A Question for Sola Fide "Faith Alone" Protestants

[DallasCatholic]

I would like to review this passage…can you remind me where James uses the word “birth” in connection with faith?

All I can find in the NIV is this:

1. 
   *]James 1:15
   Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
   *]James 1:18
   He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

1. 
   Randy,
   Atemi is using the NAB…at least that is what he posted in another thread.

 

[Atemi]

This appears to be true…for some odd reason, you can’t believe the Catechism.

I can.

Yes. I know.

I believe the inspired Word of God, not the fallible Catechism put out in the 90’s.

I am crazy like that…

But let me see if I can put this in terms you will certainly understand.

You know that if I quote James 2:24 and say that the Bible teaches that we are not justified by faith alone, you and your evangelical homeboys will spend the next 15 posts explaining to me why I misunderstand, take it out of context, blah, blah, blah. Okay, fine. I get that.

And our Catholic friends will say all the same “blah, blah, blah” about Paul.

Similarly, when you take one line or paragraph out of several hundred pages of material from the Catechism, it might be reasonable for Catholics to point out that you have not understood the FULL teaching.

I did not take any line. I cited a paragraph.

We all do it all the time.

I can read what it clearly says.

Maybe I need an infallible interpreter to for the infallible interpreter…

We can go round and round on these issues if you want to, but we won’t get too far if we fail to address the complete position of the other side.

What is the complete position that is contrary to what I cited?

Nothing.

It is not my fault posters assume that I am implying anything I clearly was not.

The Church clearly says that one can merit the grace necessary for the attaniment of eternal life.

Clear as day. All the qualifiers are irrelevant for my point.

As a Catholic, you are free to reject that, as most Catholics do reject what the Church teaches anyway.

 

[Atemi]

I would like to review this passage…can you remind me where James uses the word “birth” in connection with faith?

They were two seperate comments, Randy.

I was not quoting James anywhere in my post. I thought that was evident by the lack of quotes…

 

[Atemi]

Since you have quoted the Catechism in the past, you have shown yourself to be familiar with the document and facile in searching its content. Perhaps you could point out for all of us Catholics the paragraph that states that faith is optional and that we have to work or earn our way into heaven.

Are you telling me that the Catholic Church teaches that all those who do not have faith in Jesus Christ are damned?

Please.

I dare not cite the Catechism here because it claims both that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation and that those without faith in Jesus Christ can be saved.

LOL.

This is where everyone and their brother comes out and redefines what “necessary” means, but I gotta go with the actual definition here.

I cannot account for the contradiction in the Catechism, nor do I want to try. That is the job of the RC apologist.

 

[Church_Militant]

Are you telling me that the Catholic Church teaches that all those who do not have faith in Jesus Christ are damned?

Please.

I dare not cite the Catechism here because it claims both that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation and that those without faith in Jesus Christ can be saved.

LOL.

This is where everyone and their brother comes out and redefines what “necessary” means, but I gotta go with the actual definition here.
**
I cannot account for the contradiction in the Catechism, nor do I want to try. That is the job of the RC apologist.**No… actually in debate since the assertion is yours, the burden of proof falls totally on you to prove that this is a accurate statement.

I doubt that you can prove any such thing, since the fault is in your misrepresentation of Catholic teaching on this and not the teachings of the Catholic Church.

IOW… you wish.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is irrelevant.

As I have said, if you take one unbending meaning and apply it to every verse in the Word that uses dikaioo, all you will have in the end is a mess.

This is so basic and important.

We do not do the same in our language, so expecting something different in the Greek is not a very wise apporach, IMV.

The opposite of unbending is flexible. I guess we should be flexible when we read:

“Eat my flesh” because it really means “think over what I have said” (John 6)
“thoroughly equipped” because it really means “sufficient” (2 Tim 3:17)
“on this rock” because it really means “on your faith” (Mt 16:18)

etc, etc.

Peter was right about people twisting these “flexible” scriptures to their own destruction!

Mr. Sungenis is making the same mistake that is easily avoided by understanding basic language. He is incorrect.

Yeah, along with Akin and every other Catholic apologist who has followed this line of reasoning…forgive my sarcasm, but good thing we have you to set us straight…who are you, again?

Perhaps you can refer me to your books or papers so that I can review your work in its original form?

In the meantime, I’ll let you mull over these thoughts from Mr. Sungenis:

Another reason we must understand that Paul and James are using the same definition of the word diakaioo is that in clarifying the proper relation of faith and works, James 2:23 quotes from Genesis 15:6. As noted [elsewhere], this is the same Genesis passage from which Paul quotes in Romans 4:3. the Greek word for “righteousness” is dikaiosune. That being the case, it would definitely be totally incongruous for both of them to have the same definition of dikaiosune, but for one of them suddenly to have a different definition of its cognate dikaioo (“justified”). Yet Protestants must accept this incongruity or conclude even more incongruously that James is using two different senses of the same root word within two verses (ie, James 2:23 and 2:24). In addition, it would be totally inconsistent for Paul and James to be appealing to the same Old Testament verse (Genesis 15:6) to prove their respective points, the former choosing a forensic model wherein Abraham is an ungodly man imputed with someone else’s righteousness, and the latter choosing a demonstrative model wherein Abraham is a godly man who merely needs to doemonstrate his justified state. What the Protestant position ends up saying is that the word “justified” for Paul means, “declared legally just” but for James means “demonstrated to be declared legally just.” Suffice it to say that even the most ardent advocate of the forensic model cannot demonstrate the latter usage of dikaioo in Scripture.

 

[Atemi]

The opposite of unbending is flexible. I guess we should be flexible when we read:

“Eat my flesh” because it really means “think over what I have said” (John 6)
“thoroughly equipped” because it really means “sufficient” (2 Tim 3:17)
“on this rock” because it really means “on your faith” (Mt 16:18)

etc, etc.

Peter was right about people twisting these “flexible” scriptures to their own destruction!

So you throw away the reality of what I posted for a mere silly attack on Protestants?

If that is what pleases you…

Yeah, along with Akin and every other Catholic apologist who has followed this line of reasoning…forgive my sarcasm, but good thing we have you to set us straight…who are you, again?

Yes. Admittedly I do not worship the ground these men walk on.

And yes, admittedly, I believe they can be in error.

My apologies. I forget where I am.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes. I know.

I believe the inspired Word of God, not the fallible Catechism put out in the 90’s.

I am crazy like that…

I am sure that you BELIEVE the inspired Word of God…it is your fallible interpretation of it that leads you astray.

As for the Catechism, well, your misunderstanding of the scriptures causes you to fail to see Jesus’ promise to protect the Church from teaching error. Actually, come to think of it…I bet you never really thought about this on your own…you have accepted your positions against the Catholic Church as a result of the TRADITIONS OF MEN taught by your own faith community.

And our Catholic friends will say all the same “blah, blah, blah” about Paul.

Then why do we (and the Catechism) happily quote Paul in support of our positions on so many subjects. We have no problem with Paul’s teaching on Justification…we just recognize that Paul was prevented by the Holy Spirit from ever writing the phrase, “faith alone”.

I did not take any line. I cited a paragraph.

Which is why I wrote:

Similarly, when you take one line or paragraph out of several hundred pages of material from the Catechism

Don’t try to give the appearance that I have portrayed you improperly.

I can read what it clearly says.

But I am not sure you have the goodwill in your heart to really listen to what it says…there seems to be an overriding predisposition affecting your interpretation.

Maybe I need an infallible interpreter to for the infallible interpreter…

Bingo! This is the Magisterium of the Church. You see? You have moved forward a bit in your understand of what Christ established in the Church. Good job!

 

[Atemi]

Can you not respond to what was asked?

 

[Randy_Carson]

They were two seperate comments, Randy.

I was not quoting James anywhere in my post. I thought that was evident by the lack of quotes…

Sorry. When you wrote:

That is clearly not what James says.

Faith gives birth to works.

Works can never give birth to faith.

it appeared to me that you were saying that James was making that point.

My fault. Please forgive.

 

[Atemi]

**Yes. I know.

I believe the inspired Word of God, not the fallible Catechism put out in the 90’s.

I am crazy like that…**

I am sure that you BELIEVE the inspired Word of God…it is your fallible interpretation of it that leads you astray.

Yes. I also tend not to think the Word of God is written in secret code.

As for the Catechism, well, your misunderstanding of the scriptures causes you to fail to see Jesus’ promise to protect the Church from teaching error.

I also know better than to translate “church” as meaning the RC Magisterium.

LOL, no.

BTW, Jesus made no such promise. Just read the NT for a little bit and you will see folks in His church teaching error after error after error.

I do understand, however, that you believe that Rome is exempt from this reality.

Actually, come to think of it…I bet you never really thought about this on your own…you have accepted your positions against the Catholic Church as a result of the TRADITIONS OF MEN taught by your own faith community.

Thanks for the insult. This is all I have really experienced since I started posting here.

No, I have thought about this thoroughly.

**And our Catholic friends will say all the same “blah, blah, blah” about Paul. **

Then why do we (and the Catechism) happily quote Paul in support of our positions on so many subjects. We have no problem with Paul’s teaching on Justification…we just recognize that Paul was prevented by the Holy Spirit from ever writing the phrase, “faith alone”.

And we non-Catholics happily quote James to support our positions. Whoopie.

Don’t try to give the appearance that I have portrayed you improperly.

I am sure you would never, ever do that.

I can read what it clearly says.

But I am not sure you have the goodwill in your heart to really listen to what it says…there seems to be an overriding predisposition affecting your interpretation.

Thanks again for another insult.

I take the Catechism for what it clearly says, and I don’t have the “goodwill” to reject what my eyes plainly see.

Is this the height of RC apologetics that is here?

**Maybe I need an infallible interpreter to for the infallible interpreter… **

Bingo! This is the Magisterium of the Church. You see? You have moved forward a bit in your understand of what Christ established in the Church. Good job!

(Edited By Moderator)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are you telling me that the Catholic Church teaches that all those who do not have faith in Jesus Christ are damned?

Please.

I dare not cite the Catechism here because it claims both that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation and that those without faith in Jesus Christ can be saved.

LOL.

This is where everyone and their brother comes out and redefines what “necessary” means, but I gotta go with the actual definition here.

I cannot account for the contradiction in the Catechism, nor do I want to try. That is the job of the RC apologist.

I think you seem to be hung up on the concept that people are responsible for responding to whatever amount of truth they have received.

An undiscovered tribe of people living in the deepest recesses of the jungles of South America…

The ancient peoples of the world who lived before the time of Christ and had no opportunity to hear the gospel in their lifetime…

The Muslim in Saudi Arabia or the Hindu in India who is never presented with the Gospel…

Do you think that these people are damned or not?

Or will they be judged according to the law written on their hearts?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes. I also tend not to think the Word of God is written in secret code.

Yet that is precisely what you require when you claim that James is speaking of “another kind of faith” or that we are justified by faith when James says the exact opposite or that Jesus’ plain words concerning eating His flesh do not mean what they appear to mean. Sorry, but I threw away my evangelical decoder ring long ago.

I also know better than to translate “church” as meaning the RC Magisterium.

So much for judging according to the flesh.

BTW, Jesus made no such promise. Just read the NT for a little bit and you will see folks in His church teaching error after error after error.

You have not read the scripture more frequently or more accurately than the collective group of Catholics who frequent this forum. Stick around, we’ll be happy to share with you what we’ve learned from the Word of God.

BTW, if you consider that our interpretations of the Bible are very different from your own, isn’t this a total repudiation of sola scriptura"?

I do understand, however, that you believe that Rome is exempt from this reality.

Your distrust actually goes beyond just Rome, doesn’t it?

Although Protestantism understands the Church to be God-ordained and helpful, it also believes that the institutional Church is not an absolute necessity in order to know God or receive his grace. In fact, Protestantism suggests that the institutional church is often the very means by which the truth of the gospel is corrupted…Since the individual cannot, then, put his complete confidence in the Church to provide truth, Protestantism places the burden on the individual, and from his search for truth it becomes his personal responsibility to become right with God.

from Not By Faith Alone by Robert Sungenis

Thanks for the insult. This is all I have really experienced since I started posting here.

Sometimes the truth hurts, but no insult was intended.

No, I have thought about this thoroughly.

I am sure that you have thought about this…however, given your misunderstandings of the Catholic perspective, it is self-evident that you have NOT thougth about this thoroughly.

I take the Catechism for what it clearly says, and I don’t have the “goodwill” to reject what my eyes plainly see.

Well, does Jesus tell us to eat his flesh or not? Does Jesus give authority to forgive sins or not? Does Jesus establish Peter as the head of the Church or not? Your eyes can plainly see and yet remain blinded to the truth obviously enough. Does this surprise you?

(Edited By Moderator)

A pity. Jesus established an infallible Church precisely to prevent you from falling into the very theological mess you are in.

 

[Pax]

This “justification” in James is referring to the outward showing of faith which is one of the definitions of the greek word, dikaiio…

from 1342; to render (i.e. show or regard as) just or innocent:–free, justify(-ier), be righteous.
…
…
…

This is merely an interpretation on your part that deviates from the context as well as the teachings of the Christian Church until the ranks were broken at the time of the Reformation.

Please note the following:

In James 2:24 the apostle uses the word “justify” and he knows what the word means. James says, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” No amount of spin will alter these words. Faith alone believers have only two alternatives. They must either pit Paul against James or they must try to reconcile them by claiming that they are speaking of different things. This latter effort simply shows that there is a lack of understanding as to what both apostles are really preaching.

Paul makes it clear that there is a relationship between faith and works. He does so in many places but he makes the perfect bridge in Eph 2:8-10. This passage shows that when we are justified we become a new creation in Christ Jesus. This event, which is clearly a gratuitous gift of God, is transforming. If we become God’s workmanship in Christ Jesus for good works as part of that justification, then you cannot separate the justification and the good works. Prior to justification the sinner is totally unable to lift him/herself out of sin or to please God. The situation upon justification is truly a rebirth in Christ Jesus. If the good works that are God’s workmanship are not there, then a person is not justified.

We should also think about Ephesians 2:9-10 in the light of some other things that we know from scripture. In Romans, Paul speaks of freedom and slavery. The freedom is by grace to live in the Spirit and to avoid sin. Slavery is to live in the flesh and to be enslaved by sin. The former brings life(salvation), and the latter brings death(condemnation.) Paul says the following in this regard:

Rom 6: 6
We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.

Rom 6:14-16
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Now when I look up the word righteousness in Bamford’s Bible Dictionary, a Protestant source, it refers me to “justification.” Paul makes these kinds of connections in many sections of his writings. Paul also connects the word freedom to “being free from commiting sin” by telling us that “sin will have no dominion over you…for you are under grace.”

We read the same thing in Acts 13:39 where we are told that “by this Jesus everyone who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.”

The apostle Peter concurs when he writes, “Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same intention (for whoever has suffered in the flesh has finished with sin), so as to live for the rest of your earthly life no longer by human desires but by the will of God.”[1 Peter 4:1-2]

The apostle John is just as clear and emphatic. In 1 John 3:4-9 he tells us “Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God.”

Paul really hammers it home when he writes to the Church in Galatia and tells them " Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. [Gal 5:19-21]

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

And what does Jesus say about freedom? Jesus says to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”[John 8:31-32] After the Jewish believers say that they have never been slaves to anyone, Jesus explains to them in verse 34 what freedom and slavery mean when he says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin. So freedom is…freedom from commiting sin. Those that have faith in Jesus are done with sin by the power of the Holy Spirit working within them and by the merits of Jesus work of redemption on the cross. Those that are sinners are slaves to sin and “the slave does not continue in the house for ever;the son continues for ever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”[John 8:35-36] As an adopted son or daughter, Jesus has freed us from committing sin and we will continue in the house for ever.

This is what justification brings with it as described in Ephesians 2:8-10. This is the complete picture of grace that makes us God’s workmanship for good works as part of our regeneration and justification. All of the credit goes to God because the works and freedom from commiting sin are all by way of God’s grace. God’s grace is the great enabler and Paul gives us some wonderful statements about the power of God’s grace in the following passages:

2 Cor 3:5-6
Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent…

1 Cor 15:58
Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

I hope this helps.

 

[Pax]

That is clearly not what James says.

Faith gives birth to works.

Works can never give birth to faith.

While faith precedes the works that we do in justification, it is an error to suggest that faith gives birth to works. God is the initiator of the works for he created them in advance of our justification per Ephesians 2:9-10.

The most accurate thing that can be said is that **“faith is active along with works, and that faith is brought to completion by works.” **This must be understood, of course, in terms of God’s grace for we are his workmanship. This is strongly reinforced by the following:

Phi 2:13
For it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Heb 13:20-21
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to who [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen."

I hope this helps to give an insight into the relationship of grace, faith, and works as well as Catholic teaching on these important elements of our common faith in Jesus.

 

[Pax]

Yes. I also tend not to think the Word of God is written in secret code.

I also know better than to translate “church” as meaning the RC Magisterium.

LOL, no.

BTW, Jesus made no such promise. Just read the NT for a little bit and you will see folks in His church teaching error after error after error.

I do understand, however, that you believe that Rome is exempt from this reality.

Thanks for the insult. This is all I have really experienced since I started posting here.

No, I have thought about this thoroughly.

And we non-Catholics happily quote James to support our positions. Whoopie.

I am sure you would never, ever do that.

Thanks again for another insult.

I take the Catechism for what it clearly says, and I don’t have the “goodwill” to reject what my eyes plainly see.

Is this the height of RC apologetics that is here?

(Edited By Moderator)

Atemi my brother,

You have spoken of insults and claim that “This is all I have really experienced since I started posting here.” Please be advised that we should all be as charitable as possible. As you know, I have until recently spent time over at CARM (as STJ) and I can tell you that you have been treated much better here than the Catholics are treated over there.

I will apologize for myself and the Catholics on this forum for any insults directed at you. Likewise, when you visit our house you must be more circumspect in how you address us. Sometimes, people unwittingly push one another’s buttons and the temperatures rise. We all have a part to play in how we communicate with one another.

God bless.

 

[Atemi]

I think you seem to be hung up on the concept that people are responsible for responding to whatever amount of truth they have received.

An undiscovered tribe of people living in the deepest recesses of the jungles of South America…

The ancient peoples of the world who lived before the time of Christ and had no opportunity to hear the gospel in their lifetime…

The Muslim in Saudi Arabia or the Hindu in India who is never presented with the Gospel…

So now you are insistent that faith in Jesus Christ is indeed optional.

Hmmm.

First I said that the Catholic Church teaches that faith in Jesus Christ is optional to be saved and you challenged that. Now you agree.

What is anyone supposed to do with that?

Do you think that these people are damned or not?

Are they sinners?

Does God judge sin?

 

[Atemi]

While faith precedes the works that we do in justification, it is an error to suggest that faith gives birth to works.

This is self evident, IMO.

God is the initiator of the works for he created them in advance of our justification per Ephesians 2:9-10.

He also is the initiator of our faith from eternity past. Arguing outside of time may be kinda silly here.

The most accurate thing that can be said is that "faith is active along with works, and that faith is brought to completion by works."

I agree to the above, but it is no less accurate to say faith births works.

No good works will come of anyone without faith. Faith first, then works.

Works must be DONE to be works.

This is the witness of every Christian generation.

This must be understood, of course, in terms of God’s grace for we are his workmanship. This is strongly reinforced by the following:

Phi 2:13
For it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Paul is speaking to the faithful.

God works in His believers.

Heb 13:20-21
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to who [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen."

Same here.

God works in the faithful.

The author is specifically addressing his “brethren.” in verse 22.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So now you are insistent that faith in Jesus Christ is indeed optional.

Hmmm.

First I said that the Catholic Church teaches that faith in Jesus Christ is optional to be saved and you challenged that. Now you agree.

What is anyone supposed to do with that?

Are they sinners?

Does God judge sin?

Does God judge the heart? Does God judge culpability? Does God judge a fully informed conscience?

Do not play games. There is a huge difference between those who have an opportunity to hear and accept the gospel and those who do not.

Just as there is a huge difference between those who are in full communion with the Catholic Church and those who have knowingly separated themselves from it.

Read and reflect:

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332
844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334
**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Through no fault of their own. That is an important phrase.