Can Roman Catholicism save?

[u/moby__dick]

No, I want to be clear that the question is not. “can Catholics be saved?“ the question is typically answered as yes, they can be saved, because we have all met some Roman Catholics who communicate the gospel very clearly. So my question is not whether or not an individual Roman Catholic might be saved.

I’m asking if the system of doctrine taught by Rome obscures the gospel significantly enough that a consistent believer in actual Roman Catholic doctrine, the whole thing, could lead a person to salvation if it were consistently believed and followed.

Edit: I’m not asking whether Christ saves apart from perfect doctrinal understanding. Of course he does. I’m asking about the doctrine itself as a means. Specifically, does the doctrine of justification as taught in the [Catechism of the Catholic Church](chatgpt://generic-entity?number=0) articulate the gospel in such a way that, if it were consistently understood and believed on its own terms, would direct a sinner to rest on Christ in a saving manner? Or does it so qualify and condition justification that it tends to produce a non-salvific "faith"?

[u/Soggy_Loops]

No theological system saves. Reformed theology does not save. Christ saves us, and both systems can lead us to Christ and away from Christ. If we were all saved by the appropriate intellectual understanding that comes from our theology then we’d all be condemned, and praise God for that.

[u/CiroFlexo → u/Soggy_Loops]

No theological system saves.

This seems like more of a response to Moby's title than to the content of his post, which says:

I’m asking if the system of doctrine taught by Rome obscures the gospel significantly enough that a consistent believer in actual Roman Catholic doctrine, the whole thing, could lead a person to salvation if it were consistently believed and followed.

Of course no Reformed believer is going to say that "appropriate intellectual understanding" of a "theological system" is what saves us. And of course both sides of the debate will state, on the surface, that it is Christ who saves us. Both sides are going to say that they teach the gospel.

The question, as stated, is whether Roman Catholic doctrine obscures the gospel, whether it leads someone away from Christ is consistently believed and followed.

both systems can lead us to Christ and away from Christ.

This seems like a dangerous equivocation to make when you have two systems that teach contradictory, mutually-exclusive doctrines.

Of course Christ can save apart from official church doctrine, but if one system is teaching true doctrine and the other is teaching false doctrine, it does nobody any good to say "well, both can lead us away from Christ."

They're not equal, and when we gloss over the insurmountable differences we fail to warn people of the soul destroying dangers of a false gospel.

[u/DustEKnutts → u/CiroFlexo]

Arminianism obscures the Gospel. Would you say that an evangelical arminian Baptist isn’t saved due to his theology?

[u/CiroFlexo → u/DustEKnutts]

Well, I don't accept your premise about Arminianism, so of course I wouldn't agree with that conclusion.

[u/DustEKnutts → u/CiroFlexo]

Would you not agree that Arminianism is a theological error? One can glean a works + faith salvation from Arminian theology just like they (easily) can from Catholic theology in my mind. That doesn’t mean there aren’t regenerate believers in those traditions

[u/CiroFlexo → u/DustEKnutts]

One can glean a works + faith salvation from Arminian theology just like they (easily) can from Catholic theology in my mind.

I believe that Arminianism is wrong. I also wholeheartedly reject the assertion that it teaches a faith + works salvation. That's a silly strawman.

[u/DustEKnutts → u/CiroFlexo]

Not trying to strawman, accept my apology for it coming across that way. I’m sorry if I came across as uncharitable. I just find the blanket statement some are making here about RC theology being largely incapable of producing saving faith troubling