Can someone who rejects the Gospel be saved?

[Crusader13]

Actually… that’s exactly what it says! I’m sad that you are unable to read it in the way it was written and intended.

No where in that document does it say that non-Catholics (Jews and Muslims) are saved simply by remaining in their respective faiths. That would logically imply that any Catholic who wants to leave the faith and convert to either one of those two faiths would still have the promise of salvation granted to them via the doctrines and teachings of Judaism and/or Islam.

 

[Ammi]

No where in that document does it say that non-Catholics (Jews and Muslims) are saved simply by remaining in their respective faiths.

Not after hearing/knowing the Gospel.

The interesting thing, is the document (DOMINUS IESUS) itself reveals the Gospel Word clearly (to anyone reading who is seeking). So anyone who reads the document, and has not already known the Gospel, they do after reading the thing. It’s actually the main intention.

The beginning sentence opens up with this:

The Lord Jesus, before ascending into heaven, commanded his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world and to baptize all nations: “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” ( Mk 16:15-16); “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the world” ( Mt 28:18-20; cf. Lk 24:46-48; Jn 17:18,20,21; Acts 1:8).

Then ends with this:

The intention of the present Declaration, in reiterating and clarifying certain truths of the faith, has been to follow the example of the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the faithful of Corinth: “I handed on to you as of first importance what I myself received” ( 1 Cor 15:3). Faced with certain problematic and even erroneous propositions, theological reflection is called to reconfirm the Church’s faith and to give reasons for her hope in a way that is convincing and effective.

In treating the question of the true religion, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught: “We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus entrusted the task of spreading it among all people. Thus, he said to the Apostles: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’ ( Mt 28: 19-20). Especially in those things that concern God and his Church, all persons are required to seek the truth, and when they come to know it, to embrace it and hold fast to it”.99

The revelation of Christ will continue to be “the true lodestar” 100 in history for all humanity: “The truth, which is Christ, imposes itself as an all-embracing authority”. 101 The Christian mystery, in fact, overcomes all barriers of time and space, and accomplishes the unity of the human family: “From their different locations and traditions all are called in Christ to share in the unity of the family of God’s children… Jesus destroys the walls of division and creates unity in a new and unsurpassed way through our sharing in his mystery. This unity is so deep that the Church can say with Saint Paul: ‘You are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are saints and members of the household of God’ ( Eph 2:19)”. 102

 

[Latin]

We also can not presume salvation where the Church does not teach that it is present.

I agree.
It is also true, we can and should presume salvation where the Church teaches it.

THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains the ultimate perfection, to which God has destined the human race.
.
This, the beneficent purpose of an all-seeing Providence, is wholly gratuitous, entirely unmerited (Romans 3:24; 9:11-2).
.
It extends to all men (Romans 2:10; 1 Timothy 2:4), even to the reprobate Jews (Romans 11:26 sq.); and by it all God’s dealings with man are regulated (Ephesians 1:11).
.
It extends to every individual, adapting itself to the needs of each (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. xxviii in Matt, n. 3 in; P.G., LVII, 354).
.
All things are created and governed with a view to man, to the development of his life and his intelligence, and to the satisfaction of his needs (Aristides, i, v, vi, xv, xvi.
.
His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.
.
He directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the universe was created.

Evil, therefore, ministers to God’s design (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, xxxii in “P.L.”,
.
That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and in particular that man should glorify Him, recognizing in nature the work of His hand, serving Him in obedience and love, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm

303 The sacred books powerfully affirm God’s absolute sovereignty over the course of events.
.
CCCS 1996-1998; Justification comes from grace (God’s free and undeserved help) and is given to us to respond to his call.

This call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will.
.
There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide).
.
308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes:
"For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."171
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.

307 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free, causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions.
.
Aquinas said, "God changes the will without forcing it . But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature," De Veritatis 22:9. 31. ST I-II:112:3. 32. Gaudium et Spes 22; "being …
.
God bless

 

[Latin]

Gorgias:

Again… no: ‘hearing’ isn’t the standard that the Church proposes.

This is false. “Hearing” is the term given by Scripture. The Church uses the term “know”, which must, therefore, be considered synonymous, in this context.

In Catholic Theology, in particular Soteriology, “hearing” and to “know” is not the same.

The differences are the differences between the “Old Creation” and the “New Creation.”

.
OLD-CREATION (UN-REGENERATED PERSON)

Rom.8:7; The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

1 Cor.2:14; The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, …

Fallen man cannot redeem himself. (De fide.)

An un-regenerated person can hear spiritual things but cannot know or understand them.

.
NEW CREATION ( REGENERATED PERSON).

The works of God in our re-creation.

CCC 298 Since God could create everything out of nothing, he can also give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them, he can also give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him.
.
Ez.36:26-27; I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

And I will put my Spirit in you and cause you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
.
The qualifying words: CAUSE YOU.

The Father William Most Collection​

St. Augustine on Grace and Predestination

(1) On human interaction with grace: Every good work, even good will, is the work of God:
.
De gratia Christi 25, 26: "For not only has God given us our ability and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting in us; not that we do not will or that we do not act, but that without His help we neither will anything good nor do it."
.
De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32: "It is certain that we will when we will; but He brings it about that we will good … . It is certain that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act, providing most effective powers to the will."
.
Ibid. 6. 15: "If then your merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His gifts."
.
Ep. 154, 5. 16: "What then is the merit of man before grace by which merit he should receive grace? Since only grace makes every good merit of ours, and when God crowns our merits, He crowns nothing else but His own gifts."
.
St. Augustine is called, rightly, the Doctor of Grace, for his great work.
Augustine showed very well our total and utter dependence on God.

.
St. Thomas teaches that God effects everything, the willing and the achievement. S. Th.II/II 4, 4 ad 3:

St. Thomas also teaches that all movements of will and choice must be traced to the divine will: and not to any other cause, because Gad alone is the cause of our willing and choosing. CG, 3.91.
.
God bless

 

[Crusader13]

Salvation is for everyone, even the Jews. Nobody is arguing that it’s not. However, Salvation is not owed to humanity nor will every person attain it. There is still an active requirement on every individual to adhere to what Jesus commanded of us and to have faith and a desire to believe in Him.

Simply saying “I believe in God” isn’t the same thing. Knowing and hearing are different, this points to the fact that there is an ignorance that is culpable as well as inculpable.

For example if you encounter a JW and you try to share the truth with them about Jesus and they refuse to listen they could be considered culpable for their refusal.

Some people refuse to listen or search further because they feel they don’t need it. That is a rejection, even if they don’t know the truth of what they are rejecting.

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
Romans 1:20-23.

 

[Gorgias]

The Church uses the term “know”, which must, therefore, be considered synonymous, in this context.

Not true. The word “know” explains what is meant by “hear”.

Except that you haven’t provided any infallible magisterial documents that say you can reject Christ and be saved. No where.

I think it’s time to get off this merry-go-round. If you want to keep going in circles, have fun.

No where in that document does it say that non-Catholics (Jews and Muslims) are saved simply by remaining in their respective faiths. That would logically imply that any Catholic who wants to leave the faith and convert to either one of those two faiths would still have the promise of salvation granted to them via the doctrines and teachings of Judaism and/or Islam.

Wrong. Apples and oranges. In fact, LG explicitly addresses the strawman you’ve just expressed here. It’s not the logical implication, and it’s explicitly rejected by the Church. (And, at the same time, in the same context, the document talks about non-Christians in the context of salvation.) So, yeah… there’s that.

For example if you encounter a JW and you try to share the truth with them about Jesus and they refuse to listen they could be considered culpable for their refusal.

And, possibly, not. That’s the whole point. What’s being argued here is that they must be considered condemned, by definition. And that’s just inaccurate.

 

[Ammi]

And, possibly, not. That’s the whole point. What’s being argued here is that they must be considered condemned, by definition. And that’s just inaccurate.

What you are arguing, is that “hear” in Scripture means “know” in Church Teaching (which I also believe) Yet YOU (without any Church support) determine that “know” means one must first “accept as the Truth” before disbelieving to be withheld from salvation. This is false. It has no sound reasoning, or Church support.

 

[Gorgias]

It has no sound reasoning, or Church support.

I’ve shown the support for the position I’ve outlined. You simply refuse to accept it. Again, you can stay on this merry-go-round. I’m out.

 

[Ammi]

Let me ask you a question that might help me understand you.

Do you believe that Dominus Iesus relates enough Gospel for someone seeking God to be held accountable for “knowing”?

 

[Crusader13]

And, possibly, not. That’s the whole point. What’s being argued here is that they must be considered condemned, by definition. And that’s just inaccurate.

You’re trying to imply that we are the ones condemning the person on our own knowledge. We are only stating what the Church has always taught in regards to salvation and the necessity of the Church through Jesus Christ.

You’re inferring that non-Catholics are saved simply because they are seeking God in their own way.

 

[Ammi]

You’re trying to imply that we are the ones condemning the person on our own knowledge. We are only stating what the Church has always taught in regards to salvation and the necessity of the Church through Jesus Christ. …You’re inferring that non-Catholics are saved simply because they are seeking God in their own way.

He is inferring more than that. He is inferring someone can reject the Gospel but still be saved because they are seeking God in their own religion.

This is a false manipulation. This implies that someone can sincerely disbelieve the Gospel, and find Salvation through their religion on the basis that they never accepted the Gospel as truth.

This is definitely NOT what Dominus Iesus is Teaching.

 

[Gorgias]

You’re trying to imply that we are the ones condemning the person on our own knowledge.

No, you’re not condemning. (That’s far above your pay grade. )

Rather, you’re teaching condemnation beyond what the Church teaches.

You’re inferring that non-Catholics are saved simply because they are seeking God in their own way.

Not at all. Everyone who is saved, is saved through Christ – whether as visible members of the Church or not. No one is saved “simply because” they’re doing something “in their own way.” That’s a distortion and caricature of Church teaching.

This implies that someone can sincerely disbelieve the Gospel, and find Salvation through their religion on the basis that they never accepted the Gospel as truth .

Nope. That’s not what I’m saying, either, and thanks for the explicit assertion that I’m asserting heresy.

Rather, I’m simply repeating what the Church teaches: those who do not know that the teaching of the Church is true, also may attain to salvation. I’m sorry that this teaching offends you to the extent that it does. But that’s what the Church teaches.

 

[Ammi]

Rather, I’m simply repeating what the Church teaches: those who do not know that the teaching of the Church is true, also may attain to salvation.

Now you dont even acknowledge the Gospel?

You are focussing on another obligation, which is farther than accepting the Gospel first.

Dominus Iesus stated its purpose. She quoted this Scripture as the compelling inspiration and aspiration.

1 Cor. 15: 3

“I handed on to you as of first importance what I myself received”

The rest of that passage is considered the first creed formulated by the Church. It’s a concise Gospel.

Do you believe that Dominus Iesus relates enough Gospel for someone seeking God to be held accountable for “knowing”?

 

[Gorgias]

Now you dont even acknowledge the Gospel?

Huh?

Now you’re really grasping at straws.

Do you believe that Dominus Iesus relates enough Gospel for someone seeking God to be held accountable for “knowing”?

Would someone, reading DI, know the teachings of the Church? I would argue that this document primarily discusses some mistaken notions about where the true teachings of the Church are located, and how salvation proceeds. As such, it is not a document intended to be a complete exposition of the Church’s teachings. I sense a ‘gotcha’ moment coming… what are you really trying to ask?

 

[Ammi]

Who cares about a “complete exposition of the Church’s teachings”?

I’m addressing the Gospel. And the Catholic Church asserting that the Gospel is necessary to believe and accept. Ya know, like Dominus Iesus actually says in the first sentence.

 

[Gorgias]

Who cares about a “complete exposition of the Church’s teachings”?

One would hope Catholics do. Do you not care?

 

[Crusader13]

Rather, you’re teaching condemnation beyond what the Church teaches.

No I’m not. The Church absolutely teaches that those who reject the gospel are often times deceived by the evil one. You seem to be saying that people aren’t culpable for believing in the deception.

The problem is that there is a difference between knowing and believing. A person doesn’t have to believe in the necessity of the Church and then reject it. They just have to know it; but nobody agrees and what level of knowledge is required.

For example, if you come across signs that tell you not cross the road when flooded, is that sufficient to know not do it or is one held blameless because they say “the sign said not to cross when flooded, but I didn’t actually know it was flooded.”

I realize we’ve been going round and round, but I’m having trouble trying to understand exactly what you believe. You’ve stated and quoted several different documents, but yet you seem to be straddling the fence when trying to explain your understanding of the necessity of the Church with regards to salvation and non-Catholics.

 

[Gorgias]

You seem to be saying that people aren’t culpable for believing in the deception.

I’m saying that it’s not black-and-white, 100%, objective. It’s subjective. A person may be culpable, but the Church doesn’t teach that they are culpable in a 100%, every situation, kind of sense.

you seem to be straddling the fence when trying to explain your understanding of the necessity of the Church with regards to salvation and non-Catholics.

I don’t think that I have been doing so. Is the Church necessary? Of course it is – the graces that Jesus gives us for salvation come from one place alone: the Church. This doesn’t imply that one must be a visible member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved, though. Nor does it mean – as DI makes clear – that salvation for non-Catholics comes from their ecclesial communities.

Let’s look at an example: suppose you were the son of a Baptist preacher. You grew up, steeped in your denomination’s teachings. Let’s suppose that I come along and offer the teachings of the Church, and you hear those teachings, but you don’t accept them. Is your hearing sufficient evidence that you’re condemned to hell? After all, I proclaimed them, and you heard them!

No, the Church doesn’t proclaim that this “hearing” suffices. What it says is that, if you hear and know that they’re true, but refuse to believe, then you’re culpable. But, you were raised a good Baptist child. You don’t know them to be true – your upbringing precludes you being able to make that leap. Are you condemned, then?

Nope. Since you do not know them to be true, you’re not culpable. Only if you say “yeah, that’s the truth, but no, I have no interest in following the dictates of my conscience, which is telling me that truth is found there”, are you culpable.

 

[Crusader13]

Ok good point. At least I can understand a little more of what you’re saying.

Using your example there is some differences in a Baptist vs a Muslim with regards to their teachings on Jesus.

But let’s say you two are talking about the necessity of baptism. And this person says baptism isn’t necessary for salvation and as a Catholic we know that’s false. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out the errors in their understanding.

What we don’t say is “that’s okay if you don’t believe in baptism, because God will save you without it, because Vatican II says you aren’t culpable for your disbelief. Either baptism is required or it’s not. It can’t be both. It’s not a requirement simply for Catholics and optional for every other non-Catholic

We hold fast to the necessity of what Jesus Christ through the Church has commanded of us. We tell them what is necessary, if they choose to reject the truth they do so at the risk of their own salvation, but we don’t find a middle ground by saying that they don’t have to believe and they don’t have to convert.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Who cares about a “complete exposition of the Church’s teachings”?

One would hope Catholics do. Do you not care?

Right! So first, we are not talking about Catholics here. Second, “complete exposition of the Church’s teaching” is a lifetime journey. Not required to know for Baptism, or Communion, or Confirmation anyway.