Not the same God?

[kelman]

Kelman,

I just want you to know that I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut here and do not discount it. I think that we all have more to learn from each other. Places like this, as well as our own local visible communities speak strongly to the importance of “Ekklesia” - a people called out for council - in these matters. Such “free for all” type debates as these help us all to come to better understandings.

I too appreciate these discussions most especially the cordiality. I agree the church is a very important part of our spiritual growth. In it God has established teachers who can guide us in Scripture because as Peter said “some things are hard”.

Your quotes from Scripture are wonderful, but when I see Scripture I see some other quotations that I think are very important in understanding how we are to act, and how we are to approach others. I refer to the very basic underpinning of all which is “Agape” - Love.

Again, I agree and in fact “love for the brethren” is an evidence of being a child of God. God declares that He is not a “respecter of persons”, therefore, neither can we be.

The seed of such Love is planted in every human soul.

Where do you find this in Scripture? Actually, I believe we find the opposite. We are all born with a heart gone astray and apart from God.

If it is found, understood and nurtured, the person grows in the knowledge of God, whether He know God by name or not. We know the tree by it’s fruit. If the fruit of one is Love, then this one knows God, whether formally or not - for God is Love.
If the Fruit is not Love - then that one does no know God - So it is written in Scripture.

I don’t believe we find the Bible teaching that “love” without faith in Christ can lead to salvation. Many people are very loving yet this in itself does not lead to eternal life. I really don’t know how much more clear God can get when He repeatedly declares that faith in Jesus is the only means of salvation.

So I say here that we should indeed seek to share the Gospel with each other. We should seek to evangelize all who have not known the Gospel or who have been exposed to a corrupted Gospel. But this must be done through Love and out of the Abundance of Love that we have received through grace as a free gift from God.

Without Love - we are nothing…So says the Holy Spirit of God through the great apostle Paul…

Very happy to be ending this post in absolute agreement with you!

 

[Portrait]

I have never claimed that we are saved by knowledge. Nevertheless, one either worships the true God or he does not. As for “intellectual content of faith”, we find that God can save the babe in the womb(Luke 1:15,41). The intellect is not the main seat of faith the spirit is.

We simply don’t find Jesus, or the rest of the Bible, teaching that salvation outside of faith in Him is possible. No Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. can be saved without believing on the Lord Jesus for salvation. Christ is very clear on this matter so we may never attempt to change His teachings.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
John 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

We do not exclude anyone from salvation, however, God does as the above verses insist.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above and apologies for the delay in my response to your post.

First, the Second Vatican Council twice declared the necessity of the Church for salvation: “Hence those people could not be saved, who, not ignorant that the Catholic Church has been founded as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would still refuse either to enter it or remain it” (Lumen Gentium (on The Church) 1964, art 14; Ad Gentes (on Missions), 1965, art. 7 and cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church para. 846). Thus there is no contradiction between what the Church now teaches and previous Church teaching. BTW, those much debated and hotly disputed words, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”, were adressed to those* already **within *the Catholic Church to warn them of the peril of apostasy, not to those outside of its borders. The Church was quite rightly concerned that the Catholic faithful might be tempted to join heretical bodies or abandon the one true religion of Christ. It was decidedly not a statement that all non-Catholics or pagans were condemned to eternal damnation and should never be interpreted as such.

Second, the N.T. does not deny the possibility of salvation to those outside of its bosom, including pagans and the adherents of non-Christian religions. Such a notion should not be etertained for one moment since it is entirely devoid of biblical support. The passages which you cite pre-suppose that a man has been presented with the claims of the Church and Gospel message and has refused to embrace them and enter the Church. How can a man be fully blameworthy for refusing to believe something of which he has never heard, as is often the case with those poor souls who have been nursed in ignorance and prejudice (e.g. in a false religion or sect). The words uttered to Abraham spring to mind - “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”. Clearly, there are levels of culpability depending on the degree of light and knowledge. Even traditional mainstream Protestantism has taught as much.

Thus, verses such as Acts 4: 12, do not declare that all who receive salvation and spiritual soundness and health, necessarily receive it by some actual act of faith in Christ. He is indeed the sole mediator, the sole bringer of life to men and all who by the mercy of God are made whole and regenerated do so by the merits and passion of Christ. However, no primitive writer whatever took Acts 4: 12 as excluding any from salvation, but only as pointing out the way by which we are saved. Of course we, as Christians, believe that our Divine Lord is the Way (S. Jn. 14: 6); if it were not so then our profession would be worth precious little.

Since the Advent of our Blessed Saviour, God commands all men everywhere to repent and to become members of His Church. Those who deliberately disobey and refuse to embrace Christ when he is preached unto them, will indeed be eternally lost. However, since He condemns no man save for grave fault, He will not condemn those who through inculpable ignorance are unaware of His precept, who serve Him faithfully according to their conscience, who have a sincere desire to do His will, who have good aspirations after goodness and, therefore, implicitly, the desire to become members of His Church. It is only those who hear the Gospel clearly and fairly presented and then reject it, who have no excuse for their ignorance or indifference and to whom the texts which you cite apply.

God bless and thankyou for your contributions, my dear brother.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[JRKH]

Whether one is ignorant of or rejects Christ amounts to the same thing – they do not believe on Him for salvation and this belief Scripture insists is necessary for eternal life.

I cannot accept your contention that ignorance of Christ equals rejection of Christ.
In John 9 dealing with the healed blind man Jesus says this to the Pharisees"
*Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, "We see,’ your sin remains. *
Admitting blindness (ignorance, not understanding) does not incur sin. Claiming to see (Knowledge, understanding) and then not accepting DOES incur sin. Therefore does Jesus excuse honest ignorance while condemning dishonest “knowledge”.

It seems you’re saying that these verses were meant only for the original audience and are not meant for today? If such a thing were true, which it is not, it would be better to just toss the Scriptures into the dustbin of history since they would lack any validity. Frankly, it is more true today that a much greater portion of the population have had the truth placed before them – including Jews.

Oh - come on…you know that is not what I am saying. The Words of Scripture are indeed applicable to today…BUT in order to properly understand them one must recognize them within the context that they were written and relayed to us.

I can’t agree because we believe in a “three” Person deity quite unlike the god the Jews and Muslims believe in.

Do you worship “One God” or don’t you…

Many people seek god in their own way and many are in fact good decent people, however, Scripture is clear that we have eternal life only if we are “in Christ”. We are not “in Christ” if we do not have faith in Him. God doesn’t present living a “good” life as the criteria for salvation, rather, He says: ”… I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” and “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

I don’t believe your church’s teaching is the same as God’s with respect to this. The above verses demonstrate what God says is necessary. In them, God declares what is necessary for eternal salvation and it’s not to continue in a false religion. There is no salvation in a false religion.

I understand that we are in disagreement - and charitably so in that we are not condemning each other but rather seeking greater understanding.
In that spirit, I must say that you are not understanding the underlying principles that give meaning to what Jesus says to His specific audience.
Jesus tells us that He and the Father are One. That to know Him is to know the Father. Likewise to know the Father would be to know Christ - since they are one…
In 1 John 4, we find this wonderful passage:
7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love…God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.

So if the Holy Spirit, declares through St John that "God is Love and that those who abide in this love abide in God…how shall this be applied to those who have not heard the Gospel? The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses this nicely and in a manner that neither minimizes the need for evangelization OR limits the power of God to save…
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)
And - Since we are speaking of those who have never heard the Gospel, applying this principle of the sincere heart, and moved by grace, can only mean that one is aware of God’s Love (Agape). That this person seeks to embrace and live out that love - and in so doing (though imperfectly) will “Know Love” and thereby “Know God”.
And if this person knows God through this sincere heart, moved by grace, (moved by love) then they also know Christ.

Neither I nor the Church minimized the difficulties in someone coming to Christ in this manner. It’s sort of like trying to build a car without an instruction manual. Yet God is Merciful and Just. He will not deny those who seek Him sincerely in Love…By whatever name…
And the “name” issue can be a stumbling block too. you provide the verses whereby one must accept “Jesus” or “Christ” - By no other name is one saved…etc…Yet the “Name” that Jesus went by was not Jesus…That is a translation. So are we saved by the name Yeshua? if so then can we be saved by the name “Jesus” which is not the name “Yeshua”? How about if we don’t pronounce the "saving name " correctly? The Spanish pronounce Jesus differently than the English do…
So - are we saved by “the name” or by what he “did”, or by the Love that the Father showed to us by sending His Son to us?

I know that this is something difficult to integrate but I do hope that you will accept it in the Spirit of Love with which it is presented and also prayerfully consider it.
Delve deeply my friend - not simply by what is written in ink on the page, but in what all of Scripture, all of revelation, all of God’s Love is seeking to show us.
God is Love.
All the Law and Prophets are based on Love.
Jesus Came to us out of Love.
He gave up His life out of Love.
Love is the greatest of the virtues.
He calls us to Him out of and through Love.
Names - terms - means of expression may differ , but the one truth of God that is supreme is His Love.

Peace
James

 

[Portrait]

A connection to Ishmael via Abraham is not evidence of worshipping the true God. Jesus says that had these people truly known Abraham, if Abraham was their father, they would not reject .

Dear kelman,

Hello again.

In its basic meaning, there is no difference between God and Allah, for Allah is simply the Arabic word for God and is actually used by Arab Christians as well as Muslims. Mohammed and the Koran insist on the belief that there is one God, who is creator of all and supreme over the universe; there are no other gods apart from Him, as the first of the Ten Commandments also proclaims. In their declaration “There is no God but Allah,” the word “God” is simply another form of Allah.

During his visit to Turkey in 2006, Pope Benedict XVI cited this truth as one which calls for our prayers and good will toward Muslims. Referring to a document of Pope Gregory VII nearly 1,000 years earlier, Benedict insisted on the “particular charity that Christians and Muslims owe one another ‘because we believe in one God, although in a different way, and because we praise Him and worship Him every day as the creator and ruler of the world’”. Now if I understand the Pope correctly, He is saying that this fact is not inconsequential and that Muslims and Christians do worship and extol the same Creator God, albeit imperfectly.

Notwithstanding, the Pope notes that our beliefs respecting God differ importantly from those of Muslims. Fundamentally, they reject (as do the Jews) belief in the Holy Trinity and hold that this is tantamount to saying that there are three Gods, not one. A rejection of the Trinity, of course, entails a denial of all Christian doctrines which rely upon that dogma, such as the Incarnation, the Sacraments, and all other beliefs and practices that are based on the Incarnation of God the Son.

Nevertheless, Benedict says that in spite of the variations in understanding the nature of God, it is the same God that we believe in and that this should never be lost sight of.

The vast majority of Muslims, like most of the Jews, see Christ only through broken lenses, so to speak. If God-seeking and God loving Jews, both prior to and after the Incarnation, can find God, then surely God-seeking Muslims can also, according to our Lord’s own promise that “all who seek, find”, whether in this life or the next. Having said that, Jesus also insisted in the Gospel that “no one can come to the Father but by me”. Whatever truth Mohammed taught Muslims about God is present in Christ the Logos, the full revelation of God. Thus if Muslims are saved, they are saved by Christ. As Christians we should hope and pray that Muslims will be reunited with our common Father by finding Christ who is “the way, the truth and the life”. We cannot stop prosyletizing, for prosyletising means leading men to the Way home.

We are probably not going to agree on this one, my dear brother, but I do at least hope that you can appreciate the Catholic line of reasoning upon this particular issue.

May I wish you, and all other contributors to this thread, a jolly splendid weekend, whatever you plan to do. God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[kelman]

Dear kelman,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above and apologies for the delay in my response to your post.
First, the Second Vatican Council twice declared the necessity of the Church for salvation: “Hence those people could not be saved, who, not ignorant that the Catholic Church has been founded as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would still refuse either to enter it or remain it” (Lumen Gentium (on The Church) 1964, art 14; Ad Gentes (on Missions), 1965, art. 7 and cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church para. 846). Thus there is no contradiction between what the Church now teaches and previous Church teaching.

I prefer the following translation of Article 14, it’s a little more clear (from the Vatican archive). It says that only those who believe the RCC was founded as necessary by Christ and reject this premise cannot be saved:

”Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

This would affect relatively few people…the so-called “lapsed Catholic” perhaps? In any event, for the rest of us, 6 billion strong, salvation is very possible outside the RCC because we do not believe that it was the church “made necessary” by Christ. According to this quotation, all else may be saved. So while I agree with you that this is the language of Lumen Gentium, nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated that it is in stark contradiction to previously official papal declarations on faith and morals.

BTW, those much debated and hotly disputed words, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”, were adressed to those* already **within *the Catholic Church to warn them of the peril of apostasy, not to those outside of its borders. The Church was quite rightly concerned that the Catholic faithful might be tempted to join heretical bodies or abandon the one true religion of Christ. It was decidedly not a statement that all non-Catholics or pagans were condemned to eternal damnation and should never be interpreted as such.

As we see from the following quotations, the words in these dogmatic documents are perfectly self-explanatory allowing for only one conclusion – that they speak of any and all who are outside the Roman Catholic Church – i.e., Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc.

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all can be saved.” Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 A. D

And yet again self-explanatory dogmatic words from a pope of the 14th century:

“We declare, say, and define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302 A.D.

More dogmatic proclamations from the 15th century popes:

*"The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only *pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics ** can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, " Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441 A.D.

Second, the N.T. does not deny the possibility of salvation to those outside of its bosom, including pagans and the adherents of non-Christian religions. Such a notion should not be etertained for one moment since it is entirely devoid of biblical support.

Notwithstanding your assertion, the question needs to be asked and answered - where is the biblical support that practicing pagans, Muslims and Jews can be saved? Throughout the NT we see there is no eternal life for any who do not believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. If you insist there is something to the contrary, we’ll need support to entertain such a notion.

How can a man be fully blameworthy for refusing to believe something of which he has never heard, as is often the case with those poor souls who have been nursed in ignorance and prejudice (e.g. in a false religion or sect).

All men are culpable for their sins which is what sends them to hell. If your scenario was true, then it would be best if there were no evangelization, this way all would be assured of salvation.

The words uttered to Abraham spring to mind - “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”.

Do we dare overlook the Scripture’s insistence that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation? We don’t get to judge the Judge. When the choice must be made between divine goodness and human reason, the choice must be for God, not for man. If it is His declaration that salvation is to be found only by believing on His Son, which all biblical evidence points to, who are we to see this judgment of His as somehow not righteous?

All men have been given a “degree of light” in creation itself – “The heavens declare the glory of God;”(Psalm 19:1). The creation does not tell you everything you can know about God, but it does tell you some key things. Paul says in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

We find the Scriptures insist we are justified by faith in Christ - not by good intentions or even by love:

Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things,…
Rom 3:28 ** Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.**
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

 

[nonsumd]

kelman,

just curious – you put down your affiliation as “Protestant,” yet cite all these papal documents that condemn heretics.

Have you converted to Catholicism but have not updated your information for this board, or are you in RCIA on your way to conversion?

 

[kelman]

I cannot accept your contention that ignorance of Christ equals rejection of Christ.

The Bible is insistent that belief in Jesus Christ for salvation is an imperative. Therefore, whether from ignorance or rejection, the result is the same – no belief in Jesus equals no salvation.

In John 9 dealing with the healed blind man Jesus says this to the Pharisees"
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, "We see,’ your sin remains.
Admitting blindness (ignorance, not understanding) does not incur sin. Claiming to see (Knowledge, understanding) and then not accepting DOES incur sin. Therefore does Jesus excuse honest ignorance while condemning dishonest “knowledge”.

Jesus isn’t teaching the equivalent of “ignorance is bliss”. We see the arrogance of these Pharisees as they sneer at Jesus ”are we blind also?” Nevertheless, you’re right, man is not condemned because he lacks knowledge, however, he is condemned because of his sins - “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23).

Jesus says "that they which see not might see”, iow, those who admit their own spiritual blindness will receive sight in Jesus just as the physically blind man received his physical and his spiritual sight. However, He then says: ”that they which see might be made blind”, iow, those who only think they have spiritual sight and make false claims concerning such will in fact be made blind. Here specifically the Pharisees claimed to know the Law concerning the Sabbath better than Jesus but we see they are simply spiritually blind in their pride, arrogance and false knowledge. It is always God who gives us the spiritual “eyes to see” and the “ears to hear”.

In this account of the healing of the blind man, Jesus is giving us a beautiful picture of how He saves. We come into this world spiritually blind and it is God who takes the initiative in healing us from this blindness. The Lord does a work of creation in us – not reformation – we are “born from above”. Jesus commands us to wash away our blindness, iow, our sins must be “washed away”. Similarly, as the blind man uttered the words “Lord, I believe” – we do the same when the Holy Spirit has regenerated our sinful wicked hearts – changed our blind eyes to eyes that see.

Oh - come on…you know that is not what I am saying. The Words of Scripture are indeed applicable to today…BUT in order to properly understand them one must recognize them within the context that they were written and relayed to us.

I agree we need to understand all we can, i.e., the original audience, the immediate and wider contexts, etc. I also agree that some of these people in Acts 4 would have had first-hand knowledge of the events surrounding the Crucifixion. Nevertheless, verse 12 is the thrust of Peter’s words - we must believe on the Lord Jesus for salvation “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”. And that’s as relevant today as it was then.

I can’t agree because we believe in a “three” Person deity quite unlike the god the Jews and Muslims believe in.

Do you worship “One God” or don’t you…

I worship the one God who reveals Himself in three Persons unlike the Jews and Muslims. Do you worship the same God as do the Mormons? Afterall, they also believe in the OT(correctly interpreted). They even believe in Jesus Christ for salvation quite unlike Jews and Muslims.

Jesus tells us that He and the Father are One. That to know Him is to know the Father. Likewise to know the Father would be to know Christ - since they are one…

This means if you know the Father – you know the Son. In fact, we can only know the Father through the Son(John 1:18) just as we only know the Son because the Father reveals Him to us(Mat 16:17). Jesus says that if you do not honor the Son you do not honor the Father. Therefore, since neither Jews or Muslims honor the Son, they do not honor the Father, iow, they do not “know” the Father. They may have an intellectual knowledge of God but that alone is not sufficient for salvation.

In 1 John 4, we find this wonderful passage:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)

Unfortunately, these words from the CCC have absolutely nothing to do with 1John 4. Read the context of 1John 4 – it is speaking to the church not to unbelievers. The following verses again are clear that we must believe in the Son if we are to be saved. We may never remain in a false religion believing doing good and being sincere is sufficient and that it is the criteria God sets forth for eternal life - it isn’t.

1John 4:14-16
And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

 

[kelman]

Dear kelman,
Hello again.

In its basic meaning, there is no difference between God and Allah, for Allah is simply the Arabic word for God and is actually used by Arab Christians as well as Muslims. Mohammed and the Koran insist on the belief that there is one God, who is creator of all and supreme over the universe; there are no other gods apart from Him, as the first of the Ten Commandments also proclaims. In their declaration “There is no God but Allah,” the word “God” is simply another form of Allah.

Yes, I understand that. The literal name of God or Jesus is not what’s important – whether it be Allah or God, Jesus or Yeshua. We’re not saved on the basis of our pronunciation or language but on the basis of our belief in the Son of God.

During his visit to Turkey in 2006, Pope Benedict XVI cited this truth as one which calls for our prayers and good will toward Muslims.

I don’t believe the Muslims worship the same God as I do, nevertheless, that is all the more reason to pray for their salvation.

If God-seeking and God loving Jews, both prior to and after the Incarnation, can find God, then surely God-seeking Muslims can also, according to our Lord’s own promise that “all who seek, find”, whether in this life or the next.

No one has ever ever claimed that Muslims or Jews cannot find God. Where does Scripture say that we may “find” God in the next life if we have not found Him here?

Having said that, Jesus also insisted in the Gospel that “no one can come to the Father but by me”. Whatever truth Mohammed taught Muslims about God is present in Christ the Logos, the full revelation of God. Thus if Muslims are saved, they are saved by Christ.

Being taught some truths about God can be accomplished in many ways - even by the creation itself, however, that knowledge does not lead to salvation. Scripture is clear “how” we are saved and it’s not by believing Jesus is some lesser prophet than Mohammed.

As Christians we should hope and pray that Muslims will be reunited with our common Father by finding Christ who is “the way, the truth and the life”. We cannot stop prosyletizing, for prosyletising means leading men to the Way home.

I thought Muslims were united with our “common Father” because of the truths Mohammed taught them about God? And if they can be “united” without faith in Christ, what’s the point of evangelizing? Christ gave the command to preach the Gospel and make disciples, however, you’re making the case that this is not necessary because Muslims believe in one God, are sincere and do good works.

We are probably not going to agree on this one, my dear brother, but I do at least hope that you can appreciate the Catholic line of reasoning upon this particular issue.

You’re right, we don’t agree and, no, I really don’t understand that line of reasoning. We have specifics repeatedly given in Scripture and yet for some reason they don’t apply to certain groups of people because they say they worship the God of the Bible. And yet we find God telling us that if the Son is not honored then neither is He. We do not find different “ways” to salvation in Scripture - only one Way.

Still, you have not offered an explanation(you simply said there was no contradiction) as to how there is no contradiction between the various papal declarations (on faith and morals) and present-day teaching. Those documents are clearly referring to people outside the RCC and insist they cannot be saved if they remain so. Obviously, this is in stark opposition to what is now taught.

“The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,” Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441 A.D.

“We declare, say, and define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” ( Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302 A.D.

 

[kelman]

kelman,

just curious – you put down your affiliation as “Protestant,” yet cite all these papal documents that condemn heretics.

Hmm, one has nothing to do with the other. In any case, as a Protestant I have no problem citing RCC documents about heretics because it has nothing to do with me. I refer to these documents because there is quite a disconnect which simply cannot be denied. So, I’ve asked for comments as to how they are rationalized.

Have you converted to Catholicism but have not updated your information for this board, or are you in RCIA on your way to conversion?

Nope, not planning on any conversions, however, occasionally I do enjoy reading RCC’s treatment on a number of theological issues. Not these various papal documents, though.

 

[nonsumd]

Hmm, one has nothing to do with the other. In any case, as a Protestant I have no problem citing RCC documents about heretics because it has nothing to do with me. I refer to these documents because there is quite a disconnect which simply cannot be denied. So, I’ve asked for comments as to how they are rationalized.

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

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus established her as the ordinary means by which souls are to be saved. At the same time, she recognizes that God’s grace works among those not in visible communion with her – God allows for extraordinary means by which non-Catholics may be saved. The Church remains commissioned to evangelize because exactly how God saves those not in visible communion with her remains a mystery to her. The Church continues to evangelize because it is better for people to be brought to the fullness of the truth than to be left with less of the truth.

The Church’s various pronouncements are reconciled with each other by understanding them in the light of God’s perfect mercy and justice. That some would, through no fault of their own, be deprived of knowing the Gospel and thus be consigned to damnation is not compatible with the idea of a just and merciful God, particularly one who, Scripture tells us, “wills all to be saved.”

 

[Portrait]

I prefer the following translation of Article 14, it’s a little more clear (from the Vatican archive). It says that only those who believe the RCC was founded as necessary by Christ and reject this premise cannot be saved:

”Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

This would affect relatively few people…the so-called “lapsed Catholic” perhaps? In any event, for the rest of us, 6 billion strong, salvation is very possible outside the RCC because we do not believe that it was the church “made necessary” by Christ. According to this quotation, all else may be saved. So while I agree with you that this is the language of Lumen Gentium, nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated that it is in stark contradiction to previously official papal declarations on faith and morals.

Notwithstanding your assertion, the question needs to be asked and answered - where is the biblical support that practicing pagans, Muslims and Jews can be saved? Throughout the NT we see there is no eternal life for any who do not believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. If you insist there is something to the contrary, we’ll need support to entertain such a notion.

All men are culpable for their sins which is what sends them to hell. If your scenario was true, then it would be best if there were no evangelization, this way all would be assured of salvation.
:

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Do trust that you had a pleasant weekend. Thankyou again for your responses to my posts.

It really makes little difference what translation is used, since both make it perfectly clear that it is “knowledge” and “refusing to enter” the Church that is pivitol. The statements are not merely applicable to apostates but to those who have thoroughly examined the claims of the Catholic Church and seen that they are true, but then still refused to enter the Church, for whatever reason. Who can honestly deny that this must surely be a jolly great multitude, both past and present?

With respect to the Bull of Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino, 1441) and other such vehement decrees of the Magisterium, these took place before the discovery of a whole new world in 1492 by Christopher Columbus. The most harshest references are from the Fathers of the Church like St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (following St. Cyprian), which have in view those in bad faith who culpably reject the Church and the Gospel. Such statements do not address those who fail, for whatever reason, to find Christ and His Church *through no fault of *their own. It is to the former group only that these Bulls, Decrees and stern warnings from Sacred Scripture apply. It is entirely a matter of culpability. Incidently, when Cantate Domino was promulgated in 1441, the Gospel was indeed thought to have been preached to every man in the then known world. Thus this would explain Pope Eugene’s severe censures, for because of the dissemination of the Gospel message, men were held to be without excuse, at that time.

This is not some attempt to rationalize allegedly “opposing contradictions” between previous and present Church teaching, as some ignorantly contend, but simply showing the folly of reading and commenting on Church documents without due regard for the historical setting in which those documents emerged. It is easy work to lift isolated sentences from their context so as to uphold a particular theory.

True, God’s revelation of Himself in creation is perspicuous, for there is in it a most glorious display of the Divine power. Moreover, I agree that this knowledge which men possess of God’s creative power does render them responsible. They cannot plead ignorance for not glorifying Him as God. However, Jews and Muslims do not deny the creative power of God and so therefore I do not see how the Romans 1 passage or Psalm 19: 1 is relevant in their cases.

It is my feeling, dear friend, that you are failing to distinguish between things which essentialy differ. There are those men who reject the Gospel and the claims of the Church, even when they are fairly and honestly presented to them (these are guilty of culpable ingnorance), and then there are those, who through no fault of their own, are ignorant of Christ and His Church (these are invincibly ignorant).

Every man has a conscience which dicates a natural law of moral obligation, at least when he comes to the age of reason. Now if a pagan knows nothing of Christianity and has been bred in ignorance or prejudice through no fault of his own, he can at least repent of his personal sins against his conscience and desire to do what is good and just. Of course we know that a man should repent, believe the Gospel and receive Holy Baptism and Catholics hold that if our pagan knew that this was necessary to salvation, then he would repent and enter the Church and be baptized. Now we say that this sincere desire to do all that God would require implicitly includes the desire for baptism, hence the phrase ‘Baptism of Desire’ in Catholic dogma. One could say that as regards this good pagan God takes the will for the actual deed, thus granting sanctifying grace. Therefore, non-Christians can be saved, not by their false relgion, but by the savings merits of Christ’s Redemption being applied to them.

To be continued.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Contarini]

I thought Muslims were united with our “common Father” because of the truths Mohammed taught them about God?

Imperfectly.

And if they can be “united” without faith in Christ, what’s the point of evangelizing? Christ gave the command to preach the Gospel and make disciples, however, you’re making the case that this is not necessary because Muslims believe in one God, are sincere and do good works.

No, you misunderstand the case.

You start from the flawed assumption that the purpose of evangelizing is to save people from hell.

Edwin

 

[Portrait]

Notwithstanding your assertion, the question needs to be asked and answered - where is the biblical support that practicing pagans, Muslims and Jews can be saved? Throughout the NT we see there is no eternal life for any who do not believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. If you insist there is something to the contrary, we’ll need support to entertain such a notion.

All men are culpable for their sins which is what sends them to hell. If your scenario was true, then it would be best if there were no evangelization, this way all would be assured of salvation.

Dear kelman,

Hello again.

The N.T. texts to which you make your appeal, assume that a man has had the opportunity to hear the proclamation of the Gospel, has had the claims of the Church presented to him and has then rejected both. 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? 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. This is sometimes supported by arguing that if this were not the case then there would be no motive left for evangelism.

However, this severe and uncharitable position is not even held by all Evangelical Christians (You see, Protestants do differ on major matters of doctrine). These Evangelicals are much less certain that the number of the ‘saved’ will ultimately be limited to those who hear and respond to the Gospel and consciously ‘accept Jesus as their Saviour’. Like the Catholic teaching, they wish rightly to leave open the possibility that God may save through Christ some, who while never having heard of Christ, turn to God in some sort of repentance and faith that only God can evaluate with His intimate knowledge of every human heart. As I said in my previous post, this is effectively what happens in the case of ‘Baptism of Desire’ when a man repents of personal sins against his conscience. So what if all this takes place within the setting of a false religion or sect, God’s redeeming grace is not bound by any man made limitations or obstacles or, to use the biblical metaphor, his arm is not shortened that is cannot save. In any event, it is God’s sanctifying grace which saves a man, not the false religion.

The Church must be obedient to its missionary mandate because it was Christ Himself who gave the ‘Great Commission’ to the Church. The possibility that God may in His sovereign grace ultimately save some who will never be reached with the Gospel, for whatever reason, in no way lessens the Church’s obligation as regards missionary endeavour. We know that our race universally lives in a state of sin and estrangement from God; that God has provided the means of Redemption through the saving merits of Christ; and that we are commanded by Christ to proclaim these facts to the nations of the world and to call on men everywhere to repent and enter the Church, the ark of salvation. If, however, God in His infinite mercy, but independently of human evangelistic effort, initiates in the heart of any man a response of repentance, which results in their final salvation, then this will be by definition unknown to us and known only to God. Now this may be an occasion for rejoicing in the sovereign mercy of God, but it is no valid reason to disobey our missionary mandate or use it as a disincentive to evangelistic outreach.

May I conclude with a passage taken from the great Victorian Anglican scholar E.H. Browne’s magisterial work on the 39 Articles of Religion: “The question concerning the salvability of the heathen need hardly be discussed. It is quite certain that Scripture says very little about them. Its words concern and are addressed to those who can hear and read them, not to those who hear them not…Whether there be any mercy in store for those who, nursed in ignorance, have not had the offer of this salvation, has been a question…If we have some hope that they may be saved, still we must certainly conclude, not that their own law or sect will save them, but that Christ, who tasted death for every man, and is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, may have mercy upon them, even though they know Him not” (An Exposition of the Thirty Nine Articles, E.H. Browne, Longman’s 1878, p. 443). Thus bishop Browne held a charitable hope that men who have never heard of Christ, or who had been bred in ignorance or error (as is often the case with false religions), may not inevitably be excluded from the benefit of Christ’s Passion. This is not wholly different from Catholic teaching, inasmuch as we also hold out a charitable hope to men of goodwill who strive to live according to the light and knowledge that they have received. At any rate, it is far removed from Universalism or a cold indifference to faith and truth, which would leave the adherents of false religions in their errors, rather than striving to bring them to Christ and His Church and the “fullness of truth”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

No one has ever ever claimed that Muslims or Jews cannot find God. Where does Scripture say that we may “find” God in the next life if we have not found Him here?

Being taught some truths about God can be accomplished in many ways - even by the creation itself, however, that knowledge does not lead to salvation. Scripture is clear “how” we are saved and it’s not by believing Jesus is some lesser prophet than Mohammed.

I thought Muslims were united with our “common Father” because of the truths Mohammed taught them about God? And if they can be “united” without faith in Christ, what’s the point of evangelizing? Christ gave the command to preach the Gospel and make disciples, however, you’re making the case that this is not necessary because Muslims believe in one God, are sincere and do good works.

You’re right, we don’t agree and, no, I really don’t understand that line of reasoning. We have specifics repeatedly given in Scripture and yet for some reason they don’t apply to certain groups of people because they say they worship the God of the Bible. And yet we find God telling us that if the Son is not honored then neither is He. We do not find different “ways” to salvation in Scripture - only one Way.

Dear 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. As I have already stated, some will be saved by Baptism of Desire and by following earnestly their aspirations after goodness and justice. 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). 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). 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. 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. 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. Moreover, since many of them are reared in prejudice and ignorance they will always look at Christianity through distorted lenses, through no fault of their own, I hasten to add. However, if the Gospel was preached unto them and their prejudices swept away, they would gladly hear it and embrace it, just as dear Cornelius did. Many of us believe that God takes account of such disadvantages and that these God fearers who strive to do what is right and live good lives, can, by God’s sovereign grace, be finally saved in the next life.

Yes, dear friend, Sacred Scripture is clear as to the normal method of salvation, but we are talking here about exceptions to this. In these instances it is unreasonable to apply the same criteria, as the previous paragraph evinces most clearly. 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. Now if such persons are saved (as has been the dominant view of most church ‘traditions’ down through the ages, with some exceptions and qualifications) then they are saved without knowing about Christ and His Church and exercising an intelligent faith in Him. If this is the case then it appears that the number of those finally saved will not be quite identical to the number of those who hear and respond to the Gospel.

Muslims and Jews are untited to us, albeit imperfectly. The fact that they are united imperfectly is surely a jolly good incentive to seek to convert them to the one true faith and Church, where the fullness of truth “subsists”.

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.

Goodbye for now and I hope my replies have helped clarify things a little. God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[nonsumd]

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

Thanks, Portrait, for citing biblical bases for our recent popes’ reformulations (but not revisions) of Church teaching.

 

[Phish_Phan]

God manifests Himself in many different ways to many different people

 

[Whadyamean]

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

Don’t worry; God is what God IS, and all we have are thoughts about that. Different thoughts = different "take’ on God. In the end, God IS, not our exceptionally limited thoughts about God. So unless you are one of those few unfortunates who think that their thoughts have a 1/1 correspondence to Reality, enjoy the Love between your husband and yourself and let that be the evidence of God’s Presence, whatever you try to stick on God because of a necessarily limited perception of Deity.

 

[kelman]

Originally Posted by kelman
Hmm, one has nothing to do with the other. In any case, as a Protestant I have no problem citing RCC documents about heretics because it has nothing to do with me. I refer to these documents because there is quite a disconnect which simply cannot be denied. So, I’ve asked for comments as to how they are rationalized.

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]

The statements are not merely applicable to apostates but to those who have thoroughly examined the claims of the Catholic Church and seen that they are true, but then still refused to enter the Church, for whatever reason. Who can honestly deny that this must surely be a jolly great multitude, both past and present?

Well, as I’m sure you remember I did “honestly deny” that it includes a great multitude and your explanation does nothing to change that. So, I repeat: ”This would affect relatively few people…the so-called “lapsed Catholic” perhaps? In any event, for the rest of us, 6 billion strong, salvation is very possible outside the RCC because we do not believe that it was the church “made necessary” by Christ.”

With respect to the Bull of Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino, 1441) and other such vehement decrees of the Magisterium, these took place before the discovery of a whole new world in 1492 by Christopher Columbus… Incidently, when Cantate Domino was promulgated in 1441, the Gospel was indeed thought to have been preached to every man in the then known world.

Christopher Columbus?..he was on his way to the Indies if I remember my history correctly. Are you saying that Eugene believed those in that part of the world had already heard the Gospel?

The most harshest…which have in view those in bad faith who culpably reject the Church and the Gospel. Such statements do not address those who fail, for whatever reason, to find Christ and His Church through no fault of their own. It is to the former group only that these Bulls, Decrees and stern warnings from Sacred Scripture apply

Neither papal decree(see below) make any mention of the “former group” that you’re suggesting rather they make the firm declaration that Jews and pagans cannot be saved if they remain outside of the Roman church. This argument offers little to correct these contradictions between past and current papal declarations concerning “faith and morals”.

“The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,” Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441 A.D.

*“We declare, say, and define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” *( Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302 A.D.

Btw, papal documents are not Scripture, it’s a serious mistake to confuse the two. Doing so leads to believing a doctrine in one century and something totally different in another century.

This is not some attempt to rationalize allegedly “opposing contradictions” between previous and present Church teaching, as some ignorantly contend, but simply showing the folly of reading and commenting on Church documents without due regard for the historical setting in which those documents emerged. It is easy work to lift isolated sentences from their context so as to uphold a particular theory.

I understand you would think it “folly” to demonstrate the contradictions between past and present papal declarations and frankly rationalization seems to be the order of the day what with attributing the content of papal declaration to the lack of knowledge of foreign lands before Columbus. Reading the entire Session 2 does nothing to change the very explicit declaration of the "lifted isolated sentences”. In fact, the rest of the paragraph only serves to reinforce the so-called “lifted sentences” by doubling down its position - even those who have shed their blood for Christ cannot be saved outside of the RCC.

It is my feeling, dear friend, that you are failing to distinguish between things which essentialy differ. There are those men who reject the Gospel and the claims of the Church, even when they are fairly and honestly presented to them (these are guilty of culpable ingnorance), and then there are those, who through no fault of their own, are ignorant of Christ and His Church (these are invincibly ignorant).

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.

One could say that as regards this good pagan God takes the will for the actual deed, thus granting sanctifying grace. Therefore, non-Christians can be saved, not by their false relgion, but by the savings merits of Christ’s Redemption being !applied to them.

Such a view is championing a works gospel – that good pagans are saved by their actual deeds. This way to salvation is something totally foreign to Scripture.

 

[kelman]

I thought Muslims were united with our “common Father” because of the truths Mohammed taught them about God?

No, “imperfectly” wasn’t the claim – only that they were united to the Father.

And if they can be “united” without faith in Christ, what’s the point of evangelizing? Christ gave the command to preach the Gospel and make disciples, however, you’re making the case that this is not necessary because Muslims believe in one God, are sincere and do good works.

No, you misunderstand the case.
You start from the flawed assumption that the purpose of evangelizing is to save people from hell.

All things are done for the purpose of glorying God. God instituted evangelization as the means by which men are brought to salvation - so it is neither “flawed” or “assumption”.

Salvation means to not go to hell, among other things. People are saved by means of the Gospel ”So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom 10:17).

Paul asks the following questions ”13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14How 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?”

Additional biblical evidence that without faith in Christ there is no salvation.