General question about Evangelical belief, disturbing if true

[flameburns623]

Mijoy2:

. . . .

The following is my understanding . . . .

Evangelicals believe - The ONLY way to salvation is through belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Savior. They believe anyone who does not believe in Jesus as the Divine Savior, regardless of the reason, cannot be saved. I’m fairly certain a popular radio talk show Christian believes this. His reasoning for this is that if ignorance was an acceptable excuse, then Jesus did us a disservice by coming here and dying on the cross for us. And of course that cannot be the case. Therefore we MUST believe or we are doomed . . . .

Tell me please, do I have this correct?

Not quite, though I will have to point out there are several views within Protestantism which are acceptable within the pale of orthodoxy. First one is not condemned to hell for not accepting Christ. We are justly and rightfully condemned for our own willful and culpable decision to dethrone the true God of Heaven and enthrone our own wills. We are condinely condemned, in other words, because we are sinners. We all DESERVE hell, so there is no injustice being done to any soul who goes there. God owes Heaven to no one, ever. No does any person, of their own inclination, desire anything other than hell: we, by our natural inclination despise and shun the True God and want to be as far from Him as possible.

The only solution to this universal problem, according to all Protestants who are in any wise orthodox in their theology, is for God to satisfy the requirements of justice and mercy by tendering forth a perfect and infinitely efficacious Redeemer, who is Jesus Christ. To be redeemed from the just punishment we earn by our own wickedness is to receive Jesus Christ. Some version of the ‘invincible ignorance’ argument is acceptable in some circles. It is anthema to many others since it suggest that proclaiming the Good News to others, engaging in apologetics to overcome barriers etcetra–causes the Gospel (the “Good News”) to become “bad news”: if one hears and apprehends the Gospel but declines to convert, one is thereby cndemned.

Instead, conservative and Evangelical Protestants say that those who respond to the light God has already given them will be given more light. Romans 1 and 2 discuss this: we learn that ALL human beings, everywhere, have both the light of creation and the light of conscience by which to discern that there is a God and to discern some measure of who He is. We believe that God is merciful and willing for all to be saved. Therefore we believe that those who respond to God’s revelation of Himself in creation and in their own consciences will be given more light. Ultimately, we trust that God will give to those who continue to respond to the light He already has given will be given the Light of Christ–via a vision or a dream or perhaps by some wandering missionary.

Issues of Calvinism/predestination versus Arminianism/free-will-ism enter into the discussion at some juncture in this debate. They would be a diversion from the main point of this thread. The important thing to apprehend is that both Calvinists and Arminians say that human beings are fully ‘culpable’ for their standing before God as sinners; that God is NOT culpable for the sins of human beings, however it is that He acts to save a human race which rejects and spurns Him. God justly condemns the wicked to hell–indeed, they CHOOSE hell for themselves rather than fellowship with God. No human beng can ever be said to be truly ignorant of God’s will for him or for her.

Purgatory is related to how a saved person is sanctified, NOT to how an unsaved person might be redeemed. Different issues. No room here to enlarge upon the matter.

 

[JimG]

I am reminded of the Gospel parable of the laborers in the vineyard. (Matthew 20:1-16 ) Those who were hired last did little work and yet received the same wage as those who had worked all day. At the complaints of unfairness, the master replied, “Are you envious because I am generous?”

It seems that we get upset that someone who seems not to have met all the requirements might nevertheless make it into heaven. But what business it is of ours if the Father is generous? Should we not desire that all be saved?

The Church is the Barque of Peter, bringing the faithful safely to home port through the stormy sea. It is much better to be in the ship and to stay in it. But if someone swimming alongside, should grab hold of a rope and hang on, and thereby reach his destination, his journey is much less secure, yet if he gets safely home, it is worth the effort. He is not a passenger, yet benefits from his tenuous connection to the ship.

It is not a matter of “getting a pass.” Catholics believe that even though saved, we must still be sanctified. Every human action has a consequence. “I assure you, on judgment day, people will be held accountable for every unguarded word they speak.” (Matt 12:36). The doctrine of purgatory accounts for God’s justice. Salvation is by grace; sanctification is through (joyful) suffering, either in this life or the next.

 

[enanneman]

The way I look at the question of salvation with or without the church is that the Catholic Church reveals the path to Heaven. It’s not an easy path, but by following the teachings of the church and living life accordingly, one can be nearly assured of Heaven. However, the church doesn’t automatically assume that those outside its embrace are lost. (And, such humility is just another reason why I adore our glorious faith so much!) The thief was assured Paradise because of his faith even though he was [presumably] not baptized, so it is possible that those living outside the church’s embrace can be justified.

I mean, I can certainly see how certain Protestant denominations can provide salvation, if for no other reason than they contain enough of the teachings of the original church to provide the necessary means of salvation. But, it seems to me that this would be the ultimate game of Russian Roulette.

IMHO, God set up the church as the primary system of saving souls, but there are paths to salvation outside His system, because of his mercy and love. However, once one recognizes the Catholic Church as the church Christ set up as the means for salvation, he or she would have to be a fool not to embrace the teachings whole-heartedly.

 

[flameburns623]

JimG:

The Church is the Barque of Peter, bringing the faithful safely to home port through the stormy sea. It is much better to be in the ship and to stay in it. But if someone swimming alongside, should grab hold of a rope and hang on, and thereby reach his destination, his journey is much less secure, yet if he gets safely home, it is worth the effort. He is not a passenger, yet benefits from his tenuous connection to the ship.

It is not a matter of “getting a pass.” Catholics believe that even though saved, we must still be sanctified. Every human action has a consequence. “I assure you, on judgment day, people will be held accountable for every unguarded word they speak.” (Matt 12:36). The doctrine of purgatory accounts for God’s justice. Salvation is by grace; sanctification is through (joyful) suffering, either in this life or the next.

enanneman:

IMHO, God set up the church as the primary system of saving souls, but there are paths to salvation outside His system, because of his mercy and love. However, once one recognizes the Catholic Church as the church Christ set up as the means for salvation, he or she would have to be a fool not to embrace the teachings whole-heartedly.

Welcome to Pelagianism, enanneman and Jim G. I’ll fetch the starter fluid after Karl Keating finishes gathering the firewood. Not trying to be mean, but the whole point of the Protestant view I outlined is to emphasize that it is God who takes the initiative to reveal Himself to humanity which REJECTS him by it’s very inherent nature. Your post suggests we somehow yearn for God and save ourselves by our own efforts. Don’t think you intended that, but it did give me cause to underscore what Protestants are trying to emphasize in their efforts to explain this issue. We may each have a ‘God-shaped hole’ in our souls, but we utterly refuse to fill that hole with the only One who would properly fill it: only a ‘god’ made in our own image appeals to us by our nature, even if it doesn’t actually ‘fit’ the ‘God-shaped hole’. Also: the Protestant position underscores that there truly is only ONE way to God–through faith in Christ–and that we are all CAPABLE of finding that one Way but choose to reject or ignore it. We are therefore justly and condinely condemned on the basis of our own culpability for our sins, because we decline to seek the only means whereby those sins could be atoned.

 

[Mijoy2]

flameburns623:

Instead, conservative and Evangelical Protestants say that those who respond to the light God has already given them will be given more light. Romans 1 and 2 discuss this: we learn that ALL human beings, everywhere, have both the light of creation and the light of conscience by which to discern that there is a God and to discern some measure of who He is. We believe that God is merciful and willing for all to be saved. Therefore we believe that those who respond to God’s revelation of Himself in creation and in their own consciences will be given more light. Ultimately, we trust that God will give to those who continue to respond to the light He already has given will be given the Light of Christ–via a vision or a dream or perhaps by some wandering missionary.

God justly condemns the wicked to hell–indeed, they CHOOSE hell for themselves rather than fellowship with God. No human beng can ever be said to be truly ignorant of God’s will for him or for her.

Flameburns,

I’m struggling with how to word my point here in a timely and spacious fashion.

If not mistaken, you basically state here that those of who are not aware of → believe–> chose to follow Jesus Christ, gets what they deserve. An everlasting torment in Hell. Let us not forget the magnitude of what we beleive this to be in the context of this discussion. Gnashing of teeth, everlasting fire, a thirst that can’t be quenched etc.

You state “those who respond to the light God has already given them will be given more light.” You further state, “we trust that God will give to those who continue to respond to the light He already has given will be given the Light of Christ”.

Can we attempt to look at this from a pure pragmatic view? I do not believe that God plays favorites, I think you’ll agree with this.
It appears you are saying that some tribe member in some remote Tribe in Africa will be shown the light of Jesus if He responds to the light already given. Or for that matter, a practicing Muslim or Jew. What are the odds of this happening comparatively speaking? Compare the odds of the reality of this occuring compared to a child now being born in some large Protestant community. It’s many order of magnitudes removed. Does God play favorites here?

How does the Protestant reconcile the fact that, without a concept of invincible ignorance, the vast majority of the worlds population, is hell-bound? How does the Protestant reconcile the fact that he attrbutes God the qualities of; all loving, perfectly just, merciful, when God designed a plan of which most individuals (neighbors, loved ones, family members) are going to experience a horror beyond our wildest imagination for all eternity? If one were to look at this teaching practically, the end result, such is the case.

I find it difficult to believe that a Muslim or a Jew, who has lived thier entire life loving thier neighbors will get a vision of Jesus, or hear an evangelist preaching on a street corner and totally change his/her beliefs he/she has cherished for a lifetime.

Doesn’t it all come down to this when all the smoke has cleared?

 

[buffalo]

enanneman:

I’ve been following this thread with interest and wondered if someone could provide a catechetical reference on the possibility of salvation outside the Catholic Church. I believe it is stated in the Cathechism, but I can’t find it easily.

Thanks and God bless!

Eric

You won’t find it for the Catechism states all will ultimately be saved through the Catholic Church whether they know it or not.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

why would God send entire nations to hell?

For one reason, and one reason alone … final impenitence in mortal sin or merely original sin. Same reason he sends Catholics to hell (excepting Catholics, as well as many non-Catholics who are validly baptized, or desire the same, are forgiven of original sin).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I find it difficult to believe that a Muslim or a Jew, who has lived thier entire life loving thier neighbors will get a vision of Jesus, or hear an evangelist preaching on a street corner and totally change his/her beliefs he/she has cherished for a lifetime.

Doesn’t it all come down to this when all the smoke has cleared?

In a word, no.

As I think others have brought out in their posts, especially with the Catechism, all who will be saved will be saved THROUGH the Catholic Church, even if they don’t RECOGNIZE the Catholic Church, aren’t a PART of the Catholic Church, or never even HEARD of the Catholic Church.

Somehow, in a mystery which only GOD understands, He uses His Church for the salvation of souls.

Somehow, in a mystery which only GOD understands, He sees the heart and soul of each individual.

Either you (not you personally) believe in things like God’s INFINITE (beyond our human understanding) love, mercy and justice, that He isn’t an arbitrary being who creates millions knowing that they’ll go to hell–or you believe the converse–that God’s love, mercy and justice are FINITE or limited to our HUMAN understanding; that He IS arbitrary and deliberately wills “evil” to His creatures who haven’t been “exposed” to some particular esoteric bit of knowledge.

Is God all good? Yes or no. If He IS all good, then all will be well, no matter how you or I might look at any or all things in life, because we can’t possibly imagine “all good” as an ABSOLUTE. Even though we know to a limited extent “good”, we still tend to see it in RELATIVE terms. Therefore, since hell to ME appears totally horrible (which it is), the idea that God would SEND someone there appears totally NON GOOD. But that is only my limited, human, finite idea. Yes, going to hell is bad. Does God “send” us there, or do we “put ourselves there” by CHOOSING evil? That’s the question, to my mind. Since we know that God did not create evil and cannot do evil, it looks like He doesn’t “create” evil people, but good people who later CHOOSE evil, and that He doesn’t “send people to hell” but that, by their CHOICE of evil, THEY place themselves in hell.

If He is NOT all good, He can’t be God, and then the whole question of salvation becomes moot.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

carol marie,

they don’t know they should be at mass and skipping mass is a mortal sin.

Your not taking enough care to understand Catholic theology regarding mortal sin. Skipping Mass is certainly a grave matter for a Catholic. Infidelity is certainly a grave matter for a Jew or Muslim. Heresy is certainly a grave matter for a Protestant Christian. Schism is certianly a grave matter for an Orthodox Christian. These are material sins. They may even be formal sins, but that depends upon other conditions. As stated earlier, “grave matter” is but one of the three conditions of a mortal sin. Full advertence and perfect consent of will are the other two conditions. Without all three, the sin, while still materially a grave matter, is not formally mortal sin (i.e., the material sin lacks the proper form of a mortal sin). This theology applies to the Catholic who skips Mass, as well as the grave sins of non-Catholics.

According to Catholic theology, material sins differ from formal sins, as material sins lack full advertence and/or perfect consent of the will. Consequently, material sins which are not also formal sins cannot be mortal sins.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on sin:
newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

Material and Formal Sin
This distinction is based upon the difference between the objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the act). An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin would be formal if he took the property in the belief that it belonged to another, whether his belief were correct or not.

 

[Mijoy2]

itsjustdave1988:

For one reason, and one reason alone … final impenitence in mortal sin or merely original sin. Same reason he sends Catholics to hell (excepting Catholics, as well as many non-Catholics who are validly baptized, or desire the same, are forgiven of original sin).

You caught me off-guard with this Dave. You answer insinuates entire nations are going to Hell. from pervious posts I got the feeling you did not feel this way.

I think I need to refrain from these forums with regard to conversation about Hell. Probably better yet I need to refrain from these forums. Seems nobody, or very few, share my Hope (we’ll say Hope because it is less controversal then “belief”) about Gods’ plan for us.

More common belief:

Everyone falls short of Heaven (deserves the alternative, Hell) God created billions of people of which the vast majority will burn in Hell. He will give enough for all to be saved but most will reject this light and burn. God wants most to be saved and most will not.

Less common belief:

Everyone falls short of Heaven (deserves the alternative, Hell). Gods infinite Mercy will somehow (mystery to some extent) supersede what we deserve and the vast majority will not go to Hell. God wants all to be saved and most will.

Of the two, Evangelical Protestants and Catholics, I think that generally speaking more Protestants fall into the former and more Catholics fall into the later.

We all interpret what we read and what we are taught to some extent (this includes interpreting the CCC). I’m constantly working on interpreting to suit the later.

 

[Melchior]

Is it not true that we are all born with original sin and based on that alone, let alone the mountain of personal sin we add on in our lifetime, we are, as scripture teaches, justly condemned?

One of the underlying assumptions I keep seeing in this thread is that sinful people already under God’s judgement because we are sinners by nature, are somehow able to be virtuous enough to attain heaven on their own. But the universal witness of the Church is that ALL are sinners and ALL are condemned apart from being in Christ. And you cannot be in Christ if you reject Him passively or actively. We all start out condemned so the fact that any of us will be saved through Christ alone is amazing Grace. God saves sinners who don’t deserve it. And their is only one way to be in Christ. It is not veiled or mysterious. The New Testament leaves no room for questions.

Whether God can and will make exceptions is up to Him alone. We can only go on what has been revealed to us. What many of you are trying to do is find a way to make an unknowable ecpetion the rule. Every Christian should act with the assumption that those who don’t believe in Christ are condemned and bneed the Gospel. So insteed of finding a way to sooth our conseciences about those who may not have heard of Jesus (very few in 2004) we should be about the business of Evangelism either through supporting missionaries or becoming missionaries ourselves.

Other than infants and the severely mentally handi-capped there are very few in this world who are not conscience of their sinful ways. If the discussion were about those who really cannot comprehend sin or the Gospel then we have a real discussion. Everyone else I am afraid is in a bad way without Christ. Ghandi for example lived an incredibly virtuous life. And it is also clear he was very familiar with the teachings of Christ and His church. Yet he rejected both. I would love to think he is in Heaven. But then I would be assuming he was born without sin since he, as far as we know, never repented and turned to the only one who saves.

Assume everyone needs to be in Christ through the normal means of Grace. That way you can’t go wrong. We should mourn the fate of the sinner and do something about it. Not sooth ourselves with false hope for the unregeneate. Maybe some will be saved in a mysterious way. But do you really want to take that chance. The great commission was given for a reason.

Mel

 

[srkbdk]

Br. Rich SFO:

The Catholic Church teaches that Salvation is through Christ! Period! Christ established the Catholic Church. It is both a Divine and a human institution, both visible and invisible Corporal as well as spiritual. A person who is totally ignorant of the Catholic Church and of Christ can obtain Salvation, through Christ, even though they have not had the opportunity to come to know Christ.

Thanks for making this important point

 

[enanneman]

flameburns623:

Welcome to Pelagianism, enanneman and Jim G. I’ll fetch the starter fluid after Karl Keating finishes gathering the firewood. Not trying to be mean, but the whole point of the Protestant view I outlined is to emphasize that it is God who takes the initiative to reveal Himself to humanity which REJECTS him by it’s very inherent nature. Your post suggests we somehow yearn for God and save ourselves by our own efforts.

I’m sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear. I most assuredly believe in original sin and the necessity of baptism to remove its stain. But the church also teaches baptism by desire in certain circumstances. The church is very clear that we are undeservedly saved by grace, which requires a response from us to that grace. My only point that I was trying to make is that the church teaches that salvation is possible to those outside its embrace, and that I find this very comforting.

Peace and God bless.

Eric

 

[itsjustdave1988]

carol marie,

It sounds like you are held to such a higher standard…

Exactly!!! Why is this a surprise to you? Isn’t this exactly what Sacred Scritpure and our Holy Religion has been telling you? Those with the greater gifts, who fail to properly use them, commit the greater sin.

You seem to be whining about the fairness of what St. Luke teaches here…

Luke 12:48 "the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more."

Stop whining about those who are less gifted than you!!! They will be judged fairly by Jesus Christ (not Buddha, not Muhammed, but the one Christ for all) based upon the gifts they have been given.

**why bother? **

You ought to bother, because to do otherwise is to abandon the gifts you have been given.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mel,

Is it not true that we are all born with original sin and based on that alone, let alone the mountain of personal sin we add on in our lifetime, we are, as scripture teaches, justly condemned?

Yes. And an infallible dogma of the Catholic faith states:

“the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only … immediately descend to hell” (Council of Lyons II, D 474, also Council of Florence, D 692)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You caught me off-guard with this Dave. You answer insinuates entire nations are going to Hell.

I didn’t mean to assert God sends entire nations to hell. God judges each particular soul. If they die impenitently in mortal sin or merely original sin, they go to hell. This applies to every soul on the planet whether they are Catholic or not.

Seems nobody, or very few, share my Hope (we’ll say Hope because it is less controversal then “belief”) about Gods’ plan for us.

Hope is the word to use. Catholics can assert that non-Catholics “may attain eternal life.” But they need to remember the distinction between “may attain” versus “will attain.” Indifferentism and Universalism are still heresies opposed by Catholicism.

Pope St. Pius X described the importance of every soul being united to the Catholic Church. Some are united in body but not in soul. Some are untied in soul but not in body. Some are united in body and soul. Yet, is it the unity of the soul that is most important. Those united merely in soul are on the way of salvation.

However,** Indifferentism is still a heresy, just as surely as Feeneyism.** Catholics ought to oppose both of these heretical views.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mijoy2:

More common belief: …

Less common belief: …

I don’t care what is believed by the Taught Church. I care what is taught by the Teaching Church. Speculations about how many people will go to hell have zero value. It is not our job to judge whether others are going to heaven or hell. That’s God’s job. Our job is to tell the truth that has been revealed by God. We can do that by rejecting the heresies of Universalism, Indifferentism, and Feeneyism.

 

[Mijoy2]

itsjustdave1988:

I don’t care what is believed by the Taught Church. I care what is taught by the Teaching Church. Speculations about how many people will go to hell have zero value. It is not our job to judge whether others are going to heaven or hell. That’s God’s job. Our job is to tell the truth that has been revealed by God. We can do that by rejecting the heresies of Universalism, Indifferentism, and Feeneyism.

It is human nature to take as (name removed by moderator)ut information (doctrine) and then to apply this to practical matter. I don’t think it possible for me to not do this. I don’t know if I’d use the term “speculate” as much as I’d use the term “conclude from”. However I certainly agree that it is GOd’s job to judge who goes to Heaven and the other place.

“Universalism, Indifferentism, and Feeneyism”, never heard of any of these

Universalism = Universal Unitarian church beliefs??

Inifferentism? have a resource?
Feeneyism? same?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“Universalism, Indifferentism, and Feeneyism”, never heard of any of these

Universalism: the theory that all will be saved. Origen held the theory of universal restoration (Gk “apokatastasis”) of all Creation with God, of humanity, as well as the demons and Satan. This was rejected as heretical in AD 400. Some Protestants have resurrected this view, they are called Universalists. You can read more here:

Catholic Encyclopedia - Apokatastasis
newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

Catholic Encyclopedia - Universalists
newadvent.org/cathen/15181a.htm

Indifferentism: the theory that denies that it is the duty of man to worship God by believing and practicing the one true religion.

Catholic Encyclopedia - Religious Indifferentism
newadvent.org/cathen/07759a.htm

**Feeneyism: **An American priest named Fr Leonard Feeney, back in the 40s, was teaching that only card-carrying Catholics go to heaven. He was censured, and when he failed to explain his views in Rome, he was excommunicated. Fr Feeney dissented with the belief in Baptism by Desire. Toward the end of his life, he reconciled with the Church. However, some people continue to cling to his erroneous views, asserting the Catholic Church’s teaching against Feeneyism is nothing more than the heresy of Modernism.

Here’s the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston refuting Feeneyism:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

 

[JimG]

flameburns623:

Welcome to Pelagianism, enanneman and Jim G. . . . Not trying to be mean, but the whole point of the Protestant view I outlined is to emphasize that it is God who takes the initiative to reveal Himself to humanity which REJECTS him by it’s very inherent nature. Your post suggests we somehow yearn for God and save ourselves by our own efforts.

Well, I certainly didn’t intend to endorse Pelagius, who thought that the human will could attain sufficient moral strength on its own without the need of Grace. Nor did I mean to imply that the Grace of Baptism brings only salvation and not sanctification. We call it sanctifying grace for the very reason that it sanctifies.

But neither do I believe that sins commited after Baptism have no effect on the soul. They also must be repented of, and the grace of repentance is itself a gift of God.

The initiative IS all God’s. But both Catholics and Protestants believe that some human action is necessary. The act of accepting Jesus is a human action, a movement of the human will, to choose or to reject. It is indeed God who gives the grace for us to choose. Yet we retain the human ability to reject His grace.