Remember this post on our assurance of salvation?
Well, here is a different take, the Catholic viewpoint, via First Things and Avery Cardinal Dulles. Apparently, God grades on a curve:
Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.
Gene Veith‘s comments on this were right on:
. . . [L]et me get this straight, and keep in mind that Cardinal Dulles is no touchy-feely Catholic but a conservative Catholic in close association with the Pope. To be saved, you do not have to have faith in Jesus Christ. You can have faith in God. Or, despite the first commandment, you can have faith in God under some other name. Or, if you don’t believe in any gods, you can have faith in something else, such as truth or justice. Or, if you don’t have faith in anything, you can be saved by your good works, though this seems to be the main point even for Christians.
Certainly, if salvation is by good works, anyone who does good works–people of other religions, atheists–will be saved. And since Catholics define good works as having been produced by faith, one can predicate some sort of efficacious faith to anyone who does them. But what an impoverished view of sin we see here! So even this blatantly human rationalization to make God seem nice turns out to be of little comfort to an actual sinner who is burdened by his bad works.
But more than that, if faith in virtually anything is enough or even optional for salvation, why do we need the church, why should anyone evangelize, and why did Jesus need to die?
Before we go all “Luther” on the Catholics for holding this view, we might reflect on the fact that this is probably what the vast majority of people out there who call themselves Christian believe. This is a perfect post-modern, non-offensive, non-threatening view. It is almost impossible to find someone going to Hell under this view. But, this just isn’t what the Bible teaches. How can you read the Gospels or Paul’s letters and come away with this view? Notice the work righteousness add on “if they obey the commandments” even for Catholics. Whew, it’s still 1517. What exactly has changed?
Planet Augsburg 
January 23, 2008 at 5:13 am
I love how he says “Christ the mediator leaves no one unassisted”, but he misses the point of even having a “mediator” in the first place! We could never please God, but Christ stood in for us. Oh there is no doubt that He leaves no one unassisted, but it’s not an assistance through works. Christ’s assistance is to pour forth His spirit into a spiritually dead wretch and wash him in His death and Resurrection so that which was once dead is now alive. “Good works cannot avert our doom, they help and save us never”
– Paul Speratus
There is no comfort in this false doctrine because you are still relying on your works, and this flies in the face of Hebrews which says the works of unbelievers are a stinch to God. Or how God calls unbelieving Israel’s works “menstrual garments”. Without faith in Christ, we can’t even please God. I hate to say this….No….actually I am dang proud to say this, but I know that our 13 year old confirmands are smarter and have a better grasp on the doctrine of Justification than this “cardinal”. More bluntly put; in a debate, I’d put all my money on a 13 year old Lutheran confirmand than this “Dull” Cardinal.
I’m sorry Andy, I had to go all “Luther”. Never the less, it’s not perfect faith that saves a man, but a perfect Savior. On the last day, God will wash this Cardinal clean of His Old Adamic mind.
January 23, 2008 at 7:17 am
Perhaps this Cardinal is trying to implement a form of Ahl al Kitab from Islam. 😉
January 23, 2008 at 10:57 pm
A few thoughts…
Orthodox Catholics have a different conception/definition of a few key terms within the argument of salvation and justification. I have a good little book by Robert Preus (“Justification and Rome”) that gives a detailed look at the differences. I also have a Catholic friend who I spar with on occasion. Just something to think about when reading material from Roman Catholics. For the record, I don’t agree with the RC definitions, but terms must be defined when discussing these things.
I say this because I’ve often run into the idea that “Christ is Truth” or something similar…John 14:6 and others. Dulles says, “Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice.” There seems to be this underlying attempt by RC’s that I’ve dealt with (conscious or not) to directly associate Christ with concepts such as “Truth” or “Justice”. While the statement, “Christ is Truth” may be true, somehow it seems misleading. My gut, however rotten it may be, tells me that “Truth is Christ” doesn’t follow. It seems to remove the “person” of Christ…then you end up with the theological idea that one may worship Truth and Justice and receive salvation. Obviously, anything that removes Christ from the picture is to be anathema.
The concepts must not be mistaken for the Person…
Thoughts?
January 23, 2008 at 11:58 pm
My thoughts? I think Robert Preus and his sons are some of the most brilliant theologians of our century. 🙂
I agree with you, things such as “Truth” and “Justice” are attributes that make up our God, but you don’t receive salvation from attributes, you receive salvation from the God who holds these attributes. There is no other name under heaven by which we are saved, and that name is “Jesus”.
“Currentlyporkchop”,
Thanks for commenting on some posts! We’re glad to have you, we hope to see you around some more.
January 24, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Encyclomatic95, “attribute” (rather than “concept”) is a more accurate term for what I was trying to say. Thanks:)
January 24, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Do you mean “concept” is a more accurate term (rather than “attribute”)? Because I was using “attribute”.
Hey you too can be an encyclomatic95. When it comes to theology, I use a cheat sheet–it’s called “Dr. Laurance White’s Life With God”.
January 24, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Catechismaton95,
Your use of “attribute” is better. You win. Are you happy now?! 😉
Actually, I happen to have a special hardbound copy of Life With God (don’t ask how I obtained it;). I haven’t had it autographed yet, though…I guess I should do that.
January 24, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Ohhh, some how I read that sentence as saying, “Concept is more of what I am looking”. If you think about it, “concept” is the same notion as attribute. You can almost use them interchangingly.
“What are the concepts of God?” He is……etc.
“What are the attributes of God?” He is…..etc.
You need to get that thang autographed now! BTW I do mean “thang”.
January 24, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Roger that, charismatic95.
Sorry for the confusion…
Concept: a general notion or idea.
Attribute: a quality, character, characteristic, or property.
One thing I’ve learned is to define terms…I’m kind of anal about it. One of those character flaws, I suppose. Attribute is better in this case.