Can someone who rejects the Gospel be saved?

[Gorgias]

What we don’t say is “that’s okay if you don’t believe in baptism

Of course not. The documents of the Church inform us that we are tasked with evangelizing.

Either baptism is required or it’s not. It can’t be both.

Well, buckle your seatbelts, because you’re in for a bumpy ride. It’s not as simple as you might want it to be.

Is baptism required for salvation for all people? That’s not what the Church teaches. Rather, the Church teaches that “Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.” (CCC, #1257)

So… necessary for all? That’s not the claim that the Catechism makes. But wait… it gets even more interesting:

[1258] The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood , like the desire for Baptism , brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

[1259] For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

So, for those who aren’t baptized sacramentally, the graces of baptism may be present in physical martyrdom or in the desire to be baptized (but are prevented from physical baptism by death). So, what we’re really talking about here are the graces of baptism.

So… are the graces of baptism what are absolutely necessary? Well… no. Read on in the catechism:

[1260] “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Hmm… so, even a seeking of the truth – according to one’s understanding of God – can lead to salvation, even in the absence of baptism!

So, is water baptism necessary for all? We have plenty of examples – in the very catechism itself! – that point to salvation without explicit water baptism.

So… before we assert that hearing the message – or even knowing it (that is, not being ignorant of its truth)! – are what is required, we’d do well to understand what the Church really teaches. Even if it’s at odds with our own personal understanding of Scripture.

 

[Crusader13]

I wasn’t referring to baptism of desire or blood or those who never heard of the gospel. Again you’re using the exceptions or those rare cases of true invincible ignorance to generalize that all non-Catholics can use this as a way to say that something isn’t technically a necessity.

You’re splitting hairs by saying “yes baptism is required” but only by those who would’ve known. The problem is that this section is being used as a way to keep telling any non-Catholic that they are free from having to accept the truth of the Catholic Church.

By your logic you are in fact saying “it’s only binding if you believe it is.” If one chooses to reject the truth of the Church based upon their understanding of Scripture and salvation then anyone and everyone can attain heaven. I don’t believe you’re understanding of these sections in the CCC mean what you think they do, because you’ve stripped away the necessity of Jesus and the Church.

Yet you try to justify this idea by pointing to the CCC and saying, well everyone is saved by the Catholic Church anyway, so it doesn’t matter if they choose to reject it and if we can’t tell who genuinely rejects the truth, we can’t logically say that everyone needs to accept it. That’s absurd.

It’s that same type of mindset that people use when they try to infer that hell is empty merely because there’s no official Church teaching on who is in hell. For them the absence of a list of names gives them the justification to say that one cannot reasonably say anybody is going to hell.

 

[Gorgias]

You’re splitting hairs by saying “yes baptism is required” but only by those who would’ve known.

No, I’m not splitting hairs. I’m literally quoting the teaching of the Church.

By your logic you are in fact saying “it’s only binding if you believe it is.”

Close, but not quite spot-on. It’s only binding if you know it is true. Subtle, yet critical, distinction.

If one chooses to reject the truth of the Church based upon their understanding of Scripture and salvation then anyone and everyone can attain heaven.

No. What’s in play here is whether their rejection is something that they’re culpable for. If they are, then there’s no “invincible ignorance” here.

well everyone is saved by the Catholic Church anyway, so it doesn’t matter if they choose to reject it

No, I didn’t say “it doesn’t matter”. Stop putting words in my mouth and setting up strawmen as if I’ve argued for them, please.

 

[Latin]

Is there any support from Church Teaching that a person who has heard the Gospel message, but does not believe, can be saved?

God Designed/ Planed the condition for salvation to believe the Gospel only for the Christians.

I’m sure my above statement is new in particular for those who are not Catholic Christians, it is not new for many Catholic Christians.

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains;

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.”,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm
.
303 The sacred books powerfully affirm God’s absolute sovereignty over the course of events.

.
His wisdom He so Designed/ Planed, Decreed/ Orders from all eternity EVERY event within the universe, He directs all, even evil and sin itself and the diversity of religions to the final end for which the universe was created.
.
God’s will is the cause of all things, every event that happen and will happen in the universe.
.
He declares, “I have purposed it; I will also do it” (Isa. 46:11); and Paul states that God “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11).

.
Nothing that is outside of God’s creating, sustaining, and governing will.

There is no reference point outside of God that guides Him or places necessity upon Him; His will is normative and absolute —He is free.
.
History is not just what He sees will be, but is what He causes to be , especially in every aspect of the redemptive process.
.
God’s Will determines all things man can never negate God’s determination.

God’s Decretive Will is God’s determination of what will be, assuring that His plan for man will come to pass.

Diversity of religions and evil are parts of a larger good.

Diversity of religions and evil neither a problem nor dilemma for God, but is one of the instruments whereby He accomplishes His will.

.
For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 1) that the Divine will or power is called fate.

But the Divine will or power is not in creatures, but in God.
Therefore fate is not in creatures but in God.

The Divine will is cause of all things that happens, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 1 seqq.). Therefore all things are subject to fate.

The same is true for events in our lives. Relative to us they often appear to be by chance.
But relative to God, who directs everything according to his divine plan, nothing occurs by chance.

Hence if this divine influence stopped, every operation would stop.
Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to Him as its cause. (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III.)
.
God bless

 

[Crusader13]

No. What’s in play here is whether their rejection is something that they’re culpable for. If they are, then there’s no “invincible ignorance” here.

@Gorgias that’s exactly what I’ve been saying!!! lol. Some people are going to be held culpable for their rejection and ignorance. And those that are will not attain heaven.

Yet, and correct me if I’m wrong, I understand you to be saying that the Church doesn’t teach that people who reject the gospel are damned. Well actually they do. Those that are culpable for their ignorance will be. The Church simply doesn’t bother trying to determine the level of ones culpability. Instead their mission is the salvation of everyone and that is why we evangelize! Because everyone needs the Church and Jesus to attain heaven.

Those that choose to reject this message have only a possibility of being saved apart from the Church, not a less privileged route.

No, I didn’t say “it doesn’t matter”. Stop putting words in my mouth and setting up strawmen as if I’ve argued for them, please.

It wasn’t meant as a direct quote from you, but rather a logical response that one could say based upon what I believed you to be saying.

 

[Bon_Croix]

You can’t reject the Gospel and be saved. The Gospel is Christ and is not bound and in print.

 

[Crusader13]

There it is in black and white. However, it’s the gray area that people get twisted over. lol

Basically, my understanding of this whole thread is this:

Position A: You can’t reject the gospel and be saved.

Position B: Well technically one can, because of invincible ignorance. So you can’t say that everyone who rejects the gospel is damned, because the Church doesn’t know who is culpable and who is inculpable.

Position A: that’s why we evangelize to everyone, so that their salvation isn’t left up to merely a possibility that they might be invincibly ignorant.

Position B: but you still can’t say that non-Catholics could be damned for rejecting the gospel because they might not know that they need it.

Position A: Isn’t that why we evangelize, to tell them what they might not know and not to leave them in ignorance?

Position B: but if they reject it, they’re still not damned because they might not know they need it.

Position A: (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Ammi]

Right. Invincible ignorant has limitations.

Once the Gospel is made known, a person is no longer ignorant.

It’s not invisibly obtuse, or invincibly unconvinced.

 

[Gorgias]

Yet, and correct me if I’m wrong, I understand you to be saying that the Church doesn’t teach that people who reject the gospel are damned. Well actually they do. Those that are culpable for their ignorance will be .

And that’s the point where we all entered into this conversation: others on this thread asserted that all those who reject the Gospel are condemned. As we’ve noted, that’s not true: those who culpably reject the Gospel are condemned. That means that some, but not all, are condemned, as opposed to what some around here have claimed.

 

[Crusader13]

As we’ve noted, that’s not true: those who culpably reject the Gospel are condemned. That means that some , but not all , are condemned, as opposed to what some around here have claimed.

I think we tend to reach a disagreement over what it means to reject it. Obviously this probably wouldn’t apply to those who never heard it, because they didn’t necessarily reject it, they just never knew about it.

However, a person could be culpable if they refuse to even hear the message or look into the truth of the Catholic Church. Because that’s a choice they are freely making.

A great example are the Jehovah’s witnesses. They are taught to actively reject hearing or accepting anything from other faiths, especially the Catholic Church. This doesn’t fall under the presumption that they are laboring in invincible ignorance. It’s an outright rejection of what they believe to lies.

This could be what Jesus refers to in Matthew:

“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

“Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand;

There is no further insight into discerning hearing vs knowing and speculating on their frame of mind with regards to their culpability.

They hear the message and either do what they are commanded or they choose not to. That’s what the Church does and that’s the message we bring.

So when they reject the truth, we don’t tell them about non-privileged routes to heaven or give them hope because VII says they might be invincibly ignorant. We tell them that to openly refuse this gift of salvation is to build their house on sand.

 

[Gorgias]

This doesn’t fall under the presumption that they are laboring in invincible ignorance. It’s an outright rejection of what they believe to lies.

It doesn’t? They’ve been taught, in advance of ever hearing the Gospel that the Church teaches, that the Church teaches lies. Are they culpable, then, when someone presents these teachings to them and they understand them to be lies – merely on the grounds of what they’d been indoctrinated into and taught their whole lives? Or, is it more the case that they merely are continuing to accept the untruths that they’d been taught all their lives, and therefore, may be invincibly ignorant of the truth?

 

[Ammi]

I agree that the Mormon religion presents a complex type of situation. I agree in part, that it takes more obstacles to discern as it deals with a religion that does claim direction from Jesus. And parents of members could actually raise them highly leaning towards orthodox Christianity. Or highly away from it.

But it still means that the individual Mormon (for example) still find what truths, in Mormonism, of the Gospel exist. There is actually alot of common beliefs between us and Mormonism, as opposed to Buddhism. Mormons can have members who hold to Baptism of Desire.

The individual, who then hears of a Church which has succession to Peter, with historical support from the Church Fathers and so likewise claims a Whole Eucharistic Communion in the Mass, is bound to hear out the Teachings regarding Mormonism, and with Baptismal error. The “seeking God” Spirit must choose the Gospel and His Holy See.

This will attain a sound Apostolic Gospel.

Here is the mystery; that sound Gospel being related is known to the Father. And He sees when it departs, since He sends it. It is the Word (most essentially). It is the message of His Son, calling to His sheep. They recognize His voice. And they BELIEVE.

I believe it’s possible for children of the Mormon religion, who love Jesus in a manner which seeks Jesus. When confronted about Truth and deception within religions, a person chooses the Gospel and His Church.

Christian denominations are even complex in their own. Because they most assuredly have a sound believe in the Gospel creeds. Those which profess a true Baptism. Those knowing the Triune God. And knowing no false prophets.

 

[Crusader13]

You actually just gave the two possible answers to your own question.

With the understanding that we don’t know what will be their fates as individuals. We can still acknowledge that as an organization they are teachings things that are contrary to the truth of the gospel. Which is why it is so important for us to shed light on errors and defend the truth. Because Salvation is at stake when one follows errors.

It doesn’t matter if a person is raised in the watchtower organization or if they’re a fallen away Catholic who converted as an adult. The truths of the Church apply to everyone; do they not?

It’s not our job to guess or speculate on whether they are ignorant or not. That’s my whole point!

We counter the Watchtower’s claims by telling them that their teachings and doctrines cannot lead them to heaven. Full stop…

If they ask you point blank:

“as a JW, can I attain Heaven based upon the society’s teachings?” The answer is No.

But it sounds like you’re saying we can’t say that because full disclosure means we tell them about invincible ignorance and how they might still be saved. That’s not what we do or how we evangelize.

 

[Gorgias]

It doesn’t matter if a person is raised in the watchtower organization or if they’re a fallen away Catholic who converted as an adult.

Actually… it does matter!

The truths of the Church apply to everyone; do they not?

The truths apply, but… “much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.” Lumen gentium talks about the difference, and in particular, with respect to Catholics, it mentions the consequence of falling away from the Church:

This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. … 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.

So, if you are a member of the Catholic Church, knowing that this is necessary, but “refuse to remain in it”… you place your soul at risk. That’s a much higher bar than what is said about other non-Catholics and non-Christians in the document!

But it sounds like you’re saying we can’t say that because full disclosure means we tell them about invincible ignorance

No, that’s not it. It’s not as if – as some have suggested – that we’re afraid of telling them about the “loophole”.

Rather, if someone asks you how to pass your chemistry midterm, would you tell them about studying hard and preparing well, or would you tell them that they could stay out all night and party, and maybe, if they’re lucky, just maybe the professor will have mercy on them and give them a passing grade? I think – and so does the Church – that the better option is to tell them about our known means to attain the goal!

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Reading through this thread I see basically everyone agrees that if someone knowingly
rejects The Gospel then they forfeit salvation.
But everyone also must know that only God through Jesus Christ impartially knows full act
of the will with full knowledge rejection of The Gospel. Not one human being is omniscient.
~
For over twenty years of being online this topic gets revisited in one form or another.
I’m joyful when those who realize Evangelization is never judgmental of persons; only shares
The Good News of Jesus Christ in word and deed to give hope by shining His Light.
~
Hopefully, everyone here, cooperating with God’s Grace prays for the salvation of souls;
and does not form a judgmental attitude toward others in their state in life. Only God
knows the state of one’s inner disposition; and God always reaches out to souls.
~
Peace.

 

[Ammi]

What do you think about Dominus Iesus?

Is it successfully making known the Gospel? Does a non Christian who is considered walking on a path of salvation (by a grace from Christ, though they formally have not known the Gospel) and would read this document, be reached in heart with the Good News?

 

[Gorgias]

basically everyone agrees that if someone knowingly
rejects The Gospel then they forfeit salvation.

I think there’s a distinction to be made here. If someone rejects the Gospel that they know is true, then there are consequences. However, one can knowingly reject the Gospel – but not knowing that it is true – and that seems to be the definition of invincible ignorance. It might seem like splitting hairs, but I think that it’s the salient point here.

Does a non Christian who is considered walking on a path of salvation (by a grace from Christ, though they formally have not known the Gospel) and would read this document, be reached in heart with the Good News?

I would say that one cannot make this kind of objective assertion of an interior disposition which, at its core, is subjective.

(I knew there was a ‘gotcha’ moment coming! )

No because if someone rejects the Gospel of Jesus Christ they cannot be saved.

That isn’t what the Church teaches. Rather, if someone rejects the Gospel of Jesus Christ, knowing that it is true, then he cannot be saved.

 

[Gorgias]

How? Since Romans 10:13 says- For whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Luke 6:46 – “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ but not do what I command?”

Matthew 7:21 – “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

Paul is pointing out that “everyone” – that is, both Jews and Greeks – will be saved, and not just one or the other. He’s not attempting to contradict the very words of Jesus, who asserted that the mere calling out of His name is not what saves. After all, Romans 10:13 supports the assertion of Romans 10:12 (“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, enriching all who call upon him.”) Romans 10:13 answers the question “who can be saved?”, not the question “is calling out to Jesus sufficient for salvation?”.

 

[Ammi]

That isn’t what the Church teaches. Rather, if someone rejects the Gospel of Jesus Christ, knowing that it is true , then he cannot be saved.

Please show the Church Teaching which uses this language “knowing THAT IT IS TRUE”!

One can “know” the Gospel without knowing that it is true. This is a matter of the heart. Jesus says “the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, that they may not believe and be saved.”

Faith is necessary for Salvation. “Knowing the Gospel to be true” is impossible, without faith. You see through belief, not being proven.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

The only Omniscient One is God, through Jesus Christ His Son Who Impartially knows
a persons’s rejection or not of The Gospel. Yes, I’m familiar with the term
‘invincible ignorance,’ which seems to me another way of defining it.
A discussion like this could go on and on in circles. God knows who rejects or receives
Salvation which is only by Jesus Christ and His Merits through His Church.
Thank God it isn’t in any of our fallible hands, only God who knows the inner heart of anyone.