Can someone who rejects the Gospel be saved?

[Magnanimity]

I think this muddies the waters because not only must one believe in, and not reject, the Gospel to be saved, provided one has heard it, but one must also believe in the Church as the only means of understanding the Gospel. Acceptance of the Gospel on one’s own without belief in the Church is therefore not enough for salvation according to this message.

Ha! Maybe it does make things muddier. You may have guessed at my rather wide understanding of “salvation” in the last thread you and I had an exchange in…

But to this specific point made by LG, it’s an epistemic one, isn’t it? Whoever “knows” that the church was made necessary by Christ and yet rejects what she knows and therefore refuses to remain or enter it, cannot be saved. I suppose, in a very free (liberal) manner this could merely be a statement that one must follow the dictates of one’s conscience. If you have come to believe in the church as the body of the Lord, then the only way to be united with this Lord is by union with His body.

 

[meltzerboy2]

And for the Jews, so to speak, that promised Messiah is not a Savior in the Christian sense of offering the hope of eternal salvation. The Hebrew word itself does not have that meaning. Rather, the Messiah is meant to be the anointed one who delivers the Jewish people from their oppressors, who are the gentiles (other nations). In Judaism, the purpose of the Messiah is to reestablish the supremacy of G-d in Israel and throughout the world by means of instilling a renewed study and practice of Torah teaching, as well as universal peace among all the peoples of the world. It has virtually nothing to do with the afterlife.

 

[Magnanimity]

Salvation is attained or lost by individuals, not a nationality or a religion.

And yet, St Paul concludes his very lengthy thought-experiment about the Jews in Romans 9-11 by stating, “and thus all Israel will be saved.” -Romans 11:26

Doesn’t sound very “individualistic” to me.

 

[Crusader13]

All Israel means the Gentiles too. Since prior to the split Israel was one nation. So in this sense Christ isn’t speaking of the country Israel in modern times.

 

[Ammi]

Gentiles and Jews make up Israel. Israel is the body of His people. It’s not all the Jews, or all the Gentiles, but whomever among those who believes in His Son, and does His will.

 

[Magnanimity]

All Israel means the Gentiles too. Since prior to the split Israel was one nation. So in this sense Christ isn’t speaking of the country Israel in modern times.

No, not quite. In point of fact, St Paul, writing to his largely gentile audience in Rome contrasts the Jews with his audience. For example, he writes, “Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved… Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God you have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience,That he might have mercy on all.” -Romans 11:25-26, 28-32

 

[Ammi]

Crusader13:

All Israel means the Gentiles too. Since prior to the split Israel was one nation. So in this sense Christ isn’t speaking of the country Israel in modern times.

No, not quite. In point of fact, St Paul, writing to his largely gentile audience in Rome contrasts the Jews with his audience. For example, he writes, “Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved… Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God you have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience,That he might have mercy on all.” -Romans 11:25-26, 28-32

This proves our point.

 

[Emeraldlady]

And for the Jews, so to speak, that promised Messiah is not a Savior in the Christian sense of offering the hope of eternal salvation. The Hebrew word itself does not have that meaning. Rather, the Messiah is meant to be the anointed one who delivers the Jewish people from their oppressors, who are the gentiles (other nations). In Judaism, the purpose of the Messiah is to reestablish the supremacy of G-d in Israel and throughout the world by means of instilling a renewed study and practice of Torah teaching, as well as universal peace among all the peoples of the world. It has virtually nothing to do with the afterlife.

My understanding of Catholic eschatology (the study of last things), is a deliberate preparing of peoples souls for recognising ‘the anointed one’ in the last days. We are being honed more deeply in gospel virtues to recognise Truth in a place that may surprise many people. So while out language of it is specifically Christian, is should not preclude us being open to the Will of a ‘God of Surprises’.

 

[Magnanimity]

Gentiles and Jews make up Israel. Israel is the body of His people. It’s not all the Jews, or all the Gentiles, but whomever among those who believes in His Son, and does His will.

I get what you’re saying, but this is kind of just ‘Catholic-splaining.’ If we read the straightforward words of St Paul at the end of that extensive thought-experiment, he writes, “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.”

 

[Magnanimity]

This proves our point

How? St Paul is literally speaking to his gentile audience about what has happened to Israel. So, we should reorient St Paul’s writings to something like, “Concerning the gospel everyone are enemies for everyone’s sake, but concerning the election everyone is beloved for the sake of the fathers”???

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Gentiles and Jews make up Israel. Israel is the body of His people. It’s not all the Jews, or all the Gentiles, but whomever among those who believes in His Son, and does His will.

I get what you’re saying, but this is kind of just ‘Catholic-splaining.’ If we read the straightforward words of St Paul at the end of that extensive thought-experiment, he writes, “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.”

I’m not sure what you are trying to say with these verses. But just because God has mercy on all, it doesnt mean all will be saved. But that He has shown mercy through Jesus, so that He might save us.

Likewise, all of Israel doesnt mean every Jewish man. All of Israel is the fullness of both Jew and Gentile whom God receives.

 

[Magnanimity]

I’m not sure what you are trying to say with these verses.

St Paul does not need my help saying anything. I’m listening to his words. He very plainly says that all Israel (which doesn’t include his writing-audience) will be saved. He also plainly says that all (Jew and Gentile) have been consigned to disobedience so that He will have mercy on all (Jew and Gentile).

But just because God has mercy on all, it doesnt mean all will be saved.

That’s true, it’s not a necessary entailment, but it does happen to be the viewpoint of the vast majority of all early church fathers—that St Paul was speaking here of the eventual salvation of all. But St Augustine disagreed…

All of Israel is the fullness of both Jew and Gentile whom God receives.

No way. This is Catholic usurpation and revisionism. Reading Romans 9-11 would never lend the reader to think that by “Israel” St Paul really means Jews and Gentiles both. He specifically (and repeatedly) reminds his audience of the contrast he is drawing between them and Israel.

 

[Ammi]

If you are arguing for universal reconciliation, then this thread is moot, right?

 

[Emeraldlady]

If you are arguing for universal reconciliation, then this thread is moot, right?

What are you trying to get at by the thread? It’s like we’re trying to solve a puzzle about what the question really means. You’ve rejected any explanation that invincible ignorance encompasses more than just never hearing the gospel (which is wrong). What do you have in mind regarding answers?

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, kinda. The never ending debate would be, “what constitutes knowing?”

Well, clearly, “knowing” implies more than merely “hearing.”

Knowing means… well… knowing that it’s true, but deciding to reject it nevertheless. That means that a person accepts what he’s heard as true, but disregards it. That’s a much higher bar than you seem to be proposing.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Yes, kinda. The never ending debate would be, “what constitutes knowing?”

Well, clearly, “knowing” implies more than merely “hearing.”

Knowing means… well… knowing that it’s true, but deciding to reject it nevertheless. That means that a person accepts what he’s heard as true, but disregards it. That’s a much higher bar than you seem to be proposing.

Apparently it’s not so clear to you. You are requiring acceptance of the word in your definition of knowledge. Jesus did not.

Luke 8

“Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, that they may not believe and be saved. And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. And as for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bring forth fruit with patience.”

The four types of persons envisaged are (1) those who never accept the word of the kingdom (2) those who believe for a while but fall away because of persecution (3) those who believe, but in whom the word is choked by worldly anxiety and the seduction of riches (4) those who respond to the word and produce fruit abundantly.

 

[Gorgias]

You are requiring acceptance of the word in your definition of knowledge.

That’s what the Church teaches.

Jesus did not.

Luke 8

“Now the parable is this

It’s a parable, @Ammi, not a theological treatise. If you feel that you have the authority to teach doctrine, in contradiction to the Church, then have at it. Me? I’ll stick with the Apostolic tradition, rather than a different Gospel than the one the Church teaches.

 

[Ammi]

That’s what the Church teaches.

Can you provide Church Teaching which Teaches that “acceptance” of the Gospel as truth, is necessary for constituting “knowlege of the Gospel”?

It’s a parable, @Ammi, not a theological treatise. If you feel that you have the authority to teach doctrine, in contradiction to the Church, then have at it. Me? I’ll stick with the Apostolic tradition, rather than a different Gospel than the one the Church teaches.

It’s actually the parable explained. There is a difference. Jesus was Teaching the meaning of the parable. I’ve asked for Catholic Teaching, not just your claim to it. @Emeraldlady has been respectful enough to provide the position of Invincible Ignorance, which I would like to discuss, regarding its limitations.

In any case, here are a couple more Scripture (which is the highest Church Teaching) passages supporting condemnation by disbelief after hearing the Gospel.

John 12
If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak.

Matthew 10
These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without pay, give without pay. Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food. And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it, and stay with him until you depart. As you enter the house, salute it. And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor′rah than for that town.

 

[Gorgias]

Can you provide Church Teaching which Teaches that “acceptance” of the Gospel as truth, is necessary for constituting “knowlege of the Gospel”?

Lumen gentium #14, in the context of describing Catholics:

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.

The standard is knowledge of the truth, which then leads to rejection (or acceptance). One who knows that it is true then must ask himself “do I reject this truth?” One who does not know it to be true never reaches this point.

Moreover, in #16, LG continues:

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, absent the knowledge of the truth of the Gospel – and note, it’s not “absent hearing the Gospel proclaimed”, but actual knowledge of the truth of the Gospel! – one can be saved. The original Latin of the document states “aeternam salutem consequi possunt”. Notice the word possunt – this means “able to” and not merely expresses a “maybe.”

In any case, here are a couple more Scripture (which is the highest Church Teaching) passages

Please note that the Church doesn’t say “read the Bible and ignore the doctrinal teachings of the Church”.

Nevertheless, I would assert that it’s important to recognize the audience to whom these teachings are made. Jesus is talking to folks who already believe. The bar is much higher for this audience (as, similarly, it is for Catholics). “Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.”

So, for these folks, a hearing of the teaching followed by a rejection of it actually is damning. The point is that there is more than one standard that applies to all, indiscriminately. Lumen gentium – that is, the “teaching of the Church”! – explicitly makes this case.

 

[Ammi]

You still are not providing a Church definition of “knowledge” in this context.

I provided the passage of Jesus explaining His parable, and the NAB-RE footnote explaining that “acceptance” is not necessary for “hearing”. I believe an accurate middle ground term would be “learning”. Because it is less than accepting as truth, but understanding what is being related.

Scripture relates this matter is more of the heart, than intellectual. Though I’m not denying the place of reason.