Loving The Romanists

People can be sincerely wrong, though sincerity is important, it is not everything.  You can have a sound theology without a sound life, but not a sound life without a sound theology; however, it is more vital to have a heart in tune or in sync with Christ, and in the right place than to be orthodox and impeccably correct in one's doctrines--man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.

Keeping our eyes, focused on the goal, which is to win them over and not be a stumbling block or artificial roadblock, that hinders one's search for the truth will set him free. Our goal should be to build bridges not tear them down. We may even have to pray for an open door. Caveat:  You can be dead right as well as dead wrong!  The only solution is one of mutual respect and love. What follows is my attempt to bridge the gap and put us on the same page.

We all may have Roman Catholic friends (22 percent of America is Roman Catholic) and colleagues that we are in daily or regular contact within our sphere of influence, that God has made us responsible for as a witness.  The key is to meet them where they are and get to know them first. I do not have an ax to grind against the Romanist tradition or feel vengeance to "get even" or "even the score" for the so-called bitter Thirty Years' War between Protestants and Catholics (1618-1638) that practically destroyed Christendom in Western Europe, and ended in a stalemate and an edict of "toleration" and mutual recognition (Treaty of Westphalia). At one point even the Jews and Christians decided to "live and let live," to "agree to disagree," and stop feuding with each other, but to cease fire and seek peace.  We must love others into the kingdom of God!  Jesus said we'd be known by our love!  The Protestant Church wasn't officially recognized by Charles V until the Peace of Augsburg (1577).

Catholicism and Protestantism split subsequent to October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, nailed his Ninety-five Theses on the Castle Church of Wittenberg, and was promptly summoned to the Diet of Worms to recant by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and Pope Leo X, who declared him a heretic and excommunicated him.  He escaped by virtue of being kidnapped to Wartburg Castle and proceeded to translate the Bible into German (completed in 1534 and still a work of art in German prose to this day). And so the split in 1521, like that of the Western and Eastern Churches in 1054 to form the Orthodox Church, is almost 500 years in the making.  It was not the Protestants who condemned the Catholics, but vice versa (they were told to recant or be excommunicated).  Luther didn't intend to start a new denomination or church in his name--he only intended to reform, but this is what happened nevertheless.

The motto and spirit of the movement:  I dissent, I disagree, I protest (how we get Protestant). Luther continued the Protestant movement (known as Evangelicals or Lutherans) along with other reformers.  He had held to the Word of God, plain reason, and his conscience as his guide--the former monk and theology professor never recanted, but continued his reforms of Romanism until his death in 1546.

We are no longer at the mercy of church dogma.  Today, many believers in the Protestant faith have even already come full circle by submitting to everything their church says and decrees without question.  Remember the Bereans (cf. Acts 17:11), who were nobler than the Thessalonians who went home and searched these things out that Paul preached, and found out whether they were true. We are all believer-priests in the Christian church and have the Holy Spirit's illuminating ministry and the anointing to understand the Scriptures, and don't need a priest or teacher to tell us everything.

There is a fundamental difference between the way the Catholics and Protestants understand salvation which is called the doctrine of soteriology by theologians:  The former primarily see the instrumental means via the sacraments (viz., baptism and communion) of the Church, and the latter as through faith alone as the instrumental means.  The Catholics deemed the Church as necessary for salvation in Vatican Council II of 1962-1965.  Note that Catholics always refer to their denomination as "the Church" and NOTE:  Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me."(Not through the  church!)  Roman Catholics declared non-Catholics to be "heretics," and that the "Church is necessary for salvation...  For it is through the Church alone...."  This Church likes to pronounce a curse on those that sincerely disagree or beg to differ, they cannot even agree to disagree by decree or council.

Grace is necessary, and faith is necessary, and even Christ is necessary, but not sufficient in Catholicism. They also acknowledge three varieties of merit that are being added to grace (at least congruous merit, but condign merit is obligatory to reward, and supererogatory merit is above and beyond the call of duty, such as martyrdom and can be shared with others to help them.)  They do not believe faith is adequate but works must be added to the faith to make it complete.  While Protestants generally all agree with the formula that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (cf. Ephesians 2:8-9)--which was one of the battle cries of the Reformation. However, the Catholics contradicted Jesus:  In 1891, Pope Leo the Twelfth declared, "No one can approach Christ except through the Mother [the Co-Mediator or Mediatrix and Co-Redeemer]."

Reacting: The Catholics were very upset at the Reformed dogma and summoned the Counter-Reformation and the Council of Trent from 1545-1563 to declare "anathema" or cursed anyone who believes in sola fide or faith alone (because they could not find the phrase "faith alone" in Scripture!). This council further alienated the Church by declaring tradition of equal authority as Scripture, and also that the Apocrypha was to be canonized.  In explanation:  James (cf. James 2:34), said we are justified by works and not by faith alone;  but he was saying that the kind of faith that doesn't produce good works or fruit is not saving faith, and is "dead."  Then the Reformers countered with their definition of saving faith with this formula:  We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.  This may seem like splitting hairs or nitpicking, but it makes you either a Protestant or Catholic by your stand on whether faith alone is adequate to save and consequently whether we have any right to "boast" in God's presence of any merit or work we have done. Faith is regarded as a meritorious work and not a gift, and this is the beginning of merit.   "Faith alone" became the rallying cry of the Reformation.

Now to get to our premise as to how we must love our Catholic friends:  We must not compromise our faith, water down, or domesticate the gospel to make it sound appealing to them, but we must stick to our guns and stand fast in the faith.  "The Lord's servant must not strive..." (2 Tim. 2:24).  We don't go out of our way to condemn them, but if the subject comes up we are to remain faithful to our credo and not try to gain their favor or be "people-pleasers" by sounding less abrasive or offensive to their standards.  Sometimes the truth hurts and convicts, and if we really belong to Christ, we must be willing to take a stand, willing to suffer the consequences of our cross to bear.

For example, in a Bible study, we don't go out of our way to point out the differences of doctrine, but if the subject comes up we are to tell it like it is in a loving way, and not waver or cower in our stand--there comes a time when we must and take our stand for Jesus--we must make it clear that it is not just our opinion, but that we can show from Scripture why we believe what we do; as another of the Reformer's mottoes was, sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), we must appeal alone to divine Scripture as our authority--not the Supreme Pontiff or the Pope, tradition, the Church, or even ourselves.

Most of all, we must realize that the best witness is a loving testimony that shows we aren't just trying to argue them into the kingdom (we can never argue someone into the faith), but we must wait for the open door that we have prayed for and take the cue to witness when called for, and do so humbly and honestly from the heart.  If they realize you really love them that is the best witness, not how brilliant we are. They don't care how much you know, till they realize how much you care.  The best way to love them is to tell them the truth and not live a lie or deny the truth.  By all means, never condemn them, nor tell them bluntly that they are not Christians, but let God do the convicting--John 16:8 says this is the Holy Spirit's domain.  We can never convert someone--only God can accomplish this task!

Note that I am not saying that you cannot be saved if you're a Catholic (I believe Mother Teresa of Calcutta is doubtless one of the closest saints to the Father), but some are saved despite their church dogma and not because of it (faith in the Catholic tradition means agreement or acquiescence with Church dogma or the official teachings of the Church per se). God has his "angels" in every church as a witness and testimony if people are looking for Him. Like Paul said to the Philippians:  "I want to know Christ ... [it is not our theory of soteriology that saves us, but Christ]."  It is the object (Christ) of faith that saves, not faith itself.  Feelings don't impress God, faith does (cf. Heb. 11:6).!


In conclusion:   A word to the wise is sufficient. There is such a thing as "dead orthodoxy" or having a well-thought-out theology and no spiritual life to match! The Pietists arose during the Reformation to neutralize this same situation.  You can be orthodox in your creed and not be saved, and wrong in your doctrine and be saved, because salvation is a relationship (knowing and believing in Christ) not a creed per se.  Creeds change over time as the church is semper reformanda or Latin for "always reforming" according to the Reformers; however, Christ never changes, and is the same yesterday, today, and forever! Let us learn to love Him more dearly, follow Him more nearly, and know Him more clearly!

The Catholic Question

"My hope is built on nothing less,
Than Jesus' blood and righteousness;
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesus' name"
--EDWARD MOTE

Many Catholics don't even know why they are that denomination, often because they were born into it or married into it.  Protestants stand united in the gospel message, which Martin Luther had revived, that it was by faith that a man is accepted by God.  Faith alone or sola fide became the rallying cry or the battle cry and the Counter-Reformation at the Council of Trent, 1545-1563 pronounced anathema on anyone who adhered to such "heresy" that wasn't "biblical."

Catholics had distorted the gospel to the max: by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, with Scripture alone as the authority, so that all the glory goes to God alone!  What they did was add merit to grace, works to faith, and the church and clergy to Christ, and even tradition to Scripture. Jesus condemned the tradition of man in Matt. 15 and Mark 7, and tradition is only appropriate when concordant with Scripture.  We are saved by grace through faith, and not by works per Eph. 2:8-9. Christians do works as a "therefore," not an "in order to."  In sum, I say:  "Look for Scriptural warrant or precedent, not for tradition."  Contention arose from the so-called "Counter-Reformation" that gave tradition equal authority as Scripture--Protestants affirm the Bible as the guide and rule of faith.

Religion says "do," while Christianity says "done."  We are not to become rules-obsessed like the Pharisees and know a code or a creed, we are to know a person!  Paul pronounced anathema anyone who preaches another gospel in Gal. 1:6-9 and this is the danger, not in praying the Rosary, or invoking saints, but in spreading a false gospel which is damnable; however, be at ease, Catholics can be saved, if they call upon the name of the Lord in faith in repentance; so put aside all apprehension that I'm trying to condemn them all; at worst, they are ignorant of the Word and are living defeated lives because of it. 

Caveat:  In determining truth, it's paramount to realize that Christianity isn't true because it works (yoga and TM work!), but Christianity works because it's true the converse!  You cannot say, "It works for me," without defeating the purpose of Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that these are absolute, not relative to your experiences or situations.

I don't care if you believe in the Fairy Godmother, Easter bunny, Santa Claus, Prince Charming, mermaids, dragons, the abominable snowman (Sasquatch), leprechauns, aliens, ghosts, haunted houses, Halloween, unicorns, knights in shining armor, the Loch Ness monster, cavemen, Cinderella, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Mother Nature, or the Tooth Fairy; those are not damnable though implausible beliefs.  Many of Catholic traditions, such as believing in the Apocrypha are not damnable per se, but just "extra-biblical," rather than "anti-biblical."  You must get this right to become a Christian (cf. Matt. 16:15; 2 John 9):  Who is Jesus Christ?  He is God in the flesh, or you're not a believer and unsaved. Technically, Catholics are Christians, because they know Jesus, but there is so much baggage that it is hard to get to the meat of the Word in that church, and many who find the Lord do leave it for more evangelical churches.

Praying the Rosary, invoking saints, and other religiosity may not be prohibited in the Word, but there are sins of omission as well and these are often mutually exclusive and when you know the Lord, you pray intimately with him and not by rote or in a perfunctory manner, or even to show religiosity as the Pharisees did.  Our prayer life is to be kept in our prayer closet and not "advertised" or promoted, for then we will have our reward--the approbation of man and his praise.

Unfortunately, many Protestants today have come full circle, in that they no longer read the Bible, but rely on their church to tell them what to believe rather than be like the believing Jews in Berea, who searched the Scriptures out in order to see if the things Paul said were so.  This is what Protestants were objecting to:  the authority of the Pope and clergy.  Martin Luther proclaimed:  I dissent, I disagree, I protest!  Hence we are known as Protestants.  

Here's an example of Protestants coming full circle:  "I don't read the Bible or believe in its authority anymore for the ultimate authority and arbiter of truth!"  Q: "How do you know what God's will is and learn about God?"  "I listen to the preacher!"  Q: "How do you know what to believe?"  "He agrees with me!"  Q: "And whom do you agree with?"  "I agree with him--we both believe the same thing!"  Soli Deo Gloria!

The Romanist Dogma Of Free Will

Meditate on the following (emphasis added):

"So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (Romans 9:16, NKJV). 

 [W]ho were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God [we don't will ourselves saved]"  (John 1:13, NKJV).

"For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but to suffer for His sake"  (Philippians 1:29, NKJV). 

"... And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed"  (Acts 13:48, NKJV). 

 "... [But] the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded [hardened]"  (Romans 11:7, NKJV, emphasis added).

Luther was an Augustinian monk, and Augustine said that we are "free but not freed." We maintain our power to make choices as humans, but we have lost our liberty--we are slaves to sin, and, as he said, we are unable not to sin (non posse non peccare)--a double negative.  It's like being in jail and having the freedom to play cards, but not to walk outside for recreation at will--there is a limit to freedom and it's not absolute.  We are slaves to sin and our sin nature. We are free to choose our own poison and are, what has been termed by theologians, voluntary slaves--we love our sin and have no natural inclination to seek God or to love Him and only a work of grace in our hearts changes it from a "heart of stone to a heart of flesh" (cf. Ezek. 36:26).

We are still free to act according to our desires, but they are the wrong desires.  As Ovid, the Roman poet of antiquity wrote:  "I see the better things and I approve them, but I follow the worst."  The law of God is written on man's heart and he is culpable for breaking it (cf. Romans 2:15).  Romans 3:11 is God's pet peeve:  "[N]o one understands; no one seeks for God."

Most believers have wrongly assumed and appropriated the Catholic view of free will, that we have the capability to gain entree to God's grace or admittance into His presence by the merit of a positive attitude and willingness to cooperate with Him in our salvation, known as a pre-salvation work; however, "Salvation is of the Lord" [not of man alone nor of man and the Lord as in a cooperative or synergistic venture] (cf. Jonah 2:9). That statement of Jonah is the summation of Reformed theology and we must never think that we would've responded to the gospel call without God's wooing. We have lost the inclination to please God and do His will. We were elected unto faith, not because of it (known as the fallacious prescient view repudiated in Romans 8:30), because this would be grounds for merit. "No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draw him" (cf. John 6:44).

In today's humanist worldview man is exalted and seen as having the free will to do as he wishes or wants to.  Martin Luther told Erasmus in his tome, The Bondage of the Will, that "free will" was too grandiose a term to ascribe to our power of choice or to make decisions from our depraved, fallen volition.  You must define terms when you speak of free will, because we do have the power to disobey God and to choose our desserts, but we cannot believe in Christ apart from God's grace and work in our heart.

Adam and Eve had free will and blew it: they had the power to sin and the power not to sin, while a fallen man can only sin and is unable not to sin. Adam made the choice for us to disobey God in our place, and we are in Adam and held accountable for his failure and this is known commonly as original sin--this inherited virus which is our birthright as humans--we have remained human, but are no longer good, but maintain solidarity in Adam and we share his predicament he had the fall--i.e., the natural inclination to good has been forfeited.

In defining total depravity, one must take into consideration that the mind is corrupt and faulty, the emotions are perverted and easily swayed by evil and corrupted, and the will also is defiant and disobedient to God and this means our whole nature--intellect, emotions or heart, and will or volition--is depraved and there is nothing meritorious or righteous in us to be worthy of salvation--"... And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6, NKJV) and "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?  Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jeremiah 13:23, ESV).

God is able (He's omnipotent and you cannot limit God) to make the unwilling, willing according to Scripture:  He works irresistible or efficacious grace in our hearts according to His will ("For it is God who works in you, both to do and to will of his good pleasure," cf. Phil. 2:13). God never makes us do anything we don't want to do (that is coercion or determinism when we don't have input), and there is no outside force working on us like we're puppets on a string or automatons.  We all act according to our nature, and God is our Maker and preordained and predetermined our nature, whether melancholy, choleric, or sanguine, for example.

If you think about it, the will have very little input into a decision compared to other uncontrollable factors like circumstances, DNA, and the environment (the old nature vs. nurture debate).  It is a fallacy to assume we need free will to be saved, we need wills made free!  "If the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed"  (cf. John 8:36).  We are not "born free" as some postulate, but born into a state of slavery to our sin nature. Left to ourselves, we would not choose Christ, as Pascal said:  "I would not have searched for Thee, if Thou hadst not found me."

Our freedom is a curse because we choose the evil and the wrong course and God must intervene and change our heart, by taking the initiative and making the first move of grace.  We are free to act as we choose according to our nature, just like a dove naturally eats seeds and a raven goes for the carrion.  Our will is free in that we act voluntarily, and not by compulsion.  We're voluntary slaves!   God remains sovereign in spite of our free will and we cannot thwart His decrees or will and upset His plan--our freedom doesn't restrict God's sovereignty:  "...Who can resist His will?" (Cf. Romans 9:19).

To think that we can act independently of God's will and disturb His plan is blasphemous and exalts man and dethrones God--this is the agenda of Secular Humanism, which believes man is the measure of all things and is the starting point of our understanding of reality, and not God the source of all truth ("In the beginning God...").

St. Augustine of Hippo said, "We are free but not free."  This isn't a clever play on words but saying that we do as we choose but have lost our liberty.  It's like being in jail and having the freedom to do anything according to the rules.  Our natures are corrupt and we act according to our natures that need regeneration by God to a new birth of faith and repentance.  We are free but in our depravity we choose evil!  Apart from God's intervention and grace no one would get saved and believe. 

In summation, God never coerces us to do anything we don't want to do--that's determinism, not destiny.  We have input unlike the blind fate of Muslim kismet.  However, God is able to make the unwilling willing and to change our hearts and minds to do His will for He is stronger and can influence us for the good--it's when He withdraws His grace that we turn evil.  We must confess as did Jeremiah in Jer. 20:7, NKJV, "...You are stronger than I, and have prevailed (cf. Isa. 63:17; Phil. 2:13).  It is said that He compels us to come in (literal translation of the Greek elko or woo).    Soli Deo Gloria!

Par For The Course--Suffering! ...

Believers sign up for suffering on behalf of Christ when they get saved.  Philippians 1:29 says that it has been "granted unto us ... to suffer for His sake."  Without suffering or bearing our cross there is no glory.  We are not called to be martyrs (God wants "living sacrifices"), but must be willing if that is God's will for us.  Catholics refer to this as supererogatory or above and beyond the call of duty. They view it as merit that can be transferred to others.  Suffering and adversity make us like Christ and builds character.

As long as there is evil in the world, there will be suffering, but God can make it work out for the good like He did to Joseph in Egypt (cf. Gen. 50:20).  We aren't supposed to be doormats; however, we must learn to persist, for "if we endure, we shall also reign with him," according to 2 Timothy 2:12.  If we suffer for the name of Jesus, we should be joyful that we were "counted worthy." Remember what Jesus said of Paul:  "I will show him what great things he must suffer for My sake." When adversity comes, it has God's permission, even if the devil instigated it.  It is inevitable, and Christ didn't even exempt Himself!  It is like purifying silver:  When you can see your reflection, the impurities are gone. Christ is chipping away everything in us that doesn't resemble Himself, just like a sculptor making something of a rock when he chips away everything that doesn't look like his subject.

Jesus endured more suffering than any man who ever lived on our behalf, but His sufferings are completed through us!   If we know the "why" we can bear almost any "how" in suffering or trials.  Remember, God never promised us a bed of roses.  No cross--no glory!  Paul wanted to "share in His sufferings" or the "fellowship of His sufferings" (cf. Phil. 3:10).  Our crosses pale in comparison to His.  When we suffer, it is so that others don't have to; when we don't have to it's because others have!   Why suffer?  The same sun melts the butter hardens the clay.  The same hammer that breaks glass forges steal.  God doesn't have to explain Himself (consider Job!) and we should thank God for every opportunity our suffering brings to glorify Him.   Suffering is the crucible we all go through in sanctification.  It is not what happens to us, as much as what happens in us, or what we do with it.  "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"  (Job 2:10).  Bad things happen to good people and to bad people as well.  The question should be:  Why do good things happen at all?

We are "transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit"  (2 Cor. 3:18).  This is the way we share in His holiness and learn to love God and relate to Him.  We should have the attitude of Job:  "But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold"  (Job 23:10).  Paul said in Romans 5:3 that "we also rejoice in our suffering."

There is a psychological need for "negative stress" because we are not meant to live in luxury or without any problems and attitude determine how we meet the challenge.   One psychiatrist wrote, "Why It Feels So Good to Feel So Bad."   Isaiah knew what he was talking about when he said, "When you pass through the waters I will be with you."  Put out the welcome mat and welcome adversity as a friend and challenge to grow in your relationship, knowing that God is trusting you that you can learn from it.  We cannot avoid it, and if we sin there is divine discipline because it comes with the territory.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Is The Pope Catholic?

This seems like a proverbial and unambiguous or obvious question, but is it?  What do I mean by "catholic?"  The word denotes being universal in application (all true believers) and specifically to the Roman Catholic Church denomination of Christianity.  Roman Catholicism does not refer to a sect or cult, but a bona fide division of our faith like the Orthodox and so-called Protestant schisms. This means you can be a true Christian in either denomination or division of Christianity, but that doesn't mean because you adhere to one that you are automatically a Christian.  Catholics, as a rule, don't believe Protestants are saved; while Protestants believe some Catholics are saved--they just don't accept their soteriology or dogma of salvation that all Protestants subscribe to (salvation by grace through faith).  So this begs the question, "Which denomination is sectarian?"

By Reformed tradition and interpretation of the doctrines of salvation, and Martin Luther was excommunicated for his faith, Catholics do not have saving faith by definition because they regard "merit" and see faith as a work and not a gift--we are not saved by works. In effect, they save themselves.  Catholics officially believe you are saved "through the Church," obeying the teachings of the Church, and accepting their dogma without question. It is solely the responsibility of clerics to interpret Scripture, though the parishioner can read it.

The Pope is allegedly the Supreme Pontiff of the universal church and the vicar of Christ on earth, who speaks ex-cathedra when pronouncing from St. Peter's chair--this is known as pontificating, and it is infallible or without error (he claims to be speaking for Christ.)  (Catholics have a lot of faith in the Pope and priests--you must trust Christ alone to be saved because it is the object that saves, not the faith--they have misdirected faith--in the wrong person.)

Catholic (small c) denotes the general and universal church at large of true believers (the Nicene Creed says there is "one holy and apostolic catholic church") if you go by definition and not what the Church says; therefore, the Pope must know Christ to be catholic. He can be "Catholic" and not catholic, catholic and not Catholic,  and even Catholic and catholic.  Christian by definition can be any denomination, is really universal terminology and is nonsectarian--sectarian spirit is sin according to Paul, because "Christ is not divided."  (We shouldn't squabble over leadership.)

We should be "one in Spirit" (cf. Eph. 4:3) with all believers and not find differences but commonalities and be able to walk hand in hand without seeing eye to eye on every issue. True Christians are able to have fellowship with other believers around the world and across denominational lines if they know the Lord, regardless of sectarian bias or affiliation.  There is no fellowship with an unbeliever.  There is a time to be nondenominational and a time to stick to your guns and be faithful to your creed.  But note: Christianity is not a creed, but a relationship! But we have to turn our creeds into deeds and make good on our faith because true saving and obedient faith is a fruitful faith--we are known by our love producing good deeds.

"Woe unto you when all men speak well of you," Jesus said.  (They all thought well of the Pharisees!)  I don't know of anyone more popular in the world and that has more friends than the Pope, who tries to be everyone's friend and peacemaker.  If you think the Pope is a Christian, then you may be a Catholic at heart--there are many Catholics who disagree with him!  A former Pope made a "mecca" to Fatima to place something on the statue of the Virgin Mary, thanking her for saving him from assassination.  What he stands for is anti-Christian because he exalts himself to a position only God is worthy of and will bear his judgment on the Last Day.

Because his judgment tarries and we don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't a sure thing.  But he deceives many and God is patient for His elects' sake because they believe in Him in spite of being Catholic, not because they are Catholic.  To be specific: The Catholic way or following the Pope is the road of good intentions leading to hell.  Ever since the Council of Trent (1546) justification through faith alone has been anathema (cursed)--their misdirected faith in the Church won't save if they are converted solely to the program as do-gooders--granting false assurance.

They say that love is the test and we shall "know them by their love."  You must believe right (orthodoxy) as well as act right (orthopraxy).  Love is not God, God is love.  "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love;"  "Whoever loves has been born of God, for God is love."  (1 John 4:7-8, ESV).  Do not be deceived!  Don't say, "Oh he is such a lover; he must be saved."  (Love without faith, as well as, faith without love is nothing.)   This is how we shall know the brethren who believe the right creed from impostors or charlatans who claim faith and don't love. What it implies is that we shall not know solely by their creed, possessions, or testimony.  Love must be the main ingredient and without it we don't have salvation, regardless of faith.  Just having love per se doesn't prove salvation, it's just a sign to notice.


(Now, I am aware that you cannot judge whether a person has saving faith (only God sees the heart), Catholics freely admit to believing a creed contrary to grace and grace orientation--their salvation is a cooperative venture between us and God known as synergism, while "salvation is of the Lord" according to Jonah 2:9 and is monergistic or God's work only.  How important is grace?  It is the one thing that  distinguishes Christianity from religion and Catholicism, (Catholics do believe that grace is necessary, just not sufficient and must be improved upon by merit) and by definition, Catholicism is legalism (mixing works with faith), not Christianity, ergo the Pope is not catholic at heart but sectarian. What is religion?  Its main effort is to reach God, is the best man can do.  The Catholic dogma--a creed that is contrary to sound doctrine- is a do-it-yourself proposition of merit; Christianity is God reaching down to man, the best God can do and gives God the credit or glory (Soli Deo Gloria!) and we get none. Beware of the sin of Diotrephes, who liked to be number one and put himself first!  Ego problems! Only Christ is the Head of His Body.)

The question also arises as to whether a "sincere" Catholic is saved.  God says that ignorance is never an excuse because we all have His Word as a witness of the truth and are responsible to know it.   Sincerity is important, but it is not everything--you can be sincerely wrong.   Many Catholics have misdirected zeal without knowledge (cf. Rom. 10:2) and faith in the wrong object, which should only be Christ. Having faith in Christ and a combination of someone or something else (like the Mass) is not saving faith.  One must wonder whether they know the Lord or not.

To clear something up the Reformed teaching is that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone and that God alone gets the glory--"Salvation is of the Lord" (per Jonah 2:9 is their stand). Catholicism adds works to faith and merit to grace, teaching that they are necessary, but not sufficient and must be improved upon with our cooperation with God, helping Him out, as it were.  Grace is not only necessary but wholly sufficient and needs no aid on our part to participate. Faith doesn't save, no matter how great it is, but the object saves (i.e., Jesus Christ).  What one doesn't usually hear is that Paul was angry at the Galatians for teaching "another gospel" and pronounced a curse on them--this is what Catholics are doing, as they change Paul's doctrine to suit their traditions, ideas, and notions.    Soli Deo Gloria!