Not the same God?

[kelman]

Surely, dear friend, you do not subscribe to the ultra-Evangelical exclusivists position which asserts that those who never hear of Christ and the Gospel during this life will eternally perish in Hell?

I advocate the Evangelical and biblical position that there is no salvation without faith in Christ. In fact, it is the inclusionary view which is without biblical support or historic Christian tradition. And since it is the former which is of importance, I’d like to see your scriptural support for that viewpoint.

This erroneous and harsh view goes beyond saying that Christ is the only means of salvation available to mankind, to saying also that hearing and responding to the Gospel is the only means by which salvation can be achieved and received.

In actuality, the exclusivist view is supported by the Bible which goes way beyond saying that Christ is the only means of salvation. It goes so far as to declare that one must believe on Him for salvation. We must never presume to judge the way in which God tells us He saves by thinking it “erroneous and harsh”. It’s far better to accept that God’s actions are always just and righteous whether or not we have full understanding of them – ”For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa 55:8-9).

Inclusivism may be emotionally comforting and seemingly eliminates the problem that those who haven’t heard the gospel will not be saved, nevertheless, that doesn’t make it true or biblical. How inclusivism makes us feel is far less important than how it aligns with Scripture.

Paul, in fact, taught in Rom1–3 that while general knowledge about a Creator is available to all through the light of creation, this knowledge does not bring about salvation. Only special revelation about God, sin, Jesus, and salvation that was given to the prophets and apostles and recorded in the Bible provides the information necessary for salvation.

Inclusivism argues that the content of faith is not crucial and that the unevangelized may even be saved while practicing their non-Christian religions. However, we find Scripture in opposition to this inclusive view. Paul said in Rom 10:9–10 that knowledge of true information is part of saving faith. Paul also clearly said that neither he nor the unbelieving people to whom he preached were saved before believing in Jesus Christ. So, how do we dare disagree with him?

This inclusivist view simply does not agree with the biblical mandate nor is it even coherent or logically consistent. This is what we find the Bible teaching: (1) Jesus is the only Savior; (2) in order to be saved, man must know that he is a sinner in need of salvation and forgiveness; (3) in order to be saved, man also needs to know who Jesus is and that His death and resurrection provide the basis for that salvation; and (4) man must place his faith and trust in Jesus as the one and only Savior.

The following two texts typify the many passages in Scripture indicating that knowledge of, and faith in, Jesus are essential to salvation: (1) “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved” (Rom 10:9–10).

(2) “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son”(John 3:17–18).

When the Philippian jailer asked Paul, “What must I do to be saved?”(Acts 16:30), Paul replied with an exclusivist answer: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Had Paul held the inclusivist view, he would have advised the jailer to calm down and realize that he might already be saved since he clearly was concerned about it, afterall, perhaps he was already one of the millions of saved non-Christians?

And what did Jesus say to Paul: “I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:17–18). In the Book of Acts, neither Paul or Peter spoke or acted like an inclusivist, and, according to the passage above, neither does God.

• Saul* satisfied the inclusivist tests of salvation, He not only believed that God exists but was also diligently seeking Him. Nevertheless, he was still a lost sinner (Phil 3:9; 1 Tim 1:15). Inclusivism contradicts the inspired testimony of Paul and, therefore, can only be considered false.

Although, we must repent we are not saved because we repent. We also find that the “object” of our faith is not inconsequential as the inclusivist would attempt to make us believe.

If God is saving outside of faith in Christ then surely this would be demonstrated somewhere in the NT?..do you know where? If not, then I’ll continue to believe what is found in Scripture. Conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.

Consider Jn 3:36, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” Also consider Rom 10:13-17 where God makes clear who can be saved. Or even Rom 8 which tells us that if the Spirit of Christ does not dwell within us – we are none of His.

 

[kelman]

Some men will find God in the next life inasmuch as they will ultimately find eternal salvation, perhaps even much to their own surprise.

Yes, so you’ve said but where is the biblical support for that view? Rather, we find Scripture teaching that man’s fate is sealed upon his death - “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,”(Heb 9:27). For this reason God tells us that “today” is the day of salvation(2Cor 6:2).

As I have already stated, some will be saved by Baptism of Desire and by following earnestly their aspirations after goodness and justice.

Even if this was not advocating a works gospel it doesn’t offer any evidence that man gets a second chance after death. Are you sure your church actually teaches a second chance after death?..I’d be very surprised if it did. That sounds similar to the Mormon’s doctrine of “baptizing for the dead”.

The words of St. Peter, respecting Cornelius, are relevant here: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10: 34-35).

I’m surprised you’d use Cornelius since the account clearly opposes your inclusivist views. Cornelius only became saved after Peter preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to him.

The best commentry on the significance of these words are those of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans: “So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law” (Rom. 1: 26-27).

Had me hunting that one down - it’s Rom 2. In any case neither chapter is helpful to your view. The sense of these verses is if a heathen man(uncircumcised), who knows nothing of the Law, nevertheless keeps the law should he not be in a position to judge you, who are Jews(circumcised), yet nevertheless transgress the law. The context in which these two verses are found help to shed light on them.

Those verses don’t give any indication that the heathen man can be saved without faith in Christ. In fact, we have Rom 3:30 making it clear that the circumcised and the uncircumcised are both saved by faith - not by keeping the Law.

Thus wherever we observe any good, even in unenlightened and ignorant men, we should thank God for this and believe that God is using this as “preparation for the Gospel” and for the reception of further light and higher grace.

There are “good people” in all religions and even “good” atheists, however, that’s no good reason to suggest God is preparing them for the Gospel. We know it’s not true because most never receive further light - faith in Christ.

Can we truly believe that a man, be he a Muslim or a Jew, who fears God and does what is right and acceptable to God, will eternally perish in Hell, unless and only if he hears the Gospel and responds to it? Such a view really does strain credulity.

Much of the Gospel “strains credulity”. Nevertheless, what is truly incredulous is to declare that the object of faith is unimportant. You will simply not find this taught in Scripture.

Cornelius wanted to hear the Gospel and when it was preached unto him he warmly respond to it in repentance and faith. Now there are many adherents of false religions who are in the same position as Cornelius prior to his conversion. Sadly, some of these good people are not as fortunate as Cornelius and may not have an opportunity to hear the Gospel or claims of the Church in this life.

Why do you limit God’s ability to bring the Gospel to whomever He pleases? God handsomely maneuvered the situation so that Peter came to Cornelius already prepared “but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Is God less able today?

Could we apply rigidly the biblical criteria to mentally defectives or children dying in infancy? Of course not. Mental defectives cannot understand and respond to the Gospel in any articulate way, as far as we can tell.

This is a poor analogy as it has many problems. For one thing it ignores important differences between infants, the incompetent and the unevangelized. The latter are mature enough and therefore they are held accountable for their resistance to the light of the general revelation. As with repentance, it is God who gives faith so there’s no reason to suppose that infants and the incompetent cannot have faith. They may not be able to demonstrate saving faith but they certainly may have it.

No one is contending here that there are “different ways to salvation in scripture”. Christ is the Way and if a Muslim is finally saved, then he is saved by the merits of Christ’s Passion being applied to him, not by his false religion. The Catholic Church is simply being more opened-minded and open-armed to our fellow men and their experiences and beliefs. One could say that we have a more inclusive approach, but with an exclusive loyalty to Christ and his uniqueness as Saviour of the world.

Where is the “loyalty to Christ” when having faith in Him, as He commands, is now quite the option?

 

[nonsumd]

As I said, one has nothing to do with the other for the simple reason that I do not hold RCC’s teachings to be an accurate representation of inspired Scripture. My responsibility is to God and the written Word(the only testimony God calls inspired) not to the beliefs of a church.

I’m sure you understand that “heresy” is in the eye of the beholder? And since I possess no beliefs which are contrary to Scripture, I am confident that it is not I who deals in heresy.

kelman, since you identify yourself merely as “Protestant,” I have no idea what exactly your beliefs are and thus am in no position to know if any of your beliefs are “heretical.” There are 30,000 Protestant denominations each of which claims to possess the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Whenever the New Testament authors refer to the Scriptures as being “inspired,” they are referring to the Old Testament, to the Jewish scriptures. Only in this limited sense can we say that we have “written evidence from Scripture itself of God calling written word inspired.”

How do we know that the books of the New Testament are inspired? Because the Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared them so.

Those who profess to reject the authority of the Catholic Church seem to have no problem in accepting the authority of the Church with respect to what constitutes the Canon of Scripture.

Do you, as most Protestants do, regard the Eucharist as merely symbolic? Do you take Jesus to be speaking only figuratively when He declares the bread to be His Body and the wine His Blood? Do you not take Him literally when He says if you do not partake of these, you will not have eternal life?

If your answer to the above is yes, then you are not being consistent – you do hold a belief contrary to Scripture in that you reject a belief plainly stated in Scripture. You would then appear to be one of those who left the Lord because they found what He said to be a “hard teaching.”

 

[Portrait]

Many, if not most, of today’s Muslims and Jews would be guilty of what you call “culpable ignorance” for they know well the claims of Christianity so that particular rationalization also fails to solve the very real contradictions between past and present papal declarations.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your most recent replies.

As far as Pope Eugene is concerned, I would argue that his vision simply did not extend beyond the then known world in which he lived and moved and had his being. Thus as regards the dissemination of the Gospel, he could obviously only think in terms of the known world that he lived in and experienced. With respect to this world he, and others, undoubtedly believed that the Gospel had been preached to every man and this is why the historical context of Cantate Domino must be taken into account if one is to reach a correct understanding of its severe statements. The context does elucidate their meaning.

Again it is imperative that the harsh declarations of Cante Domino are not viewed in isolation, but considered within the context of the entire broad sweep of Catholic dogma. This broad sweep approach will include what the Church has to say regarding ‘baptism of desire’ and ‘invincible ignorance’. Many outside of the Church do aspire after the benefits which baptism declares, even though they might not fully realize it. To make such a statement is not to try to reconcile strongly held modern ecumenical interests with previous stern Church teaching (e.g.* Unam* Sanctum, 1302), but rather to seek to arrive at a balanced and correct view of what the Church actually teaches. This applies even to Sacred Scripture itself and we all know what unbalanced and bizzare opinions can result from taking a text out of context and then turning it into a pretext. The bible can be made to say whatever one wishes and it is precisely the same with Catholic dogma.

There are only “contradictions between past and present papal declarations” when what I have said in the aforementioned paragraph is completely ignored and statements are wrenched out of context to highlight alleged inconsistencies. Catholics today do not believe that the Church has suddenly decided to relax its doctrinal vigilance as regards the non-Catholic religions. It may adopt a more concilliatory tone than that used by Pope Eugene, but it has not altered its teaching so that now “anything goes”. The Church has in recent times simply affirmed that there are elements of truth and holiness not only in Judaism (something, I think, we can take for granted, given the biblically attested Divine origin of the faith of Israel) but in religions outside of the Judaeo-Christian tradition as well. BTW, the anchor-hold in ‘tradition’ for this assertion is the early Apologist St. Justin’s notion of the ‘seeds of the Word’ scattered throughout paganism - a notion tacitly accepted by the Church Fathers in their *careful *use of Greco-Roman philosophy, and highlighted by the Vatican II Decree on Missions when it speaks of a ‘secret presence of God’ in whatever ‘truth and grace are to be found among the nations’ (Ad Gentes 9). This, of course, is exceedingly far indeed from maintaining that the worlds relgions are in any way themselves salvific.

On the contrary, many of today’s Jews and Muslims sadly only view the Christian faith through a very distorted filter, the result of being bred in an atmosphere of downright prejudice and ignorance. Thus they are strangers to both Christ and the true claims of the Church through no deliberate fault of their own and so, dear friend, are hardly blameworthy. Moreover, how can they be condemned to eternal punishment for not responding to a Gospel that they have never heard preached?

A discussion of the role of good works is really a topic for another thread, but, suffice to say, “If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that everyone that doeth righteousness is born of him” (I Jn. 2: 29, AV). Whilst this cannot be taken to mean that if a non-Christian performs one or two isolated good works, he has the same status as a baptized member of the Church, nevertheless any performance of good works by a non-Christian would be held by St. John to emanate from God and a desire on God’s part that his ‘righteousness’ should be consumated in him by his embracing of Christ and the Church. In the final analysis it is an undeniable fact that a man who does righteousness must himself be righteous. Here is what the great Protestant commentator, Matthew Henry, says on Acts 10: 35: “…but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” - “Not that any man, since the fall, can obtain thee favour of God otherwise than through the mediation of Jesus Christ, and by the grace of God in him; but those that have not the knowldege of him, and therefore cannot have an explicit regard to him, may yet receive grace from God for his sake, to fear God and to work righteousness” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Vol. 6, Acts to Revelation, Hendrickson Publishers 2000). This is very little unlike the position of the Catholic Church, for we hold that God looks favourably upon the righteous men of Islam and Judaism who, sadly, “have not the knowledge of Him” and so “cannot have an explicit regard to him”, through no fault of their own. We call this inculpable ignorance. If a Muslim is finally saved then he will be saved “through the mediation of Jesus Christ, and by the grace of God in him”, not by his false religion.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

I advocate the Evangelical and biblical position that there is no salvation without faith in Christ. In fact, it is the inclusionary view which is without biblical support or historic Christian tradition. And since it is the former which is of importance, I’d like to see your scriptural support for that viewpoint.

In actuality, the exclusivist view is supported by the Bible which goes way beyond saying that Christ is the only means of salvation. It goes so far as to declare that one must believe on Him for salvation. We must never presume to judge the way in which God tells us He saves by thinking it “erroneous and harsh”. It’s far better to accept that God’s actions are always just and righteous whether or not we have full understanding of them – ”For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa 55:8-9).

Dear kelman,

Hello again. May I just say that I am finding this discussion very interesting and I thankyou for taking the time to engage in debate with us, even if we have deviated from the topic under review.

Conservative Evangelicals would certainly all hold, along with Catholics, that all salvation is the result of Christ’s Redemption. However, it is a fact that they would not all subscribe to the exclusivist postion that you yourself hold. Thus, for example, the late John Stott and J.I. Packer, both pillars of Protestant Evangelicalism, would take an inclusivist approach, not wholly dissimilar to Catholicism. Even Evangelicals most identified with the exclusivist standpoint differ considerably on the degree of exclusivism adopted. Moreover, it may said in passing that this illustrates that equally devout and equally bible believing men differ, on not only peripheral doctrines, but major teachings such as the eternal status of multitudes of non-Christians. This difference of opinion is the natural result of *sola *scriptura and only leads to a qaugmire of competing viewpoints. However, we have already debated this in another thread and I only bring it up now to show that Evangelicals do differ regarding cardinal doctrines.

Whilst the exclusive position is very strong biblically, logically and historically,it is, notwithstanding, an impossibly narrow understanding of the Christian religion. Moreover, many people find it jolly hard to to accept that the sovereign saving grace of God is limited to the missionary obedience and effectiveness of the Church and thus do not believe that exclusivism expresses the total truth. It seems to many Protestants and Catholics* prima* facie unfair that the criterion of who may or may not have the opportunity of being ‘saved’ at all should have to depend entirely and exclusively upon the human obedience of the Church. Especially since, by that criterion many millions of our race for many centuries have not had the remotest opportunity of being saved - indeed, no one at all, for example, in the American continents until the last quarter of the Christian era.

The alternative is surely to believe that among those who are ultimately saved there will be those whom God has saved through Christ who, though strangers to our dear Lord, turned in some measure of repentance and faith towards God by following the dictates of a good conscience etc., found grace in the eyes of God and will be surprised by joy when they meet our blessed Saviour, who will welcome them into His kingdom. Who and how many they may be I am content to leave in the hands of the Almighty, trusting in the perfect justice and mercy of God, who knows fully the hearts of all His creatures.

Again, the passages you cite pre-suppose that the Gospel has been preached unto certain men and that they have had the opportunity either to embrace the message of salvation or reject it. They are silent as to those who have not had the privilege of hearing the Gospel clearly and fairly presented.

Kelman, dear friend, I do not deny the truth of the texts you adduce in support of your position, I only say that they do not have any bearing on those who have never heard of Christ or the Gospel, or, if they have heard at all, then only through distorted lenses.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Yes, so you’ve said but where is the biblical support for that view? Rather, we find Scripture teaching that man’s fate is sealed upon his death - “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,”(Heb 9:27). For this reason God tells us that “today” is the day of salvation(2Cor 6:2).

Even if this was not advocating a works gospel it doesn’t offer any evidence that man gets a second chance after death. Are you sure your church actually teaches a second chance after death?..I’d be very surprised if it did. That sounds similar to the Mormon’s doctrine of “baptizing for the dead”.

Dear kelman,

The biblical support for the assertion that some may be saved without actually hearing and consciously responding to the Gospel is that “the judge of all the earth shall do right”. God is a God of mercy and goodness as well as severity and He will see to it that no man will be in Hell who does not deserve to be. Thus, along with many conservative Protestant scholars, Catholics hold out a charitable hope that those bred in ignorance or error, and who have not heard of Christ or the Gospel, may, by God’s infinite mercy, not be inevitably excluded from the benefit of Christ’s saving Passion.

True, the Hebrews text is very stern, but it does not inform as to what the judgement will be upon the unevangelised or those nursed in ignorance or superstition - Judgement does not necessarily always imply eternal damnation. The text simply says that after death a man will be judged, but it tells us nothing of what the judgement will consist.

As regards the second Corinthians passage, this is addressed to the Christian faithful and is an exhortation to make good use of the “acceptable time”, which extends over the whole period between the first and second Advent. Now indeed is the Christians acceptable time - yours and mine, dear friend. Now is our day of salvation and now, by God’s grace, we must make our calling and election sure if we are to be finally saved. The passage does not have any bearing on the unevangelised, for they cannot neglect a salvation of which they have never been the recipients of.

It is not question of those nursed in ignorance and error getting a “second chance”, since they were not guilty of rejecting the Gospel and the claims of the Church during their earthly sojourn. Again I ask, how can a man be condemned to eternal damnation for not responding to a Gospel or a Christ of which he is totally ignorant?

Yes, Christianity understands itself as the absolute religion intended for all mankind, which cannot recognize any other religion beside itself as of equal right. However, the Christian religion can only be this for people when it is actually encountered by them historically in a given context.

With respect to Cornelius, Sacred Scripture specifically implies that that good man, because he did what was right, was “acceptable” to God, even prior to his conversion. Now he was blessed to have the Gospel preached unto him, but there are many, even today, who are good and righteous as he was, and yet to whom, for one reason or another, the Gospel is not accessible. Surely, from what we know by revelation of God’s infinite mercy and justice, such men will be “acceptable” to God and their disadvantages taken into account by Him at the Last Judgement.

In the Romans passage (apologies for citing the wrong chapter) St. Paul does not mean that he could keep the law perfectly, so as not to need pardon and redemption, but that he could be like Cornelius, like Socrates and like many earnest and devout seekers after God, including those in false religions. The uncircumcised Gentile who lived, albeit imperfectly, up to the light which God had granted him, fulfilled, though unconsciously, the purpose which God had in giving the law and imposing circumcision. Moreover, it is fully in accordance with the character of a righteous and mericiful God that such a man should be, in His sight, as if he was one of the faithful. Therefore, I would argue that the passage fully supports the Catholic inclusivist position and is highly relevant.

Limiting God is the very thing that Catholics do not do, my dear brother, for they are not locked into a biblical rigidity that denies the possibilty of obtaining eternal salvation to those “who search for God with a sincere heart and, under the influence of grace, try to put into effect the will of God as known to them through the dictate of conscience” (Lumen Gentium 16).

Finally, yes, you are quite correct regarding mental defectives, because one can hardly make an exact comparison between the relative moral innocence of mentally defectives on the one hand and the moral guilt of responsible adults who are accountable. Nevertheless, the argument carries some weight if it does nothing more than suggest that more people will be finally saved than those who explicitly and intelligently confess faith Christ and His Church. Thus it leads to the hopeful openess the underpins the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Goodbye for now and thankyou for your time kelman and your excellent responses.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[LayingHands]

Even though I happen to agree with you, I must caution that you’re opening up Pandora’s box…once again! In a sense (as well as according to the Catechism, I believe), Jews do worship the same G-d as both Catholics and Protestants. However, what they do not believe, as you probably know, is that G-d is three Persons. IOW, they do not worship G-d Incarnate (Jesus) or G-d as a Triune G-d. But the monotheistic belief in G-d is the same in Judaism and Christianity since Jews are the “elder brothers and sisters” of Christians. The Catechism also speaks of monotheistic Islam as worshiping the same G-d; and here I’m opening Pandora’s box even wider. Buddhism is a little trickier, however. I’m no expert, but is there the belief in a personal G-d among Buddhists? There are different forms of Buddhism as well, aren’t there?

The box was opened long, long ago…Our Lord Jesus Christ refers to His Father, GOD, as THE One GOD, throughout the New Testament…

The problem occurs when GOD is then changed, to become: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit…the man made, Trinity.

All religions, therefore, believed in One Almighty GOD, Creator of the entire Cosmic Universes, ALL life, visible and invisable, the Cause of all Causes, the all in all…

The Science of GOD was written 5,000 years ago and is available to be read by all…and yes, even Budda was prophesized as GOD Incarnate…in one of GOD’s many earthly incarnations, HE descended…ONLY ONE ALMIGHTY GOD.

 

[kelman]

As far as Pope Eugene is concerned, I would argue that his vision simply did not extend beyond the then known world in which he lived and moved and had his being. Thus as regards the dissemination of the Gospel, he could obviously only think in terms of the known world that he lived in and experienced. With respect to this world he, and others, undoubtedly believed that the Gospel had been preached to every man and this is why the historical context of Cantate Domino must be taken into account if one is to reach a correct understanding of its severe statements…

It is inconceivable that Eugene(who was wealthy and well educated), and other bishops, were so geographically challenged and ignorant of current events of their day that they were unaware of unevangelized humanity. In fact, he was quite the educated man, a sincere friend of art and learning, and in 1431 he re-established the university at Rome.

The very fact that concerning the Canary Islands Eugene issued Bull after Bull declaring protection from slavery only for those who consented to conversion demonstrates he had knowledge of a wider “known world”. And, in fact, according to historian Richard Raiswell Eugene was asked to designate Portugal’s raids along the West African coast as a crusade, a consequence of which would be the legitimization of enslavement for captives taken during the crusade. It’s not my intension to get into culpability for slavery, however, I bring this up to demonstrate that your hypothesis of a small world view does not stand. Eugene was well aware that the “Gospel” had not gone out to, had not been preached to “the then known world”. Even so, he issued Cantate Domino declaring that salvation was not possible outside of the Roman church. This stands in direct contradiction to modern RCC teaching.

The context does elucidate their meaning.

I agree, the context does, however, what it elucidates is Eugene’s insistence that there is no salvation apart from the Roman church. It is an imposible position to hold that these men had no knowledge of foreign lands and the unevangelized therein as the above evidence demonstrates. Nevertheless, even within the supposed “known world”, where presumably knowledge of the Gospel could be found, Eugene still insisted that salvation outside of and allegiance to the Roman church was not possible. That is not the current teaching of the RCC.

Again it is imperative that the harsh declarations of Cante Domino are not viewed in isolation, but considered within the context of the entire broad sweep of Catholic dogma.

It has in fact been considered within the then sweep of Catholic dogma…but obviously that differs from today’s “sweep” of Catholic dogma. The point is that we know what the RCC teaches now about salvation and we know what it taught in the past and there is simply no way to reconcile these two positions.

On the contrary, many of today’s Jews and Muslims sadly only view the Christian faith through a very distorted filter, the result of being bred in an atmosphere of downright prejudice and ignorance. Thus they are strangers to both Christ and the true claims of the Church through no deliberate fault of their own and so, dear friend, are hardly blameworthy. Moreover, how can they be condemned to eternal punishment for not responding to a Gospel that they have never heard preached?

Few there are today who never heard the Gospel and besides you used the imagery of the Gospel as “seeds of the Word” scattered”. Reminiscent of the parable of the Sower and the Seed…some seeds fall upon rocks, some by the wayside. Only in the “good” ground does the Gospel take root and only God can make this ground(the heart) “good”.

A discussion of the role of good works is really a topic for another thread, but, suffice to say, “If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that everyone that doeth righteousness is born of him” (I Jn. 2: 29, AV). Whilst this cannot be taken to mean that if a non-Christian performs one or two isolated good works, he has the same status as a baptized member of the Church, nevertheless any performance of good works by a non-Christian would be held by St. John to emanate from God and a desire on God’s part that his ‘righteousness’ should be consumated in him by his embracing of Christ and the Church. In the final analysis it is an undeniable fact that a man who does righteousness must himself be righteous.

Works of “righteousness” cannot save, we are not justified by works. 1John 2:29 speaks to the righteousness of Christ, those who know the righteousness of Christ ”If ye know that he is righteous…” The one who is “born of Him” lays hold to the righteousness of Christ not his own works of “righteousness”; he performs good works because he is justified by the righteousness of Christ. Plenty there are who perform “works of righteousness” including the Atheist but without faith in Christ those works remain as Isaiah wrote - ”filthy rags”.

 

[kelman]

Here is what the great Protestant commentator, Matthew Henry, says on Acts 10: 35: “…but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” - “Not that any man, since the fall, can obtain thee favour of God otherwise than through the mediat! ion of Jesus Christ, and by the grace of God in him; but those that have not the knowldege of him, and therefore cannot have an explicit regard to him, may yet receive grace from God for his sake, to fear God and to work righteousness”

Henry is not saying that those who do not have explicit faith in Christ can be saved. He said that they “may yet receive grace from God for his sake, to fear God and to work righteousness”. Cornelius received this grace from God, however, he was not saved. He needed the special revelation which God sent via Peter.

Henry’s intent here is to explain that God is not “a respecter of persons” as is demonstrated by salvation (through faith in Christ) coming to the Gentile house of Cornelius. Henry explains that God does not distinquish between Jew or Gentile – ”Now in Christ Jesus, it is plain, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, Galatians 5:6,Col+3:11.”

The latter part of the sentence you quoted finishes with ”and wherever God gives grace to do so, as he did to Cornelius, he will, through Christ, accept the work of his own hands.” Henry indicates that God may give men the grace ”to fear God and to work righteousness” and give “some”, like Cornelius, further grace to receive the knowledge of Christ and thereby become saved. IV ”he [Peter] was sent to tell Cornelius what he must do, and it is this; his praying and his giving alms were very well, but one thing he lacked, he must believe in Christ. Observe, 1. Why he must believe in him. Faith has reference to a testimony, and the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, it is built upon the testimony given by them.” Clearly, Henry advocates the need for special revelation for salvation.

This is very little unlike the position of the Catholic Church,…

We can see that Henry’s position is very much different than the RCC’s. He knew, and wrote, that without faith in Christ there can be no salvation.

 

[kelman]

Conservative Evangelicals would certainly all hold, along with Catholics, that all salvation is the result of Christ’s Redemption. However, it is a fact that they would not all subscribe to the exclusivist postion that you yourself hold.

I agree, that’s why I never claimed that “all” Evangelicals, nevertheless, the vast majority are proponents of the exclusivism view.

Thus, for example, the late John Stott and J.I. Packer, both pillars of Protestant Evangelicalism, would take an inclusivist approach, not wholly dissimilar to Catholicism.

Not exactly. It is my understanding that John Stott was open to the inclusivism view but had not committed himself. Besides, for what it’s worth, he’s a well-know annihilationist.

As for J.I. Packer, he does not support the inclusivism view. He says in part ” The first thing to say, and with emphasis, is that beyond the stark factual statement (“the Bible offers no hope”), all is speculation. The stark statement is certainly correct. The New Testament, exegeted rationally and without reading into it what cannot be read out of it, tells us that the Christian faith is true for everybody, and that all need God’s forgiveness and rescue from the power of sin and Satan. All are called to turn to Jesus Christ and so become God’s adopted children, and eternal life comes only to those who do this.”

Even Evangelicals most identified with the exclusivist standpoint differ considerably on the degree of exclusivism adopted. Moreover, it may said in passing that this illustrates that equally devout and equally bible believing men differ, on not only peripheral doctrines, but major teachings such as the eternal status of multitudes of non-Christians. This difference of opinion is the natural result of sola scriptura and only leads to a qaugmire of competing viewpoints.

That men sometimes come to incorrect conclusions concerning Scripture cannot be laid at the feet of sola scriptura but rather at the feet of man’s sinful condition. Although wrong conclusions are more apt to stem from “scripture plus” churches which is plainly demonstrated in this inclusivism vs exclusivism debate. Speaking of a “quagmire of competing viewpoints” one need only look to the RCC as it has done a complete 180 turnabout on its teaching of who can be saved.

For those who truly practice sola scriptura the weight of Scriptures leads only to one conclusion – that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. Only apart from, and ignoring of, virtually dozens of scriptures can any other conclusion be reached.

Whilst the exclusive position is very strong biblically, logically and historically,it is, notwithstanding, an impossibly narrow understanding of the Christian religion.

That’s an amazing statement – that which is biblically “very strong” you call ”impossibly narrow”. This would seem to fall under the category of putting our own hearts and minds in opposition to God’s “very strong” position concerning faith in Jesus Christ. And yet the fact remains that we simply see no references in the NT to suggest that believing in God can save anyone apart from believing the Gospel.

It would appear that the vast majority of historical Christianity held the exclusivism view. The Creeds of the Christian faith certainly speak of faith in Christ for salvation. One in particular is quite explicit - the Creed of Athenasius (Trinitarian Formulation) begins with: ”Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire he will undoubtedly be lost forever.”. Midway it sternly warns: “This, then, is what he who wishes to be saved must believe about the Trinity. It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And ends with the following: ”This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen.”

I see no reason to disagree with this Creed and I thought all Christians, both Roman Catholics and Protestants, held it to be true.

Moreover, many people find it jolly hard to to accept that the sovereign saving grace of God is limited to the missionary obedience and effectiveness of the Church and thus do not believe that exclusivism expresses the total truth.

It shouldn’t be so hard to accept the Lord’s parting words…”make disciples of all nations”. Clearly evangelization is God’s chosen economy to bring man to salvation – that man might come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It seems to many Protestants and Catholics prima facie unfair that the criterion of who may or may not have the opportunity of being ‘saved’ at all should have to depend entirely and exclusively upon the human obedience of the Church.

Again, is not this an assumption that man’s ways are superior to that of God’s? What of the OT?..the Gentile nations?..did they have this “opportunity”? No, God dealt almost exclusively with the nation of Israel and those few Gentiles He intended to save had provision made for them by Him(special revelation).

 

[kelman]

The alternative is surely to believe that among those who are ultimately saved there will be those whom God has saved through Christ who, though strangers to our dear Lord, turned in some measure of repentance and faith towards God by following the dictates of a good conscience etc., found grace in the eyes of God and will be surprised by joy when they meet our blessed Saviour, who will welcome them into His kingdom.

God has created man with a conscience and has even written some of His laws upon his heart. For instance, instinctively, man knows it is wrong to murder or to steal. It is this internal general revelation which accounts for the “goodness” of man, where we see it. In fact, only because God has done so does man not destroyed himself. Nevertheless, God declares that general knowledge alone cannot save, although, it does leave us without excuse.

Who and how many they may be I am content to leave in the hands of the Almighty, trusting in the perfect justice and mercy of God, who knows fully the hearts of all His creatures.

However, you’re not content to trust in the plan God outlines for salvation. It appears you see this plan, which God preserves for us in the Bible, as somehow lacking mercy and justice.

Again, the passages you cite pre-suppose that the Gospel has been preached unto certain men and that they have had the opportunity either to embrace the message of salvation or reject it. They are silent as to those who have not had the privilege of hearing the Gospel clearly and fairly presented.

Clearly the OT is not “silent” on this issue. God revealed Himself to only one nation and the rest were left in darkness with only a few exceptions.

Kelman, dear friend, I do not deny the truth of the texts you adduce in support of your position, I only say that they do not have any bearing on those who have never heard of Christ or the Gospel, or, if they have heard at all, then only through distorted lenses.

Where is such a thing even intimated in Scripture?..that man can be saved apart from faith in Christ? Within Scripture, where is permission given to say that God’s words do not apply to certain people? Where is the permission to say that general revelation is sufficient for salvation?..especially in light of Rom 1:19-32 which plainly states that it alone cannot accomplish salvation?

No, we simply should not offer our speculation against the sure words of Scripture. We are not offered explicit teaching or can we even implicitly derive from Scripture that general revelation suffices for salvation. Those who do not hear of Christ will be condemned, not for denying the gospel but for sinning when they knew better and they know better because God has revealed Himself as Creator, demonstrating His eternal power and divine nature(Rom 1:20).

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. kelman

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your recent dispatches. Since it is my custom to take a breather from the boards at weekends, I will, God willing, respond to your posts on Monday. Thankyou for your patience, dear brother.

God bless and hope you have a pleasant enjoyable weekend, whatever you plan to do.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[Monica4316]

Greetings~
Well, here I am in a mess again.
My husband is a Lutheran and he was deeply offended when I told him that Catholics have a different God than Lutherans have because the way I saw it, there was no way it ever could be the same one, the qualities are too disimilar. Protestants are too quick to say we make everything up.
It’s a bit strange because if our God *is the same *then either we are all going to hell or they are all going to hell. Better choose wisely. I knew I needed to find out for sure…
My husband said oh sure, go to CAF and ask the Catholics but I told him that the people on these forums are completely unbiased and have schooled me when I have been wrong and enlightened me about things when I needed to know the truth. So that’s why I posted here again
Thanks so much for reading this thread,
Jen

Jen, I think that Protestants worship the same God but there are things that they are mistaken on, like the Real Presence, or if they hold to heresies. They still believe in Christ though, and the Holy Trinity (for most Protestants). The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth…however Protestants also believe in Christ and most of them have been baptized… Protestant baptism is accepted by the Catholic Church, as long as it’s done properly (hence converts are not re-baptized).

As a convert, I can say that what helped a lot in my conversion were Catholics who saw me as their sister in Christ, even though I was Protestant and they were Catholic. Of course they didn’t agree with me on some things, and we don’t worship in common. But they spoke with much humility and charity and that helped me a lot to consider Catholicism. Of course I’m not accusing you of lacking in charity or humility since I cant know that, but just something to keep in mind when talking with your husband about faith. There are things that we shoudn’t do, like participate in Protestant services or share Communion, but Protestants do believe in the same God, even though they don’t have all of Tradition.

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

The same God!
The same God!

And I think those who follow the Jewish religion, the Buddhist religion…etc…that is the same God, too.
Not sure what others here think on that? Or what the, um, “official” position is on that?

After all, if we are taught there is only one God, then there is only one God. Period.
Even if someone else has a different way of trying to get to that God…it’s still, just one God, is it not?

God is God. No matter how differently someone wants to dress Him up or give a different name to call Him…

There is one God, so whoever believes in one God, they got that part right. If they believe in gods and idols, they don’t believe in God. However, if they believe in one God and yet don’t believe in Christ and the Holy Trinity… then they got the other information about Him wrong, and are believing a heresy by denying the Holy Trinity. So for that reason we hope for all to believe in Christ… especially because we reach the Father through the Son.

God bless

 

[kelman]

The biblical support for the assertion that some may be saved without actually hearing and consciously responding to the Gospel is that “the judge of all the earth shall do right”. God is a God of mercy and goodness as well as severity and He will see to it that no man will be in Hell who does not deserve to be.

All men deserve to be in hell – so says “the judge of all the earth…” - that is definitively taught in Scripture.

True, the Hebrews text is very stern, but it does not inform as to what the judgement will be upon the unevangelised or those nursed in ignorance or superstition…

The purpose of my quoting Heb 9:27 was to answer your claim that man’s fate is not sealed upon death. Nevertheless, the verse is teaching that it is God who appoints all things including the time of man’s death. And clearly the “judgment” spoken about is the last general judgment at the end of time with Christ as Judge. Man’s final judgment is here likened to Christ’s judgment at the Cross and the certainty of His judgment on mankind when He returns – ”and after this cometh judgment so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him unto salvation.”

You’re right, Heb 9 doesn’t specify what the judgment will be because that’s not the intent of the verse nor was it my reason for using it. Rather, the verse, and my use of it, was to demonstrate that man’s fate is sealed at death, iow, there remains no second chance for salvation after death which is the claim you made. While the Hebrew verse "does not inform as to what the judgement will be upon the unevangelised”, other biblical texts such as Rom 2:12, for example, do.

As regards the second Corinthians passage, this is addressed to the Christian faithful and is an exhortation to make good use of the “acceptable time”, which extends over the whole period between the first and second Advent.

Actually this particular verse extends over the period of time from the OT and the Lord’s return. We know this because Paul here is paraphrasing Isaiah 49:8 as he begins with: “For he saith…” And again, I used this verse to refute your claim that man has a second “chance” after he dies. I’d be happy to quote at least a few more of the myriad of verses, over 200 strong, which actually do speak to the fact that man must have faith Christ for the hope of salvation….but these two references were not offered for that purpose.

It is not question of those nursed in ignorance and error getting a “second chance”, since they were not guilty of rejecting the Gospel and the claims of the Church during their earthly sojourn. Again I ask, how can a man be condemned to eternal damnation for not responding to a Gospel or a Christ of which he is totally ignorant?

And I will answer as I did before, man is condemned not because he has rejected the Gospel rather he is condemned because of his sins.

Yes, Christianity understands itself as the absolute religion intended for all mankind, which cannot recognize any other religion beside itself as of equal right. However, the Christian religion can only be this for people when it is actually encountered by them historically in a given context.

I maintain that the inclusivism view does see all religions on the same footing since all non-Christian religions also are said to “have light” and it matters not a whit if they desire Christ as their Savior or not. The problem with this view is that Scripture is diametrically opposed to it. In all of Scripture, we see one means of salvation – the special revelation of faith in the Messiah. Anything else is simply the stuff of speculation and man’s desire to put God in a box of his own making. Do we dare ask ourselves how “just” it was of God to judge all mankind because of Adam’s sin?

With respect to Cornelius, Sacred Scripture specifically implies that that good man, because he did what was right, was “acceptable” to God, even prior to his conversion.

Being “acceptable” to God is simply another way of saying “elect” and these can be found “in every nation”….again, because God is not a respecter of persons. The Cornelius account isn’t saying that all “good” men will be saved. Prior to the hearing of the Gospel Cornelius was still unsaved. We see this in Acts 11:14-15 where Peter uses the future tense: "Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.” It was through Peter’s preaching of Christ that Cornelius came to faith. Those accompanying Peter exclaimed: ”then God has even granted the Gentiles repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18) with the clear understanding that a true God-given repentance leads to eternal life and without such there is no eternal life. We see no references in the NT to suggest that believing in God can save anyone apart from believing the Gospel.

Surely, from what we know by revelation of God’s infinite mercy and justice, such men will be “acceptable” to God and their disadvantages taken into account by Him at the Last Judgement.

While none can disagree that God is a God of mercy and justice, however, we cannot superimpose our sinful perceptions of how He should mete out that mercy and justice. God’s love is unconditional, but the eternal benefits are undeniably conditional (John 3:16-18). The belief that those who never hear the Gospel can be saved through natural revelation ignores the stipulations of God’s conditional love.

 

[kelman]

In the Romans passage (apologies for citing the wrong chapter) St. Paul does not mean that he could keep the law perfectly, so as not to need pardon and redemption, but that he could be like Cornelius, like Socrates and like many earnest and devout seekers after God, including those in false religions.

Except that being like Cornelius is to know about Jesus Christ and that salvation is in Him alone. In the account of Lydia, we don’t see that she knew anything about Jesus Christ, although, it says she “worshipped God”. She needed to have God “open her heart” so that she might attend to Paul’s preaching of the Gospel.

The uncircumcised Gentile who lived, albeit imperfectly, up to the light which God had granted him, fulfilled, though unconsciously, the purpose which God had in giving the law and imposing circumcision.

This ignores Rom 1:20-32 which is the clearest statement in Scripture that the power of salvation is the Gospel (1:16) and the longest litany of sins in the Bible (1:22-32), which is man’s best response to natural revelation. We can hold Him to His Word and He has spoken quite clearly regarding the fate of those who have never heard the Gospel.

Moreover, it is fully in accordance with the character of a righteous and mericiful God that such a man should be, in His sight, as if he was one of the faithful. Therefore, I would argue that the passage fully supports the Catholic inclusivist position and is highly relevant.

In fact, we see it does the precise opposite. Cornelius is clearly shown to be in need of special revelation to become saved (verses 36-38) as was Lydia.

Limiting God is the very thing that Catholics do not do, my dear brother, for they are not locked into a biblical rigidity that denies the possibilty of obtaining eternal salvation to those “who search for God with a sincere heart and, under the influence of grace, try to put into effect the will of God as known to them through the dictate of conscience” (Lumen Gentium 16).

Not only is that view “not locked into a biblical rigidity” it is totally dismissive of it. God has spoken yet man, whose mind is corrupted by sin, insists on superimposing his will upon God by essentially declaring that he is more loving, more merciful and more just than God shows Himself to be.

The NT flatly rejects the inclusivism view. John states: ** “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life”** (1 John 5:12). Paul declares: “…there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

How then does God view the entire world?.. “There is no one righteous, not even one” (Rom 3:9-10). All are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). All are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3). The world is already under condemnation (Rom 3:19-20). All are alienated from the life of God (Eph 4:18), ignorant of the truth of God (Rom 1:25), hostile to the law of God (Rom 8:7), disobedient to the will of God (Titus 3:3), fall short of the righteous demands of God (Rom 3:23), and subject to the wrath of God (John 3:19)." No room in God’s view for the so-called “anonymous Christian”. As we’ve just seen, the only way inclusivism can be upheld is to flat-out reject Scripture.

The Bible is not silent on the destiny of those who have never heard the Gospel. In Rom 2:12 Paul groups people into two – those who have sinned apart from the law and will perish and those who have sinned under the law who will perish ”For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;”

Theologian John Murray comments on these two groups Paul describes in Rom 2:12:

*”The contrast is…between those who were outside the pale of special revelation and those who were within [that pale].

With reference to the former the apostle’s teaching is to the following effect: (1) Specially revealed law is not the precondition of sin—“as many as have sinned without the law”. (2) Because such are sinners they will perish. The perishing referred to can be none other than that defined in the previous verses as consisting in the infliction of God’s wrath and indignation and endurance of tribulation and anguish in contrast with the glory, honor, incorruption, and peace bestowed upon the heirs of eternal life. (3) In suffering this perdition they will not be judged according to a law which they did not have, namely, specially revealed law—they “shall also perish without the law.” There is, therefore, an exact correspondence between the character of their sin as “without the law” and the final destruction visited upon them as also “without the law.”*

So, we find no special pleading for those “who have not the law”.

 

[PRmerger]

As I said, one has nothing to do with the other for the simple reason that I do not hold RCC’s teachings to be an accurate representation of inspired Scripture.

And yet it is only through this Catholic Church’s teachings that you actually know what is “inspired Scripture.”

It is because the CC discerned for you that Hebrews is inspired, that you quote from it.

You would not know it any other way.

It is because the CC discerned for you that the Gospel of Thomas is NOT inspired that you do not proclaim that Jesus caused clay animals to come to life.

My responsibility is to God and the written Word(the only testimony God calls inspired) not to the beliefs of a church.

Well, you are quite Catholic when you proclaim that the only testimony God calls inspired is the Sacred Scriptures.

But it is only through the teachings of this Church that you know what is the “Written Word” and what are simply ancient Christian texts. There were over 400 written testimonies about the life of Christ and his apostles in the first years of Christianity.

How does a Christian know what’s inspired and what’s not?

It’s not a case of “I’ll know it when I see it!” but rather, “I know it’s inspired because some other authority* told me it’s inspired!”

*(Here, read: the Catholic Church).

I’m sure you understand that “heresy” is in the eye of the beholder? And since I possess no beliefs which are contrary to Scripture, I am confident that it is not I who deals in heresy.

 

[PRmerger]

From the Catholic Church’s point of view, Protestants are heretics, and so papal documents that condemn heretics do apply to you.

Actually, nonsumd, this is not correct. Our Catechism declares this:

However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church. CCC 818

Heresy only applies to those who have rejected the Faith that was delivered to them–that is, only Catholics who leave can be heretics.

Now, in the case of papal pronouncements regarding heretics, as these declarations occurred at a time when there only were Catholics–no Protestants–it cannot refer to Protestants.

 

[CMatt25]

And yet it is only through this Catholic Church’s teachings that you actually know what is “inspired Scripture.”

My friend PRmerger, I know this is a huge selling point for you as I have seen you use it before. However when I’ve presented the same argument to Protestants, the responses have gone somewhat along these lines: Of course God could have used the Church at the time to formulate Scripture. Or God could use whatever entity He chose to compile the Bible. He’s God.

But when one’s faith is such that the believer holds to the belief that the Catholic Church strayed and reform was needed to keep Christ’s Church on the path He meant for it to be on… Or a faith is held onto that His Church consists of all believers as being part of the Body of Christ… the point that the Catholic Church at the time compiled Scripture doesn’t seem to hold much credence to the Protestants I’ve brought the argument to. Which I confess has not been many. At least this has been my experience.

 

[nonsumd]

Actually, nonsumd, this is not correct. Our Catechism declares this:

However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church. CCC 818

Heresy only applies to those who have rejected the Faith that was delivered to them–that is, only Catholics who leave can be heretics.

Now, in the case of papal pronouncements regarding heretics, as these declarations occurred at a time when there only were Catholics–no Protestants–it cannot refer to Protestants.

So, PRmerger, Martin Luther was a heretic, but anyone born into Lutheranism is not a heretic, right?

I’d go for that, actually.

Perhaps there’s a difference between “being a heretic (holding heretical beliefs)” and “being guilty of the sin of separation.”

Or perhaps we should distinguish “heretics” (e.g. Luther) from “separated brethren” (e.g. born Lutherans).