"Going to heaven" vs. "not going to hell"

[wturri78]

This may seem like an obscure question, but I've been thinking it through after some chats with a Catholic over salvation. It's obvious that we mean different things by the term "salvation" and we both include many aspects beneath that broader terms. And we both see salvation as more than simply "not going to hell," and more than just "going to heaven." Without question, Catholics believe that personal merit and works are a part of justification, whereas we obviously see Christ's merit imputed to us as the only ground--but then, we also define the term "justification" differently. But could there be some similarity? Let me try to lay this out:

Reformed: Once justified, a person is spared from God's eternal wrath and will not go to hell--even the weakest true faith will bring a person into heaven. Personal merit plays no role in being spared from hell.

Catholic: Once "initially justified," a person is spared from God's eternal wrath and will not go to hell--nor will they go to heaven. Purgatory is conveniently wedged in the middle to catch all the ones who aren't perfectly "justified" through merit and remission of "temporal punishments." Still, personal merit plays no role in being spared from hell.

Worlds apart, to be sure. However, setting aside the errors of purgatory (and infusion vs. imputation, and sacramental grace, etc.), in both views, the grace of God is sufficient to keep a person out of hell. The person is "saved" from eternal punishment by the grace of God, and without "works of the law" or earned merit.

So is it technically accurate to say the Catholic view requires works/merit for salvation, given that it appears not to require works/merit to stay out of hell? How much of the difference is semantic vs. substantial? And is the difference deep enough to say that Rome truly preaches "another gospel?"

Boy this stuff gets confusing sometimes!

Thoughts, anyone? Former Catholics?

 

[ReformedWretch]

setting aside the errors of purgatory (and infusion vs. imputation, and sacramental grace, etc.),

That's a lot to set aside! Sounds over simplistic I guess but because they don't set that aside they preach another gospel.

 

[Galatians220]

"Works" are most definitely necessary to stay out of hell in the Catholic system. One MUST attend Mass once a week (if able) in order not to have a "mortal" sin (one that by definition, consigns one to hell) laid to one's account. One MUST perform the Easter duty (receive Holy Communion at least once between Ash Wednesday and Pentecost). These have never been abrogated. Unconfessed (to a priest) and unrepented mortal sins other than skipping Mass (stealing, adultery, murder, etc.) will also send one to hell. No good works that a Catholic in that situation can perform will tip the balance sheet for heaven.

Mother Teresa paid lip service to the idea that her good works would land her in heaven, but her private correspondence over the years reveal a woman in deep despair over her assumptions concerning her eternal abode.

Roman Catholicism preaches a false gospel. There's no doubt about it.

Margaret

 

[Galatians220]

Addendum to prior post: the idea of "infusion" of righteousness and not "imputation" is one of the most contemptible heresies afoot. It's what sets Reformed Christians apart from every false gospel proponent in the world. If righteousness is "infused" then we're all equal to God the moment we're saved, or even from before the foundation of the world, if we believe in unconditional election. The idea of infusion came right from you-know-who.

Margaret

 

[Prufrock]

Margaret -- I don't think we can say that makes us equal with God. One day we, too, will be perfectly and actually and physically righteous, yet though glorified we will not be equal with God.

 

[Prufrock]

Bill, perhaps a quick yet thorough and accurate delineation of Tridentine soteriology might help you out a bit; for there is a lot of confusion on this matter, and I think that we don't often actually know accurately how Rome says salvation works.

1. Man is lost in sin.

2. Christ, by his most perfect passion, merited justification for the church.
[Now we must pause: the old Roman doctors described a two-fold justification. The first justification is that which was merited purely by Christ, and will be presently described; the second is eschatological, and is the result of the first, which we will come to at the end.]

3. When men turn to God in faith and repentance, submitting to baptism, he is under no obligation to do anything; but nevertheless it is fitting or congruent to God's goodness to grant them that which Christ alone truly merited: justification; or, the infusion of a grace, or the habit of charity: i.e, the Holy Ghost himself.

Quick reference from Trent, session 6, ch.7

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity

4. Man thus being washed by water and the Spirit, and filled with righteousness, he is forgiven all his previous sin, and is accepted with God. He may indeed fall again into sin, but the sacraments are there to administer the grace of Christ to restore him.

5. The works which this man/woman does, being wrought by the Holy Spirit, are accepted by God and are able to truly merit (condign merit) life, on account of their being wrought by the Spirit, or rather, they receive their virtue from the union with the Head, Jesus Christ. This is the "increase of justification" or the second justification.

Thus, it is by God's pure and free grace that a sinner is filled with the Spirit of God, whereby they work righteousness, and this righteousness, being wrought in them of the Spirit of God, is accepted and merits life.

 

[wturri78]

Thanks for the useful post above! The reference from Trent is so nuanced and philosophically complex that I wonder whether it still means anything at all...

At any rate, it seems that the "initial" justification is said to be all of grace--granted, it's conditioned upon our decision to repent and cooperate with grace, and to submit to baptism, and is obviously synergistic--but if that point is enough to push it into "another gospel" territory, then Lutherans and all non-reformed Protestants are also preaching another gospel (in which case Reformed monergism is the heart of the gospel, not something I'm prepared to say at this point). Still, it seems that their "final justificaiton" which increases through our cooperation with the Spirit and works wrought through the Spirit, roughly equates to what we'd call sanctification...right?

So...

Rome does teach that one's meritorious works are required to enter heaven, while the Reformed do not. But Rome does not teach (unless I'm missing some devil in the details) that meritorious works are required to be spared from hell--even in the scheme of Purgatory, once a soul enters that state, it will eventually come into God's eternal presence and will never "slip" into hell instead. It seems that purgatory, merit, indulgences, sacramental grace, the priesthood, etc. etc. etc. is a mountain of unbiblical, unnecessary, and distracting theology piled on top of the pure and simple answer to the question, "what must I do to be saved?" But does that mountain transform it into "another gospel" if works are not required to be spared from God's eternal wrath?

Thanks to everyone so far for their helpful feedback!

 

[wturri78]

Just a friendly bump!

 

[Wannabee]

I hate studying Roman dogma. It makes me feel dirty...

It's hard to contemplate within the bounds you lay out because of the impossibility of it. Purgatory is a type of slavery to a pernicious god who keeps people guessing as to whether or not they're finally "in." It's a tax that plays on people's fear of hell and totally ignores their relationship with their Creator.

Does the reformed view of soteriology focus on saving from hell, going to heaven, or on the restoration of God's image bearers into a right relationship with their Creator? Would you still be willing to follow Christ to the grave if He didn't promise you eternal life in heaven?

 

[Prufrock]

Bill, to help clarify perhaps some confusion -- I think you are seeing a bifurcation where there is none in your drawing a distinction between not going to hell and going to heaven. Roman teaching, at any rate, does not allow for such a distinction. He who does not go to hell does go to heaven.

In faith (or baptism, the sacrament of faith), a person's sins are washed away--they are pure, righteous. Thus, they are not going to hell, and they are going to heaven. However, as time goes on, they do sin, and need to be restored to righteousness.

Righteousness is required both for not going to hell and going to heaven (again, because the two cannot be separated). A person who is baptized is spared from hell because they have been washed, and are righteous--this is also why they have a right unto heaven. They, however, understand "righteousness" differently--it is not a forensic state which will be, by definition, perpetual, but rather an inherent condition. Upon baptism or faith, a person has this condition, being filled with grace. This must be maintained, however, to be both spared from hell and inherit heaven. We are given righteousness in baptism or faith -- our eternal state depends upon its maintenance, through improving the charity given us, and due use of the sacraments to strengthen us and to restore us when we should fall.

Hope that helps clear stuff up.