"Between Them and God"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nabooru
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can’t promise heaven to anyone. It’s not my call. But I can go by what God says in His Word are the best chances to get us into heaven. And I don’t get how your raw meat analogy explains evangelization.
 
Nabooru said:
I can’t promise heaven to anyone.
Click to expand...
Right.

No Catholic has proclaimed that you can, so it’s weird for you to say something like, “The fact is, I can’t promise salvation to anyone” as you did right here:
Nabooru said:
The fact is I can’t promise salvation to anyone
Click to expand...
A parallel would be for you to say, “The fact is, Mary is not a goddess”, which presupposes that someone here has proclaimed that Mary is a goddess.
And I don’t get how your raw meat analogy explains evangelization.
Click to expand...
Here’s the analogy:

Lack of the gospel message : blissful ignorance

as

lack of knowledge of fire : inability to taste the joys of cooked meat.

Blissful ignorance is about as “blissful” as eating raw meat. :eek:
 
I’m not debating whether or not Catholics can promise salvation. What I’m debating is whether or not unbelievers may still be saved, and if so, by what means. The Catholic view seems to me to say, probably - it seems one can only not be saved if one denied Christ while being fully aware of one’s need for him (who would do that?), whereas the Protestant one is neutral or negative. The deniers go to hell, the others, we cannot be sure - hell or a neutral place. This may be in line with the catholic position, but I feel it’s more important to stress the need to assist their salvation as much as possible by bringing them to a conscious acceptance of Christ.

And I still don’t understand the analogy. According to catholic doctrine, the cave man in his ignorance of fire would still die and may very well receive the gift of fire after death. The civilized person with the fire on earth, however, may very well lose it after death. To me the uncertainty relative to the Protestant’s hope and conversion makes me wonder the point of evangelization and being a catholic. And please don’t take my words out of context.
 
Nabooru said:
IWhat I’m debating is whether or not unbelievers may still be saved, and if so, by what means. The Catholic view seems to me to say, probably
Click to expand...
Actually, the Catholic view is that they may (i.e. it is possible) be saved. Not that they probably will be saved.

When you look at it that way, does it make it more understandable to you?
  • it seems one can only not be saved if one denied Christ while being fully aware of one’s need for him (who would do that?)
Click to expand...
This is not a correct exposition of Catholic teaching, Nobooru.
but I feel it’s more important to stress the need to assist their salvation as much as possible by bringing them to a conscious acceptance of Christ.
Click to expand...
This* is *Catholic teaching. 👍
And I still don’t understand the analogy. According to catholic doctrine, the cave man in his ignorance of fire would still die and may very well receive the gift of fire after death.
Click to expand...
It seems you* do *understand the analogy. 🙂

The correction you need to make is the “may very well” part. The correct way to look at it is: he may possibly receive it. Or not.

But he has lived his life without the benefit of fire, if we withhold it from him for fear of him burning himself.

That is not the charitable thing to do, is it–to withhold something good and precious from another human person?
The civilized person with the fire on earth, however, may very well lose it after death. To me the uncertainty relative to the Protestant’s hope and conversion makes me wonder the point of evangelization and being a catholic.
Click to expand...
Because you’re withholding something precious from another human person. That’s an uncharitable thing to do.
And please don’t take my words out of context.
Click to expand...
I try never to do that. 🙂
 
I think I’m beginning to get it. Take the caveman and his raw meat. He might take his meat, put it in a bundle of wood, and then leave it out in a thunderstorm, hoping lightning will strike it and catch fire and cook it. It might, but it would be much better to give him our box of matches.
 
Nabooru said:
I think I’m beginning to get it. Take the caveman and his raw meat. He might take his meat, put it in a bundle of wood, and then leave it out in a thunderstorm, hoping lightning will strike it and catch fire and cook it. It might, but it would be much better to give him our box of matches.
Click to expand...
'zactly! 👍
 
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.”
 
Nabooru said:
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.”
Click to expand...
The former.
 
So, then, evangelization is basically saying, “Look, theoretically, you might achieve some level of salvation as you are, but do you really want to take the chance?”
 
Nabooru said:
So, then, evangelization is basically saying, “Look, theoretically, you might achieve some level of salvation as you are, but do you really want to take the chance?”
Click to expand...
No.

I would never attempt to evangelize a person with that paradigm.

Would you?
 
Well I wouldn’t literally say that to a person. I guess what I’m saying is that such an idea would be the motivation for evangelization.
 
Nabooru said:
Well I wouldn’t literally say that to a person. I guess what I’m saying is that such an idea would be the motivation for evangelization.
Click to expand...
The motivation for evangelization is to spread the Truth.

I don’t ever consider whether a person is going to hell or heaven–EVER, whether I’m speaking to them and sharing the gospel, or sharing a drink on their patio and eating something deliciously unhealthy with them.
 
Nabooru said:
I would say that’s a personal rather than Christian view.
Click to expand...
Is there something in the Catechism that supports your view that Christians, when evangelizing, need to be thinking, “Look, theoretically, you might achieve some level of salvation as you are, but do you really want to take the chance?”
 
I’m not going by the catechism, I’m going by the Bible, which says even less than that. What I’m saying is that the purpose of evangelization is to save the souls of sinners, not just show them an alternative way.
 
Nabooru said:
I’m not going by the catechism, I’m going by the Bible, which says even less than that.
Click to expand...
Then you cannot tell me that what I am proclaiming is my personal view, not the Christian view. 🤷
What I’m saying is that the purpose of evangelization is to save the souls of sinners, not just show them an alternative way.
Click to expand...
And this is very Catholic of you to say! 👍
 
You mean that little button on the lower right that says “quote”? I’ve been using it, don’t know why it wouldn’t show up…
 
PRmerger said:
Is there something in the Catechism that supports your view that Christians, when evangelizing, need to be thinking, “Look, theoretically, you might achieve some level of salvation as you are, but do you really want to take the chance?”
Click to expand...
Anyway, what should an evangelist be thinking, then?
 
Nabooru said:
You mean that little button on the lower right that says “quote”? I’ve been using it, don’t know why it wouldn’t show up…
Click to expand...
Try again. Hit the quote button on the post of mine to which you want to respond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top