Can someone who rejects the Gospel be saved?

[englands123]

I simply don’t understand why anyone would be worrying about salvation ?

Same principle as worrying about death…Is it not up to God who he decides to save ? If he wanted any of us dead we would already be dead.

Enjoy each day as a blessing and try to serve our Father out of love not for personal gain.

Do you think I as a Catholic have any greater right to our Lords salvation than another person ?

I live in hope but never expect anything.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I simply don’t understand why anyone would be worrying about salvation ?

Well eternity is a long time. I do not want to be wrong and the last thing I want to hear from Christ is depart from me, I knew you not. We are not to presume we are saved but work out our salvation with fear and trembling. When we die we also must be in a state of grace and not in mortal sin for salvation to be realized.

And then out of love for our neighbor we are to be concerned about their salvation. Jesus gave us the great command to go into all the world and preach the gospel. There should absolutely be a concern for those who are rejecting Christ and choosing this world instead. We should be concerned for potentially lost souls.

Is it not up to God who he decides to save ?

No, not entirely. We have free will. We can say yes or we can say no. We can accept His love or we can reject His love.

Enjoy each day as a blessing and try to serve our Father out of love not for personal gain.

Agree, yes.

Do you pray to tell your Father how much you love him or do you pray because of obligation

I believe there is a little bit of both. We pray and obey out of love but He also gives us commands that we are obliged to obey and we obey those out of love.

 

[Ammi]

Yet, Ammi does not. According to his personal interpretation of Scripture, the Amish wife in your example is condemned to hell, since she heard the Gospel message of the Church but did not respond to it! Let’s extrapolate that example a little, as well: what about the guy in Africa who hears the Gospel but is unconvinced? Is he condemned?

Excuse me? Please do not speak for myself about “what if” situations. I agree with MagdalinaRita, that the woman could still believe and not reject the Gospel, even if aspects of her situation prevented her against her will to be Baptised and so be initiated into the Church.

The document DOMINUS IESUS is not as simple as you wish to reduce it. First of all, it is actually primarily a “preaching of the Gospel” in itself. Secondly, it acknowledges that other (non Christian) religions can possess truths which are guided towards salvation for the person who seeks God. Though they are not the fullness of truth, and do not, in themselves, relate who God is, or are they able to bring salvation to persons. The document merely recognizes that religions are not without truths about God and persons can be a part of them and find salvation. It does not address the issue of individuals within these religions who come to the knowledge of the Gospel In the negative, but what is the proper response if they do.

This document has an actual book put out by the Vatican to help understand it! That means it isnt so simple to pull things out of it, such as you wish to do. Its purpose isnt to address what happens when someone learns the Gospel and does not believe. Here is a statement from the introduction of the book:

The introduction explains that the doctrinal relevance and ecclesial importance of “Dominus Iesus” are “certainly undebatable, not only because of the subjects analyzed, which constitute the principal nucleus of the Catholic faith,” but also because of their importance in the current theological debate.

“Unfortunately, at present there are widespread ideas and erroneous or confused opinions regarding the doctrine on the unique and universal character of the salvific event of Jesus Christ, and on the unity and indivisibility of the Church, which tend to play down the revelation of Christ,” the text explains.

Without having the book, neither of us can know what that means for certain, but the clarification was to avoid the down play of the revelation of Christ.

What I take from the document, is that when it recognizes the salvific potential of people’s in non Christian religions, it is addressing these religions apart from the knowledge of the Gospel. It’s looking at them in themselves, not having to do with the confrontation of the Gospel message.

Yet the document, itself, brings the Gospel message to anyone who reads it. So it presents a kind of dilemma for other religions (though always individuals). Because it bring the revelation of Jesus to knowledge, which demands the individual to respond properly.

 

[Ammi]

Is it not up to God who he decides to save ?

God already decided to save the world, so He sent His Son to become man and fulfill righteousness, in the flesh, and then die out of sacrificial love. Like MagdalenaRita said, we have free will to believe and accept, or not believe and reject salvation.

 

[Gorgias]

So, I think you are using Ammi as an excuse to say everyone goes to heaven whether they believe or not.

No, I certainly am not. I’m merely saying that his approach appears to be too harsh and overly restrictive.

I agree with Ammi, it is Church teaching that those who do not believe but reject the gospel after hearing it in it’s fullness from the Catholic church, and die in that state, their soul is in danger

Yet, that isn’t the standard. (I want to be very gentle here, since you mentioned your Amish grandmother.) The standard is that “those, knowing the necessity of belonging to the Church but not entering it” are the ones at risk. The “guy in Africa” doesn’t meet that standard – he does not know that the Church is necessary for salvation.

Once I heard on Catholic Answers that it is the opposite, people want to apply invincible ignorance to more people than they should

I agree. Yet, wasn’t it Mother Angelica who said that a person can fall into the ditch on both sides of the road? “Too restrictive” and “too liberal” are both ditches.

Excuse me? Please do not speak for myself about “what if” situations. I agree with MagdalinaRita, that the woman could still believe and not reject the Gospel

LOL!

So… “don’t speak for me!”, but “yeah, you characterized my assertions accurately”.

Without having the book, neither of us can know what that means for certain

Pot, meet kettle. “Don’t speak for me,” right…?

 

[Ammi]

Let me be very clear Gorgias, DOMINUS IESUS Does NOT relate that a person who hears the Gospel message and does not believe can still be saved.

It does NOT address the matter specifically.

It only recognizes that non Catholic religions contain partial truths about God and so they can assist an individual, who seeks God, to find salvation.

Again, it does NOT address the issue of a person who hears the Gospel message and rejects it. Plain and simple.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

(I want to be very gentle here, since you mentioned your Amish grandmother.) The standard is that “those, knowing the necessity of belonging to the Church but not entering it” are the ones at risk.

I think you misunderstood, I mentioned that my grandmother wasn’t Amish but though she could not physically be in the Catholic church, (due to oppression for a time) she accepted the message and taught it to her children secretly at night, who then passed the faith on to their children. Later as the oppression lifted she was able to physically be in the Church. Point was she did not reject the gospel.

Sometimes here at CAF someone will post that they heard the truths of the Church, want to become a member but can’t due to their parents or spouse or something, so are practicing the faith as best they can until they can physically be in the Church.

To me, those people have not rejected the truth but accepted it and are working out their faith as best they can.

I do agree and I think that is what is being questioned in this thread and what Ammi is saying, what happens to those, knowing the necessity of belonging to the Church and following Christ but refuse to enter it are the ones at risk.

The “guy in Africa” doesn’t meet that standard – he does not know that the Church is necessary for salvation.

But isn’t that the point of the question, what happens to those who hear the gospel and the fullness of the Catholic church, yet reject it. The guy in Africa, once being told and after hearing that it is necessary for his soul, has a choice now placed in front of him. He either accepts Christ or rejects Him.

 

[Gorgias]

Let me be very clear Gorgias, DOMINUS IESUS Does NOT relate that a person who hears the Gospel message and does not believe can still be saved.

So, let me be very clear, Ammi: it does make the claim that those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church may be saved. That is in contradiction to your claim. Not “those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church but who have never heard the Gospel proclaimed”. Just “not formally and visibly members”. Full stop.

That’s all that’s in play here – it’s my response to your request to show that there is Church Teaching that refutes your personal interpretation of Scripture. I have successfully done so. The fact that you refuse to hear that assertion and continue to disagree with it… well, that’s on you.

Later as the oppression lifted she was able to physically be in the Church. Point was she did not reject the gospel.

Ahh! Cool! OK, then: she’s not included in the folks referenced in LG as “can not be saved”! Awesome!

But isn’t that the point of the question, what happens to those who hear the gospel in the fullness of the Catholic church, yet reject it.

It is, since Ammi’s Scriptural claim is that they’re condemned, and DI doesn’t share that perspective, nor does it make an exception for this case. It’s purely “they have access to salvation… in ways known [only] to God himself.”

 

[MagdalenaRita]

she’s not included in the folks referenced in LG as “can not be saved”

Exactly.

It is, since Ammi’s Scriptural claim is that they’re condemned, and DI doesn’t share that perspective, nor does it make an exception for this case. It’s purely “they have access to salvation… in ways known [only] to God himself.”

I’m sorry I agree with Ammi. It is referring to those who through invicible ignorance do not know the truth or have not heard the truth. I don’t see how you are reading in DI anything about those who reject the message after hearing it except for the quote I gave:

If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”

And then this is what I saw in the last couple quotes:

DOMINUS IESUS Does NOT relate that a person who hears the Gospel message and does not believe can still be saved.

and then

Ammi: it does make the claim that those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church may be saved.

It seems like maybe, two different thoughts are happening here. One is about those who reject the message, as you kind of indicated at first about my grandmother and the other is about those who are not Catholic through no fault of their own.

 

[Ammi]

So, let me be very clear, Ammi: it does make the claim that those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church may be saved.

Yes. I have never argued this point.

That is in contradiction to your claim. Not “those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church but who have never heard the Gospel proclaimed”. Just “not formally and visibly members”. Full stop.

It is not in contradiction to what I believe, and the Church has Taught. Individuals “not formally and visibly members” who can attain salvation would NOT be someone who has heard the Gospel and reject it. Rather they would be someone seeking God and doing so under the religion they learn from and practice. It does NOT mean they learned the Gospel, and rejected it.

It is, since Ammi’s Scriptural claim is that they’re condemned, and DI doesn’t share that perspective, nor does it make an exception for this case. It’s purely "they have access to salvation… in ways known [only] to God himself."

This is the Church’s recognition about individuals in non Christian religions, which hold partial truths about God. It is NOT making a claim to any individual who hears the Gospel and rejects it.

 

[Ammi]

DOMINUS IESUS expresses that individuals in non Christian religions are able to attain salvation “in ways known to God”. Their religion may contain truths about God which can assist their desire to seek God. Yet it is NOT their religion that brings salvation, if any do attain to it. Rather it is still Jesus Christ, whom they do not know in fullness as the Catholic faith does. It is their desire to seek God and the faith in as much as they understand, to follow their consciences to do His will.

DOMINUS IESUS itself does not attempt to break down religions, but recognize that they can possess truths about God within them. It is not religions that the Church wishes to convert, but individuals that she wishes to hear the Gospel. Not to condemn, but to save. She knows that the Gospel is the source of all salvation.

Furthermore, DOMINUS IESUS does not speak of the negative consequences of rejecting the Gospel, except for one sentence which @MagdalenaRita referred to:

If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”

 

[Gorgias]

Yes. I have never argued this point.

Those who have heard the Gospel but not known it to be true are included in this group, though.

Individuals “not formally and visibly members” who can attain salvation would NOT be someone who has heard the Gospel and reject it.

So, I’ll echo your demand to me: show me Church Teaching that affirms this. I’ve shown you Church Teaching that does not make this assertion.

This is the Church’s recognition about individuals in non Christian religions, which hold partial truths about God. It is NOT making a claim to any individual who hears the Gospel and rejects it.

That’s your interpretation of the text. You’re reading into it. The text, itself, is not making that claim.

Furthermore, DOMINUS IESUS does not speak of the negative consequences of rejecting the Gospel, except for one sentence which @MagdalenaRita referred to:

If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”

You realize that when you proof-text a Church document, we can see what you’re doing, right? Here’s what the document says, in context:

However, “all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”.

“All the children of the Church” speaks to those who are “formally and visibly members of the Church”! So, for you and me, this absolutely holds – if we “fail to respond in thought, word, and deed”, then we will “be more severely judged”!

But… this does not address those who are not “children of the Church”… which, I must yet again remind you, are those about whom we’ve been talking. So… apples and oranges, brother.

 

[Ammi]

So, I’ll echo your demand to me: show me Church Teaching that affirms this. I’ve shown you Church Teaching that does not make this assertion.

John 3

“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Mark 16:16 (which is in the first sentence of DOMINUS IESUS)

He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned."

This is from Lumen Gentium, and is in the positive form:

“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

So someone who is seeking God, and moved by grace would accept the Gospel if only he was made aware of it.

And this:

In explicit terms He Himself [Christ] affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”
[/quote]

This one is a little different. Knowing that the CC, specifically (distinctly from denominations or particular concepts of the Church), is necessary for salvation is more complex than “knowing the Gospel”.

In post 56, I showed the explanation of the sower, and the commentary describing the different reactions to the Gospel Word. The first did NOT accept at all, and it was snatched from the heart immediately, and so was not saved.

To “know” means to be aware of. That is the definition of knowing something. It is not accepting as true. That would be believing. And that would be the second (and 3rd and 4th) example of the sower’s seed.

Knowing the Gospel includes being aware with the capacity of reason. It is not restricted to accepting as the truth. Yet those who may attain to salvation, even though they do not know the Gospel, would in fact believe the Gospel if they were aware of it. Because these, the Church Teaches: “sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Those who have heard the Gospel but not known it to be true are included in this group,

Not known it to be true. In other words, do not believe it.

Can I just ask where it says that in the document? I mean maybe it does and I missed it. I searched for that sentence but couldn’t find it. You are choosing your words very carefully, I must say, but the question is about those who reject the Gospel after hearing it, not have invincible ignorance and not know the gospel.

The only place I found in the document that says anything about not believing says this:

Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned”

and then there are these Bible verses included:

whoever believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” ( Acts 10: 36,42,43).

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

We have to remember the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It is all true. While I appreciate this document I do find it to say the opposite of what you are saying it does. I believe it is saying we must believe in Christ and His Church to be saved but also at the same time remembering it is not a document written by a Pope (at the time) and is not an infallible document nor written as Divine Revelation.

And to be honest with you as one who was raised Catholic her whole life, I was always told we needed to believe in Jesus and His Church and also what to believe about Jesus and His Church because God has divinely revealed His truth to the world, so for someone, an anonymous person on the internet to say we don’t even have to believe the gospel after hearing it, learning about it, knowing about it, and can still be saved, is just a little difficult to grasp because it goes against the words of Christ and the Church. I have never heard this from a priest, bishop, pope or nun or any other Catholic. I have always heard we must believe in Christ and His Divine Revelation for salvation to be realized and add to that works of mercy and charity.

Why would you want to leave people without the knowledge of Christ?

So with that, I am sticking with Christ, His Church, and His Divine Revelation

God bless

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

" 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"

source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM

Note also that Jesus Christ spoke of those who sin without knowledge will receive less punishment thought they deserve more. And He spoke of those who willfully lead others astray who belong to Him that it would be better that a millstone be put around their neck and cast into the sea than what will happen to them on judgement day.

---

God is the only one Whom can impartially know by God’s Own Mercy by Jesus Christ and His Merits by His Cross who willfully rejected the Grace of God. None of us is omniscient. (all knowing.) We can point toward our own fruits whether they bear goodness or harmfulness; and share the fruits of others which detract from the Grace, Healing, and Harmony that God offers; but we can never proclaim judgement on others. Paul The Apostle wrote that God judges those outside of The Church.

---

The harsh things which you note could apply to anyone. For example in the parable of the Pharisee & the tax collector. The Pharisee was outwardly good doing the right things like worship, prayer, fasting, alms but justified himself thanking God he wasn’t like the sinners such as the tax collector. The tax collector beat his chest, was so sad over sin wouldn’t look to Heaven, and asked God to have mercy on him a sinner. Jesus said that the tax collector left the temple justified.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

So the important thing is to let Grace strengthen toward objective Godliness and cheerful non judgmental giving. Having by God’s Grace a repentant humble and contrite heart.
~
The Church is the best vehicle of God’s Grace handed down from the times of the Apostles and early Church Fathers.
Peace.

 

[Gorgias]

This is from Lumen Gentium, and is in the positive form:

“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church , yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

Notice that the verb here is know, not have heard. That’s where your assertions go south.

 

[Gorgias]

Not known it to be true. In other words, do not believe it.

So… is belief what the Church proposes as the standard, or knowledge?

Can I just ask where it says that in the document?

That’s the whole point – those who propose “hearing” as the standard, likewise, cannot demonstrate that this standard is “in the document”. Short of that proof, one cannot make the claim that “hearing” is what is in play.

You are choosing your words very carefully

Eternal salvation is what is in play here; shouldn’t we be extraordinarily careful in that context? Or are we to simply point to the splinters in others’ eyes, and assert that they’re condemned?

And to be honest with you as one who was raised Catholic her whole life, I was always told we needed to believe in Jesus and His Church

That puts you in a particular group – those who are Catholic – and not in another group – those who are not. There are different standards for us and for them. Or perhaps you disagree with Lumen gentium or the Gospels, where they talk about these varying standards?

Why would you want to leave people without the knowledge of Christ?

I don’t. I also don’t want us to presume on the mercy of God, which is what is being professed here.

I am sticking with Christ, His Church, and His Divine Revelation

You should. So should I. But, that doesn’t mean that non-Christians are condemned, out of hand.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

This is from Lumen Gentium, and is in the positive form:

“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church , yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

Notice that the verb here is know, not have heard. That’s where your assertions go south.

Definition of know

1a(1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of

(2) : to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself

(3) : to recognize the nature of : [DISCERN]

b(1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously [known]

(2) : to be acquainted or familiar with

(3) : to have experience of

2a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b : to have a practical understanding of

Gorgias, you have claimed not only knowledge must be present, but “knowledge of truth”. You have added “of truth” to the Teaching of the Church. It’s like Martin Luther adding “alone” to faith.

Actually, you went farther, and said they would have to “accept as the truth” first. This is much farther than simply knowing the Gospel message.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

what the Church proposes as the standard,

as the standard

There are different standards for us and for them.

You keep talking about standards, where is that in the Bible? Where does Jesus say use these standards when you preach the Gospel to certain people and these standards when you preach to others? Where is that in Church teaching? No where.
The Church teaches about those with invincible ignorance, not those who know and reject.

Or are we to simply point to the splinters in others’ eyes, and assert that they’re condemned?

This is it right here. It is easier to believe those who choose to reject the Gospel are saved rather than reach out to them, evangelize them, pray for them, do penance for them…

It is not about pointing fingers but sharing our talents rather than burying them in the ground.

It is about not keeping the Eucharist, and all of the graces of the Church to ourselves.

But, that doesn’t mean that non-Christians are condemned, out of hand.

Again, choosing words very carefully. The question is not just about non-Christians or those out of invincible ignorance but those who have heard the Gospel and reject it.! That could also be somone who was/is a Christian and then rejects the Gospel and walks away from the faith…

As I said before, rather than accept what you are saying, I will stick with Jesus and what the Church teaches.