www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Are you saved

Welcome Ephrem,

Residing in New York, I don't bump into many Baptists, but I really am surprised that the type of narrow mindedness you described is still around.

My mother always laughs remembering the 1940's and 1950's, (she went to college in the south) when a Southern Baptist said that if you were Catholic, you would go to hell, and a Roman Catholic ( pre-Vatican II..for all the criticism post Vatican II days get, this change of mentality is one reason to rejoice ) would say that if you were Baptist or not Catholic you would go to hell!!!

That was the experience she heard in the North from her Catholic friends, and in the South from her Baptist friends. You can see where it could almost be amusing...

As for her, the reason that she didn't get offended and was able to step back and take it all in with a grain of salt was because being a Greek Orthodox, no one even knew what she was!!! :rolleyes:

In Christ,
Alice

Reminds me of an interview with Seamus Heaney (Irish Poet & Nobel Prize Winner, Catholic) the interviewer said something about how some group of people would damn him right to hell. His response was something like, "Oh, yeah, but that's okay because we'd damn them right back."

I've seen things loosen up some, but while my current acquaintances wouldn't necessarily buy into Trail they still have all kinds of gossipy stories about those odd, faithless Catholics. It's more PC than anything -- if one says something to defend Catholicism they'll shift gears and say how they were talking about specific people, blah, blah, blah. Luckily (for me) not many have realized how closely related Orthodoxy and Catholicism are.

ecw

Alice

While I have no doubt that some pre-Vatican II Catholics (and even a few post-Vatican II Catholics) held the view that all non-Catholics go to hell when they die. I can assure you that that opinion was only held by a tiny minority. Unfortunately in this day and age though, it is still common to meet pre-millenialist Protestants who believe all those who remain in the Catholic and Orthodox Church are bound for hell.

Many years ago, Art Linkletter had a TV show with a segment where he interviewed kids. He even wrote a book on it called, "Kids Say the Darndest Things." One day, he had some Catholic kids on from a local school and in the routine of asking what they were studying, etc, one kid mentioned Bible stories. This led to Art asking what her favorite story was that sister told her in school. The kid said she liked Adama and Ava who lived in a beautiful garden til they made God mad at them. Then God punished them in two ways - He sent them to Hell - At this point Art interrupted and said, "if God sent them to Hell, what else could he have done to them that could be worse?" The little Catholic girl said, "He made them Protestant."

I interact with 'Baptist' type theology on the issue of "once saved always saved" (technically this is the Calvinist understanding of the Perseverance of the Saints), in two different ways:

i) If they are Baptists of the Arminian flavor, I point out the inconsistency of believing in the doctrine in the first place. The 'Perseverance of the Saints' is built on the back of a necessitarian doctrine of Predestination. That is why the logical order of T-U-L-I- come before P. All are built on each other and inter-dependent. In this case, it is a strict either/or if the Reformed doctrine of Predestination is true ==> 'P' is true. Since most Arminians quiver at such a strong view of Predestination that removes human freedom, they would rather be consistent. However, Baptist theology isn't known for its consistency.

ii) If they are Baptists of the "Reformed" stripe, I point out the inconsistencies on the dialect of nature and grace and Christology. Although, Reformed soteriology appears internally consistent (T-U-L-I-P), the mechanics of the will that is articulated turns Christ's human will rigidly determined by his divine will. Hence, a theological determinism with a symptom of monotheletism (since only one will is metaphysically operating see St. Maximos the Confessor's dialogue with Pyrrus). On the nature/grace dialect, the Reform school, at least historically, believed grace was a constituent of nature in Adam's essence. Hence, when God created Adam "upright" this defines the natural plane. This notion of grace as nature is pure Pelagianism in prelapsarian Adam. Although they differ with Pelagius materially (because of original sin), formally they are the same. Pelagius is a strong self-sufficient man, and the Reformed man is a Pelagius turned beggar. This is a corollary to their doctrine of Total Depravity, when original sin comes and takes hold of man, he is utterly corrupt with no natural goodness remaining. Each both affirming a kind of naturalism in their own way. The Church on the other hand whether she be the Catholic or the Orthodox considers grace as something beyond any created nature.

Daniel

Dear Lawrence,

I have a profound love for the Catholic Church, so coming from that point of view (which might be considered a bit anamolous for an Orthodox! LOL), there is no need to defend the Catholic Church to me.

However, it cannot be denied that the Ecumenical spirit which Catholicism officially espouses today-- believing that Orthodox are part of the same fullness of the Church, for instance, was espoused before Vatican II.

I have heard many stories, (and I always defend the RC's and tell my brethren to move on..it is NOT like that anymore) from fellow Orthodox who went to Catholic schools and universities prior to or just after Vatican II, about being told that they should become RC to be in the true church, etc., etc.

This is not to start any polemic...my friends here know my position is VERY warm and lovingly ecumenical to the RC, but just defending my point.

The Orthodox, in their mentality, are on the most part, the same way as the RC of pre Vatican II, but I would say that the Balamand Agreement of the early '90's( between the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope John Paull II, declaring the Orthodox and R.Catholic churches 'sister churches') was the determing date for that mentality to officially start changing.

Unfortunately, there is still some resistance.

In Christ,
Alice

Lawrence,

Check any Catholic apologist site and you'll find that the theory is, unfortunately, still alive and well and flourishing.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

Do you mean that Catholic apologists deal with that problem or that they support that view? Hopefully, the former and not the latter.

I count many Catholic apologists as friends and can't think of a one which holds to the Feeneyite view.

I agree entirely with what Neil wrote....it is extremely alive still. If not from the apologists then just from the regular lay people. It is a huge misconception and something that I hve noticed on many occasions. If for the only reason is the idea that "Well, they are not Catholic, so they are not really Christian." And, I have heard that in reference to both Protestants and Orthodox...Or how many times have you heard someone (generally RC but not always) refer to anything non Catholic as a different religion? I hear it all the time, people say things such as "in your religion the preists are allowed to be married?" or, "in your religion________?" The biggest problem is still, and will always be, that the general public is not really aware of what the church actually teaches, the truth has been shrouded by misconceptions, misinformation, and false doctrin.

Truly, think about it, how many cradel Catholics do you know that do not know what the church REALLY teaches, what the meaning is behind the Mass or DL? When I say what the church really teaches I mean, how many could tell the difference between a priest that holds an opinion and what the chruch actually teaches. I would venture to say it is as high as 75%....though that might be way to high a guess as it is truly just a guess....

Something to think about anyways.....

In His Name,
Stephen

I agree with Neil, it is alive and well even in the post-Vatican II RC church. I taught in an SSPX school and as a Greek Catholic found myself daily on the defensive. Crypto-Feenism is definitely still present.

New Advent won't even recognize the legitimacy of apostolic succession with the Orthodox: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

One particular quote from this "Encylopedia" especially drew my rancor:

Diak,

The quote you gave is from the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia. The context of my query related to the Church today, and not to SSPX.

Any of you guys ever read Peter Kreeft, one of the best Catholic apologists out there? His master book on Apologetics (co-written with a Jesuit priest) was published by Inter-Varsity Press (an Evangelical Protestant publishing house).