|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 9, Number 10
 October 1998 
|
|
|
"If You Confess with Your Lips…"
Q: All of my Evangelical friends quote Romans 10:9 ("If you confess with your lips that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved") to prove that we are saved by faith alone. I know there are other verses that prove otherwise, but how do I explain what this verse says?
A: Even Evangelicals recognize that the formula "believe in and confess Jesus" is an abbreviated summary of what is required for salvation, not a thorough and precise soteriological prescription. For example, Romans 10:9 does not mention repentance from sin, but few Evangelicals deny that it is not possible to be saved without repentance. Likewise, most Evangelicals agree saving faith involves more than the two beliefs that Paul mentions—the lordship of Christ and his Resurrection. If someone accepts these two doctrines but also believes that we can get to heaven by good works apart from grace, Evangelicals would say (quite rightly) that this person believes a false gospel, though he "fulfills" Romans 10:9.
Evangelicals require a number of other beliefs for Christian faith—the Trinity, the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, creation, the Fall, man’s inability to save himself, the Virgin Birth, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, the Second Coming, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. If someone denied all of these doctrines, few Evangelicals would regard that person as a saved Christian, no matter how fervently he professed his belief that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.
(There are further problems, too. If Romans 10:9 were a theologically precise formula of salvation, all mute people would be damned to hell, since Paul says not once but twice that one must confess Christ with one’s lips to be saved!)
Romans 10:9 is just one of a number of abbreviated accounts of salvation that do not mention everything necessary. The message preached by both Jesus and John the Baptist was "Repent and believe," but in Acts 2:38 Peter said, "Repent and be baptized," without even mentioning belief. Later in Acts, Paul tells the Philippian jailer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 2:31), without mentioning repentance or baptism. All of these descriptions of salvation are partial. They do not intend to set forth everything necessary.
Ironically, the same Evanglicals who insist on a closed-box interpretation of Romans 10:9 run to the opposite extreme when confronted with passages that speak of those who do good or who persevere and are saved: They deny causality altogether, arguing that the saved will in fact do these things, but they are not saved because they do these things. Our contention, in the case of the present verse, is more modest: We say that those who believe in and confess Jesus can be saved but not merely because they believe in and confess him. It takes more than that.
Steven D. Greydanus
Q: I understand why we pray to saints, but I have heard that Eastern Catholics also pray for them. Is this true, and, if so, what is the point, since the saints are already in heaven?
A: The Byzantine Liturgy includes this prayer: "We offer to you [God] this reasonable sacrifice for those who are asleep in the faith . . . in particular . . . Mary . . . and for all the saints . . ." Byzantine Catholics offer two reasons for this prayer. First, one must distinguish between essential and accidental joy in heaven. The essential is that which all enjoy in virtue of possessing the Trinity, and this cannot be increased. But Scripture tells us that angels and saints rejoice in the conversion of sinners (Luke 15:7, 10). Since there is more joy over one repentant sinner than of many not in need of repentance, we can pray to increase their accidental joy by obtaining our own salvation and that of other sinners. Second, by praying for those members of the Church Triumphant, we set apart all created beings from God, and it is made clear that they are not given the adoration due to him alone (latria).
Jason Evert
Q: Some of the people in our RCIA class are going to be going to confession before they are received into the Church. Is this allowed? When should these people go to confession for the first time?
A: If they are catechumens (people who have never been baptized), then they should not be going to confession at all. Baptism washes away all sins committed prior to its reception, hence there is no need for them to go to confession prior to their baptism into the Church.
It is also not possible for catechumens to receive absolution validly since baptism is the doorway to the other sacraments. Unless someone is baptized, he cannot validly receive any of the other sacraments, including confession.
I suspect that the people you refer to are not catechumens but are already-baptized candidates for reception into the Church. Parishes tend to be good about not sending catechumens to confession.
What parishes tend to be bad about is putting baptized candidates through full RCIA programs before letting them be received into the Church. People who already have been baptized and catechized as Christians are not supposed to be put through full RCIA programs (National Statutes for the Catechumenate 31).
It is probably people of this kind—baptized, catechized Christians who are being forced to sit through a full RCIA course—that are the ones who will be going to confession before they are received.
And they should go: "The celebration of the sacrament of reconciliation with candidates for reception into full communion [i.e., already-baptized people] is to be carried out at a time prior to and distinct from the celebration of the rite of reception. As part of the formation of such candidates, they should be encouraged in the frequent celebration of this sacrament" (NSC 36).
The primary reason these people go to confession before being received into the Church is that they need to be in a state of grace for the licit reception of confirmation and Communion. Since they were baptized some time ago, they likely have committed mortal sins since then, and going to confession makes sure they are in a worthy state to receive the remaining sacraments of initiation.
There is no set time for them to go to confession. In some parishes, it is customary to have them do this sometime during Lent, but this practice is based on the unauthorized practice of forcing baptized candidates to wait till Easter Vigil to be received into the Church alongside with the catechumens.
This is also contrary to the U.S. bishops’ instructions (NSC 33). Precisely when a candidate should go to confession will depend on his particular situation. It may be desirable to have him go to confession only shortly before reception (e.g., a day prior) in order to minimize the chances that he will commit mortal sin before reception and have to go to confession all over again.
Canon law recognizes the principle that special efforts can and should be made to provide absolution to souls in distress (e.g., Code of Canon Law [1983] 986 §2, 1357 §1). Thus if a particular candidate for reception is being tortured in conscience by something he has done or otherwise finds it difficult to go without confession until he is received, he should be given the opportunity to go to confession earlier.
This is to be done, of course, with the recognition that if he commits mortal sin between his first confession and his reception into the Church, he will need to go to confession again before reception.
When making this decision, it would be pastorally prudent for the priest to make sure that the candidate does intend to enter the Church (otherwise he could be given absolution only on the same conditions governing Protestants in general; see canon 844 §4) and he should inquire whether the candidate feels a need to go to confession immediately or whether he would be comfortable waiting.
The priest should not pressure the candidate to wait for confession. Doing so might make the candidate’s time of waiting for reception one of tortured conscience, may communicate to him that going to confession is not important, make him feel that the Church (or priest) is not interested in meeting his spiritual needs, may embitter him against the process he is undergoing, and even may turn him away from the Church altogether. All of these things are to be avoided.
The most urgent case for going to confession would be that of a person who is in danger of death. In such a case, the person should not only go to confession immediately but also should be received into the Church immediately—provided, of course, that he is at the point where he can made the profession of faith required for reception.
(We have to add this qualifier because some candidates might be at the point of recognizing and accepting the sacrament of reconciliation but not yet at the point of being able to make a profession of faith in the Church’s teaching authority in general. In that case, the person should be allowed confession, per canon 844 §4, but should not be received into the Church.)
James Akin
Q: Two Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door and discussed some Scripture verses with me from the New World Translation of the Bible. I've never heard of that version before. What can you tell me about it?
A: The New World Translation is produced by the Watch Tower Society, the parent organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The New Testament (or Christian Greek Scriptures, as they call it) was first produced in 1950, followed by the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures), produced progressively in five volumes from 1953 to 1960. Recent versions of the NWT contain the entire Bible in one volume.
The NWT is a travesty of Scripture, for two main reasons: First, of the five men who comprised the translation committee (Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel), Franz was the only one who had any knowledge at all of the biblical languages. Franz studied Greek for only two years (not biblical Greek, though), and he was allegedly self-taught in Hebrew. The other four men completely lacked any credentials that would qualify them as biblical scholars.
Second, the text of the NWT is distorted and twisted to suit the erroneous beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Numerous examples could be cited. For instance, John 1:1 reads that the Word was "a god" (rather than "God") because the JW's deny the divinity of Christ. In Colossians 1:15-20, the NWT inserts the word "other" into the text four times because JW's believe that Christ was created. Matthew 26:26 reads "this means my body" (rather than "this is my body") because JW's deny the Real Presence.
The NWT is rejected by reputable Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars alike as being biased, unreliable, and unscholarly. People who open their doors to the JW's ought to be warned that the NWT is not a safe or reliable translation of God's Word.
Joel S. Peters
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
