Is this rejecting Christ ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erick_Ybarra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The only exception to this rule is if someone has not heard the gospel and they do not know of Christ’s church.

Therefore, if the Father in the youtube.com video is referring to muslim friends that he has witnessed the faith to, then he is wrong

Or correct me
No one can judge the hearts of another. The Church even teaches that those who were raised in heretical Protestant churches are not themselves guilty of heresy.

Be more concerned about this: **“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” ** - John 6:53

The flesh and the blood of the Son of man are only available within the Catholic/Orthodox Churches.
 
…The only exception to this rule is if someone has not heard the gospel and they do not know of Christ’s church…Or correct me
Just because someone says some words to you doesn’t necessarily mean you’re able to hear what he says or understand what he’s talking about. There can be all kinds of circumstances that mitigate responsibility… for example, what if the “Christians” you were exposed to were hypocrites who raped your women and chased you off of your land? I’d certainly reject the god of such people, and the true God would know good and well that in doing so I wasn’t rejecting Him.

Scripture says that everyone has some idea of God. It’s undeniable that many non-Christians are seeking God - they may have false ideas about Him but they’re seeking Him nonetheless, and NO ONE can seek God except on God’s initiative. The fact that they’re seeking God, however imperfectly, shows that He is working in their lives.

Romans 1:18-21 says “The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.”

So here scripture explicitly says that one can know God by natural revelation, right? Someone who does evil can’t legitimately claim that he never knew about God, because God made sure through creation that everyone knows him. The passage doesn’t say that they’re wicked because they don’t know God, what it says is that they’re wicked because they know God well enough and they reject him anyway!

A Protestant might say that that level of knowledge is not salvific, that you can’t be saved if that’s the limit of your knowledge of God. But there are two problems with that viewpoint. First, that would mean that people are lost because God requires them to know what they cannot know, and they cannot know it because God didn’t allow them to know it. That would violate God’s perfect justice. Second, it would mean that one can only be saved through the attainment of information which is hidden to all but a select few, which is at the core of the gnostic heresies.

If one has to have heard of Jesus in order to be saved, then never having had the opportunity to hear of him is a really good excuse for never having heard of him. But the bible specifically says that even these people have no excuse for rejecting God, because they did know about him and they rejected him anyway. What gets you into hell is rejecting God. If you don’t know about Jesus then you can’t very well be culpable for rejecting him, because you can only reject what you know about. God holds us accountable only for what we know, and not for what we cannot know.

And so the Church teaches that even these people may be saved (not that they will be saved, but only that they may be saved) through the merits of Christ, by means of which we do not know.

I like the way C. S. Lewis said it in Chapter 15 of The Last Battle. In it, Emeth tells of his meeting with Aslan:
Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honor) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, “Son, thou art welcome.” But I said, “Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.” He answered, “Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.” Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said “Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one”" The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, “It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites - I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For he and I are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?” I said “Lord, thou knowest how much I understand.” But I said also (for the truth constrained me), “Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.” “Beloved,” said the Glorious One, “unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.”
Anyone who is saved, is saved through Christ.
 
Would this be something similiar to the ninevites or the men on the boat with Jonah, or the queen of sheba
 
I don’t understand this.

The Islamic faith teaches that Jesus is not the son of God. The Scripture says anyone who does not believe in the son of God is condemned.
OK, let’s cut to the chase. Do you believe a Hindu born into Hindu society and not ever hearing about Jesus is automatically condemned? A Confucian born into Confucian society? A Jew taught that Jesus was a crazy blasphemer? A Muslim taught that Jesus was a prophet?

How would you respond if a Catholic told you that you, not being Catholic, were automatically condemned?
 
I believe that anyone who is not born of water and spirit, in this life, by personally believing in the true gospel preached in the world, audibly, and definitely by other human beings.

I get this from Jesus “Go into all the world and preach the gospel. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. But he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16).

What are people before they are “saved”?

God has chosen that the personally faith and repentance and conversion of people be the only means of salvation.

Why do you think there is so much missionary work among the protestants? Because we know that people are lost and on their way to hell.

Catholics assume that people can be saved by being good. And there are many good people out there.

I have a Roman Catholic co-worker who believes that everyone can go to heaven, even if they believe in false Gods.
 
So what do these people have to believe to be saved? Trinity? Christ fully God and fully man? Christ died in a penal substitution? What about he who doesn’t eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man, have no life in them, wouldn’t that include all non-catholics? When you say protestants don’t believe, don’t you just mean you and a minority of others? What or who saves? Christ, or the preachermans doctrine?
 
Jesus said if you believe in me, you have eternal life. He said this to people in order for them to believe at the moment he said this, before the Eucharist was instituted. Are you tellling me none of his disciples were saved until they all had the Eucharist on pentacost?

And jesus’ plain words are the standard. ‘‘Amen amen I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’’ (john 3:5).

If any pagan read this they would know they had no entrance
 
ok question I read a post the author said that those outside of Christ may get to heaven. But scripture is clear is it not when it says that if you do not know Christ you will not be saved?
 
Actually in the Catechism, it says the following:

*“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism*, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

The only exception to this rule is if someone has not heard the gospel and they do not know of Christ’s church.

Therefore, if the Father in the youtube.com video is referring to muslim friends that he has witnessed the faith to, then he is wrong

Or correct me
Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI puts is succinctly:
  1. What is the meaning of the affirmation “Outside the Church there is no salvation”?
846-848

This means that all salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body. Hence they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her. At the same time, thanks to Christ and to his Church, those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church but sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, try to do his will as it is known through the dictates of conscience can attain eternal salvation.
  1. Is Baptism necessary for salvation?
1257

Baptism is necessary for salvation for all those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.
  1. Is it possible to be saved without Baptism?
1258-1261
1281-1283

Since Christ died for the salvation of all, those can be saved without Baptism who die for the faith (Baptism of blood). Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire). The Church in her liturgy entrusts children who die without Baptism to the mercy of God.

Yes Faith in Christ and Baptism are “necessary” --but God can work outside of what is normative and necessary in ways known only to God. If one is saved in some way known only to God --even if the person may have never even heard the Gospel or have heard it in a way that was say distorted etc 00 it is still by Jesus and still in relation to his Church.
 
Jesus said if you believe in me, you have eternal life. He said this to people in order for them to believe at the moment he said this, before the Eucharist was instituted. Are you tellling me none of his disciples were saved until they all had the Eucharist on pentacost?
And jesus’ plain words are the standard. ‘‘Amen amen I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’’ (john 3:5).
If any pagan read this they would know they had no entrance
Jesus also said you have to eat his flesh and drink His blood, not be an unprofitable servant, and to keep His commandments to be saved.
 
If any pagan read this they would know they had no entrance
God knows what their “knowing” is or is not. Just reading the words and not yet accepting them does not yet mean necessarily that they will not be in the Kingdom of God.

On the one hand – we are responsible --we are to respond to the Gospel – and we are to proclaim that Gospel to others when we are Christians.

On the other hand Jesus can save those still – in ways only known to the Holy Trinity – even those who have not heard his name or who misheard it if you will.

The reality of the later does not remove the reality and the importance of the former.
 
I believe that anyone who is not born of water and spirit, in this life, by personally believing in the true gospel preached in the world, audibly, and definitely by other human beings.

I get this from Jesus “Go into all the world and preach the gospel. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. But he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16).
Yet this is not demonstrated by either the New Testament or the writings of the early church, which shows that whole households were converted and baptized which included slaves and even infants, so that idea of salvation always beginning with " personally believing in the true gospel" is not completely scriptural nor traditional. Suggest you see The Case For Infant Baptism.
God has chosen that the personally faith and repentance and conversion of people be the only
means of salvation. Only? I would have to say that that is shown not to be the case several times over in the New Testament, with some examples being Dismas, the “good thief” and little Zacheus, each of which demonstrates a slightly different beginning to their conversion that doesn’t exactly fit your personally stated formula.
Why do you think there is so much missionary work among the protestants? Because we know that people are lost and on their way to hell.
You infer that we Catholics do not do missionary and evangelistic work, which is completely untrue. Examples that I personally know of is my own St. Maximilian Kolbe Catholic Prison Ministry, and our parish’s regular support of missionary work to Native Americans in Klagetoh, Arizona and in Chimbote, Peru. In each case, the Gospel is shared with these least of the brethren and just as St. James mandates, their personal needs are also being met by Catholic believers.

You might also look into the work of Caritas and catholic Charities as well.
Catholics assume that people can be saved by being good. And there are many good people out there.
Assume? Not so. Show me an authentic/authoritative Catholic teaching document that says we do. We say that God is still in complete charge of salvation and that He is more than capable of seeing to the salvation of those who through no fault of their own do not have access to the Bible or the Gospel. Would you not agree that God is not bound to deal with all people the very same way? Ever read C. S. Lewis’ space-time trilogy in which he explores how God might deal with life on other planets. It’s worth reading and thinking about.
I have a Roman Catholic co-worker who believes that everyone can go to heaven, even if they believe in false Gods.
And this is relevant why? Is their thinking informed by authentic & authoritative Catholic teaching, and if not, why try to hold that up as some misleading standard of what we believe?

I personally know a number of n-Cs who have shared odd and unscriptural beliefs with me…but I am smart enough to know that they are not representative of all…or even most of the other n-C Christians. 🤷
 
OK, no bishop in the history of the Church ever taught this up until the 18th century.

That kinda concerns me.

Christianity has always held the destiny of hell for all who are baptized and born again through the church’s audible proclamation of the gospel
 
Yet this is not demonstrated by either the New Testament or the writings of the early church, which shows that whole households were converted and baptized which included slaves and even infants, so that idea of salvation always beginning with " personally believing in the true gospel" is not completely scriptural nor traditional. Suggest you see The Case For Infant Baptism. Only? I would have to say that that is shown not to be the case several times over in the New Testament, with some examples being Dismas, the “good thief” and little Zacheus, each of which demonstrates a slightly different beginning to their conversion that doesn’t exactly fit your personally stated formula.You infer that we Catholics do not do missionary and evangelistic work, which is completely untrue. Examples that I personally know of is my own St. Maximilian Kolbe Catholic Prison Ministry, and our parish’s regular support of missionary work to Native Americans in Klagetoh, Arizona and in Chimbote, Peru. In each case, the Gospel is shared with these least of the brethren and just as St. James mandates, their personal needs are also being met by Catholic believers.

You might also look into the work of Caritas and catholic Charities as well.
Assume? Not so. Show me an authentic/authoritative Catholic teaching document that says we do. We say that God is still in complete charge of salvation and that He is more than capable of seeing to the salvation of those who through no fault of their own do not have access to the Bible or the Gospel. Would you not agree that God is not bound to deal with all people the very same way? Ever read C. S. Lewis’ space-time trilogy in which he explores how God might deal with life on other planets. It’s worth reading and thinking about.And this is relevant why? Is their thinking informed by authentic & authoritative Catholic teaching, and if not, why try to hold that up as some misleading standard of what we believe?

I personally know a number of n-Cs who have shared odd and unscriptural beliefs with me…but I am smart enough to know that they are not representative of all…or even most of the other n-C Christians. 🤷
Actually if you read the accounts especially one of them being explicit, it is implicit that those of the household received the message.
Acts 16:31-34 NASB

They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Zacheus was saved by repenting of his sin. And it is implicit that he believed in Jesus. At that point everyone was saved by their faith and repentance. And how do you know zacheus want baptized? Catholics are always using the argument against the protestant who says there is not one case of baby baptism in the bible with ‘‘but it never teaches against it’’. No where do we read zacheus was not baptized.

With regard to the thief on the cross, this is the extraordinary case. And there are many of them. But it is never without some knowledge and belief in Jesus.
 
God knows what their “knowing” is or is not. Just reading the words and not yet accepting them does not yet mean necessarily that they will not be in the Kingdom of God.

On the one hand – we are responsible --we are to respond to the Gospel – and we are to proclaim that Gospel to others when we are Christians.

On the other hand Jesus can save those still – in ways only known to the Holy Trinity – even those who have not heard his name or who misheard it if you will.

The reality of the later does not remove the reality and the importance of the former.
Therefore what you are saying is that it is possible for all people, given that they are moved by grace to keep the law of their conscience, respite the fact that they have read the scriptures, have been evangelized by other catholics, have been born into the catholic faith, can still go to heaven becaude it is possible that they might just not have paid good enough attention?

And what happens if a pagan man comes up to a priest and says ‘‘I’m already saved because I keep the law of my conscience and I love the Hindu God brahman’’
 
OK, no bishop in the history of the Church ever taught this up until the 18th century.

That kinda concerns me.

Christianity has always held the destiny of hell for all who are baptized and born again through the church’s audible proclamation of the gospel
No bishop? One could make the case for Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and although not a bishop, but still a well respected figure Origen. So it is not a new invention in the 18th century.
 
Where did these bishops condone the plan of salvation for false religions?
 
Jesus said if you believe in me, you have eternal life. He said this to people in order for them to believe at the moment he said this, before the Eucharist was instituted. Are you tellling me none of his disciples were saved until they all had the Eucharist on pentacost?

And jesus’ plain words are the standard. ‘‘Amen amen I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’’ (john 3:5).

If any pagan read this they would know they had no entrance
Jesus also said “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” (John 6:53). You seem very selective in which of Jesus’ words you believe and in which ones you avoid. 🤷
 
So no one hearing him nor the disciples had life yet? For it was some time before there was a eucharist.
 
And what happens if a pagan man comes up to a priest and says ‘‘I’m already saved because I keep the law of my conscience and I love the Hindu God brahman’’
That is truly an excellent question. There is only assurance of salvation in the Catholic Church. Apart from being a faithful and practicing member of the Church, partaking of her sacraments, there can only be hope of salvation. That includes Protestants, Jews, Muslims, pagans.

The situation can be likened to the practice of medicine (the Church is, after all, a hospital for sinners). Some people are cured of their ailments even though they do not take the guaranteed cure, but others who do not take the guaranteed cure are not cured. The pagan you cite may be saved, but he may not be. He certainly is depriving himself of the fullness of grace and truth that is found in the Catholic Church (as are you, BTW). Thus his chances of salvation are less than if he were a faithful and practicing Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top