So… if a person hears, but does not discern, then he does not know. And therefore, he is not condemned for his lack of knowledge. QED.
If he does not ‘know’, then he clearly cannot ‘accept’. Fundamental logic, brother. One does not accept what he does not know.
It is in the Apostolic Teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. Catholics aren’t “Bible-only Christians”.
I’ve spent much time in this thread demonstrating where that is, and the only reply I’m seeing is “but… it’s not in the Bible!” Oh, the leaven of Luther is rife in the world!
No – and ya’ll keep setting up this same tired old straw man! YES, we must reach out, evangelize, pray, and do penance! But – and this is the critical point – we cannot presume condemnation where the Church does not teach that it is present!
I thought we were sticking to the Church interpretation. The Church uses “know” to describe “hear” in Scripture.
That’s false. To hear, and have capacity to understand is being aware and knowing something related to you. Then, you can accept or reject after having knowledge.If he does not ‘know’, then he clearly cannot ‘accept’. Fundamental logic, brother. One does not accept what he does not know.
Where in the Apostolic teaching of the Catholc Church does it say, those who reject the Gospel after having come to know it have a different standard of salvation? Where are those words?
I have not seen anything that says, those can be saved who reject the Gospel truths after having come to hear and know it. I will agree that the Church teaches those with invincible ignorance can be saved but not those who have come to know the Gospel and then reject it.
We also can not presume salvation where the Church does not teach that it is present.
You are the one saying one has to “accept it as truth” not me. Jesus said the devil takes what was sown In the heart and it was never accepted. These reject the Gospel. They reject it without understanding. Because they are not seeking God. If they were seeking God, and open to His grace, they would accept it, and keep it.
There’s a difference between “accepting that people can be condemned” and over-enthusiastically determining who will be condemned…
I would certainly agree that “accepting that people can be condemned” and “discerning what constitutes disbelief in the Gospel, which condemns” can be distinct.MagdalenaRita:
There’s a difference between “accepting that people can be condemned” and over-enthusiastically determining who will be condemned…
It wasn’t meant as an insult. Rather, it seems that ya’ll see “condemnation” a whole lot more often than the Church does. Does that “demonize” folks? Of course not. We’re not talking about whether ya’ll are good people or not – we’re just talking about whether the Church’s teachings are being reflected accurately.
Why, I’m offended at this demonization of me!
The main problem, is that you are not addressing Scripture at all. You are simply referring to a couple Church documents and applying your condition of “receiving as the truth” to the one word “know” used by the Church.… it seems that ya’ll see “condemnation” a whole lot more often than the Church does. Does that “demonize” folks? Of course not. We’re not talking about whether ya’ll are good people or not – we’re just talking about whether the Church’s teachings are being reflected accurately… If it offends you that some folks disagree with your personal interpretations of Scripture and Church teaching, well…
Your obvious inability to produce sound support for your “accept as the truth” theology means something.Why, I’m offended at this demonization of me!
Umm… because Church documents exist in a void, and are apart from Scriptural principles?
Agreed. I’m thinking that – since these passages are the teaching of the Church herself! – they don’t conflict with Scripture. Would you presume otherwise?
Maybe it means that we’re spending too much time being personally offended, and not enough time listening to what the Church is teaching us…
So, no one has done that. The Church, which includes the Word of God, Tradition and the Magisterium has always taught that belief in Christ and baptism were necessary for salvation, there is no added exception outside of invincible ignorance. The very document you linked bears that out very clearly.
As I said above, the Church only sees what causes condemnation, not who or where it is happening. That judgment is for God alone.
Are you sure you are not personally interpreting Scripture and Church teaching? You have not shown one Bible verse or Church teaching that says anywhere, those who choose to not belief in Christ shall be or can be saved.
Thank you.
I certainly dont. That’s why I provided Scripture (even with Catholic footnotes) and demonstrated how the two harmonize. It’s not the Church Teaching we disagree with, but what it means. And we shouldnt insert a phrase of “receive as the truth” for the word “Know”.
Perhaps you should look a bit more diligently. What do you think that Lumen gentium is talking about, in its paragraphs regarding non-Christians? Are you really gonna suggest that it’s talking about Jews, Muslims, and others, in the context of “oh, they’re just godless, bound-for-damnation sinners”?!?
Like I said… it seems that ya’ll are anxious to find condemnation where the Church doesn’t teach it.
Okay, so it has been said over and over again, that is talking about those who because of invincible ignorance, though seeking God, could be saved.
So, I hope you realize that every human being is a bound for damnation sinner without Christ and the Church and baptism.
Yeah. I hate when conciliar and magisterial documents of the Church fail to actually assert Church Teaching.
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.
“Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” does not mean “people outside the Church are not saved.” The Church has proclaimed this over and again. Not enough, apparently, but that’s what she teaches.
Again… no: ‘hearing’ isn’t the standard that the Church proposes.
Me too.
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.
Except that you haven’t provided any infallible magisterial documents that say you can reject Christ and be saved. No where.
So, as I said over and over, that is not talking about those who reject Christ after knowing the Gospel truth and sorry but IMHO you are reading things into the document that are not there.
Again twisting words. You will notice I have said several times, heard the Gospel truth, not part of it, not some of it but the fullness of truth found only in the Catholic church and Jesus said to preach or tell the Gospel to the whole world. If someone preaches or tells you something, usually you hear it.
I understand that God does have mercy for all people and wants no man to be lost but He also gave all people free will to accept that mercy or not.
Yes, maybe or maybe not?
