Ecumenical Discussion: Core Beliefs and Salvation

[Ani_Ibi]

While God has given us the mission of preaching the Gospel among the nations, let us remember that it is the Holy Spirit Who convicts, not ourselves. We do not have the perfection of being to judge whether or not a man is saved at least while we are on Earth.

1Cor13 DRC:

13:12. We see now through a glass in a dark manner: but then face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know even as I am known.

13:13. And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.

How charitable is it to witness to those weak in conscience that we know whether or not they are saved?

How charitable further is it to presume a doctrine of predestination which removes faith, hope, and charity completely from the realm of free will concerning whether or not a man wants to be saved?

I am wondering of folks here on CAF have any thoughts on what are legitimate ways to spread the Gospel?

And, for that matter what are illegitimate ways to spread the Gospel?

Thoughts? Anyone? Thank you.

Mr Patton’s invitation:

Walk into the light . . . I can see you coming . . .

Ani Ibi:

Now some folks believe that faith always contradicts reason. But that is not always

true.

However it is sometimes true. When a person places his faith in traditions of men which do not stand up in the light of reason, it is easy for that person to imagine things which go bump in the half-light of dusk: like folks thronging toward the unity of semper reformanda.

Moreover if that same person finds himself up to his chin in rushing water, let him not say that he stumbled in by accident, for we keep our shores ablaze with the Fullness of the Truth – the light of campfires warming the recently arrived, if you will. I hear the schmores are tasty this time of year and Brother Beckwith’s at the barbecue.

 

[vern_humphrey]

[And, for that matter what are illegitimate ways to spread the Gospel

Apply moral pragmatism – if we are morally impelled to do something, we are morally impelled to adopt a course of action likely to lead to success – and to monitor the results and change course if necessary.

Before we rebuke, argue, or prosletize someone, ask, “What am I trying to accomplish here? Is this the best way to do it?”

The best way I’ve found is to live the gospel. If your life and actions are not so as to attract others to emulate you, your arguments will be ineffective.
[/quote]

 

[cpayne]

I feel a bit out of my element here, but I’d recommend a book I think is good called What Believers Don’t Have to Believe: The Non-Essentials of the Christian Faith. Chapter 2 argues that not all Christians have to accept the authority of the Magisterium in order to be Christians, but the rest of the book argues for the unity of Christians around core doctrines. (The author, by the way, has re-considered his view of the Magisterium since the book was published, only a few months ago.)

He argues that the core Christian beliefs are first of all in the Creeds, and then can be boiled down even further:

(1) God is a Trinity.
(2) The Second Person of the Trinity became a man named Jesus, fully God and fully human.
(3) Through faith in and obedience to the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, eternal life and fellowship with God is available.

And that’s it. Of course, the third one (about obedience to teachings—what exactly are those teachings?) is where a lot of division enters. But at least Christians can agree on the statement itself.

What do you think? Too simplistic? Would Protestants accept Catholics as fellow Christians, and vice versa, simply based on these three statements?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I feel a bit out of my element here, but I’d recommend a book I think is good called What Believers Don’t Have to Believe: The Non-Essentials of the Christian Faith. Chapter 2 argues that not all Christians have to accept the authority of the Magisterium in order to be Christians, but the rest of the book argues for the unity of Christians around core doctrines. (The author, by the way, has re-considered his view of the Magisterium since the book was published, only a few months ago.)

He argues that the core Christian beliefs are first of all in the Creeds, and then can be boiled down even further:

(1) God is a Trinity.
(2) The Second Person of the Trinity became a man named Jesus, fully God and fully human.
(3) Through faith in and obedience to the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, eternal life and fellowship with God is available.

And that’s it. Of course, the third one (about obedience to teachings—what exactly are those teachings?) is where a lot of division enters. But at least Christians can agree on the statement itself.

What do you think? Too simplistic? Would Protestants accept Catholics as fellow Christians, and vice versa, simply based on these three statements?

Catholics already accept Protestants as fellow Christians. From the Catechism:

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

 

[cpayne]

Catholics already accept Protestants as fellow Christians. From the Catechism:

Yes, you’re right. What about the other part? Would Protestants accept Catholics as fellow Christians if Catholics said to Protestants, “I accept God as a Trinity, Jesus as God come in the flesh, and the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ as bringing me eternal life through Himself”?

I guess my question is: If Protestants said, “No, you also have to believe or do this”----what would “this” be?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, you’re right. What about the other part? Would Protestants accept Catholics as fellow Christians if Catholics said to Protestants, “I accept God as a Trinity, Jesus as God come in the flesh, and the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ as bringing me eternal life through Himself”?

I guess my question is: If Protestants said, “No, you also have to believe or do this”----what would “this” be?

Without meaning to offend anyone, I would have to say Protestants are like Indians. When someone says, “The Indians believed this,” or “The Indians did that,” they’re wrong – because for every tribe you can find that believed or did a certain thing, I can find you another tribe that believed or did the opposite.

The people we call Indians were the most heterogenous people in the world, with more mutually intelligible languages spoken in North American than in Europe, Africa and Asia combined – and with more different beliefs, practices and customs as well.

Similarly, those who take the name Protestant are heterogenous, with literally thousands of different denominations, beliefs, practices and so on.

The best you can say is, “Some Indians or Protestants believe such-and-such.”

 

[cpayne]

Yes, you’re right. What about the other part? Would Protestants accept Catholics as fellow Christians if Catholics said to Protestants, “I accept God as a Trinity, Jesus as God come in the flesh, and the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ as bringing me eternal life through Himself”?

I guess my question is: If Protestants said, “No, you also have to believe or do this”----what would “this” be?

Okay, so I’m re-throwing the question out there for all the different tribes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Okay, so I’m re-throwing the question out there for all the different tribes.

And the answer is, “Yes,” “No,” “Maybe,” and “Let’s put the kettle on – we’ve caught another missionary.”

 

[st_felicity]

Another exchange …and then I’ll read all these new posts!

From the original blog topic on essential beliefs I posted (not the Gnosticism blog topic)…

Felicity on 27 Jul 2007 at 6:45 pm #

***From DW:
Felicity, you may recall that I was writing to both you and Vance together (a point Iexplicitly made in my last comment), so that you should have no reason to be upset about characterizations that didn’t apply specifically to you.

RESPONSE:
I don’t think Vance said that either.

***From DW:
What I still don’t get is why you think that we can’t possibly know any criteria for whether a person is saved.

RESPONSE:
I don’t think other’s personal salvation is any of our business–It’s presuming upon God. Salvation is between the individual and God—Jesus died for MY sins, He paid the debt for ME, He is MY PERSONAL Savior. (~~and every other Christian’s PERSONAL Savior).

***From DW:
You said that the deep things of God are mysteries to us, but does this mean that what one must believe to be saved is one of those mysteries? I think that’s taking 1 Cor 2 way out of context.

RESPONSE:
What another person is within is a deep mystery to us as well. 1Cor.2:11 says that as well: 11 Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. I do not think it is out of context one iota—it is exactly the point I am trying to make.
God is in charge. Does a merciful and loving God expect a severely retarded person to comprehend his majesty in ANY way? Or does the severe mental incapacity preclude that individual from the elect and so after this life of suffering he must suffer eternally? I don’t comprehend LOVE that way. Nothing is beyond God.
God judges different people differently according to what grace he has bestowed upon them. The Bible repeatedly attests to this.

Romans 2:13-16
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, 6 while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.

Some others… James 3:1, Matt.7:2-5, Luke 7:40-43

***From DW:
But you might want to see John Piper’s The Justification of God, a detailed exposition of Rom 9 that is right on target.

RESPONSE:
I will look for that…but I would like to add…. it’s “right on target” by who’s authority? http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

Thanks,
Felicity

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cpayne:

I feel a bit out of my element here, but I’d recommend a book I think is good called What Believers Don’t Have to Believe: The Non-Essentials of the Christian Faith.

Oh gosh, c, you tranform the element by your engaging insights.

cpayne:

He argues that the core Christian beliefs are first of all in the Creeds, and then can be boiled down even further:

(1) God is a Trinity.
(2) The Second Person of the Trinity became a man named Jesus, fully God and fully human.
(3) Through faith in and obedience to the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, eternal life and fellowship with God is available.

And that’s it. Of course, the third one (about obedience to teachings—what exactly are those teachings?) is where a lot of division enters. But at least Christians can agree on the statement itself.

I do not want to be argumentative. In fact, I believe that there are things on which all folks – they don’t even have to be Christian – can agree. But we’ll save that for another discussion. I think a major sticking point is on the terms which I have hilighted in red above.

1. 
   *]Fellowship with God, for me, and in fact for Christian history, is in the Eucharist. In this we have a major divide between Catholics and non-Catholics.
   *]The Eucharist is personal, not symbolic.
   *]Christianity is not about statements. Therefore it cannot even be about the Bible. It is about a Person. The Logos. See my signature below.
   Scott Hahn has a remarkable essay on the Eucharist which explain why we must eat the Paschal Lamb in order to restore communion with God. He speaks about the four cups of the Seder; explains why Jesus only shared three cups at the Last Supper; and in what manner the fourth cup manifested itself.
   
   Scott Hahn: The Fourth Cup
   
   
   cpayne:
   

   What do you think? Too simplistic? Would Protestants accept Catholics as fellow Christians, and vice versa, simply based on these three statements?

   Wise Protestants would accept Catholics on the basis of shared works of faith. On the basis of making a dent in the misery of AIDS. On saving the lives of the unborn. On caring for the sick, elderly, and disabled. On praying that we bring souls in, rather than sending them out.

 

[st_felicity]

Ani–you’ve overwhelmed me…I’ll have to take some time on yours…

Vern–so…are you saying “why bother in this medium?”?

cpayne–what’s your take on those not exposed to or incapable of knowing those core beliefs? And what is “belief” afterall–simple acknowledgement? And what is obedience? In John 6, many where not obedient to Jesus’ words about eating His flesh and they walked with Him no longer. Protestants don’t believe that teaching, and yet we believe that many are saved–why? They reject a direct teaching of Jesus.

I think God is Just. He saves those who sincerely seek him to the best of their ability–and God knows what is the best of our ability. Does that position compromise the Gift of Jesus death on the cross, or does it (as I see it) affirm that mercy?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

Another exchange …and then I’ll read all these new posts!

From the original blog topic on essential beliefs I posted (not the Gnosticism blog topic)…

I am thinking there should be a separate thread for Gnosticism because it is an enormous topic. Now there is something we can agree on. I believe someone over there on the blog said that Gnosticism is a great danger. I personally believe that Gnosticism is one of the gravest dangers of our time and, in previous times, has also been terribly dangerous in its different disguises.

I’ll see if I can think up a thread question tomorrow. I am plain tuckered out today. Peace to all.

 

[st_felicity]

Judging whether or not a man is saved is different from judging whether or not a man knows the Gospel or parts of the Gospel or is following the Gospel. That is observable given the same talents we have for survival.

But what have we been given to judge whether or not God saves this man?

This is the issue which has created sort of a rumbling on the blog…I believe (although I haven’t said it this frankly over there…) that judging the eternal repose of the soul of anopther individual is a sin. What do you think of that?

Does God want us to save men? How many of you were sent by God to sacrifice yourselves on a cross in order that the sins of all may be forgiven? A show of hands please?

Does feeling like it sometimes count? (just kiddin’)

 

[cpayne]

To St. Felicity (never thought I’d start a web post like that!): On those not knowing the Gospel, I’ve argued elsewhere that the light of the world is Christ. Those following the true light are to an extent following Christ, even if they don’t explicitly know or confess Him. How God is going to judge that, I am not sure. I do know that people who are in Heaven are there because of Jesus. How that works out in every detail, I don’t know.

Okay, Ani, I’ve got a question for you: Do Protestants have to accept (and participate in) the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in order to be Christians / enter Heaven?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

Ani–you’ve overwhelmed me…I’ll have to take some time on yours…

Sorry, I get carried away. At least I have gotten into the habit of breaking my tomes into little cute mini-posts now. But it’s all smoke and mirrors: they all add up to one big stonking tome. I don’t seem to be able to help myself.

st_felicity:

Vern–so…are you saying “why bother in this medium?”?

I’ll let Vern answer for himself. But I have followed some of Vern’s posts in the Social Justice forum. He has a very useful insight about not just being satisfied with gaining a truthful point of view but taking responsibility for ensuring that that point of view can and is manifested in the world.

Good questions, Fel! I look forward to hearing folks’ answers!

 

[cpayne]

I look forward to hearing folks’ answers!

:coffeeread: Post 34, please. Not to rush you or anything. :coffeeread:

 

[st_felicity]

To St. Felicity (never thought I’d start a web post like that!): On those not knowing the Gospel, I’ve argued elsewhere that the light of the world is Christ. Those following the true light are to an extent following Christ, even if they don’t explicitly know or confess Him. How God is going to judge that, I am not sure. I do know that people who are in Heaven are there because of Jesus. How that works out in every detail, I don’t know.

I agree with that–but…How do you express this to those who hold very Calvinist beliefs? BTW : Just “Felicity” is fine…my Patron Saint’s the saint…I have a long way to go!)

Okay, Ani, I’ve got a question for you: Do Protestants have to accept (and participate in) the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in order to be Christians / enter Heaven?

Do you think that cpayne? I don’t…

 

[cpayne]

No, I don’t. But Ani wrote of fellowship with God being through the Eucharist (I agree). So I just thought I’d ask.

As for the Calvinist beliefs: The position I’ve briefly outlined is, I think, pretty much the position of the CC, but is quite controversial with many Protestants. So I guess I’d be prepared for major disagreement if I were to broach the subject!

 

[cpayne]

All right, gang, I’m having fun, but I’ve got to retire for a while. Best to everyone.

Good night, sleep tight, and pleasant dreams to you.
Adios, au revoir, and may your dreams come true.
And now, 'til we meet again, adios, au revoir,
auf wiedersehen. (Spoken part Good night!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani the Writer of Tomes:

But what have we been given to judge whether or not God saves this man?

st_felicity:

This is the issue which has created sort of a rumbling on the blog…I believe (although I haven’t said it this frankly over there…) that judging the eternal repose of the soul of anopther individual is a sin. What do you think of that?

What do I think of that? Yes. It is a mortal sin. Because it breaks the First Commandment.

What do I think of rumbling? It’s either great cardio or you need pepto bismol.
Ani the Longwinded:

Does God want us to save men? How many of you were sent by God to sacrifice yourselves on a cross in order that the sins of all may be forgiven? A show of hands please?

st_felicity:

Does feeling like it sometimes count? (just kiddin’)

Ani sings: :harp: :crying:

The long and winding road
that leads to your door
will never disappear
I’ve seen that road before
It always leads me here
Lead me to you door

The wild and windy night
that the rain washed away
Has left a pool of tears
crying for the day
Why leave me standing here
let me know the waaaaaaay +

Ani bows. :tiphat: Feel better now?