There is a new, odd, Soteriology coming out
of Rome.
The following is from a major media's religious blog:
“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all
of us, with the Blood of Christ:
all of us, not just
Catholics. Everyone,”
the pope told
worshipers at morning Mass on Wednesday.
“‘Father, the
atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”
Francis continued, “We must meet one
another doing good.
‘But I don’t
believe, Father, I am an atheist!’
But do good: we will
meet one another there.”
"In this we feel the closeness also of
those men and women who,
while not belonging
to any religious tradition, feel,
however the need to
search for the truth, the goodness and the beauty of
God,
and who are our
precious allies in efforts to defend the dignity of man,
in the building of a
peaceful coexistence between peoples
and in the careful
protection of creation,”
Francis said shortly
after his election as pope in March.
It appears to be a strange perversion of some kind of
mix of inverted-Calvinsism and Pelagianism.
Instead of the 5 point TULIP, this would be more of a
DCUIW.
It would be something like:
D:
Dignity of man, rather than the Total Depravity of man
C:
Conditional Acceptance (doing good), rather than
Unconditional Election
U:
Unlimited Atonement, rather than Limited Atonement,
however implying all are redeemed,
not
only those who repent and believe.
I:
Irresistible Grace, similar to the 5 point Calvinists,
except, in this case, someone must baptize them,
even
as little babies, before they even know their left hand
from their right
W:
Works of the Person, instead Perseverance of the Saints,
they need to do good, and apparently,
they
need to do that good up to their last day
I'm not a 5 point Calvinist, especially because of the
L & I (I John 2:2 & Acts 7:51 disqualify those 2
letters).
Also, because with the hyper outcome of TULIP, there
would be no need to go to the world to preach the gospel.
Also, it kind of implies that phrases like "whosoever
will", don't actually mean, "whosoever will".
However, this new Roman doctrine eliminates faith.
That would mean that Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:16, and
Romans 10:9-10 were not true.
Also, it really treats the blood of the Lamb as an
invisible, background thing.
Where the atheist would not even need to know about the
blood atonement of Jesus, let alone believe it.
Also, "doing good" to get to heaven is a works
salvation, and in this case it is a works-only salvation.
If the atheist does good & keeps on doing good,
that atheist will earn their way to heaven, according to
the pope.
Contrary to what the pope said, if an atheist repents
& believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, that person will
be saved.
Clearly, the moment they believe, they are obviously no
longer an atheist.
The blood of the Lamb, in that case would be trusted
in, and would by grace, eliminate the need of works for
salvation.
A salvation based on works, either to get saved or to
stay saved, would make us the savior, or some kind of
savior-partner.
It would take glory from the LORD and direct it towards
us, which would allow for boasting, when it comes to
salvation.
There are rewards for works, and of course the LORD
wants us to do works, and empowers Christians by the Holy
Ghost to do so.
However, salvation, itself, is not a reward, but a
gift, received by faith, neither earned or un-earned, by
us.
That part is Christ's part, he did all that was
necessary to pay for our sins.
The LORD doesn't have stillborn children, like James
assured us of.
When he wrote that faith without works is dead, that
would describe a "stillborn-again", rather than a
"born-again" experience.
Ephesians 2:10 shows that the new creature in Christ,
is designed for good works.
If there are absolutely no good works following, then
life never took place, the person is still dead in
trespasses in sins.
They may say that they believed, but their total
absence of good works following that, is proved,
by James, that they are still dead.
They may have had faith in something, believing
something.
However, if it had been saving faith in Jesus Christ,
there would have been life.
So if James said that they are still dead, then clearly
there was not saving faith in Jesus Christ.
It is either describing a hypothetical
"stillborn-again" experience, which Ephesians 2:10,
following 8 & 9, shows is not done.
Or it is an argument made by an arrogant person, who
never really trusted Christ, but wants bypass Christian
life.
How, or why, could a truly "born-again" Christian want
to even consider never doing good works?
Those good works of the Christian may be considered
fruit of the new life, but not a requirement to receive or
keep eternal life.
Gino