Is Sharing The Gospel Sometimes Worse Than Not Saying Anything?

[Gorgias]

No need to argue non-sequiturs my friend. You’re smart enough to fight on the ground you find yourself upon

LOL! Thanks!

But… from a Catholic perspective, I think it’s always important to reject the demand “show me that in the Bible”, since that’s not the standard to which the Church has held. It’s in the Bible because it’s part of apostolic teaching, and not the other way around.

Second, in keeping with the entire purpose of the thread, Scripture actually does say this:

“So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”

I’m trying to picture @Hodos replying to this line of argument. I think I’d say "please read that passage from Romans in context. There, the folks to whom Paul is referring are believers in God:

This was to make known the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared previously for glory, namely, us whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles

(Romans 9:23-24)

Therefore, the people Paul is referring to are already called by God and know Him."

So, I think that this approach – unless used as a prooftext without context – would fail, in this case.

 

[TULIPed]

If you take it out of context, that’s the meaning. Yet we know from Romans 1, and Exodus that God hardens people who refuse to acknowledge Him.

Oh for the love of Pete. It was just an example to say that one could argue the point from Scripture. Perhaps a poor one I’ll grant you that. But I’m in a hurry. I’m Calvinist, for heaven’s sake. Gimme a break. I’m arguing about evangelism on a Catholic website.

 

[TULIPed]

I’m trying to picture @Hodos replying to this line of argument. I think I’d say "please read that passage from Romans in context. There, the folks to whom Paul is referring are believers in God:

Yes, yes - I pulled that one sentence out for brevity. The point is that you can argue God’s sovereignty a number of different ways.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Perhaps a poor one I’ll grant you that.

Hence the counterargument.

I’m arguing about evangelism on a Catholic website.

But decided to post Scripture from a verse unrelated to the topic.

 

[TULIPed]

This whole discussion is unrelated to the topic. Which was my original point. Apologies to the OP. I’ll wear this one.

 

[TULIPed]

Seriously - you are the grumpiest person on this forum. A little grace every now and then would be kind Julius. You are after all supposed to be kind, right?

Never mind, I don’t know what I’d do if I got a non-grumpy post from you. Stay the way you are.

 

[Pixle_Catholic]

Oops! I feel like I’ve started an argument.

I understand what you guys are saying, thank you so much for your responses, especially - @Hodos @Fets, and @po18guy

My main concern was making someone worse off because they rejected God’s teaching, but everything that you guys have said/discussed really makes sense.

We are called to share the gospel.

Thank you.

 

[Gorgias]

Oops! I feel like I’ve started an argument.

LOL!

Everything that’s written on an internet forum tends to set off an argument. It’s what we do best, apparently…

 

[Hodos]

Let me spell it out for you, then: @Hodos is implicitly asserting the standard that teaching is found only in Scripture (after all, when addressing Pixle’s assertion, he asks “where does scripture say this?”).

No, I am not implicitly asserting that the idea mentioned in the OP is not mentioned in scripture therefore it isn’t true. I am explicitly asserting that the idea mentioned in the OP is contrary to explicit statements in scripture and therefore isn’t true. My first statement mentioned the idea the OP mentioned isn’t stated in scripture. I then pointed to the fact that the OP statement is actually in conflict with scripture.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You are after all supposed to be kind, right?

The kindest people are usually rough around the edges. And kindness and cheery aren’t necessarily equivalent. So I’m not gonna apologize for my demeanor.

A little grace every now and then would be kind Julius.

That’s what I’m doing.

 

[fhansen]

You do the best you can, discerning when and where according to the person’s needs and your perception of where they are in terms of God. You share from the heart, from the treasure you have and value and know they need. And sometimes all of this means that you don’t share.

 

[Diaconia]

I’ll tell myself “Well, at least my words were pleasing to Christ”. And who knows, maybe those seeds will sprout a long time later.

This is a lovely way to put it, keep it up.

I love talking about Jesus, He’s the source of our joy as Catholics.

Receiving His precious Body and Blood are beyond any gift ever received by anyone in the history of the universe; let your lives reflect that reality.
Deacon Christopher

 

[po18guy]

Note: The Holy Spirit is crucial, as all good that is done is by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we pray, beg, implore His help as it is the Spirit which effects conversions. You and I are the mechanisms which the Spirit uses.

Remember in Acts 2 (the Pentecost/birth of the Church) that after the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles, they went forth from hiding and boldly proclaimed the Gospel. Mainly through Saint Peter’s preaching, 3,000 were received into the infant Church.

The Holy Spirit - don’t leave home without Him.

 

[Gorgias]

I am explicitly asserting that the idea mentioned in the OP is contrary to explicit statements in scripture and therefore isn’t true.

OK, then, we’ll go with @TULIPed’s suggestion: “he has mercy on whomever he wills”. Add to that 1 Tim 2:4 – “God wills all to be saved”.

So… if God wills all to be saved, and he has mercy on whomever he wills… then you can’t say “humans who have no knowledge of the gospel will not be judged.”

Let’s take it a step further: none of the OT patriarchs knew the gospel or Jesus. You’re claiming that none of them are saved?

Your assertions don’t hold up to scrutiny, although I do understand that you’re defending your denomination’s point of view…

 

[Hodos]

Let’s take it a step further: none of the OT patriarchs knew the gospel or Jesus. You’re claiming that none of them are saved?

They knew God’s promises and trusted in them, and those promises even from Adam and Eve point to Christ. Also, Christ descended into the dead ala 1 Peter. Lastly, Paul himself speaks of the Jews who do not know God’s righteousness, speaking of Christ, and calls for preachers to go to the Jews that they might hear the Word about Christ and believe. As Christ himself says in the gospel of John, Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, no one goes to the Father except by the Son. So apparently, your assertions that there is salvation apart from Christ doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. That’s not a denominational point of view, that is the ecumenical Christian point of view.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

As Christ himself says in the gospel of John, Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, no one goes to the Father except by the Son. So apparently, your assertions that there is salvation apart from Christ doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Salvation apart from Christ or salvation apart from being a Christian? Because those two aren’t the same.

 

[Gorgias]

They knew God’s promises and trusted in them

You’ve moved the goalposts, haven’t you? Your original claim was that it was not true that “sinful human beings who have no knowledge of the gospel will not be judged”. By “judged”, you are implying “saved”, it appears.

Now, you’ve changed direction – it’s not knowledge of the gospel that’s the standard, according to you; it’s just “knowledge of God’s promises”, even if they were only the promises of earlier covenants.

Which is it? Which is Scriptural, and which is not? And, if it’s in Scripture, why is it so difficult to identify it without this confusion?

 

[Hodos]

You’ve moved the goalposts, haven’t you? Your original claim was that it was not true that “sinful human beings who have no knowledge of the gospel will not be judged”. By “judged”, you are implying “saved”, it appears.

Haven’t shifted the goalposts one iota. Throughout OT scripture God promises to deliver his people. They believed God to be faithful to that promise and this was fulfilled in the person of Christ, who by the way is the same God as the God of the OT come in the flesh, just as the author of Hebrews states in Hebrews 11. By the way the idea of universalism being proposed above is rejected even in OT scripture. I cannot answer why you are so confused on this issue. I can only speculate.

 

[Pixle_Catholic]

Yes. My original question was not from a universalist position (and I hope it didn’t come across as so). My question was more based around when someone has full knowledge and rejects verses when someone is never told and therefore never rejects. If that make any sense.

 

[Gorgias]

Haven’t shifted the goalposts one iota.

Hmm… let’s see:

Gorgias:

Let’s take it a step further: none of the OT patriarchs knew the gospel or Jesus. You’re claiming that none of them are saved?

They knew God’s promises and trusted in them, and those promises even from Adam and Eve point to Christ

Pixle_Catholic:

I have heard people say God has mercy on people who do not know about Him.

Where does scripture say this? It says those who know the gospel yet reject it will be judged more harshly, but does not say that sinful human beings who have no knowledge of the gospel will not be judged.

Nope… that’s pretty much a movement from “no knowledge of the gospel” to “knowledge of God’s promises”. Goalposts. Moved.

By the way the idea of universalism being proposed above is rejected even in OT scripture. I cannot answer why you are so confused on this issue.

You’re confused because you’re falsely misconstruing what I’m saying. It’s ok… let’s talk about it.

“Universalism” means “all are saved, by definition.” That’s the notion of the “Oprah car giveaway”. You know… “you get a car, and you get a car, and you all get a car!!!”. The idea behind universalism is that there’s no judgment – for anyone! It’s just that, by definition, all of us attains to heaven. The Church has condemned that outlook as heretical for centuries.

There’s a different – and subtly different – idea, and it take a bit of reflection to recognize how it’s different. It’s the notion that everyone is judged – individually, and on one’s own case – but that we can hope that each is judged worthy of heaven. (Is it likely? I can’t say that this is the case. But, we can pursue it as a theoretical question: “is it possible that Hodos will be judged worthy of heaven?” (Yes.) “Is it possible that Gorgias will be judged worthy of heaen?” (Yes.) We can point to each person who ever lived or will live and the answer is the same: “well… it’s possible”. And therefore, we can answer “it is possible that each person will be judged individually and attain to heaven.”

And yet, neither of those two perspectives are the one I suggested upthread. (Hence your confusion. Either you misunderstand what ‘universalism’ is, or you misunderstand my stance upthread.)

I’m not suggesting that all are saved – just that it’s possible that those who do not know Christ may be saved. The Church teaches that this is so. And… as we’ve seen from your attempts to show “Scriptural backing” for the contrary opinion – and that you have to keep changing your position each time it’s challenged ('cause it’s not truly Scriptural!) – that this isn’t what Jesus teaches, either through the apostles or the Bible that they compiled.