Not the same God?

[nonsumd]

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

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

Well, all we can hope is to plant a seed of doubt in sola scriptura in the mind of those who hold to it, a seed that might eventually blossom into faith in the Church.

It still seems to me illogical to accept the authority of the Church in regards to determining the canon of the Scripture while rejecting its authority to interpret the content of that Scripture (or to teach anything else pertaining to the faith).

 

[Portrait]

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

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

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

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

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Trust that you had a pleasant weekend. Thankyou for your most recent batch of replies, which I will now seek to respond to.

There is not much more that I can add respecting Pope Eugene’s stern comments, except to say that they must be interpreted in the light of the historical context in which they spoken. The fact remains that his words were directed at Catholics who were defecting from the faith and not to those who were outside of the Catholic faith. The documents of VII and the remarks of the Popes after the Council are speaking to Catholics concerning those born outiside of the physical boundaries of the Church. That there are supposed contradictions between past and present day Church teaching is, quite frankly, nothing more than a figment of Protestant imagination.

Incidently, long before VII, and in keeping with the Church’s understanding for the salvation of non-Catholics, the Holy Office (1949) condemned the error of one Father Leonard Feeney who rigidly held to the view that all who did not formally enter the Catholic Church, even through no fault of their own, could ever reach eternal salvation. The decree says as follows: “It is not always required that one be incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit…but when a man labours under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name becuase it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God”. Thus if one is to arrive at a correct understanding of the Church’s teaching, Pope Eugene’s words must be harmonised with the notion of invincible ignorance or, if you please, an ignorance that is impossible to overcome. God knows and searches the hearts of men and our belief in His infinite mercy and supreme kindness leads us to conclude that He will not permit anyone to be in Hell who does not rightly deserve to be there.

You write, dear friend, that “few there are today who never heard the Gospel”, but even when allowance is made for the modern means of communications, I rather think that that is a moot point given the entire world population. In any event, in some countries of the world the public preaching of the Gospel is strictly forbidden and conversion punishable by death. Even if we do concede that the Gospel is heard more widely today than in former times, we must still, nevertheless, take into account the distorted lenses through which it is heard - there still remain the enormous obstacles of prejudice and warped thinking which must needs be surmounted and which can seriously colour a man’s thinking.

In the final analysis, righteousness is righteousness and prayers, charitable donations and other acts of virtue and self-denial, have their value in the sight of God and are approved by Him and rewarded by Him (cf. S. Matt. 25: 31-46). Thus even works of goodness and devotion, though done by unenlightened non-Christians, are not valueless in the sight of God and will most surely be remembered by Him for good. If proof is required of this then we need only cite the words of the angel to Cornelius: “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God” (Acts 10: 4). If it be said, by way of reply, that Cornelius still needed to have the Gospel preached unto him, we say that whilst that is perfectly true, nonetheless, even prior to his conversion to Christianity, he was a devout and God-fearing man and this was even acknowledeged in Heaven itself. Now let us take, for example, a Muslim today who has been bred in ignorance and prejudice and who, unlike Cornelius, has not had, and may never have, an opportunity to hear or make a conscious response to the Gospel. Notwithstanding these serious disadvantages, he lives up to the light he has received and is a God fearing and devout man, albeit within his own religion, will God consign such a fellow to eternal damnation, simply because he has not made a conscious response to a Gospel of which he is totally ignorant?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[PRmerger]

My friend PRmerger, I know this is a huge selling point for you as I have seen you use it before.

For some reason today, Matt, this comment grates. It comes across as a little bit of a dig. So what if I have used it before? Most of my comments are nothing new but only a re-presentation of the Truths that were given, once for all, 2000 years ago.

Not to mention I see you have a common lexicon you proffer in your posts. I don’t fault you for that. I understand that the person you’re in dialogue with may not have had your arguments presented to her and it’s new to her, although not to me.

Just sayin’…not a big deal. I’m over it now.

However when I’ve presented the same argument to Protestants, the responses have gone somewhat along these lines: Of course God could have used the Church at the time to formulate Scripture. Or God could use whatever entity He chose to compile the Bible. He’s God.

And this acknowledgement–if we can get the Protestant to even say the above–is HUGE.

For it affirms these Catholic points:

-the Protestant does NOT believe, then, in Sola Scriptura.
-the Protestant must then acknowledge that the Church is infallible, at least as it applies to discerning the canon of Scripture.

Huge.

 

[PRmerger]

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

'zactly.

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

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

Yes. I think Catholics ought to tread very, very lightly in brandishing the term “heretic”. Heresy, however, is a charge that can be applied with a more heavy hand.

The Church is at war with heresy, not with heretics.

Lest someone counter: this is just a semantics game. If you’re at war with heresy, then you’re at war with heretics.

I respond: sometimes words, and the nomenclature we use, are very important and it’s not “just a semantics game”.

Take this:

1. The Church is at war with poverty.

vs this:

1. The Church is at war with the poor.

Clearly one can see, because of the careful choice of words, that #1 is true and #2 is false.

Even if the wording is very, very similar.

 

[Portrait]

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

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

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

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

Dear Kelman,

Hello again.

Nevertheless, Cornelius did receive grace from God prior to his conversion to Christianity and this necessarily means that he was looked upon with favour by God. As I said previously, his prayers and virtuous deeds did not go unoticed and were even acknowledged in Heaven itself. That admits of no doubt. If Cornelius could have been the recipient of God’s grace and looked upon favourably, then surely so could a devout God-fearing Jew or Muslim, and, if they are unable, for whatever reason, to hear or respond to the Gospel and claims of the Church, then they “may attain unto eternal salvation”. Is God’s arm so shortened that it cannot save such good people?

We also, as in so many other areas, must have regard to the unique historical context in which the Cornelius event occurs. In a sense, Cornelius, before Christ was preached unto him, was in the same position as those Gentiles in the O.T. who came to believe in the living God and act accordingly - like those who are commended for their faith in the great Hebrews chapter 11, including the pre-Israelites Abel, Enoch, and Noah, and the non-Israelite Rahab. Thus if the question is asked, hypothetically, what if Cornelius had died while St. Peter was on his way to him with the Gospel, would he have been saved? Then, surely, we must say that it certainly looked very good for him and he might well have attained eternal salvation, perhaps after a period in Purgatory. He had sought to live a godly, righteous and sober life and he had been personally assured that his prayers were heard and his generosity noted (Acts 10: 4, 31). There is no reason why Cornelius could not have been eternally saved if he had not had his angelic visitors, or had died before receiving them. We contend that same would apply to the devout and God-fearing adherents of the non-Christian religions, for God does relate to men on the level of their current religious experience and commitment. Indeed, we would go further and say that he continues to do so, if there is not the opportunity of hearing the Gospel clearly articulated.

The Catholic Church maintains that the non-Christian religions contain elements of goodness and truth and that their adherents are capable of self-denial, good works, compassion and otherworldliness. Moreover, God does speak to men within the framework of the religious understanding that they already have and men can attain unto eternal salvation in their religion if they are and remain invincibly ignorant, through no fault of their own.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear kelman,

That all Evangelical Christians do not hold to the exclusivist position does evince most clearly that there is difference among them over a fundamental teaching, namely the eternal salvation of non-Christians. In Protestant Evangelicalism, who decides which group is correct on this most crucial of issues? This highlights the whole problem of sola scriptura, which does result from man’s sinful pride and rejection of the authority of Christ’s Church. Ditto with ‘annihiliationism’. Evangelicals are deeply divided over the fate of the impenitent, some believing in eternal conscious torrment, others believing that the soul is destroyed. Again, who decides which of these viewpoints is correct, since equally devout and equally bible believing men all make their appeal to Sacred Scripture and their own Protestant ‘tradition’?

No Catholic would take issue with most of what Mr. Packer states, that is the ordinary way of receiving the Gospel according to the N.T. However, my dear brother, this does not address those who have not had an opportunity to hear the Gospel clearly and embrace it. What about those devout and God-fearing souls who are inculpably ignorant and who have been surrounded by prejudice against the Christian religion from their very earliest days?

As I explained previously, that the Church has changed its position on the salvability of non-Christians and done, to use your term, “a complete 180 turnabout”, is a figment of the Protestant imagination.

The problem is that all Evangelicals, including those who hold an inclusivist position, would say that they “truly practice sola scriptura” and believe that the bible is on their side. Again, who is to decide who is right, since all make their appeal to God’s word written? Who is to say that exclusivists like yourself are correct, whilst all others are wrong?

The creed that you reference is addressed to Christians who have already entered the Church. Indeed, Catholic and Protestant *Christians * do hold the creeds of the Church to be true and our salvation does depend upon us continuing to believe these things unto our life’s end. However, this says nothing of those who have not heard the Gospel or the claims of the Church and to whom, therefore, such credal statements are utterly meaningless.

No theory respecting the salvation of non-Christians should ever undermine our apostolic and missionary endeavours. Since Christ gave us the command to go and teach all nations, and since men have a right to know God their Father, Jesus Christ their Saviour, we must fulfill the command of Christ and seek to bring as many as possible to the one true religion, for “God our Saviour…desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

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

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

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

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

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

Dear kelman,

Thankyou for the above response.

Even if men have not heard the Gospel proclaimed and are ignorant of the claims of the Church, they do have an inward law written on their hearts by which they will be judged. If they have sinned against the dictates of conscience and internal light, then they will be punished in proportion to their sin; but this, dear friend, we must leave entirely to God. When St. Paul says in the Romans, “All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law…” (2: 12), ‘perish’ cannot possibly mean in every case everlasting punishment in Gehenna. In by far the greater number of cases where the word is employed it denotes simply perishing by death and the nearest approach which which one can make to an explanation is that they will “die in their sins”, and be subject to such punishment as God in His combined justice and mercy deems fitting.

This may seem to say very little to an Evangelical, but it says all that men have any business to say. However, what right have we to assert that God has put it out of His power to inflict any but the most extreme punishment of everlasting conscious torment? That is a most hideous teaching which does not even allow for any degrees of punishment.

How can those devout and God-fearing men of other religions, who have endeavored to obey the dictate of conscience and internal light; who have practiced self-denial, done virtuous deeds and been otherworldly, be condemned by a just and merciful God for “sinning when they knew better”? How could such men be really termed ungodly and wicked (Rom. 1: 18) or fall under St. Paul’s exposure of the pagan idolatry and immorality of the ancient world?

These men are not guillty of “denying” the Gospel because they have never heard it to be able to deny it or reject it, “without any fault (they) do not know anything about Christ or his Church, yet they search for God with a sincere heart and, under the influence of grace, try to put into effect the will of God as known to them through the dictate of conscience: these to can obtain eternal salvation” (Lumen Gentium 16). Even the conservative Protestant commentator, F.F. Bruce, freely admits that although “sin uncheked leads to perdition one way or another, (the) Gentiles will not be condemned for not conforming to a law code which was not accessible to them. The principle is laid down (Rom. 2: 12) that men are judged by the light that is available to them, not by light that is not available” (Romans, TNTC, Inter Varsity Press, 1974, p. 90, emphasis mine). To this all Catholics would heartily concur. It all boils down to a matter of accessibilty and knowledge, where these are seriously wanting there can be no culpabilty.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

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

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Nevertheless, the principle on which judgment is administered is announced by our Lord in St. Luke’s Gospel: “Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand more” (12: 48). These words speak clearly of opportunities, privileges, light and knowldege, in fact all the things of which I have been speaking. For those who have basked in Gospel sunlight and who have had the fullest means of knowing the claims of Christ and His Church; for those who have had these submitted to them plainly, faithfully and forcibly; for those who have had their attention called to these as a Divine message of paramount importance, for them, indeed, our Blessed Saviour’s word’s are most applicable: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (S. Mk. 16: 15,16). Moreover, it surely stands to reason that we are not to sever the earlier part of this injunction from the latter. Sacred Scripture can never, except at the risk of a fatal misapprehension, be wrenched from its connection with its immediate context. Thus when our Lord warns His Apostles, in the same breath in which he issues His universal commission to preach the Gospel, that “he who does not believe will be condemned”, He is assuredly to be understood as meaning, “He that refuses to believe, *after *he has heard the good news preached unto him”. Now in this case such a man will have had much given and so quite rightly “much” will be demanded of him, certainly a firm faith, working by love and confessing before men in the Sacrament of Baptism, - this will be “required”.

However, nothing is determined in this passage respecting the salvability or eternal destiny of the adherents of the non-Christian religions, who have not had the privilege of having the Gospel/claims of the Church fairly, fully and faithfully laid before them, so as to be able to excercise a deliberate choice in the acceptance or rejection of Christ and the Church. Can you not, my dear brother, differentiate between these two groups and see the principle laid down in the words of our Blessed Saviour? What our Lord lays down in these solemn words is precisely this, and nothing more than this, everyone who has heard the Gospel preached and has had the claims of Christ and the Church pressed upon him, shall, on account of his deliberate rejection, be condemned at the Last Judgment.

When St. Paul says to the Romans, “When the Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires” (2: 14), he certainly seems to be acknowledging that some pagans in the ancient world did live, more or less, up to the light afforded them by the moral sense and by the spectacle of God’ created order. Many today in the non-Christian religions also live up to the light afforded them and strive to follow their aspirations after goodness and truth. Frequently they practice self-denial and are zealous in good works and generally live very otherworldly lives. Now it would surely be a grave injustice and a gross act of inclemency to apply to their character and conduct a criterion which has never been promulgated to them and which they have not had opportunity either to embrace or refuse.

Now I think that the great difficulty for yourself, as with many others, is this whole notion of those whose opportunities and knowledge have been little or nothing being ultimately accepted and ‘saved’ by compliance with some standard other than conscious faith in Christ. It seems, at least on the surface, to conflict with the assertion of Sacred Scripture that there is salvation in no other but Jesus Christ (Acts 4: 12) and our dear Lord’s own words about Him being “the way, the truth and the life”. However, there really is no inconsistency between the idea of the salvation of a non-Christian and the teaching of God’s word and the Church. That no man can be saved independently of Christ and of the virtue residing (according to the uniform witness of the bible) in His precious blood, merits and grace, is a truth of which all of Scripture is replete, indeed, it is the basis-truth of Revelation. However, it is quite another position to assert, as you do, that without conscious exercise of faith in Christ, salvation is an impossibilty. This we simply cannot say. True, no soul can see salvation but by the merits of Christ’s Passion; but we cannot say what instrument God may be pleased to employ for applying the merits of Christ to those who have never heard, and may never hear, or whose knowledge of Him has been utterly insufficient and inadequate. We are talking here, dear friend, of the invincibly ignorant to whom the glad tidings of salvation have never been made known and to whom the gracious offer of salvation through Christ has never been fairly and fully brought.

We are assured by St. Paul that God “will have all men to be saved” (I Tim. 2: 4), and if this is the case, we are surely led to infer that no man in the world who is inculpably ignorant, in terms of both knowledge and privilege, shall be condemned eternally, in whose character there is not found something morally equivalent to a wilful rejection of the Gospel, which alone can seal the doom of those who hear the Gospel with full intelligence. To put it quite simply, no man can perish eternally except by his own fault and deliberate choice - no part of the blame will rest with God our Saviour. “The judge of all the earth will do right”, of that we can be most certain.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[CMatt25]

For some reason today, Matt, this comment grates. It comes across as a little bit of a dig. So what if I have used it before? Most of my comments are nothing new but only a re-presentation of the Truths that were given, once for all, 2000 years ago.

Not to mention I see you have a common lexicon you proffer in your posts. I don’t fault you for that. I understand that the person you’re in dialogue with may not have had your arguments presented to her and it’s new to her, although not to me.

Just sayin’…not a big deal. I’m over it now.

And this acknowledgement–if we can get the Protestant to even say the above–is HUGE.

For it affirms these Catholic points:

-the Protestant does NOT believe, then, in Sola Scriptura.
-the Protestant must then acknowledge that the Church is infallible, at least as it applies to discerning the canon of Scripture.

Huge.

Hi PR, usually I’ve followed your replies reasonably well, beyond I know occasionally taking your analogies a bit too literally at times. But with this one I’m not sure how you arrived from point A to point B. I merely asserted the argument you often use that the Bible was compiled by a church as it existed over 15 centuries ago, doesn’t always hold water with Protestants. No dig implied by whatever the common lexicon was that I used. But true not a big deal.

But anyway why can’t the Protestants I know if they believe Christ needed to reform His Church to keep the gates from prevailing, still be sola scriptura even if the Church was infallible at the time many centuries ago on canon?

 

[PRmerger]

But anyway why can’t the Protestants I know if they believe Christ needed to reform His Church to keep the gates from prevailing, still be sola scriptura even if the Church was infallible at the time many centuries ago on canon?

They can’t be Sola Scriptura if the believe that the Church, not the Bible, is providing some sort of theological truth for them (namely, what is inspired text and what is not).

The infallibility question is separate, but related.

Have you ever heard a Protestant, when you presented this argument, acknowledge that the Church was infallible, at least in discerning this theological truth? It’s very, very difficult to get them to acknowledge this, even IF they grudgingly will submit that the Church did canonize the books of Scripture.

But it’s the logical conclusion: the Church was infallible when she discerned the canon of Scripture. Unless they want to proffer what books the Church erred in omitting or retaining.

There is no either/or in this argument. Either the Church is infallible (on this theological truth), or there’s some books in the Bible that the Protestant must question its inspiration.

And I’ve found not a single Christian who wants to claim that some NT book doesn’t belong there. (Or the corollary that some ancient Christian text actually is inspired but wasn’t included in the canon.)

 

[CMatt25]

They can’t be Sola Scriptura if the believe that the Church, not the Bible, is providing some sort of theological truth for them (namely, what is inspired text and what is not).

Have you ever heard a Protestant, when you presented this argument, acknowledge that the Church was infallible, at least in discerning this theological truth? It’s very, very difficult to get them to acknowledge this, even IF they grudgingly will submit that the Church did canonize the books of Scripture.

But it’s the logical conclusion: the Church was infallible when she discerned the canon of Scripture. Unless they want to proffer what books the Church erred in omitting or retaining.

There is no either/or in this argument. Either the Church is infallible (on this theological truth), or there’s some books in the Bible that the Protestant must question its inspiration.

And I’ve found not a single Christian who wants to claim that some NT book doesn’t belong there. (Or the corollary that some ancient Christian text actually is inspired but wasn’t included in the canon.)

But PR once Scripture is compiled, what would keep them from being sola scriptura? How can one in faith be sola scriptura with regard to the NT until there is a compiled NT Scripture?

No I haven’t. The only books I’ve heard in dispute are the deuterocanonicals.

 

[PRmerger]

But PR once Scripture is compiled, what would keep them from being sola scriptura?

The fact that the only way they know that “My breath is offensive to my wife” is inspired, is because an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture told them it was.

Therefore, they cannot be Sola Scriptura.

Not to mention, anyone who’s SS will be naturally dismissive of Sacred Tradition. Yet it is only through ST that one knows that “All Scripture is inspired by God” is theopneustos.

How can one in faith be sola scriptura with regard to the NT until there is a compiled NT Scripture?

Right. So for 400 years at least there were no SS Christians. SS is a novelty, never taught by the early Christians, and of course never taught by Christ and His Apostles.

 

[kelman]

The fact remains that his words were directed at Catholics who were defecting from the faith and not to those who were outside of the Catholic faith. .

Surely it is an imaginary figment to interpret Eugene’s words to mean that Jews and pagans were as you say: ”defecting from the faith and not to those who were outside of the Catholic faith.” Over the period of many centuries various popes issued very similar letters – no salvation outside of the RCC - which is distinctly different from today’s teaching

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;”*

Pope Innocent III (December 18, 1208): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.”*

Pope Pius IX (December 9, 1854): “For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.”

Pope Leo XIII (January 10, 1890): “He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.”

Pope Saint Pius X (March 12, 1904): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.”

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV: “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”

Or even this from Trent concerning RCC’s sacraments and salvation: * “If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law [of the Roman Catholic Church] are not necessary for salvation but…that without them…men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification…let him be anathema.”* Council of Trent, 7, General, 4

In the parable of the sower, we see how the Gospel is either received or not. 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.

Scripture does not give us the leisure of speculating nor does it allow for special pleading due to ignorance, rather, it quite plainly states the following: “Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom 5:12); “through the offense of one (man) many be dead” (5:15); “the judgement was by one (offense) unto condemnation”(5:16); “by one man’s offense ( or by one offense) death reigned by one” (5:17); “by the offense of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation” (5:18); “for by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (5:19); “in Adam all die” (1 Cor 15:22).

The Catholic Church maintains that the non-Christian religions contain elements of goodness and truth and that their adherents are capable of self-denial, good works, compassion and otherworldliness.

Even as some of these non-Christian religions worship false gods and pagan idols? The first Commandment would have something to say about that! These types of teachings even allow for God-denying atheists entering His holy heaven – if said atheist does “good works”. No, this is an impossibility according to the Bible, man is unable to save himself by his own works of righteousness or moral goodness. This is not to say that we could even consider ourselves to be true Christians if we do not do the righteous works God commands, nevertheless, our works cannot save us. It is God who works in us (Phil 2:13) and as we see in 2Peter 1:3 it is God who gives us the ability to lead a life of “godliness” through Jesus Christ. ”According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:”

God has established a means for salvation of this there is no doubt. Repeatedly, He insists that faith in Jesus Christ as Messiah is the only means to eternal life. We know for a fact, thanks to Rom 1:18-19, that general revelation can only condemn not save. General revelation isn’t sufficient to save, but it is sufficient to render every man without excuse. No man can stand before a holy God and say, “I didn’t know. I wasn’t aware. I should be given another chance or a special grace due to my ignorant condition.” Do we then just discard Rom 1, and scores of other scripture, in favor of pure conjecture and what “we” think is just?

There are not many “paths” that lead to salvation. Jesus Himself tells us this in Mat 7:13 ”Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:“. Christ tells us He is the “path” and only through faith in Him, the “narrow gate”, do we enter. Why then do we entertain teachings to the contrary?*

 

[moncler_kids]

Thank you, I have recently been searching for information about this topic for ages and yours is the best I have discovered so far.
monclerjakkersalg.net/moncler-down-damejakker-c-18.html
It turns out we had the same taste in movies. Lorelei liked Action movies and Science Fiction thrillers. She wasn’t into Chick Flicks. That’s really good, because I’m really not into those kinds of movies. Everyday life was boring enough, thank you very much. Lorelei and I became inseparable. We would go to class together, hand in hand.
monclerpullover.org/moncler-weste-frauen-c-4.html
It’s funny how we adopt words and adapt our lexicon to the times. This is a very useful slant on things.
monclerinn.com
kvindercanadagoose.com/canada-goose-parka-herre-snow-mantra-parka-c-28_32.html

 

[kelman]

We also, as in so many other areas, must have regard to the unique historical context in which the Cornelius event occurs. In a sense, Cornelius, before Christ was preached unto him, was in the same position as those Gentiles in the O.T. who came to believe in the living God and act accordingly - like those who are commended for their faith in the great Hebrews chapter 11, including the pre-Israelites Abel, Enoch, and Noah, and the non-Israelite Rahab.

This offers no help for the inclusivism position, in fact, it supports exclusivism. All these you mention had in fact been given special revelation from God which is precisely what Scripture teaches is necessary for salvation. As for those Israelites who were saved in the OT. their faith was in the coming Messiah: * “…by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types of ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation.” Westminster Confession of Faith (VII.5)

Thus if the question is asked, hypothetically, what if Cornelius had died while St. Peter was on his way to him with the Gospel, would he have been saved? Then, surely, we must say that it certainly looked very good for him and he might well have attained eternal salvation, perhaps after a period in Purgatory.

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

The Catholic Church maintains that the non-Christian religions contain elements of goodness and truth and that their adherents are capable of self-denial, good works, compassion and otherworldliness. Moreover, God does speak to men within the framework of the religious understanding that they already have and men can attain unto eternal salvation in their religion if they are and remain invincibly ignorant, through no fault of their own.

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.*

 

[kelman]

That all Evangelical Christians do not hold to the exclusivist position does evince most clearly that there is difference among them over a fundamental teaching, namely the eternal salvation of non-Christians. In Protestant Evangelicalism, who decides which group is correct on this most crucial of issues?

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.

This highlights the whole problem of sola scriptura, which does result from man’s sinful pride and rejection of the authority of Christ’s Church. Ditto with ‘annihiliationism’. Evangelicals are deeply divided over the fate of the impenitent, some believing in eternal conscious torrment, others believing that the soul is destroyed.

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.

Again, who decides which of these viewpoints is correct, since equally devout and equally bible believing men all make their appeal to Sacred Scripture and their own Protestant ‘tradition’?

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

No Catholic would take issue with most of what Mr. Packer states, that is the ordinary way of receiving the Gospel according to the N.T. However, my dear brother, this does not address those who have not had an opportunity to hear the Gospel clearly and embrace it.

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.

As I explained previously, that the Church has changed its position on the salvability of non-Christians and done, to use your term, “a complete 180 turnabout”, is a figment of the Protestant imagination.

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.

The problem is that all Evangelicals, including those who hold an inclusivist position, would say that they “truly practice sola scriptura” and believe that the bible is on their side.

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.

Again, who is to decide who is right, since all make their appeal to God’s word written? Who is to say that exclusivists like yourself are correct, whilst all others are wrong?

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

 

[PRmerger]

There are not many “paths” that lead to salvation. Jesus Himself tells us this in Mat 7:13 ”Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:“. Christ tells us He is the “path” and only through faith in Him, the “narrow gate”, do we enter. Why then do we entertain teachings to the contrary?

There is nothing contrary between saying Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus". The* only* way you know that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life is because this Church told you he said that. Thus, if you’re saved by Jesus, you’re saved by His Body, the Church. There is no dichotomy between them.

Otherwise, what you serve is a corporeal-less Head. Or we’re in a decapitated Body.

Catholics have, well, the Fullness. Head and Body.

No one can be saved without both.

 

[kelman]

When St. Paul says in the Romans, “All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law…” (2: 12), ‘perish’ cannot possibly mean in every case everlasting punishment in Gehenna. In by far the greater number of cases where the word is employed it denotes simply perishing by death and the nearest approach which which one can make to an explanation is that they will “die in their sins”, and be subject to such punishment as God in His combined justice and mercy deems fitting.

And yet it seems clear from the context in which Rom 2:12 is found that “perish” means the eternal wrath of God not just to physically die: ”But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;”(verse 5).

To die in one’s sins means to go into eternal damnation. It means God has not granted that individual His perfect perfect righteousness on the basis of Christ’s merits which is received by faith. Faith must be placed not in our own righteousness but that of Jesus Christ who is called “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS” (Jer 23:6).

This may seem to say very little to an Evangelical, but it says all that men have any business to say. However, what right have we to assert that God has put it out of His power to inflict any but the most extreme punishment of everlasting conscious torment? That is a most hideous teaching which does not even allow for any degrees of punishment.

We assert only what God insists upon in Scripture. Eternal damnation allows for “degrees” of punishment. In Luke 12 Jesus says the servant who “knew” his lord’s will yet did not do it will ”cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.” Even so there appears to be “degrees” of punishment:

Luke 12:45-48
But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (S. Mk. 16: 15,16). Moreover, it surely stands to reason that we are not to sever the earlier part of this injunction from the latter. Sacred Scripture can never, except at the risk of a fatal misapprehension, be wrenched from its connection with its immediate context. Thus when our Lord warns His Apostles, in the same breath in which he issues His universal commission to preach the Gospel, that “he who does not believe will be condemned”, He is assuredly to be understood as meaning, “He that refuses to believe, after he has heard the good news preached unto him”. Now in this case such a man will have had much given and so quite rightly “much” will be demanded of him, certainly a firm faith, working by love and confessing before men in the Sacrament of Baptism, - this will be “required”.

With regard to Mark 16, God is here giving the command to go and make disciples and yet nowhere does it imply that other than disciples will be saved. We may never sever this verse from all others which teach that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.

 

[kelman]

Can you not, my dear brother, differentiate between these two groups and see the principle laid down in the words of our Blessed Saviour? What our Lord lays down in these solemn words is precisely this, and nothing more than this, everyone who has heard the Gospel preached and has had the claims of Christ and the Church pressed upon him, shall, on account of his deliberate rejection, be condemned at the Last Judgment.

It is precisely because of the necessity of the Gospel message that Jesus sends ministers out into the world. This is why the clear implication of Rom 10:13-15 is that the Gospel message preached is the only means of salvation to a lost and dying world. ”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?..”

Many today in the non-Christian religions also live up to the light afforded them and strive to follow their aspirations after goodness and truth. Frequently they practice self-denial and are zealous in good works and generally live very otherworldly lives. Now it would surely be a grave injustice and a gross act of inclemency to apply to their character and conduct a criterion which has never been promulgated to them and which they have not had opportunity either to embrace or refuse.

You speak of character and conduct, zealousness in good works as if this could possible save anyone. We find no evidence that “good works” can save. The only work which saves is that of the Lord Jesus. In fact, concerning man’s good works, we find the opposite to be true. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”(Rom 3:23). It is for this reason we all need a new “heart”…. “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). How can we ignore John 3:16? ** “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”.**

However, there really is no inconsistency between the idea of the salvation of a non-Christian and the teaching of God’s word and the Church. That no man can be saved independently of Christ and of the virtue residing (according to the uniform witness of the bible) in His precious blood, merits and grace, is a truth of which all of Scripture is replete, indeed, it is the basis-truth of Revelation.

Obviously, I disagree. The overwhelming evidence is that inclusivism is inconsistent with Scripture. This has nothing to do with being “saved independently of Christ”… Where do we find salvation to be granted to anyone without having faith in Christ…where? It may sound rather pleasant and even somewhat lofty to say that most?..all?..receive Christ’s “merits and grace”, nevertheless, we find no such testimony in Scripture.

Instead we find Paul saying in Rom 10:1-4 that knowledge of true information is part of saving faith and that our own righteousness(good works) cannot save - we must have knowledge of God’s righteousness. ”Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

We are assured by St. Paul that God “will have all men to be saved” (I Tim. 2: 4),…

"…and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." And yet all men are not saved nor do they come to the knowledge of truth. So, either God is somehow unable to accomplish His own will or He is not here speaking of every individual without exception.

…and if this is the case, we are surely led to infer that no man in the world who is inculpably ignorant, in terms of both knowledge and privilege, shall be condemned eternally, in whose character there is not found something morally equivalent to a wilful rejection of the Gospel, which alone can seal the doom of those who hear the Gospel with full intelligence.

We have no right to “infer” anything other than what God has given us – that faith in Jesus Christ is needed to be saved. Man has added so much to the salvation message handed down to us by the Apostles. First, you say only willfull rejection of the Gospel brings damnation, then you tack on that the individual must also be free from a cultural prejudice toward those bringing the message and one which is “fully and faithfully” brought. No, God doesn’t say how much Gospel must be heard – other than faith in Christ for salvation. Even when a natural enemy is presented with the Gospel, if it is God’s will, he will savingly respond.

To put it quite simply, no man can perish eternally except by his own fault and deliberate choice - no part of the blame will rest with God our Saviour. “The judge of all the earth will do right”, of that we can be most certain.

Exactly, man eternally perishes because of his sins…not specifically because he didn’t have knowledge of the Gospel. Indeed, the “judge of all the earth” will do according to His will and He has clearly laid out in Scripture the way to salvation. We may never change the Gospel message and declare that faith in "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS” is optional and that we need only do “good works”. How did theological thought get so off-track that “What you believe doesn’t matter, it’s your sincerity[and good works] that counts.”

 

[CMatt25]

Right. So for 400 years at least there were no SS Christians. SS is a novelty, never taught by the early Christians, and of course never taught by Christ and His Apostles.

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?