Not the same God?

[PRmerger]

PR, I’ve been pondering your thought process about the NT not being complied for centuries. Don’t you think though it is possible that words from the writings ending up in the canon of Scripture were available and used by and studied by Christians long before they were complied together into the NT?

Indeed, they were, Matt. Indeed they were.

The Good News was available first through Oral Transmission of the Word.

Then, it is believed that 1 Thessalonians was the first to be written.
Followed by Philippians and then Galatians.
The last inspired text to be written is thought to be 2 Peter.

How the Church discerned that, say, Galatians was inspired but that the Gospel of Barnabas was not was through what conformed with the Oral Teaching of the Apostles and their successors.

So it was the Church that used her authority. And the Church that sought recourse in the Oral Transmission of the Word.

In other words, it is through Sacred Tradition that all of us today acknowledge the Scriptures are inspired.

It is very, very hard to get Protestants to acknowledge this.

But not impossible.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Indeed, they were, Matt. Indeed they were.

.
It is very, very hard to get Protestants to acknowledge this.

Much like it would be very,very hard to get anyone to acknowledge something they know to be false.

 

[PRmerger]

Just as it would be very,very hard to get anyone to acknowledge something they knew to be false.

Could you please point out the part that you feel was false?

Was it the part about there not being a Bible for over 400 years and that the kerygma was spread through Oral Transmission?

Or the fact that the Church discerned for you what was* theopneustos* and what was not?

 

[bmullins]

I always find it ironic when someone uses the oral tradition written down in the New Testament to say that we shouldn’t follow tradition.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Could you please point out the part that you feel was false?

Or the fact that the Church discerned for you what was* theopneustos* and what was not?

From reading through a few of your posts I believe I’m safe in assuming by “Church” you’re referring to the particular denomination to which you belong.

The “fact” is no ecclesial body has “discerned” for anyone that which is theopneustos.

Do you believe the One who declares, “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?” (Jer 32:27) needs an arbiter?

 

[PRmerger]

From reading through a few of your posts I believe I’m safe in assuming by “Church” you’re referring to the particular denomination to which you belong.

The “fact” is no ecclesial body has “discerned” for anyone that which is theopneustos.

Do you believe the One who declares, "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?" (Jer 32:27) needs an arbiter?

Well, Samson, then you’re going to have to explain how you understand the Bible came to be.

Clearly you don’t believe that it came floating down from heaven delivered by a dove, leather-bound and in King James format?

God used people, Catholic people, Catholic bishops to be specific to reveal what was inspired and what was not.

There were over 400 Christian texts in existence in the earliest days of Christianity.

How do you know which ones are inspired, except through the authority of someone else, Samson?

[SIGN1]There is **no other way **you could know that Hebrews is inspired and the Shepherd of Hermas isn’t. [/SIGN1]

 

[kelman]

I always find it ironic when someone uses the oral tradition written down in the New Testament to say that we shouldn’t follow tradition.

I see nothing “ironic” since we don’t have any inspired oral tradition today. There are no inspired words of Jesus Christ or His Apostles other than what we find in the Bible.

And because we do not possess any oral teaching of an Apostle today, only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God.

 

[kelman]

PR, I’ve been pondering your thought process about the NT not being complied for centuries. Don’t you think though it is possible that words from the writings ending up in the canon of Scripture were available and used by and studied by Christians long before they were complied together into the NT?

These letters were acknowledged as Scripture by God’s people as they circulated throughout the churches even as the Apostles still lived. Therefore, presumably the Apostles themselves would have significant influence.

Well before any council was ever held the people of God recognized His “voice”. That various councils wanted to make it official is to be expected, however, that does not imply the council “decided” the canon. Just as Jamina did not “decide” the OT. It simply made official that which was already recognized.

We have some evidence from tradition that the Apostle John canonized the four gospels. Origen wrote: “John collected the written Gospels in his own lifetime in the reign of Nero (54-68 CE), and approved of and recognized those of which the deceit of the devil had not taken possession; but refused and rejected those which he perceived were not truthful” (Hom. Lk. 1, fr. 9).

 

[Portrait]

This answers your concern of “distorted lens”…God obviously anticipates these distortions. These are speculations on the manner in which you suppose the Gospel must be received and we simply don’t see these speculations supported by Scripture.

In deed it will be said by way of reply that Cornelius still needed to be saved, still needed to hear the Gospel – that is precisely the point. This truth simply can’t be glossed over with what amounts to emotional speculation – what we think God should be doing as opposed to what He is doing.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Compliments of the Season. Thankyou for all of your replies to date and my apologies for not responding to them sooner, but, alas, I have been otherwise engaged. However, I will make every effort, my dear brother, to answer them during the course of this week, God willing.

As a Protestant Christian you are failing, quite understandably, to make any allowance for the development and expansion of Church dogma and this leads to the erroneously belief that post VII Church teaching is not congruent with previous teaching. Development of Church dogma has led the conclusion that the Church extends not only to her avowed baptised membership, but also to all men of good will who earnestly seek after truth. This does not mean that all men will necessarily benefit from the salvific plan, merely that they may do so. However, notwithstanding the unbiblical Calvinistic theory of the indefectibility of grace, that is true for Christian and non-Christian alike: the whole course of this life is a state of probation and men, because they are endowed with freewill, can defect from the faith. Apostasy is always a very real possibility as long as we remain and live in this world.

The Parable of the Sower is not germane to the topic currently under review as it treats of four states of heart and says nothing about the inculpably ingnorant who never even have the opportunity to receive the word in the first place. In each case our Lord specifically states that the “word of the kingdom” is heard (S. Matt. 13: 19,20,22,23).

The case of Cornelius is very unique event inasmuch as the Gentiles were formally being admitted to the Church for the very first time. Thus it was most fitting that St. Peter should preach Christ unto Cornelius so that all could see that the Gentiles had also been “granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11: 18) and that “the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11: 15). We would expect the man upon whom Christ established His Church, and who was given the “keys”, to be present to preach Christ and open the doors of the Kingdom to the household of Cornelius, the firstfruits of the Gentiles (equally he shut those doors in the case of Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8)). Therefore, it is just reading too much into the narrative to use it prove that that a man must always have the Gospel preached unto him if he is to be brought into a state of salvation.

The passages that you cite from the Romans and Corinthian epistles simply declare the universal sinfulness of mankind, with which no Catholic would quarrel. They do not address the invincibly ignorant and those who sincerely aspire after the benefits which the Sacrament of baptism declares. They do not expressly deny that our Lord’s Incarnation and Passion may be extended to many who have not heard His Blessed name. Contrary, to what you contend, dear friend, Sacred Scripture pronounces no opinion on the state of the unevangelised (or upon men of good will) and we must resort to our informed view of divine revelation and what is says respecting the infinite mercy of God and, especially, the infallible teaching of the Church, which has spoken authoritatively upon such matters.

Whilst little is said in God’s word respecting those who who live and die out of reach of the Gospel, sufficient is revealed, not only to make us recoil from pronouncing their condemnation, because we are taught not to judge “those outside” (I Cor. 5: 12-13), but even enough to enable us to entertain a good hope concerning them. God is “the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe” (I Tim. 4: 10) - an expression which surely can only mean that others besides the Christians or “believers” can be saved. St. Paul also speaks of the “Gentiles who have not law do by nature what the law requires” showing “what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness” (Rom. 2: 14,15), and it is probable that the parable of the Sheep and Goats in St. Matthew’s Gospel (chapter 25) is intended to refer primarily to their case. Consequently, notwithstanding what some individuals (e.g. Father Leonard Feeney) or groups have taught, the Catholic Church has never denied the possibilty of salvation to non-Christians. Whatever grace may be theirs here, or glory granted them in the next life, they will only have been saved by Christ, who is “the true light that enlightens every man…coming into the world” (S. Jn. 1: 9).

To conclude this post I give these excellent words by the great Victorian Protestant scholar, Dr. Arnold, which are most apposite: “I hold it to be a most certain rule of interpreting Scripture that it never speaks of persons when their is a physical impossibility of its speaking* to* them…So the heathen, who died before the word was spoken, and in whose land it was never preached, are dead to the word; it concerns them not at all: but the moment it can reach them it is theirs, and for them” (Dr. Arnold’s Life and Correspondence).

More to follow.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[PRmerger]

These letters were acknowledged as Scripture by God’s people as they circulated throughout the churches even as the Apostles still lived. Therefore, presumably the Apostles themselves would have significant influence.

This is exactly what Sacred Tradition is!

Well before any council was ever held the people of God recognized His “voice”.

Again, this is a wonderful definition of Sacred Tradition.

That various councils wanted to make it official is to be expected, however, that does not imply the council “decided” the canon. Just as Jamina did not “decide” the OT. It simply made official that which was already recognized.

Right. We actually say that the Church “discerned” the canon of Scripture.

But, again, this is a perfect example of the charism of Sacred Tradition at work.

Of course, when you talk about things being recognized by the “people of God”, we understand that to be the Catholic bishops. Simply any first century Christian running around had no authority to declare “Hebrews” to be inspired but the “Shepherd of Hermas” not to be.

 

[Portrait]

Had Cornelius died without benefit of Peter’s preaching of the Gospel(faith in Christ) he would not be saved….and surely would not be spending any time in a place which doesn’t exist

Yes, we know what your church says but what does God say through His inspired Word? We see in Rom 10:13-15 that Scripture does not agree: ”For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written,”.

It is important to notice Paul’s breakdown in his series of questions: “calling on”, “believing in”, “hearing about”, “preaching to”, and “being sent.” “The clear implications of these questions is that if missionaries are not sent to preach the gospel of Christ to those who have not heard about him in order that they may hear about him, believe in him, and call upon his name for salvation, these unevangelized people, who are condemned already, will remain unsaved and cannot and will not be saved by any other means.

Dear kelman,

Hello again. Thankyou for the above.

If Cornelius was “a devout man who feared God with all his household” and was acceptable to God (Acts 10: 2), then, yes, it is surely very probable that he would have been eternally saved had he died before St. Peter arrived and preached to him. Do you really believe that such “a devout man who feared God” would have been consigned to Hell fire, simply because he might have had the misfortune to have died before St. Peter’s arrival? My dear friend, we are talking here of one who “gave alms liberally” and who “prayed constantly to God” (Acts 10: 2). Indeed, these prayers and alms had “ascended as a memorial before God” (10: 4). Whatever may said respecting Cornelius, it admits of no doubt that even before his conversion he was a pious and reverent man who had renounced his false gods and by his teaching and example had taught his household to do likewise. His piety also was not devoid of fruit, but showed itself in deeds of mercy and earnest prayer unto God. By observing simple moral duties of love and kindness towards his fellowman he had been doing them to Christ, even though he was unaware of this before he embraced the Gospel (cf. S. Matt. 25: 34-40).

Whilst I would agree that the Roman’s passage you reference is of importance in showing the necessity of missionary endeavour, it rather, I think, supports my position than the inflexible one that you are seeking to uphold. Men cannot call upon the name of the Lord unless they have first believed, and they cannot believe, unless they have been taught. Thus the man who is invincibly ignorant cannot be blamed if he does not so call upon the Lord, especially if he has been nursed in ignorance or prejudice - we are back to Dr. Arnold’s wise words again (quoted in my previous post today). A man is only responsible when he hears a full and faithful presentation of the Gospel by a missionary; the moment it can reach him it is his and he must make his choice for the Saviour of the world and enter the Church by baptism. All that we must insist on is that men are bound to do their utmost to attain to further truth, and, when it is found, to live up to it and to the claims that it makes upon them (cf. S. Jhn. 7: 17).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Each denomination is united in agreement on theological issues - no different than the RCC. Nevertheless, for both groups being “unified” is no guarantee of correct conclusions.

Not so “deeply divided” as you insinuate. The vast majority of Evangelicals are agreed that inclusivism is not biblical ”Ditto with ‘annihiliationism’” and as we’ve seen it lacks biblical support.

With regard to inclusivism, it’s not difficult to know who is correct ***if *** the Bible is permitted to offer its truths.

God addresses general and special revelation quite adequately in Rom 1 and even in the OT where we see that special revelation was a necessary means to salvation.

We find that this is simply not true. Regardless of how often we are told that “Jews and pagans” were members of the RCC and, therefore, Eugene was not condemning all those outside of RCC, it lacks credibility and is, in fact, an incredulous statement.

Obviously the Bible is not on the side of the inclusivist since no scriptures are offered to support that view. There simply is no clear unambiguous biblical support for this position. Inclusivism is an emotional and sentimental viewpoint using human “justice” rather than what we see God to be teaching in the Bible. Since this teaching is not found in Scripture, obviously, it cannot and is not a product of sola Scriptura.

There’s precious little appeal to Scripture for the inclusivist. It is the Scriptures themselves which say that the exclusivist view is correct.

Dear kelman,

Thankyou for your response above.

You write that “each denomination is united in agreement on theological issues”, but sadly it is divided from other denominations over different interpretations of the same bible. However, some ecclesial communions are not actually in agreement on faith and morals. As an example of this, I would cite the church of England (my own former denomination) in which you have at least three distinct ‘parties’ - Evangelical Reformed, Anglo-Catholic and Liberal Broad church. These are decidedly not agreed and each believe that the others are of alien growth and not authentically Anglican. Believe me, dear friend, the Anglican communion is very much a mixed multitude and Dr. Rowan Williams has an impossible task holding these these divers parties together in one body. As our Lord said, “a house divided against itself cannot stand” and you only have to look at world-wide Anglicanism today to see how very true that is. The entire denomination is in terminal decline, which is what one would expect in a body which boasts of its comprehesiveness and tolerance as regards doctrine.

The fragmented condition of present day Protestantism and the unbroken unity of the Catholic Church are obvious even to the most casual observer. The conclusion which can be drawn from this contrast is that individual private judgment leads one along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions, whereas the infallible church leads men to a common conviction as they share in the life of the one true fold. The presence of dissidents within the fold does not invalidate this claim to unity one iota, for dissidents are not the magisterium and thus do not speak authoritatively on behalf of the Church on faith or morals.

As to who is or who is not inclusivist among the Evangelicals, would largely depend on which Evangelicals you were talking to. They are a very large grouping indeed and there are, needless to say, many interpretations of Sacred Scripture and many ‘insights’. Thus some would be inclusivists and some would not be. That does prove how deeply divided they are, not only on this issue, but many others as well.

An inclusivist understanding only seems to lack biblical warrant if one adopts a very inflexible approach to the biblical data and is locked into letter of scripture, rather than its spirit.

The fact is, dear friend, that equally devout and equally bible believing men do interpret the bible on this topic very different to yourself. Who are we to believe? This is why we need the infallible Church to speak authoritatively on the matter, which it has done. The Catholic Church does not change its teaching, but it does develop and expand its dogma. Thus there is no salvation outside of the Church, but this only means that without the Catholic Church, no man can be eternally saved. The merits of Christs saving Passion can be applied to the men of good will and God fearers and they may (not will) attain final salvation, if they were truly invincibly ignorant through no fault of their own.

To remark that there is “precious little appeal to Scripture for the inclusivist”, is only your opinion based upon, as I said above, a very inflexible approach to the biblical data and a refusal to to look at the widness of God’s mercy. Moreover, there are biblical passages that do in fact support an inclusivist understanding (I have already drawn your attention to these), it is just that you do not accept them or elucidate them differently, which is not quite the same as saying that there is no evidence. Again though I bound to say that this only serves to underscore the necessity for an unerring guide and authoritative voice to decide which interpretation is correct.

Goodbye for now kelman. Hopefully, I will respond to your other posts tommorow.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[kelman]

As a Protestant Christian you are failing, quite understandably, to make any allowance for the development and expansion of Church dogma and this leads to the erroneously belief that post VII Church teaching is not congruent with previous teaching.

That theology “develops” is not in doubt, however, “dogma” cannot develop past what is found in Scripture or can reasonably be deduced from it. And under no imaginable scenario can we deduce from Scripture that faith in Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation. Therefore, any such “development” must be rejected. There has been no evidence offered which negates the fact that over the period of centuries a number of popes issued very similar letters declaring that there is no salvation outside of the RCC which is distinctly different from today’s teaching.

However, notwithstanding the unbiblical Calvinistic theory of the indefectibility of grace,…

RCC is “indefectible”?..but not the grace of God to save?..a rather interesting concept. Between the two principles only one is taught within the pages of Scripture – God’s grace in salvation is indefectable – because the Lord Jesus Christ is the exclusive meritorious ground of justification and life.

The Parable of the Sower is not germane to the topic currently under review…

Actually, this parable is germane to your speculations on the manner in which the Gospel must be heard and received. You speculate that it must be heard without “distorted lenses, prejudice or warped thinking”. Whereas, God simply says the heart/ground must be good and only God can make our sinful hearts “good”(Eze 36:26).

The case of Cornelius is very unique event inasmuch as the Gentiles were formally being admitted to the Church for the very first time.

The church is not built upon the person of Peter as even most ECFs agree. Nor did Peter “shut the door” only Jesus Christ has the “key” which “opens and closes” – no mere human does: ”… These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;”(Rev 3:7). As for Mat 16:19, obviously, this is not the place to discuss that.

In any event, Cornelius did not attain salvation through some other path; it was necessary for the Gospel to be preached for him to become saved just as is the case everywhere else in Scripture. Scripture attests to the fact that it is faith in the work of Christ as Savior through which man is justified. There is no legitimate reason to reject this biblical fact.

Contrary, to what you contend, dear friend, Sacred Scripture pronounces no opinion on the state of the unevangelised (or upon men of good will) and we must resort to our informed view of divine revelation and what is says respecting the infinite mercy of God and, especially, the infallible teaching of the Church, which has spoken authoritatively upon such matters.

As a RC, it is your job to believe what your churches teaches, however, most assuredly there is no “infallibility” involved. In fact, from what God has given us in Scripture we find the only possible legitimate biblical position is that faith in Jesus Christ is not optional – as your church, and some others, teach.

Whilst little is said in God’s word respecting those who who live and die out of reach of the Gospel, sufficient is revealed, not only to make us recoil from pronouncing their condemnation, because we are taught not to judge “those outside”,

Paul was admonishing the church to censure such members as were sinning. Therefore, 1Cor 5:12 is speaking about ecclesiastical judgment so obviously those “without” do not fall under the church’s judgment. So, these verses actually offer no support for inclusivism.

God is “the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe” (I Tim. 4: 10) - an expression which surely can only mean that others besides the Christians or “believers” can be saved.

Clearly, this verse is not teaching that “others” can be saved. Unless you are a universalist(all men will be saved), this verse is speaking about God as the Savior of all men in a general providential way. All men have their being because of God, He cares for this earth and its people and in that sense is “the Savior of all men”. However, it is only too obvious(unless you’re a universalist) that God is not the Savior of all men with an everlasting spiritual salvation. However, He is the Savior “especially of those who believe”, i.e., the elect.

St. Paul also speaks of the “Gentiles who have not law do by nature what the law requires” showing “what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness” (Rom. 2: 14,15),

The context in which Rom 2:14 is found makes it clear that it is referring to those who are eternally condemned ”For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law:…”(verse 12).

Consequently, notwithstanding what some individuals (e.g. Father Leonard Feeney) or groups have taught, the Catholic Church has never denied the possibilty of salvation to non-Christians.

We see that it has, in fact, been taught because the official documents of the RCC reveal that it has:

Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441 “The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire ‘prepared for the devil, and his angels’ (Mt. xxv. 41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church;”

 

[kelman]

Originally Posted by kelman View Post
These letters were acknowledged as Scripture by God’s people as they circulated throughout the churches even as the Apostles still lived. Therefore, presumably the Apostles themselves would have significant influence.

Who would deny that there is tradition? However, there is no such thing as “sacred” tradition unless you mean the apostolic tradition of the inspired written Scripture which they handed down to us.

Well before any council was ever held the people of God recognized His “voice”.

Again, this is a wonderful definition of Sacred Tradition.

It seems an odd definition, however, it does give credence to the fact that the councils did not decide the canon.

That various councils wanted to make it official is to be expected, however, that does not imply the council “decided” the canon. Just as Jamina did not “decide” the OT. It simply made official that which was already recognized.

Right. We actually say that the Church “discerned” the canon of Scripture.

Decide/discern - the same thing. However, as I just explained “the Church” did not decide/discern the canon. The people of God recognized that which was circulated throughout the churches as inspired.

Of course, when you talk about things being recognized by the “people of God”, we understand that to be the Catholic bishops.

However, there existed no Roman Catholic bishops. Only the elders/bishops which led each individual church.

Simply any first century Christian running around had no authority to declare “Hebrews” to be inspired but the “Shepherd of Hermas” not to be.

Actually, in fact, it was those “first century Christian running around” who recognized the various letters as inspired.

 

[kelman]

Portrait,

My replies may be somewhat slower due to available time…as we know this is a very busy time of year for everyone. But, I will get to them as quickly as possible.

Btw, thanks for the excellent discussions thus far.

 

[15thClub]

Dear hellokitty,
I’m an ex-Lutheran; LCMS to be exact. Let me posit that both Lutherans, other Protestants and Catholics worship the same God and all confess that God is manifest in the Trinity. Once again, I will refer back to Father Barron’s Book and DVD series on ‘Catholicism,’ chapter 3 or episode three respectively entitled, "THAT THAN WHICH NOTHING GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT. THE INEFFABLE MYSTERY OF GOD." I humbly suggest that you purchase the book or the series (the book of course is much cheaper). I think it is in our understanding of who **WE THINK]**God is that creates for such differences…and confusion. After reading both the book and watching the DVD episode on this subject, I come away concluding that the Catholic church has the best understanding of who God is based upon the principal works of Augustin and Aquinas. There are other theologians Fr. Barron cites as well. The best understanding is that we as human beings cannot capture the true essence and nature of God and once we think “we get it,” well that is not God. God is in human terms, mostly a mystery BUT we do know that God IS love. Perhaps, you can study this together and I think the both of you will have a much better understanding about the mystery of God. Good luck!

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. kelman

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your latest response and yes time is a little tight at the moment given that it is the lead up to Christmas, so I think we will need to wind up our discussion on Friday at the very latest. It has been in my opinion also a jolly good and thought-provoking discussion and whilst we have disagreed we have done so without being disagreeable.

The Catholic Church is one, undivided, visible body unlike the churches of the Reformation. Moreover, when Catholics assert her indefectability, they mean that the Church on earth is imperishable and so shall endure until the end of time. By indefectability we also mean that the Church’s essential constitution, her definitive teaching and the number of her sacraments will never change. If none of this were so then the Catholic Church would cease to be the one true Church established by Christ. BTW, I should be appalled if a Church claiming to be founded by Christ and to speak with His authority did not not claim to be indefectable and infallible. What sort of guide to eternal destiny would God have given us, if that guide calmly confessed that she was unsure of the way herself?

It not a matter of speculation that the message of the Gospel must be received without the grave disadvantage of distorted lenses to be efficacious. This is surely common sense, for the acceptance of the Gospel and the claims of the Church is a complex matter demanding adherence of mind, heart and will, under the influence of God’s grace, of course. Nevertheless, man is a fallen being and the absence of one or other necessary conditions can mean a dimming of a man’s powers of comprehension. For example, a Protestants prejudice against Catholicism is a real, even if unrealized, negative force in those educated or reared under the influence of Protestantism, a force blinding men to the defects of Protestantism and, alas, the merits of Catholicism. The same applies equally to those nursed in prejudice and ignorance in the non-Christian religions and this must be reckoned with as regards the promulgation of the Gospel and man’s response to it. Now we believe that God in His infinite mercy allows for these dimmed powers of comprehension, occasioned by prejudice and warped thinking, by applying the merits of Christ’s Passion to the men of good faith in the non-Christian religions. If these devout men and God fearers have such sorrow and *desire *to do the will of God, as Cornelius did, then they can receive the divine life by virtue of their implicit desire for Baptism. This is especially the case with those who have no opportunity to hear a full and fair presentation of the Evangel and who are, therefore, inculpably ignorant.

That God makes sinful hearts good, I do not deny, dear friend, but how he achieves this in the case of those who have never heard of Christ or the claims of the Church is an entirely different matter. The Parable of the Sower refers to those who have already heard the word of the Gospel and who have made an intelligent response to it. It simply does not address the issue of the unevangelised or those labouring under such a negative influence of prejudice and warped thinking that their understanding is seriously clouded.

The “keys” were a symbol of St. Peter’s authority and this symbolism is used elsewhere in Sacred Scripture (see Is. 22: 22).

As regards I Cor. 5: 12, yes, “ecclesiastical judgment” is involved in the passage but in verse 13 St. Paul specifically states that “God judges those outside”. By this he is distinctly saying that he has no authority to judge those external to the Church; they are in the hands of God and He will decide what is to be their portion. The Catholic Church rightfully refuses to pronounce upon the eternal destiny of any individual, for it is God’s business, and His alone, to decide such matters. Certainly the Church may judge its own members by censure or excommunication, but these are “within” not “without”.

kelman, I cannot agree with your exegesis of I Tim. 4: 9 either. Jesus is the Saviour of all men because He gave His Son to be the expiation “for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (I Jhn. 2: 2). That Sacred Scripture should make so absolute declaration of this, that He should be the Saviour of those who have never heard of Him, teaches us no universal salvation, but that God will make every allowance for the want of faith and defective lives of those who have never had the privilege of hearing the Gospel. Can we seriously doubt that God will find ways of having mercy upon them which we no nothing of?

He is the Saviour especially of those that believe since by their believing they actually accept His mercy and honour Him for it, and plead the all-sufficient Sacrifice. Obviously those who have not heard cannot do this, so He is is not, and indeed cannot be their Saviour in this sense.

As for Rom. 2: 14, the text makes clear that it has reference to those who “sin without the law” (emphasis mine), but it does not decide the fate of those devout, God fearers, like Cornelius, who strive earnestly to live up to the light they have been granted and perform good deeds towards their fellow men. It would seem from Sacred Scripture that it looks very good for such men of good will and that they will not have their portion allotted with the Devil and his angels (S. Matt. 25: 34-40). We have that on the authority of Christ Himself.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[rinnie]

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

ANd what a fine mess you have gotten into!! There is only ONE GOD. Your husband is right. We all pray and honor the same God. The difference is who has the Fullness of the truth.

You will find some truth in all Religions.

 

[Whadyamean]

The difference is who has the Fullness of the truth.

Are you claiming then that someone has the fullness of truth?

 

[minkymurph]

ANd what a fine mess you have gotten into!! There is only ONE GOD. Your husband is right. We all pray and honor the same God. The difference is who has the Fullness of the truth.

You will find some truth in all Religions.

Coming to this thread a bit late, and have not read all the posts. So apologies if I’m repeating what anyone else has said.

I agree with what this poster says. There is only one God, there are no other gods. In addition, Protestants believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation. Therefore, they do not have a different God and believe in the same Christian teachings. Both Protestants and Catholics believe the teaching of the Trinity and the Incarnation are Spirit inspired. A friend of mine who is a fundamentalist Christian read the Nicene Creed from the Mistle. She didn’t find anything in it she could say she disagreed with. Outside Christianity, Hindus have a concept of the Trinity, but a Christian one. Therefore, it can be said there are truths in all religions.

What Protestants and Catholics and those of non Christian denominations do have are different perceptions of the one God. This is different to believing in a different God. Protestants and Catholics have a different understanding and interpretation of the Trinity and the Incarnation. However, interpretations of these teachings are based on theological opinions. Theological opinions are essentially human in origin, and we cannot profess to understand everything in relation to the Trinity and the Incarnation. This is why they can change.

Catholic and Protestant Marian theology are a sharp contrast to each other due to the fact they have a different understanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation. They also have a different understanding of sacraments. This is perhaps were Protestants and Catholics have the greatest contention. I’m sure you know this. However, contrasting theology concerning Mary and the sacraments does not mean they believe in a different God.