Mainline Protestants Closer to Catholics on Salvation than the Evangelicals

[Basil the Great]

Prior to Vatican II one never would have thought that most Mainline Protestants could ever be closer to the Catholic view of salvation than that taught by Evangelical Protestants. However, such would appear to be true today. Since most Mainline Protestants seem unwilling to insist that all non-Christians are automatically damned to Hell, such a view would certainly appear to put them closer to the Catholic teaching of salvation that the Evangelical one. Agree or disagree?

 

[Greg J.]

I don't know the details of what any of those denominational references are, but everyone has condemned themselves. If someone wants eternal Life he or she must be reborn and be alive in Christ.

 

[Albion]

Prior to Vatican II one never would have thought that most Mainline Protestants could ever be closer to the Catholic view of salvation than that taught by Evangelical Protestants. However, such would appear to be true today. Since most Mainline Protestants seem unwilling to insist that all non-Christians are automatically damned to Hell, such a view would certainly appear to put them closer to the Catholic teaching of salvation that the Evangelical one. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. There is a world of difference between Sola Fide and Works Righteousness. But that aside, the difference between the Catholic Church's recent position concerning salvation for those who have no knowledge of Christ and the still-normative Protestant position remains alive.

Most Catholics now think belief in Christ is not essential, whereas Protestants who hope that God has something in mind for those who genuinely never had a chance to hear of Jesus still do not assert that they know what it is or even that it's a certainty. This is all verified by surveys of members of Catholic and various Protestant churches.

 

[farout]

Prior to Vatican II one never would have thought that most Mainline Protestants could ever be closer to the Catholic view of salvation than that taught by Evangelical Protestants. However, such would appear to be true today. Since most Mainline Protestants seem unwilling to insist that all non-Christians are automatically damned to Hell, such a view would certainly appear to put them closer to the Catholic teaching of salvation that the Evangelical one. Agree or disagree?

From my Evangelical perspective, many Mainline Protestants have weakened their acceptance of the Bible being their guide and basis for their denomination. Often these Mainline denominations have openly approved of and willingly allowed homosexual clergy, These denominations teach creation was by evolution, and some believe there are other ways to heaven beside by faith in Jesus Christ.

There are some in these mainline Denominations that are fighting to hold on to the original Doctrines before liberal Theology was accepted by these Denominations. Those who have been abandoned by their Denominations are in some instances joining Evangelical denominations that hold to the Authority of the Bible and its teachings.

The odd thing to me is that the mainline Denominations have disregarded the areas of disagreements between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism. Such areas of the Popes Authority, The worship and praying to Mary, Saints, and Purgatory, just to mention a few of many differences. For me this is just but one more step to the great falling away of many so called believers. This again is just my opinion.

 

[Basil the Great]

Disagree. There is a world of difference between Sola Fide and Works Righteousness. But that aside, the difference between the Catholic Church's recent position concerning salvation for those who have no knowledge of Christ and the still-normative Protestant position remains alive.

Most Catholics now think belief in Christ is not essential, whereas Protestants who hope that God has something in mind for those who genuinely never had a chance to hear of Jesus still do not assert that they know what it is or even that it's a certainty. This is all verified by surveys of members of Catholic and various Protestant churches.

Albion - The intent of my thread was directed specifically at the issue of whether non-Christians have a chance at going to Heaven and not at the Faith Alone vs. Faith and Works aspect of salvation. Do you not agree that that the majority of Mainline Protestants and Catholics believe that non-Christians are not automatically lost and that God will still decide their fate on a case-by-case basis?

 

[Albion]

Albion - The intent of my thread was directed specifically at the issue of whether non-Christians have a chance at going to Heaven and not at the Faith Alone vs. Faith and Works aspect of salvation. Do you not agree that that the majority of Mainline Protestants and Catholics believe that non-Christians are not automatically lost and that God will still decide their fate on a case-by-case basis?

I'm sorry, but I gave an honest answer as you requested of us. No, I don't think that by using very carefully-chosen and imprecise wording it's possible to conclude that some kind of vague, homespun unity on the lowest common denominator level exists ("Mainline" Protestants and Catholics, "God will decide their fate on a case-by-case basis," etc. What does that last one even mean?

 

[Basil the Great]

I'm sorry, but I gave an honest answer as you requested of us. No, I don't think that by using very carefully-chosen and imprecise wording it's possible to conclude that some kind of vague, homespun unity on the lowest common denominator level exists ("Mainline" Protestants and Catholics, "God will decide their fate on a case-by-case basis," etc. What does that last one even mean?

My thesis contends that God will not judge non-Christians as a group, but rather look at each person's soul and how each person lived and how much sharing of the Gospel was afforded to each person in their lifetime, if any.

 

[Albion]

The odd thing to me is that the mainline Denominations have disregarded the areas of disagreements between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism. Such areas of the Popes Authority, The worship and praying to Mary, Saints, and Purgatory, just to mention a few of many differences. For me this is just but one more step to the great falling away of many so called believers. This again is just my opinion.

You got my curiosity up with that one. What Protestant churches have started preaching to accept the Pope's authority, to worship Mary, and/or believe in Purgatory?

 

[Albion]

My thesis contends that God will not judge non-Christians as a group, but rather look at each person's soul and how each person lived and how much sharing of the Gospel was afforded to each person in their lifetime, if any.

Well, that IS much clearer. I still believe that no man can work his way into God's favor by performing meritorious deeds, but I appreciate the explanation of your own view.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Prior to Vatican II one never would have thought that most Mainline Protestants could ever be closer to the Catholic view of salvation than that taught by Evangelical Protestants. However, such would appear to be true today. Since most Mainline Protestants seem unwilling to insist that all non-Christians are automatically damned to Hell, such a view would certainly appear to put them closer to the Catholic teaching of salvation that the Evangelical one. Agree or disagree?

Many mainline Protestants (not willing to say most) are closer to the Catholic view of salvation than that taught by Evangelical Protestants.

IMO - since that means in many cases that their system of salvation does not stress a personal reception and application of the gospel except through church ordinances and activities - that means that in many cases they are farther from justification before God than are evangelicals.

As I see it - the further one is from the evangelical view of the gospel the farther one is from a true relationship with the Lord no matter how Pious the life of the Christian may appear. The life and confessions of Mother Theresa are probably the most prominent examples of this sad situation.

 

[Basil the Great]

Well, that IS much clearer. I still believe that no man can work his way into God's favor by performing meritorious deeds, but I appreciate the explanation of your own view.

Your previous response has encouraged me to post on poll on the Congregational Forums, I am most curious to test my theory and compare how Catholics, Mainline Protestants and Evangelicals view this most important point. Meanwhile, I am glad that I have cleared things up for you.

 

[bottomofsandal]

Prior to Vatican II one never would have thought that most Mainline Protestants could ever be closer to the Catholic view of salvation than that taught by Evangelical Protestants. However, such would appear to be true today. Since most Mainline Protestants seem unwilling to insist that all non-Christians are automatically damned to Hell, such a view would certainly appear to put them closer to the Catholic teaching of salvation that the Evangelical one. Agree or disagree?

First shouldn't you establish a definition of "salvation"?

What is a man rescued/saved/delivered from...and equally important, saved to what exactly?

Not being trite or confrontational. IMVO, there is not a universal definition. Is there?

 

[bottomofsandal]

Most Catholics now think belief in Christ is not essential, whereas Protestants who hope that God has something in mind for those who genuinely never had a chance to hear of Jesus still do not assert that they know what it is or even that it's a certainty. This is all verified by surveys of members of Catholic and various Protestant churches.

I am dumbfounded...Christ not necessary?

How did this line of thinking develop?

 

[Biblicist]

Even though my following statement might not do full justice to those denominations that regularly refer to themselves as being Protestant, for many Evangelicals and Pentecostals we see the differences between the "Protestant" denominations and Rome as being little more than by degrees.

 

[bottomofsandal]

Even though my following statement might not do full justice to those denominations that regularly refer to themselves as being Protestant, for many Evangelicals and Pentecostals we see the differences between the "Protestant" denominations and Rome as being little more than by degrees.

So, who is becoming more like whom?

Who is losing their identity or practicing assimilation?

I guess it is necessary to name names (denominations)?

 

[Basil the Great]

I am dumbfounded...Christ not necessary?

How did this line of thinking develop?

The Catholic teaching is that no man or woman is saved apart from the sacrifice of Christ. I cannot emphasize this enough. To be fair to the RCC, this is absolutely their stance. However, the current RCC position is that due to "invincible ignorance", it is still possible that non-Christians (and non-Catholic Christians as well) have a chance at salvation. I do not know if this is exactly how some Protestants (or Orthodox for that matter) who agree with the Catholic Catechism, that it is possible that some non-Christians might be saved, would describe the situation or not. Some probably would and others might not.

How did the "invincible ignorance" doctrine develop? Well, it seems to have started with a handful of Early Church Fathers who taught that some of the Pagans that they prayed for were saved. The doctrine did not go very far at all, at least not in the West, until the New World was discovered as having Native Americans who had never heard of the Gospel message. Then one of the Popes mentioned it in a non-infallible teaching way as a method for the Native Americans to have a chance at salvation. It was mentioned in the 1800's in a general manner, not specific to any particular group, but again not with the authority of Papal Infallibility. It was again mentioned when Father Feeney was excommunicated in the 1940's, but yet again, in a non-infallible teaching manner. Finally with the Vatican II documents in the 1960's, the RCC officially developed the "invincible ignorance" doctrine in more detail and apparently with the safeguard of Papal Infallibility (as the RCC teaches anyway), except that very conservative Catholics maintain that since the Vatican II Council was a Pastoral Council and not a Dogmatic Council, the documents on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism are not protected by Papal Infallibility and are not in accord with the past teachings of the Church.

As to how some liberal/moderate Protestants (and some Orthodox) would explain their positions, is more difficult to say. I have seen some state that they believe that all souls at the moment of death will be given a last chance to accept Jesus. This would obviously be most important for those who have lived and died without hearing the Gospel message. Many others simply say that God will show mercy upon whom He chooses and they are just unwilling to put God in a box, so to speak, and try and speak for God on the possibility of salvation for non-Christians (obviously despite the fact that the Bible seems to speak clearly on the matter). I suppose that a very small handful of others might feel that the Old Testament Covenant with the Jews is still valid and that this Covenant gives Jews a chance at salvation. Others probably believe that God will judge non-Christians by the lives they have lived in accordance with the light that has been given to them.

To the Eastern Orthodox, they view salvation a little different than most Protestants and Catholics. They believe that upon death, we receive a foretaste or Heaven or Hell, but not real Heaven or Hell until Jesus returns. It appears that a minority view within Orthodoxy goes along with what a minority of Early Church Fathers taught, namely, that prayers for the deceased still have the chance to bring them to salvation, even if they died without knowing Jesus. I emphasize that this appears to be a minority view among Orthodoxy. However, the Eastern Orthodox do pray once a year at Pentecost for the souls in Hades (presumably those encountering a foretaste of Hell, as the Orthodox believe) and they believe that these prayers will at least give said souls some comfort. Personally, as a Protestant, I find such a prayer to be a wonderful thing. I do not know if it does any good, but I see no harm in it at all.

So, in summary, this line of thinking probably began as a way to explain how God could offer salvation to those who live and die without hearing the Gospel message.

 

[Basil the Great]

So, who is becoming more like whom?

Who is losing their identity or practicing assimilation?

I guess it is necessary to name names (denominations)?

Well, naming denominations would not be the fairest thing to do, as there are no doubt liberals, moderates and conservatives within every denomination. However, I would think that surveys show that the UCC (United Church of Christ), the Episcopal Church, the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) and the United Methodist Church have large numbers of members who would agree with the current Catholic position that all non-Christians are not necessarily lost. The same might be true of one or two more denominations, but such is less certain.

 

[bottomofsandal]

The Catholic teaching is that no man or woman is saved apart from the sacrifice of Christ. I cannot emphasize this enough. To be fair to the RCC, this is absolutely their stance. However, the current RCC position is that due to "invincible ignorance", it is still possible that non-Christians (and non-Catholic Christians as well) have a chance at salvation. I do not know if this is exactly how some Protestants (or Orthodox for that matter) who agree with the Catholic Catechism, that it is possible that some non-Christians might be saved, would describe the situation or not. Some probably would and others might not.

How did the "invincible ignorance" doctrine develop? Well, it seems to have started with a handful of Early Church Fathers who taught that some of the Pagans that they prayed for were saved. The doctrine did not go very far at all, at least not in the West, until the New World was discovered as having Native Americans who had never heard of the Gospel message. Then one of the Popes mentioned it in a non-infallible teaching way as a method for the Native Americans to have a chance at salvation. It was mentioned in the 1800's in a general manner, not specific to any particular group, but again not with the authority of Papal Infallibility. It was again mentioned when Father Feeney was excommunicated in the 1940's, but yet again, in a non-infallible teaching manner. Finally with the Vatican II documents in the 1960's, the RCC officially developed the "invincible ignorance" doctrine in more detail and apparently with the safeguard of Papal Infallibility (as the RCC teaches anyway), except that very conservative Catholics maintain that since the Vatican II Council was a Pastoral Council and not a Dogmatic Council, the documents on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism are not protected by Papal Infallibility and are not in accord with the past teachings of the Church.

As to how some liberal/moderate Protestants (and some Orthodox) would explain their positions, is more difficult to say. I have seen some state that they believe that all souls at the moment of death will be given a last chance to accept Jesus. This would obviously be most important for those who have lived and died without hearing the Gospel message. Many others simply say that God will show mercy upon whom He chooses and they are just unwilling to put God in a box, so to speak, and try and speak for God on the possibility of salvation for non-Christians (obviously despite the fact that the Bible seems to speak clearly on the matter). I suppose that a very small handful of others might feel that the Old Testament Covenant with the Jews is still valid and that this Covenant gives Jews a chance at salvation. Others probably believe that God will judge non-Christians by the lives they have lived in accordance with the light that has been given to them.

To the Eastern Orthodox, they view salvation a little different than most Protestants and Catholics. They believe that upon death, we receive a foretaste or Heaven or Hell, but not real Heaven or Hell until Jesus returns. It appears that a minority view within Orthodoxy goes along with what a minority of Early Church Fathers taught, namely, that prayers for the deceased still have the chance to bring them to salvation, even if they died without knowing Jesus. I emphasize that this appears to be a minority view among Orthodoxy. However, the Eastern Orthodox do pray once a year at Pentecost for the souls in Hades (presumably those encountering a foretaste of Hell, as the Orthodox believe) and they believe that these prayers will at least give said souls some comfort. Personally, as a Protestant, I find such a prayer to be a wonderful thing. I do not know if it does any good, but I see no harm in it at all.

So, in summary, this line of thinking probably began as a way to explain how God could offer salvation to those who live and die without hearing the Gospel message.

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

The RCC has come a long way since Unam Sanctam.

 

[Basil the Great]

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

The RCC has come a long way since Unam Sanctam.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. The RCC has indeed come a very long way since the Unam Sanctam Papal Bull. My grandmother told me decades ago that the RCC had changed a lot. I was unsure for many years about her statement, but after much research and reflection, I came to the conclusion that her claim was correct.