Posted on 06/13/2013 12:40:22 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
I often tell people that if you lose your way in Reformed Tradition (read Presbyterian) theology, you can always go back to square one, which says, in essence, this: God is sovereign.
Or -- in wording I prefer now because most of us have no experience living under a sovereign -- God is gloriously free.
I thought about that the other day when I read something Pope Francis said in a book he co-authored in 2010 as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Speaking about how he would converse with an atheist, Bergoglio wrote: "I would not tell him that his life is condemned because I am convinced that I have no right to pass judgment."
That, friends, is Reformed Tradition theology. It is up to God to determine who will have eternal life. It is not up to us. Even if you go to Reformed Tradition founder John Calvin's hard-to-follow concepts about predestination (to say nothing of double predestination), you discover that no human being can know for certain who is saved and who is condemned.
This very point once led my friend Kathleen Norris to write this in her book Amazing Grace: A Vocabulary of Faith: "It strikes me that only a French lawyer could have come up with so complex, if not bizarre, a justification for treating all people as if they could be among the elect, the chosen of God."
There’s more to NCR than what you read online. Explore our Ministries special section.
She's right. Even if you buy Calvinism's some-get-saved, some-get-damned-and-there's-nothing-you-can-do-about-it scheme, you don't know who is who, so you have to be nice to everyone on the theory that you may spend eternity with that person.
Which is pretty much what Bergoglio was saying in On Heaven and Earth, co-written with Rabbi Abraham Skorka.
When I read what Bergoglio said on this subject, I had a provocative thought that I was tempted to throw into the lede of this column. Something like this: "Hey, Catholics: Do you know what you've done? You've chosen a Protestant pope."
But the day after I read the pope's words, I discovered that someone had beat me to that conclusion. Writer Jonathan Merritt asked this question about Pope Francis in this Religion News Service piece: "... could the growing popularity (of Francis) among non-Catholics make him 'the first Protestant Pope?' "
Merritt added this: "The combination of the new Pope's concern for justice issues and his conservative theology seems to be appealing to many of these socially conscious Protestants." (I like what Merritt said, though I'm not happy he got the idea that Francis may be the first Protestant pope into print before I did. But let it go.)
Those of us in mainline Protestant churches (Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.) have been long on social justice concerns and short on respect for hierarchical governance structures and fancy ritual.
We pay a price for this emphasis, but it's one we've been willing to pay. And it now appears to many of us that the new pope is intent on moving the Catholic church a bit closer to this Protestant approach.
Perhaps we could meet in the middle. We Protestants will add more ritual and you Catholics can decentralize your governance structure as together we wash the feet of the poor.
I know that sounds a bit facetious, but I'm serious. There is much we can learn from each other, and the learning of it might move us closer to some kind of reunification (at least of spirit) nearly 500 years after Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the cathedral door, thus (inadvertently) starting the Protestant Reformation.
We Protestants don't have our own pope to negotiate a grand bargain with Francis, but if he's really the first Protestant pope, problem solved. All we Protestants and you Catholics need to do to start is pay attention to the times he's standing on our common ground and join him there.
What are your qualifications for telling people what Catholic theology is, and isn't?
This is Catholic theology, in fact, it's infallibly taught Catholic theology.
Protestants sometimes have the temerity to say that the Catholic Church doesn't actually believe this.
They're wrong. She actually does. Today. Right now.
According to the interpretation of the Church fathers, like Ambrose and Augustine --- and according to Peter's first Epistle (see above) --the Church is the new ark, like Noah's, which we enter by Baptism, and which alone saves from the Flood.
Matt. 16:18-19
It is impossible to see why Christ would build a Church (which He did), placing the keys to the kingdom of heaven in the hands of Peter (which He did), if the Church were not intended to be His saving help for our salvation.
Pretty obvious. "The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." - 1 Timothy 3:15
He even says those who do not listen to the Church are to be treated as pagans (see tagline.)
That’s funny, I’ve heard LOTS of protestants tell me that they KNOW that they’re saved.
There is IMO a significant difference between saying that "I know that I am saved", and saying "I know that someone else is saved." On a practical level, I would agree with the Catholic view that it's impossible for someone to know, with any certainty, whether someone else (during their lifetime) is truly saved or not. We may believe that we ourselves are saved, but how can we really tell whether that other guy is (or not)? We cannot read minds or search the inner workings of someone else's heart, so we must rely on signs and indications given off by the other person (church membership and participation, creedal fealty, good works, etc.).
Signs and indications of salvation in others are temporal and subjective in observance, and thus not entirely reliable, however. The Apostle John tells us that it is evident who are God's children (1 John 3:10), but he also says that some who we think are fellow Christians are actually not (1 John 2:19), and will break fellowship with us at some point. Jesus tells his followers to do their good works "in secret" so that they cannot receive credit (i.e. be observed) by other men (Matthew 6), and the Psalmist tells us that even good trees do not bear fruit in every season (Psalm 1:3). Appearances in any given season can be deceiving. A good tree out of season might be judged as dead and worthless, if the observer is an impatient man.
Thus, at any particular moment in time, that fellow (godly believer) believer in the pew next to you may appear to be lifeless and fruitless today, while the (secretly degenerate) fellow on the other side can be seen singing in the choir, serving soup to the homeless, and dropping fat checks in the collection plate. Which of them is really saved? At best we can make (temporary) judgments and predictions about them, based on our observances of their long-term behaviors, remembering that we do not see and cannot know everything. IMO this is why Our Lord instituted ridiculous-looking behaviors like public baptism. If someone isn't willing to call themselves out in public, it doesn't look promising that there's been an inward change and repentence.
So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,
but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
-- Matthew 10:32-33
But that's the debate regarding the person next to us. IMO where Catholics err on this is that they apply these same rules to themselves, and go on to conclude that they cannot know whether they themselves are saved. Regarding ourselves, we know if we have experienced that inward change, we know what (and Who) we have believed, we know if we have repented, because we have a better understanding of our own hearts. And thus, the Apostle John can tell us this:
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
-- 1 John 5:13
But Pope Francis says nothing about judging the self vs. judging another; he simply states that he has NO right to pass judgement. Indeed, the apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians:
“I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself”
Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,
Joh 6:69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."
Works are a natural outcome of resting in Christ ("Abide in me and you will bear fruit."). It is a promise of God that we will bear fruit. I suspect that what we think is fruit isn't really the type of fruit God desires for our lives. Likewise, we are generating fruit that we really don't know about. This is reflected in the verses, "Lord, when did we see you...."
At the end of the day, it is all about trusting God and His promises. God is not man that He should lie. Has He not said it and will He not do it? All the promises find their yes in Him.
If someone doubts their salvation, they are doubting God's promise.
Thanks for your replies; I didn't see them earlier.
I agree with the above BTW; didn't ever suggest I didn't. It is true, however, that I was not especially mindful of that possibility at the time.
On thinking about it, I also agree that one should pray that God has mercy on their souls -- even if they don't repent.
Tagline
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.