------------------------
The author asks the wrong question but eventually gets to the right answer, then reverses course at the end. The correct question is, what doctrines must one believe in order to be saved? Or maybe, if you believe all the right doctrines, are you saved? Or, if you are in the right denomination, are you saved?
There is a marked tendency among Christians of all stripes to characterize salvation in relation to what doctrines a church believes. This is an abiblical concept. Certainly it is true that we need to hold to sound doctrine, but doctrine doesn't save us. There is no set of doctrines we can point to and say that people are saved or not saved based on their adherence to those doctrines.
In addition, where you go to church doesn't speak to salvation. Even belonging to a cult is a separate issue from salvation. The author eventually lands on this right answer:
Christians are simply those who are going to Heaven. Which means there may be people who believe otherwise errant things who nevertheless believe the biblical gospel and will be going to Heaven.
There is one substantial factor missing in the author's thinking, the Holy Spirit. He writes,
if they have somehow come to the conclusion that their salvation is, indeed, exclusively by faith in Christ alone – errant as the denomination may be – that individual can rightly be called a Christian.
A person does not "come to the conclusion" to become a Christian. No intellectual process is involved. A person doesn't hear or read the Gospel then based on the pros and cons reach a "conclusion." Rather, the Holy Spirit is the agent by whom we are saved:
Jn. 3:6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
Oddly, after expending hundreds of words, he swerves away from the correct answer at the end, asserting:
Anyone who either doesn’t believe on the Lord Jesus Christ or who says certain works are necessary in addition to the work of Jesus, will not be saved. That is, will not go to Heaven. Which is to say, is not a Christian. When understood that way, Catholic are not Christians.
Hmm. So there is a doctrine that is required for salvation. Salvation means one cannot believe that works play a role in salvation. This of course is false.
Lastly we note that the author neither quotes nor references the Bible. He does use the word "Bible" a couple of times, but there is no Bible teaching or principle contained in this article. Which means everything here is mere speculation and intellectual posturing.
We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.
This might seem like a particularly odd question to ask. It is, I admit, one of those slightly niche questions. But it does matter a little bit. And the answer, when all is said and done, boils down to a question of definitions. It all depends how we define the term Christian.
If what we mean by Christian is somebody who is culturally Christian, then the answer is certainly yes, Catholics are Christians. But then, if this is our definition, Richard Dawkins, who is an avowed Atheist and claims to despise most of what is in the Bible, is also a Christian. Along with him, pretty well everybody in our country who does not belong to a family that has come from a majority non-Christian nation are also Christians. That would include Atheists, agnostics and everyone who calls themselves Christian whilst having absolutely nothing to do with Christianity nor it seeming to have any impact on their life whatsoever. Rarely, when we use the term Christian, is this actually what we mean. We are clearly thinking about people who both consider themselves Christian, who actually believe some Christian things and whose Christianity has a meaningful impact on them.
Perhaps we might draw things a little differently, but along similar lines, historically. Rather than arguing for cultural Christianity – which clearly now includes people who in no way believe they are Christian and nor does anybody else – we might argue a Christian is somebody who exists within Christendom and affirms their allegiance to it. So, we might rule out the Atheists who – though coming from so-called Christian nations – actively eschew the dominance of religion in those countries. But we might include those who would happily call themselves Christian because they live in a Christian country whilst their apparent Christianity having no real impact on them. On this understanding, Catholics are still clearly in the fold. The problem is, the term Christian clearly refers to one who is at least claiming to follow Christ. If somebody is not really claiming to follow Christ, they just happen to live in a culturally Christian country whose values they are broadly fine with, the term doesn’t really describe such a person. Significantly, this isn’t how the Bible would use that term either. It knows nothing of Christian countries and only notes the existence of Christian people who are specifically followers of Christ.
Given that, perhaps we might think it important to land on at least a few core beliefs. There is nothing quite so uniquely Christian as the doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps we might even bolster this with a reference to an historic creed, either the Apostles or Nicaean Creeds. Both are properly trinitarian in their understanding and recognised as outlining some basic Christian beliefs. If we define Christian this way, the Catholics are still in. They affirm trinitarian theology and would have no problem with the Apostles Creed. It also rules out pseudo-Christian cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons (among others) who all reject trinitarian theology and this would be in line with the historic teaching of all mainline churches. Nevertheless, the problem with this definition is that it is still not tight enough. Whilst trinitarianism is central to Christianity and without it one cannot be considered a Christian, hence why Protestant and Catholic churches rejected the likes of the Socinians and later Unitarians, but evidently both Catholic and Protestant churches did not accept one another as properly Christian on the basis of their trinitarian understanding alone. Both recognised there was more to being a Christian than affirmation of the trinity.
Which brings us to the central question: how do we define Christian? The most simple and straightforward definition would be this: somebody who the Bible says is going to Heaven. However, the question must narrow in: who will go to Heaven and on what basis? This cuts to the heart of whom we might affirm as being a Christian and who we might argue is not. If a Christian is a person who is going to Heaven, we define a Christian as a person who has grounds for going there. This is where the heart of Catholic and Protestant differences lie on the question of who is really a Christian.
The Catholic Church anathematised various Protestants because of their beliefs. That is, they removed them from the church and determined their views were damnable heresy. They asserted in no uncertain terms that Protestants were not Christians because they were not going to Heaven as a result of their being removed from the church. According to Catholic doctrine, there is no salvation apart from the church and without partaking of the sacraments administered exclusively through the church. If a Christian is somebody who is going to Heaven, the Catholic Church insisted Protestants were not Christian.
By the same token, Protestants argued that salvation was by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to scripture alone, to the glory of God alone. The central issue during the Protestant Reformation was the mean of salvation: was salvation by faith alone or by faith and works? The other issue in the background was whether scripture was the highest authority in matters of faith and practice or whether the church, specifically as formally personified in the Pope, was in practice the highest authority. The Reformation determined that salvation by faith alone was a sine qua non of salvation. Belief that faith plus anything else worked for salvation, or faith in anything other than Jesus, necessarily meant one was not going to Heaven and, therefore, could not be considered a Christian. On this Reformed understanding of salvation, Catholics who believe the formal teaching of the Catholic Church cannot be considered Christian. The Reformation was, in part, a question of who can be considered Christian.
The Reformed (and subsequent Evangelical) understanding of what it means to be a Christian means it is possible to affirm there may be Christians in any and every denomination. Christians are simply those who are going to Heaven. Which means there may be people who believe otherwise errant things who nevertheless believe the biblical gospel and will be going to Heaven. They are, in that sense, Christian. Likewise, there will be those in otherwise sound denominations who have failed to properly understand the gospel, or who reject it in practice, and thus cannot be properly considered Christian. They are not Christian because they are not going to Heaven. The belief is that they aren’t going to Heaven because they have failed to response to the biblical gospel as it is presented in scripture.
On this understanding, what are we to say of Catholics? Are they going to Heaven? If they believe the formal teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, then the answer must be no on a Reformed and/or Evangelical view. The teaching of the Catholic Church is not – as Reformed and Evangelical believers understand it – the teaching of scripture. The means of salvation they propose are explicitly stated in scripture as denials of the gospel itself. So, if an individual believes the formal teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, the answer is no, they are not a Christian. That is usually what is meant when Reformed people say Catholics are not Christians. If they hold to the formal doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, they are holding to doctrine that will necessarily bar them from Heaven. This was the major claim of the Reformation.
However, Reformed and Evangelical people can recognise there may be genuine Christians within the Catholic Church. Whatever extra-biblical doctrines they may hold in being there, and whatever other problems may exist with them remaining inside such a church, if they have somehow come to the conclusion that their salvation is, indeed, exclusively by faith in Christ alone – errant as the denomination may be – that individual can rightly be called a Christian. That is to say, on the Reformed and Evangelical view, Catholics are not Christians but Christians may exist in pockets within the Catholic Church.
Though the question seems straightforward, the issue boils down to one of definitions. Who is really a Christian? What is a Christian? The Reformed, and even more straightforwardly Evangelical, answer is whoever believes on the Lord Jesus Christ – without adding anything to his salvific work – will be saved. Anyone who either doesn’t believe on the Lord Jesus Christ or who says certain works are necessary in addition to the work of Jesus, will not be saved. That is, will not go to Heaven. Which is to say, is not a Christian. When understood that way, Catholic are not Christians.
No comments:
Post a Comment