A Protestant "Saved" Question

[Cruxis117]

This is from a Protestant friend of mine:

A perfectly healthy unsaved individual receives the Gospel and accepts Christ into His heart. This occurs at 10 am. At 11 am, he has the chance to go to a Catholic church and receive the Eucharist, communion, be baptized and other sacraments. He doesn’t go. At 12 pm, he passes a beggar, but he ignores him (not without some guilt, for he is born again). At 12:01 pm he is shot in the head. Is this man saved?

These are the points I’ve come up with, checking Catholic theology:

• Being born again isn’t through only a profession of faith, but only through baptism
• Those who have come to accept Christ and wish to join the Church and wish to become baptized but can’t are still saved (provided they truly believed in Christ) because of baptism of desire.
• He ignores the poor man, and thus acts like the goat whom Jesus sends to eternal punishment (Matthew 25:31-46)

At this point, I would say that no, he is not saved, but this is just by looking. At the same time, this seems a bit too general. After asking under whose theology did this man learn Christ (Protestant or Catholic) and after not giving me an answer, I decided to automatically assume it’s a Catholic theology. Thus, I would say that if this person (again, after double checking with the questioner) was slowly learning about Christ from a Catholic theology over a few months, understanding the importance of baptism, etc. I also note that this question also posits another factor, that only God knows the hearts of men. He is purely just, so I can’t say that this person is saved or not 100%, but then again, I’m trying to answer the question. Does anyone here have any points they could bring up about this question that could help me answer this person?

 

[DavidFilmer]

In Catholic theology, the ONLY thing that matters is whether we die in a State of Grace.

This person was certainly placed in a State of Grace by Baptism. The question, then, is if he commits any act of mortal sin in the next two hours.

It is impossible for anyone to answer this question, because (as you noted) only God knows for sure if any particular act rises to the stringent criteria of a mortal sin (serious matter, full and complete understanding, and uncompromised freewill consent).

Either of the acts you describe could be sins of omission, and under some circumstances could even be mortally sinful. But only God knows for sure if they are.

Thus, it is impossible to answer the question. Two people might have these identical experiences, and one might be saved in the end and the other not.

 

[Cruxis117]

In Catholic theology, the ONLY thing that matters is whether we die in a State of Grace.

This person was certainly placed in a State of Grace by Baptism. The question, then, is if he commits any act of mortal sin in the next two hours.

It is impossible for anyone to answer this question, because (as you noted) only God knows for sure if any particular act rises to the stringent criteria of a mortal sin (serious matter, full and complete understanding, and uncompromised freewill consent).

Either of the acts you describe could be sins of omission, and under some circumstances could even be mortally sinful. But only God knows for sure if they are.

Thus, it is impossible to answer the question. Two people might have these identical experiences, and one might be saved in the end and the other not.

Right, the only problem with this entire proposition (I mean the question that was given to me) is that the Protestant who asked me the question was basing that this person was born again through a mere profession of faith (using Romans 10:9-13), whereas we agree that it’s what Peter said in Acts 2:38, ("Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the forgiveness of your sins…). Thus, the idea is that this person wasn’t already baptized, he was considered born again in the Protestant notion. Thus, this means that I don’t know if this person is in a state of grace. My idea is that they aren’t, because this person (as my presupposition notes, was for months taught the Gospel by a Catholic) should have known the necessity of baptism, and thus by not going, wouldn’t have been able to. Hmm, at the same time, obviously it’s not like someone can just say, “I believe in Jesus” and then go and instantly become baptized, they would go through RCIA first.

Hmm, interesting…

 

[laurading]

Thank you for your sharing. As a new member to this forum, it is very useful to me.

WOW Gold
Buy WOW Gold
Cheap WOW Gold
Sell Wow Gold
US WOW Gold

 

[Kayteedid]

This question has no good answer. There is just not enough information. Only God truly knows our hearts. If this person did learn the faith under Catholic teachings, then yes, it is his duty to be baptised if he knows it to be true. However, he dies two hours after accepting Truth. Even if it was the Easter Vigil, no priest would have baptised him with no RCIA classes. We do not know what was in his heart at the time of death, and we are not God, we do not know how He judges the deceased. All we can do is accept and trust in His mercy.

 

[eafan]

If he knew Jesus, didn’t commit any mortal sins in those couple hours, he’s saved, IMTO (In My Theological Opinion).

Blessings,

E.A. Fan

 

[yablabo]

If he dies unbaptized, the answer is simple…no.

There is a specific error which was condemned at the Council of Constance that causes a great deal of perversion among minds today. The condemned error is stated simply:

Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental Baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.

This error, however, has widened to include also children of the infidels, infidels themselves as well as heretics and their children who die without sacramental Baptism. It is a sad shame that such is the case, since we have the the truth of the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism taught to us over and over again from Scripture and tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils.

The Council of Vienne binds upon the assent of faith those who profess to be Catholic:

All are faithfully to profess that there is one Baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith.

We believe that when Baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children.

There is no room for lee-way here. “All are faithfully to profess that there is ONE Baptism which regenerates…” So, nothing else regenerates all those baptized in Christ.

The Bull of Union with the Armenians from the Council of Florence also gives us a clearer picture as to WHAT Baptism does for us:

…by Baptism we are reborn spiritually…

Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the Sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the Body of the Church.

The Council of Florence also admonishes us that Baptism should not be delayed in the Bull of Union with the Copts:

With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the Sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that Sacred Baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the Decree on the Armenians.

It is pretty clear in this quotation that “the only remedy” for children born with Original Sin is the Sacrament of Baptism.

–continued–

 

[yablabo]

The Council of Trent gives very stern warnings on the issue of the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism also.
From Session V:

If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam, - which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, - is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath reconciled us to God in His own Blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the Sacrament of Baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.

If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of Original Sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting, - whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, - let him be anathema.

If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in Baptism, the guilt of Original Sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.

For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by Baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven.

These canons give us the clear conclusion that we cannot deny that the merits of Our Lord, Christ, are the only remedy for the Original Sin with which we are all born(saving Our Lady). The first canon also tells us HOW that merit, which is the only remedy for Original Sin, is applied: “the Sacrament of Baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church.” The second canon also tells us WHY we need to be baptized: “for the obtaining of life everlasting.” It is very obvious that there is no lee-way around the necessity for all to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.

Then, going on to the canons in Session VII of the Council of Trent we find:

If anyone saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for Baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost…,’ let him be anathema.

If anyone saith, that in the Roman Church, which is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the Sacrament of Baptism, let him be anathema.

If anyone saith, that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation, let him be anathema.

At this point, there is no room for confusion. To say that Baptism is not necessary unto salvation is to make one’s self anathema.

Always remember, God does not condemn anyone who is innocent. See, the teaching of the Church on Original Sin is that we are all born with it…which means that none of us are born innocent (while we may be innocent of personal sin, we are not innocent of the Original Sin of Adam which is enough to send one to hell; again, except for Our Lady). Baptism is a necessity. That is why anyone, even other unbaptized people can baptize validly as long as they meet the requirements for the validity of the sacrament.

–continued–

 

[yablabo]

Simply because a priest or many priest and theologians and bishops and the pope, even, (when binding teachings under religious assent) teach contradictorily to teachings of the highest authority in the Church (which can never change, fail or be taken back) does not make them correct.

Looking to the First Vatican Council, we do have statements pertaining to the subject of contradiction. In Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason:

1. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God Who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and Who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.

1. God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

1. Therefore We define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.

We have the infallible teachings (those which can not be revoked, reformed or in error) of the Councils regarding Baptism specifically and the infallible teaching from the First Vatican Council on faith and reason to which we must give the assent of faith that show us we cannot twist the words to oppose what reason dictates. It’s a contradiction to say that Baptism is needed to attain heaven (and sight of God) in one breath and then in the next breath to say that we don’t then know what happens to unbaptized babies (or children or adults) who die.

To say, basically, that we hope that what God has told us regarding Baptism as necessary for salvation is not true (in the case of infants, or catechumens, or so-called “noble” savages, etc.), is the same thing as saying that we hope God is a liar. We know by faith (as taught in the First Vatican Council) that God can neither lie nor be deceived. The Church does know what happens to those who are unbaptized and die in that state. It is stated over and over throughout history by the saints. It is stated in the Ecumenical Councils infallibly.

People in the state of Original Sin, no matter what their physical condition, are not innocent and cannot possibly see God as He sees Himself if they die. That is not to say that if they have committed no personal sin that they will burn in hell. That, in fact, is something the Church does not teach as certain and therefore tolerates different opinions (as to the level of sufferings in hell). But to say they do NOT go to hell is false.

One more reference back to the First Vatican Council, in Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason:

1. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.

The meanings of the dogmas never change. The necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism two thousand years ago is the same necessity today. It is the same yesterday, today and always. Even though we may formulate more specific forms of expression, the meaning is always essentially the same. If it were not, then it would not be universal, i.e., “catholic,” doctrine.

“Our heretics, more audacious than Pelagians, deny that Baptism is necessary, not only for the remission of sin, but also for the attainment of Heaven. However, those who imagine that there is another remedy besides Baptism openly contradict the Gospel, the Councils, the Fathers, and the consensus of the universal Church.” (St. Robert Bellarmine)

– Nicole