting a Person.

When I was converted I was an Arminian. I believed that I had to chose Christ of my own free will. Then again, as a 9 year old, I did not even know what free will was. I believed that I was saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, as I had been taught. I repented of my sin and trusted Christ to forgive me and save me. I believed for many years thereafter that I had been saved when I decided to believe in Jesus. 

I still believe I was saved, only now I understand the doctrines of grace and how God accomplished my salvation. That does not mean I was not saved all those years ago. It just means that I trusted Christ to save me and He did.

It is that simple. "What must I do to be saved?" "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved...."

Phillip


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 6, 2005)

> I dont know or exactly still understand the main issue of what the knowledge aspect of faith must be.



There is an amount of knowledge necessary for saving faith. For example, I can not just say the phrase "Trust in Jesus Christ" and unregenerate persons believing that will be saved. "Trust in Jesus Christ" by itself means nothing with out content. 

The gospel is the person and work of Jesus Christ. Who is Jesus? He is the God in human flesh, the second person of the trinity, the man that lived on this earth and died 2000 years ago.

What did Jesus do? He paid the ultimate sacrifice by living a perfect, sinless life and died a sinners death. He did this that it might satisfy the Father's wrath for all those that believe in his work. In turn, the Father then imputed the believer's sin to Christ on the cross, he paid the penalty that we deserve. His righteousness is credited to the believers standing, for this perfect righteousness is the ONLY way a completely sinful man can stand before a Just and Holy God.




> The three traditional aspects of true saving faith as described by the Reformers are mental. emotional, and volitional.



The aspects of saving faith are somewhat debated. True some describe it as what you have stated, but others (like Thomas Manton) say that it is made up of knowledge, assent and trust. I personally believe that Gordon Clark's treatment in "Faith and Saving Faith" is convincing in that trust is merely believing what a person says. Essentially, saving faith is belief in the gospel.



> what do you need to feel?



I am not sure that you need to "feel" anything. There is not commandment that you should "feel" the gospel, or "feel" Christ. Many religions and even Christianity today is pleagued with emotionalism. This is dangerous and can lead to false assurance. 



> If I must be perfectly correct in my understanding to be saved, then there really is no hope. I love Catholic writers, especially Thomas Merton. I do not agreew with all of their doctrine but I dont think I have enough guts to say if he is in heaven or not. Please forgive me if I am a weak evanjelyfish.



Nobody is perfect in their understanding of the Bible. However, we must believe the gospel, and in order to believe it, we must understand it. This is not to say that we must understand every implication of the gospel, or even comprehend every nuance, but we must understand the essential message.



> Sorry to rant but my main question is "how (to what extent) can a person be confused and still be saved if part of saving faith involves scientia (knowledge)?



To what extent can a person be confused? The first thing to remember is that saving faith is not the work of man's free will, but it is a gift from God! He will ENSURE that his elect believe and UNDERSTAND the gospel message. It is a freeing thing to realize this. We can NOT be confused to the point of still relying on ourselves. The Puritans believed that a person must believe that they CAN NOT save themselves in any way, shape or form, before they can believe in the remidy to their sin. (The Westminster Larger Catechism on Saving Faith explains this.)

That being said, the clearer we can be in presenting this message, the better. The more in-depth we take the gospel message, the more we can see the fruits! We should not aim for preaching the "bare minimum" but to present the gopsel clearly in as much context as we can. 

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter XIV
Of Saving Faith
I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4]

II. By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein;[5] and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.[9]

III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong;[10] may often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory:[11] growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ,[12] who is both the author and finisher of our faith.[13]

Westminster Larger Catechism

Q. 72. What is justifying faith?

A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,[297] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit[298] and Word of God,[299] 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,[300] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[301] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[302] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[303]


----------



## tfelice (Apr 6, 2005)

I answered "No" in this poll and I will clarify why. The question posed asked if a follower in the Catholic church be a saved Christian?

If one is following and holding to the teachings of the Church of Rome they are following teachings that are contrary to the gospel. So therefore if anyone is holding to Romanism they cannot be saved.

That being said I firmly believe that a Roman Catholic can become saved - I am evidence of that. However, shortly after my conversion I once again attended a Roman church service. It was very apparant to me, even in my very immature state, that what was being professed in the Church of Rome was far different than what I had just newly learned.


----------



## SRoper (Apr 7, 2005)

I voted yes. I'm not convinced that every Roman Catholic that is justified will be sanctified to the point that they are compelled to leave the Roman Church before they die.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> I voted yes. I'm not convinced that every Roman Catholic that is justified will be sanctified to the point that they are compelled to leave the Roman Church before they die.



I agree - but do you likewise agree that no one can be justified and yet be a _true, at-heart_ Roman Catholic at the same time, fully aware of the meaning and implications of Catholic soteriology and yet continuing to profess it?


----------



## cih1355 (Apr 7, 2005)

One cannot be a true believer and believe in the false gospel that Rome teaches. 

It is possible for a true believer to attend a Catholic church. For example, I once knew of a 12-year old boy who attended a Catholic church because his parents forced him to go.


----------



## SRoper (Apr 11, 2005)

"I agree - but do you likewise agree that no one can be justified and yet be a true, at-heart Roman Catholic at the same time, fully aware of the meaning and implications of Catholic soteriology and yet continuing to profess it?"

I guess not. I think they can use a lot of the same language as a RC, but mean different things by it.


----------



## Shane (Apr 11, 2005)

Well I initially voted unsure. But I do have a question for everyone.

Should we as reformers be concerned with the results of the poll.
Surely somone who loves Christ will read His word and be lead out the RC Church. 

I just find the overall view of Catholicism on the board does not seem to match the results of the poll.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "I agree - but do you likewise agree that no one can be justified and yet be a true, at-heart Roman Catholic at the same time, fully aware of the meaning and implications of Catholic soteriology and yet continuing to profess it?"
> 
> I guess not. I think they can use a lot of the same language as a RC, but mean different things by it.



Exactly - and if they "mean different things by it" than the RCC does, then they are _not_ "fully aware of the meaning and implications" of it according to the RCC; and it is people who _are_ aware of such and yet continue to follow it that I'm talking about as necessarily unconverted - true, at-heart Catholics, which someone is not if he or she means different things by words than the RCC.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Shane_
> Well I initially voted unsure. But I do have a question for everyone.
> 
> Should we as reformers be concerned with the results of the poll.
> ...



I think the difference in results is mainly due to what people take "a follower in the Catholic church" to mean, in an external versus internal sense.


----------



## Thomas (Apr 15, 2005)

I believe that one can be following the way of a Roman Catholic or any other false way and when and if they are called they will come. Not until then will any realize the error of they way. I voted yes


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 16, 2005)

A pastor I know once said it best:
If I'm a "good" Protestant, and "Joe" is a "good" RC, one of us is going to hell, and the other to heaven. Depends on who's right.

We ought to say, thankfully, not all Roman Church members are consistent with their church's theology. Even their practices are devoid of the faith that the RCC demands they place in them. Only these persons have some hope of salvation, provided they are united to Christ by a genuine faith. They are like survivors of a war, alone with almost no resources, alive by some miracle of grace. Their growth and development really won't happen until heaven, unless they are delivered out of their earthly condition. Meanwhile, the RCC promotes its pseudo-christianity, much like the Pharisees promulgated their works-righteousness religion in Jesus day, both groups blinding the eyes of thousands.

This is what the Reformation came down to: which church possesses, professes, and preaches the saving evangel.

Is the pope in heaven? My Reformed-informed answer is, "Not if he was a good Romanist."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 16, 2005)

The question asks if a _follower_ of Rome can be saved, not if someone whom sits in a RC church can be saved. Assuredly, people whom sit in RC churches and read their scriptures can and will be saved. However, someone whom _follows_ Rome in their teachings, knows little of their scriptures and follow blindly. This person, is not saved as Rome is emphatic that men must earn their position in Christ.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 16, 2005)

> Is the pope in heaven? My Reformed-informed answer is, "Not if he was a good Romanist."



I really like this response. I think it hits the nail on the head so to speak. Do you mind if I borrow it!


----------



## Irishcat922 (Apr 16, 2005)

Someone told me once that a person can be a good Christian and be Roman Catholic but a person could not be a good Roman Catholic and be a Christian.


----------

