"Between Them and God"

[PRmerger]

Anyway, what should an evangelist be thinking, then?

I can’t answer that question except with generalities: he should be thinking of the kerygma.

And I can tell you what he should definitely NOT be thinking: you are going to hell.

That’s above our pay grade.

 

[Nabooru]

But, I think that’s something to be kept in mind. Perhaps not a primary motivation, but still. That without Christ they are not by definition lost, but in grave danger of being so.

 

[Nabooru]

It’s better to err on the side of caution, I guess is what I’m saying. If other beliefs and systems are “gravely deficient” in the means of salvation than obviously it is our task to bring them to a state where they are not in so steep a danger.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s better to err on the side of caution, I guess is what I’m saying. If other beliefs and systems are “gravely deficient” in the means of salvation than obviously it is our task to bring them to a state where they are not in so steep a danger.

This is very Catholic of you to say!

 

[andrewstx]

Naburoo, getting saved by faith alone is not Anglican teaching.

They believe along with Catholics, Orthodox and Lutherans that the sacrament of baptism is part of being “saved” and this is done usually soon after birth.

 

[Nabooru]

I know. Baptism can be either by water or desire (that is, wanting to be baptized a Christian were the means to do so is not available), but it is necessary.

 

[Nabooru]

In such a case, then, I feel the catechism teaching should not be overemphasized, lest it put people into a false sense of comfort, that they don’t have to do anything. I’m not sure how often the catechism is revised but that’s something to think about next time.

 

[PRmerger]

In such a case, then, I feel the catechism teaching should not be overemphasized, lest it put people into a false sense of comfort, that they don’t have to do anything.

If anyone believes this, then he does not understand Catholic teaching.

 

[Nabooru]

If anyone believes this, then he does not understand Catholic teaching.

I fear that is already the case in many people.

I would even go as far to say that we should not hope for the salvation of unbelievers - after all, the Bible doesn’t tell us what happens to them. If we hope too much, we get comfortable with just letting it go without evangelization. I stand by my original statement, then - it’s between them and God, and we cannot know. We cannot hope nor condemn. We simply cannot know.

 

[Nabooru]

I can’t edit the above post since it’s after twenty minutes. And I know I’ve been rambling here. But, another thought.

Were someone to ask me, what would that person be that did not know Christ and yet could be part of his church? I would say, the seeker. The person who recognizes their status as a sinner and is constantly trying to seek redemption from a greater God. In short, the person that seeks grace and a savior. Although I cannot guarantee they’re a candidate for salvation, were I to define the unknowing member of the church, that would be it. Not just the person who assumes that by being “a good person” (that phrase is almost meaningless these days) they’re good to go, or the person who doesn’t care to examine themselves and recognize their sin. Anyone who lacks the humility to say that they are a sinner - I can only pray for them to change.

 

[PRmerger]

I fear that is already the case in many people.

Indeed.

The Church has done an abysmal job in the past giving nourishing food to her flock. Ask any Joe Catholic “What is the Immaculate Conception” and you’re apt to get a blank look.

Fortunately, that is changing.

I would even go as far to say that we should not hope for the salvation of unbelievers - after all, the Bible doesn’t tell us what happens to them. If we hope too much, we get comfortable with just letting it go without evangelization.

That would be the paradigm proffered by those who have divorced themselves from the Faith of the Apostles.

I stand by my original statement, then - it’s between them and God, and we cannot know.

Right.

We cannot hope nor condemn. We simply cannot know.

Of course we can hope.

 

[Nabooru]

Indeed.

The Church has done an abysmal job in the past giving nourishing food to her flock. Ask any Joe Catholic “What is the Immaculate Conception” and you’re apt to get a blank look.

Fortunately, that is changing.

That would be the paradigm proffered by those who have divorced themselves from the Faith of the Apostles.

How so?

Right.

Of course we can hope.

We can hope, but not hope so much that we simply end up telling ourselves something is true when it is not certain. For example, I can hope that my paycheck will cover my bills this month with a little extra left over. However, it’s safer to assume that I will have just enough for bills, and so not spend money out of hand with the idea that when my paycheck comes, everything’s covered. I can still hope that my paycheck is fat, while keeping it in mind that it probably won’t be.

 

[PRmerger]

We can hope, but not hope so much that we simply end up telling ourselves something is true when it is not certain. For example, I can hope that my paycheck will cover my bills this month with a little extra left over. However, it’s safer to assume that I will have just enough for bills, and so not spend money out of hand with the idea that when my paycheck comes, everything’s covered. I can still hope that my paycheck is fat, while keeping it in mind that it probably won’t be.

 

[Nabooru]

I’d like to post a quote from another forum:

*"A friend of mine answers this quite eloquently. He grew up in a remote area of Africa, where Christianity had not yet reached. When he was in his teens, the missionaries finally arrived at his village to tell them about Jesus.

He said, “We knew Who they were talking about. We were glad to finally know His name, and to find out that He had walked the earth, and died for our sins.”

Today, he is a Deacon in the Catholic Church."*

I think that sums up the implicit membership. The desire for baptism had they known of it. Not just a desire for spirituality or perfection. When I was involved in New Age/Eastern stuff, I met many, many people who were, to put it bluntly, full of themselves. They had reached perfection, the point where they were literally one with Godhead or Goddess or whatever. There was no such thing as salvation for them. To them, there was nothing to be saved from. There are no mistakes or evils in life; we all do what we chose to do in our preexistence or a past life, or everything they do is right by virtue of themselves. If they take sexual advantage of their followers, or grift money from their organization, overcharge for spiritual services, encourage people to give up more and more money on useless “alternative” medical practices, talk down to their students, etc., they have the right to do that as God. That is not an implicit membership. Although they might believe they are right, their pride and refusal to acknowledge their own base humanity does not excuse them, I think.

 

[Nabooru]

I’m sorry to revive this topic but I’m still a little confused.

If the idea of salvation for non-Christians is only theory, why is it in the catechism? Just as a suggestion of a possibility? Why would the need to evangelize still be stressed, if there is hope for the unchurched? You can’t put those two ideas next to each other in the same book and not have their dissonance ring.

Isn’t the church concerned that such a doctrine, combined with papal visits with the Dalai Lama and prayers in a mosque, for example, lead to assumptions of religious pluralism and equality? (Why would the pope do all that stuff, anyway? The grand mufti of Al Azhar doesn’t visit a church to go to confession.)

And, why the emphasis on sin and repentance, proper form and such, if it may turn out that a person gets by without all those sacraments and cares anyway? I’ve had it explained to me that more is expected of Catholics, but again that makes it sound like it’d be better not to proselytize, lest someone be introduced to something they can’t live up to.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sorry to revive this topic but I’m still a little confused.

If the idea of salvation for non-Christians is only theory, why is it in the catechism?

Firstly, that non-Catholics may be saved is not a theory. It is doctrine. That’s why it is in the Catechism.

We just don’t know that they WILL be saved.

Now, I can see why you think that it’s a theory, because when you asked this question below:

Now there’s one more thing I want to clarify at this point. Is this teaching theory or considered fact?

Let me explain. Does the teaching go, “Non-Christians may possibly enter heaven, although we’re not sure whether or not that’s ever happened or will happen,” or, “Non-Christians can definitely go to heaven, we just don’t know who or when.”

I responded:

The former.

But I was responding to your second comment. Not the first.

So, again, it is not a “theory” that non-Catholics may be saved. That is a statement of fact. Catholic fact.

 

[Nabooru]

Someone pointed something out to me: God owes salvation to nobody. To look at the unevangelized and say, “It’s not fair for them to miss out on being saved,” might be applying our will to God.

As an example, suppose a lottery winner was standing on a street corner in my city and handing out some of his winnings in his joy, to anyone who will accept them. I don’t know this is going on. Eventually someone comes running into my house and gasping and panting says, “There’s a guy down the street just giving money away!”

I jump up, run out of the house, and down the street to find the crowd dispersing and the lottery winner walking away. I call out to him, “Wait, I want some money too!” and he turns around and says, “Sorry, but I’ve given away all that I’m willing to give up. You’re too late.”

I might be angry at my bad luck, but would it be fair of me to demand that I deserve a handout because I didn’t know until it was too late? I am owed a piece of the pie because it’s not my fault I didn’t know, and he isn’t allowed to let me walk away disappointed? After all, a lot of other people got money when he was feeling generous, so as a matter of course, so should I.

No, I have no right to demand anything of him. Even if it’s not my fault that I didn’t know, it’s not his fault I didn’t, either, and truth be told, he owes me nothing, since I’ve never done anything for him or expressed any interest in him until I found out about the money.

Now, does that mean definitively he won’t give me something? Not necessarily; maybe he’ll pity me despite my sense of entitlement and hand over some cash, or even some trinket, like a ring he bought with his winnings. It’s his call. But then again, I have no right to expect anything from him, no demand I could reasonably make of him, and if he decides to give me nothing, I don’t have a choice but to accept that. And that goes not only for me, but whatever friends I might have whom I might have wanted to share the money with in turn. Those other people might have had the luck (or grace) to be there at the right time, but I did not.

 

[PRmerger]

Someone pointed something out to me: God owes salvation to nobody. To look at the unevangelized and say, “It’s not fair for them to miss out on being saved,” might be applying our will to God.

As an example, suppose a lottery winner was standing on a street corner in my city and handing out some of his winnings in his joy, to anyone who will accept them. I don’t know this is going on. Eventually someone comes running into my house and gasping and panting says, “There’s a guy down the street just giving money away!”

I jump up, run out of the house, and down the street to find the crowd dispersing and the lottery winner walking away. I call out to him, “Wait, I want some money too!” and he turns around and says, “Sorry, but I’ve given away all that I’m willing to give up. You’re too late.”

I might be angry at my bad luck, but would it be fair of me to demand that I deserve a handout because I didn’t know until it was too late? I am owed a piece of the pie because it’s not my fault I didn’t know, and he isn’t allowed to let me walk away disappointed? After all, a lot of other people got money when he was feeling generous, so as a matter of course, so should I.

No, I have no right to demand anything of him. Even if it’s not my fault that I didn’t know, it’s not his fault I didn’t, either, and truth be told, he owes me nothing, since I’ve never done anything for him or expressed any interest in him until I found out about the money.

Now, does that mean definitively he won’t give me something? Not necessarily; maybe he’ll pity me despite my sense of entitlement and hand over some cash, or even some trinket, like a ring he bought with his winnings. It’s his call. But then again, I have no right to expect anything from him, no demand I could reasonably make of him, and if he decides to give me nothing, I don’t have a choice but to accept that. And that goes not only for me, but whatever friends I might have whom I might have wanted to share the money with in turn. Those other people might have had the luck (or grace) to be there at the right time, but I did not.

Great analogy!

Now, as you are an Anglican, and your beliefs about Baptism are similar to Catholics, how does this scenario work when you factor in the sacrament of Baptism?

 

[Nabooru]

Baptism is… This is hard to explain. To desire baptism and its effects is a natural outcome of grace and the Holy Spirit. And infant baptism is the first step in welcoming that Holy Spirit into a child’s life. That’s not to demean baptism into a mere physical symbolic ceremony - it definitely has meaning with washing, grace, and forgiveness. But I can’t quite describe it. It does not make us sinless for life, but it mitigates our original sin. It doesn’t remove it - if it did, we would not need Christ past the point of baptism. It inducts us into life and grace.

That goes for both water baptism and a desire for baptism when it isn’t available.

 

[PRmerger]

Baptism is… This is hard to explain. To desire baptism and its effects is a natural outcome of grace and the Holy Spirit. And infant baptism is the first step in welcoming that Holy Spirit into a child’s life. That’s not to demean baptism into a mere physical symbolic ceremony - it definitely has meaning with washing, grace, and forgiveness. But I can’t quite describe it. It does not make us sinless for life, but it mitigates our original sin. It doesn’t remove it - if it did, we would not need Christ past the point of baptism. It inducts us into life and grace.

That goes for both water baptism and a desire for baptism when it isn’t available.

So here’s how the Catholic sees Baptism, as it applies to your analogy:

Everything changes when the “you” in that scenario becomes Indelibly Marked as being in covenantal relationship with the Lottery Winner. Thus, when you run down the street see the Lottery Winner, he says, “My family!! Here you go!” and offers you his winnings. And, if you are in your right mind, you accept. If you are insane (that is, in mortal sin), you refuse.