View on Salvation

[SalesianSDB]

So I have a friend who is a Baptist, and when we were talking about religion we ended up talking about salvation. And I really never thought that much of it. i always thought that good people go to Heaven and bad people go to hell. Simple as that. But then the question was raised, good by who’s standards? Our’s or God’s? Because didn’t Jesus say, “If you have hatred in your heart you have committed murder.” And “If you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery in your heart.” Or I could say by good, follow the 10 Commandments, but a non-Christian (or non-Judeo-Christian) automatically breaks the first three commandments.

That plus the Scriptural quotes regarding how you must have faith in order to have salvation made me wonder. Sure James said, “Faith without works is dead” but as most Protestants put it, the works are signs that you are a Christian, not a requirement for salvation since it comes with having faith.

Whenever I try to find the whole Catholic belief on salvation it just gets confusing. Because on one hand we say “Yes faith is necessary, and so are works.” But if faith is necessary, what about the Buddhist? Or Muslim? Doesn’t the Catechism say, “Believing in Jesus Christ and the One who sent Him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation (CCC 161)”?

So after much prayer and reflection I came to the conclusion that one must believe in God and Jesus for salvation, however, only God knows the person’s heart.

And then I heard Fr. Benedict Groeschel on EWTN talking about salvation and his answer was that in His revelations to St. Faustina Jesus told her, “At the hour of death I call to all souls three times, and if they answer, ‘Yes, Lord? I am here.’ I will welcome them.” (This is a paraphrase) I have the Diary of St. Faustina but haven’t had time to read it. I really can’t find reference to this revelation online, but I am inclined to believe that He did say this to her mainly because Fr. Benedict mentioned it, and he wouldn’t say anything unorthodox.

So now when asked about my views on salvation I reference CCC 161 and James. I say that faith is necessary for salvation, and that faith without works is dead. At the same time, I do believe that when we die Jesus will call us by name and if we answer Him, “Yes, Lord? I am here,” He will welcome us with open arms.

I am just wondering, from a Catholic perspective, how is this view?

Thank you and God bless you!
Mary Help of Christians, pray for us!

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Salvation certainly is a topic that can be easily misunderstood, which is why there is major controversy.

1. Intellectual faith alone (as used in Paul in 1 Cor), mere belief, does not save you, for “even the demons believe and shudder” (Jas 2:19).
2. For Protestants, faith in the deeper sense of accepting Christ as your Savior does save you, even before good works, for the thief on the cross was saved (Lk 23:43).
3. Authentic faith, saving faith, always produces good works, and therefore a faith that does not produce good works is not authentic, saving faith (Jas 2).
   For 1, if this intellectual faith produces good works, then it is the faith in number 3. For number 2, God is merciful for those who accept but do not have the chance to do the good works. The whole point of justifying your faith by good works is exactly why we are saved in the end by both of those (except where God deems it that someone is saved by faith without works like the thief on the cross). In all other cases where we have a chance to do these deeds, see these math statements (F-Faith; G-good works): F+G=F; whereas F-G does not equal F (I know it looks crazy but it makes sense to me; probably because I made it up). We say the same exact thing (semantically), but Protestants for some reason only say that faith saves when that same faith has works as inherent. That is exactly our position: Faith includes works; therefore we are saved by faith and works because they go together. In any case, we are saved by God’s grace.
   As for non-Christians, “believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” The Bible never states that this must be explicit belief. Jesus Christ is the Eternal Logos, the Word of God (John 1), the Truth, which is with us from the beginning of our lives. I am sure many have been saved without being Christian, possibly even atheists. As long as they search for this Truth which is Goodness, I believe they will be saved because they will be “good” people. My information is based on an orthodox source: Peter Kreeft. I hope this helps your inquiries. Take care!

 

[Berean2]

As for non-Christians, “believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” The Bible never states that this must be explicit belief.

How can it be belief if it’s not “explicit”? “Jesus Christ” is pretty explicit. Mind you, it doesn’t say “Believe in God” (bec. in that case, your “inexplicit” belief could possibly pass the test) but “in Jesus Christ.” Think of Cornelius: he was very devout, a Jewish proselyte, and God praised him for the faith he had (as it manifested itself in almsgiving and prayer), yet he still needed to explicitly believe in Jesus Christ. Why would there be any need to “go out and preach the Gospel” if basically anybody can be saved?

As for folks being “good,” St. Paul makes it very clear that “None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.” Jesus says, “Why do you call me ‘good’? No one is good but God alone.” James puts it another way: “For whoever keeps the whole Law [referring to the Big 10C] but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.”

The Protestant concept of belief is not mere intellectual assent; “pisteuo” means putting your whole trust in someone or something. Growing up, I “believed” (purely in the intellectual sense) that Jesus was the only-begotten Son of God, that He died on a Cross “for our sins” (tho I had no idea what that phrase meant) and that He was resurrected. But none of that had the slightest bearing on my life: I believed those facts in the same way that I believed that George Washington was the first president of the U.S., and Lincoln was instrumental in freeing the slaves, & JFK got shot in Dallas. It wasn’t until I was 21 that I actually came to “pisteuo” faith.

“Pisteuo” is to the demons’ faith as loving marital relations are to pornography.

 

[Salvatore123]

Salesian,

I believe that Catholic schools today do a HORRIBLE job on educating our children the basics. I should know - I have four kids in Catholic school, chaired two school boards and sat on a diocesan school board.

I actually asked a religion teacher how do they teach the difference between the Catholic doctrine of salvation and the Protestant - his answer astonished me. He said, “we are really not that far apart. We just call things differently than they do.”

That’s it - that was his answer.

I don’t know you, so I have no idea what your knowledge is about this fundamental Catholic doctrine. I will assume that you don’t know (but it is only an assumption - I am NOT saying you don’t know).

Catholics “break down” getting into heaven into two things that must occur:

1. Redemption
2. Salvation

Redemption

As God was infinite love, Adam’s and Eve’s injury to him was also infinite. Their ACT was not infinite - it cannot be, as they were human. But to hurt an infinite being is to cause an infinite amount of harm.

So how does one seal the breach between man and God? God did it (which he did NOT HAVE TO DO) by becoming man. But as he was man and God, then all acts done by him as a man were infinitely good. But to also show us his depth of love for us, God, as man incarnate, suffered immensely for us in the physical sense of his being a man who was wipped, mocked, spat upon, and finally crucified.

The Passion that Christ endured served as payment (that is, redemption) to God to heal that breach. Of course, God accepted that act of his Son as completed and satisfied 9remember - Jesus said “it is finished”, and God said, he was “well pleased” with his son.

Thus, Jesus did something that no man could do - redeem mankind in the eyes of God. That was an objective, supernatural act that benefitted EVERY LIVING HUMAN, WHETHER CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, ORTHODOX - EVEN ATHEIST.

Salvation

Now, we get to the “saving” part. Protestants seem to “combine” Christ’s act of redemption (crucifixion) with a SUBJECT “thing” that must occur: salvation. And for salvation, MAN IS NEEDED. Man benefitted from the objective act of redemption, whether he wanted it or not, but man does NOT benefit from salvation, whether he wanted it or not, because MAN MUST PARTICIPATE IN HIS OWN SALVATION.

Remember, the bible states that man “should work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. Now, does that sound like “once saved/always saved”? Does that sound like the hard-core fundamentalists who say “I KNOW I am going to heaven”. My response is, "really? That’s funny, because Christ said only God can look into the window of a man’s soul, and thus only God can know who will be saved (he already knows because of his ominiscience - but that is an entirely different topic).

It is MAN who must work on his salvation, in cooperation with God, by living as Christ taught, believing as Christ taught, and being contrite when one has sinned. Now, if we did everything we are supposed to do, we can have a pretty good idea if we are bound for purgatory or hell (and if purgatory, then it is automatically heaven in the end) at any moment in our lives (or we SHOULD know the state of our soul - if we don’t, we have some serious problems).

So when distinguishes between redemption and salvation, we ARE like fundamentalist protestants when we and they say that “only God could have done what he accomplished on the cross”. That is very true. But we don’t call that act alone “salvation”. We call it redemption.

Thus, a quick guide to Catholic teaching on redemption/salvation.

I hope I made sense.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Truthkeeper: The intellectual faith I mentioned was NOT the Protestant verson. Look back at my Number 1. Number 2 was exactly the same faith that you are talking about, just not verbatum.

You are also overlooking one tiny fact. Many people have never heard of Jesus Christ: Indian tribes, people living in the streets, ancient pagans, infants (although these cannot do much searching), Plato, Socrates, etc…; it is NOT their fault. Even someone who is told about Him (only his name and another thing or two) but does not believe, it may NOT be their fault. We cannot know that. God knows our hearts. They may still believe in an objective reality that cannot be quantified, like do not lie or still, and search for it. That is the Word of God, the Truth, the Eternal Logos. I would not be surprised to see even some atheists in heaven because of their honest search for Truth. (Of course at this rate, my getting there aint lookin too hot!) I am not saying they will; what I am saying is we cannot limit God’s mercy only to people who believe explicitly in the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Why not to those who cannot (through no fault of their own) believe in Jesus Christ? Why limit His mercy? I strongly believe God will not condemn anyone who literally has no clue of Jesus Christ. Once again though, I am NOT saying they will be saved. I am just saying that we cannot know God’s limitless mercy. (Those that are told explicitly and implicitly reject all objective truth and insult us and so on like Richard Dawkins for one, those are the ones I am clearly NOT talking about. Those are the ones we really need to work hard on. This is just a side note)

With that said, we still have to spread the Gospels because that is what Jesus Himself told us to do. By not spreading the Gospels or making “disciples of all nations” because of the fact that people MAY be saved anyway, we are disobeying our Lord. (The key word “may” is because we cannot know this, that they might be saved.) We cannot disobey Him if we truly believe in Him. We still must do this because of our love and charity, the fruits of our faith. Otherwise, our faith is dead, because we say we believe but do nothing; we do not love our neighbor as ourself if we do not teach him/her the love that God is. Do not look at this subjectively, but look at it objectively.

I apologize for my being unspecific. Does this clear up the misunderstanding?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Salesian,

I believe that Catholic schools today do a HORRIBLE job on educating our children the basics. I should know - I have four kids in Catholic school, chaired two school boards and sat on a diocesan school board.

I actually asked a religion teacher how do they teach the difference between the Catholic doctrine of salvation and the Protestant - his answer astonished me. He said, “we are really not that far apart. We just call things differently than they do.”

That’s it - that was his answer.

I don’t know you, so I have no idea what your knowledge is about this fundamental Catholic doctrine. I will assume that you don’t know (but it is only an assumption - I am NOT saying you don’t know).

Catholics “break down” getting into heaven into two things that must occur:

1. Redemption
2. Salvation

Redemption

As God was infinite love, Adam’s and Eve’s injury to him was also infinite. Their ACT was not infinite - it cannot be, as they were human. But to hurt an infinite being is to cause an infinite amount of harm.

So how does one seal the breach between man and God? God did it (which he did NOT HAVE TO DO) by becoming man. But as he was man and God, then all acts done by him as a man were infinitely good. But to also show us his depth of love for us, God, as man incarnate, suffered immensely for us in the physical sense of his being a man who was wipped, mocked, spat upon, and finally crucified.

The Passion that Christ endured served as payment (that is, redemption) to God to heal that breach. Of course, God accepted that act of his Son as completed and satisfied 9remember - Jesus said “it is finished”, and God said, he was “well pleased” with his son.

Thus, Jesus did something that no man could do - redeem mankind in the eyes of God. That was an objective, supernatural act that benefitted EVERY LIVING HUMAN, WHETHER CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, ORTHODOX - EVEN ATHEIST.

Salvation

Now, we get to the “saving” part. Protestants seem to “combine” Christ’s act of redemption (crucifixion) with a SUBJECT “thing” that must occur: salvation. And for salvation, MAN IS NEEDED. Man benefitted from the objective act of redemption, whether he wanted it or not, but man does NOT benefit from salvation, whether he wanted it or not, because MAN MUST PARTICIPATE IN HIS OWN SALVATION.

Remember, the bible states that man “should work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. Now, does that sound like “once saved/always saved”? Does that sound like the hard-core fundamentalists who say “I KNOW I am going to heaven”. My response is, "really? That’s funny, because Christ said only God can look into the window of a man’s soul, and thus only God can know who will be saved (he already knows because of his ominiscience - but that is an entirely different topic).

It is MAN who must work on his salvation, in cooperation with God, by living as Christ taught, believing as Christ taught, and being contrite when one has sinned. Now, if we did everything we are supposed to do, we can have a pretty good idea if we are bound for purgatory or hell (and if purgatory, then it is automatically heaven in the end) at any moment in our lives (or we SHOULD know the state of our soul - if we don’t, we have some serious problems).

So when distinguishes between redemption and salvation, we ARE like fundamentalist protestants when we and they say that “only God could have done what he accomplished on the cross”. That is very true. But we don’t call that act alone “salvation”. We call it redemption.

Thus, a quick guide to Catholic teaching on redemption/salvation.

I hope I made sense.

That actually makes a whole lot of sense! Thanks for that. I have read about this but this is the easiest way of putting it, for my little brain anyway. Perfect justice done to His only Son.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I really stink at this quoting multiple things deal. Your posts are in bold.

How can it be belief if it’s not “explicit”? “Jesus Christ” is pretty explicit. Why would there be any need to “go out and preach the Gospel” if basically anybody can be saved?

I forgot to mention a couple things. Apparently, I did not read this all the way through. Jesus Christ also means, the Word, the Eternal Logos (John 1) with us from the beginning. It is only explicit to you because you know he is explicit (to me also). I am merely talking about those who do not know the explicitness (if there is such a word) through no fault of their own. A colorblind person can only believe there is color implicitly because he/she really does not know that it is explicit through no fault of his own. A non-colorblind person would think it is explicit because he knows it is.
Not “basically anybody”, I never once said or implied that. I go more into detail in the previous one but we must go and preach the Gospel because Jesus commanded us to do this.

****As for folks being “good,” St. Paul makes it very clear that “None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.” Jesus says, “Why do you call me ‘good’? No one is good but God alone.” James puts it another way: “For whoever keeps the whole Law [referring to the Big 10C] but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.”

I only put quotations around “good” to emphasize the Original Posters words. Being merely good is not what I meant (although I can certainly see why you think I meant that). I put “good” because it is underestimating what we are called to do and be but I know what Salesian meant when he said, “i always thought that good people go to Heaven…”.

****The Protestant concept of belief is not mere intellectual assent; “pisteuo” means putting your whole trust in someone or something. Growing up, I “believed” (purely in the intellectual sense) that Jesus was the only-begotten Son of God, that He died on a Cross “for our sins” (tho I had no idea what that phrase meant) and that He was resurrected. But none of that had the slightest bearing on my life: I believed those facts in the same way that I believed that George Washington was the first president of the U.S., and Lincoln was instrumental in freeing the slaves, & JFK got shot in Dallas. It wasn’t until I was 21 that I actually came to “pisteuo” faith.
Having this “pisteuo” faith produces good works, I presume? Hence, why we believe faith AND works go together in salvation. A both/and, not an either/or (this is where the misunderstanding is). We believe that both are needed in the cases where we can do both, not good works OR faith.

Besides, he asked for a Catholic view. Salvatore made an excellent point and I just had another view. He emphasized the explicit belief. I emphasized the implicit belief which for me is harder to understand but it makes sense for those who are wondering whether God condemns non-Christians to hell for not believing in Christ, the Son of Man. Both are worked towards. The implicit is a little harder but I do not see any valid reason why it is impossible. WE STILL MUST “MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS”. Otherwise, we are not Christ-like. We need to do this because we do not and cannot know who is going to be saved. Which is my belief and will not be changed. I believe people CAN be saved without know Christ, but we do not know who, which is why we must do this. Thanks for your critique though. I had to work at the legitimateness of an orthodox view which is why it took me two posts. Take care buddy

 

[candle1]

Thank you SalesianSDB = that was wonderful = it really touched me to think I will just be called home.

Thank you I never understood that.

 

[SalesianSDB]

Thank you SalesianSDB = that was wonderful = it really touched me to think I will just be called home.

Thank you I never understood that.

Like I said, I love this thought, and this is my view of salvation. Plain and simple. But I haven’t been able to find any reference to this specific revelation online and I haven’t had the chance to read St. Faustina’s Diary. But since Fr. Benedict has mentioned this revelation several times on his program, I am inclined to believe him, because after all, it is Fr. Benedict!

Has anyone else heard of this revelation, or has read it?

 

[TheQuestioner]

So now when asked about my views on salvation I reference CCC 161 and James. I say that faith is necessary for salvation, and that faith without works is dead. At the same time, I do believe that when we die Jesus will call us by name and if we answer Him, “Yes, Lord? I am here,” He will welcome us with open arms.

I am just wondering, from a Catholic perspective, how is this view?

Thank you and God bless you!
Mary Help of Christians, pray for us!

The “Yes, Lord? I am here” is private revelation, so it is not officially part of Church teaching. I suggest, if you have time, going to catholic.com/magazines/thisrock.asp to look up answers on salvation.

btw, if faith without works is dead then complete faith depends on and therefore necessitates works.

However, read over the council of Trent. We are saved by grace, not by faith and not by works. We are saved by grace through faith, working in love. Find out what this means.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

 

[Berean2]

The “Yes, Lord? I am here” is private revelation, so it is not officially part of Church teaching.

AMMMMMen!

Gregg, sorry if my post sounded like a critique of what you wrote: it was only meant for learning purposes, not in any way intending to assail. Your explanations were appreciated, and yes, “pisteuo” definitely implies good works, bec. once one has “pisteuo’d” in Christ’s righteousness alone, (LOL!), one is given the new nature, which is created for good works, as Ephesians says. But pisteuo does not mean that one can ever look to one’s own works for assurance of one’s salvation, bec. if one is totally honest, one knows that no day passes where one does not sin, either by omission or commission, either in word, thought or deed (or lack of deeds), which is why Romans 4’s teaching of Christ’s imputed righteousness is so crucial to the believer.

 

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/saint-paul.jpg?w=450&h=351

I’m reading Benedict XVI’s recent book on Saint Paul. He does a great job presenting the Doctrine of Justification:

“The centrality of justification without works, the primary object of Paul’s preaching, does not clash with faith that works through love; indeed, it demands that our faith itself be expressed in a life in accordance with the Spirit.”
Pope Benedict XVI

If that isn’t crisp and clear I don’t know what is. I see a lot of posts/threads here and there, folks still arguing this.

Anyways there is more here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/07/28/benedict-xvi-on-saint-paul-and-the-doctrine-of-justification/

Do you see the reproduction of an oil painting, produced by a Valentin de Boulogne dated roughly around 1600. The painting is entitled “Saint Paul Writing His Epistles?” How many errors can you see in the painting? It’s almost funny. The complete answer also at the link above.

dj

 

[SalesianSDB]

The “Yes, Lord? I am here” is private revelation, so it is not officially part of Church teaching.

Yes, but from what I’ve heard someone may believe in a private revelation as long as it does not conflict with Church teachings. And since St. Faustina’s Diary has a nihil obstat and an imprimature (also the fact that we pray the Chaplet of Divine Mercy and have Divine Mercy Sunday) , I would imagine that there isn’t anything in there that goes against Church teaching so we are allowed to believe it.

Am I wrong on this?

 

[fhansen]

We’re saved by God-we certainly have no ability to save ourselves, to grant ourselves eternal life. It’s an act of grace. The means or vehicle He uses is to* justify* us. The first step in justification is our faith-it’s all about us-because it’s all about our wills. Adam & Eve rejected faith in God by rejecting His very* godhood*, by rejecting any authority over them. So faith is the first step back because it’s something we’re not born with due to OS. The injustice of man is his very separation from God and his preference to keep things that way. So again the first step is faith.

But that alone can never justify us. To become just, man must also actively hope in the promises of God which He revealed to mankind, mainly through Jesus Christ. This means man trusts in God again, something the CCC teaches had died in man’s heart. The Catechism also teaches that man had “become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image”.

All this must be overcome so that man can come to* love* God, as He always deserved and as He created man to do. Then justice and order are fulfilled. Then man is justified, fulfilling all the commandments by loving God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength as well as his neighbor as himself.

This is the way man is saved, by God helping him to be the creature He always meant him to be. And, as this is a process, man is drawn to greater sanctity, meaning to become increasingly just, and his works of love are an integral part in that change, providing, of course, he’s given the time to produce them. Not by blindly and mechanically following the law, but rather by actually becoming “law-abiding” through a change of heart-obedient out of love for the Master.