Salvation outside Christianity...?

[reen12]

[contd.]

also, #847
catholicdoors.com/catechis/cat0781.htm#846

reen12

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Well, this has certainly sparked more discussion than I expected! It has been very informative, though. I thank everyone for their contributions, even you non-Christians…

Matt16_18:

Who gave us the push towards hell? Adam and Eve gave us the push, because they were willfully disobedient to God. It was Adam and Eve that sent humanity careening on the path towards the lake of fire, not God.

True, though I guess one could say it seems Adam and Eve’s descendants are kind of getting a bad deal…

God knows that humanity is headed for disaster, and he sent his beloved Son into the world to stop the wagons by lying down in front of the wagons. Will all be saved from the lake of fire? No, because some people keep steering their wagons around the Son of God …

Thanks for your explanation! I guess it really does come down to free will in the end. I guess my analogy refers to a Calvinistic, strict predestinarian worldview, with which I personally disagree. Still, I have to admit, such arguments do come to mind sometimes…

reen12:

The real Achilles heel, is the attempt to maintain,
in the face of the “reasonable person” standard,
that the fate of unbaptized babies cannot be stated
with certainty.

I guess the trouble here is that it is difficult to know *anything * with certainty when it comes to what happens after death. After all, there isn’t exactly a surplus of people who have been to the other side and come back. It all comes down to faith and trust, which I realize are often difficult things to resort to (and, of course, it all depends on who/what you’re putting your faith and trust in).

Note: Ending sentences with prepositions, as I did above, is not grammatically correct.

If you take the time to consult the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, you will discover that, despite the theological “box”
that I contend exists, the Church entrusts these children
to the mercy of God.

And I really don’t see that as a bad thing. If the mercy of God is not sufficient to save these children (or anyone else) then nothing is.

This whole issue comes to mind because of my exploration of Catholicism from a Protestant perspective. As a Protestant, I can simply say that my particular church is probably wrong (or right, as the case may be) on the subject of infant salvation. If a doctrine is personally abhorent to me, I can just decide that it isn’t true and try to find a church that I believe is more correct. Well, as I study Catholicism, I discover that if I accept Catholicism, I must accept the authority of the Church. And if I do this, I can’t rely on “the Church is wrong” argument whenever I encounter something I have trouble understanding.

Well, that’s all for now. Thanks for all your answers. God Bless!

 

[Matt16_18]

reen12:

No, the positions I hold would be characterized as apostasy.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
2089 … apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith …
Please clarify your position. Do you totally repudiate the Christian faith?

 

[Matt16_18]

The Iambic Pen:

True, though I guess one could say it seems Adam and Eve’s descendants are kind of getting a bad deal…

That is that horrible thing about sin, it doesn’t just affect the person doing the sinning, it leaves a wake of devastation behind. Think about the alcoholic wife beater that sexually abuses his children. The man’s sins are not just affecting himself.

I guess it really does come down to free will in the end. I guess my analogy refers to a Calvinistic, strict predestinarian worldview, with which I personally disagree.

I can understand why you can’t worship a monstrous God that creates people for hell.

If the mercy of God is not sufficient to save these children (or anyone else) then nothing is.

As a Protestant, I can simply say that my particular church is probably wrong (or right, as the case may be) on the subject of infant salvation. If a doctrine is personally abhorent to me, I can just decide that it isn’t true and try to find a church that I believe is more correct. Well, as I study Catholicism, I discover that if I accept Catholicism, I must accept the authority of the Church. And if I do this, I can’t rely on “the Church is wrong” argument whenever I encounter something I have trouble understanding.

You are beginning to understand the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism.

A Protestant that believes in the doctrine of the private interpretation of scriptures is forced to be his own ultimate temporal authority on matters of faith and morals. If he finds that he disagrees with what his current Protestant sect teaches, to have any integrity at all, he must leave his current Protestant sect and find another Protestant sect that conforms to what he believes. And if he later changes his mind about what he believes, he must once again shop around until he finds a different Protestant sect that agrees with his new understanding of Christianity. But a Protestant can NEVER be sure that he has found the church that teaches the unvarnished truth, because all he has to rely on is his own private interpretations of scriptures. An honest Protestant must at some time in his life resolve these questions:Is the existence of thousands of bickering, contentious, and doctrinally opposed Protestant denominations the work of the Holy Spirit, or the work of the author of confusion?

Where can one find the church that Jesus founded, the church that Jesus promised would be guided by the Holy Spirit, the church that Jesus guaranteed that powers of Hell would never prevail against?

No Protestant sect can be that church founded by Jesus, because every Protestant sect was founded by a man, not by Christ. No Protestant sect can be that church founded by Jesus, because not one Protestant sect existed during the first thousand years of Christianity.

 

[reen12]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reen12

No, the positions I hold would be characterized as apostasy.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2089 … apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith …
Please clarify your position. Do you totally repudiate the Christian faith?

Yes.

I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah.

Best,
reen12

 

[reen12]

-The Church cannot state, with certainty, the fate of unbaptized
babies, who have never had an opportunity to sin [it entrusts them to mercy of God.]

-The Church can state,* with certainty*, whether a given person is
in heaven. [the canonization process.]

I repeat, from my post, further up this thread:

But, you see, my heart tells me that if a religon cannot
state with certainty that God accepts the souls of
unbaptized babies, then that religion is deficient in
some critical way.

I’m sorry, in a sense, that I can’t believe it. It’s theology
is positively elegant, it’s European cathedrals are astonishing
in their beauty, it has been the faith of Teresa of Calcutta,
it has given us another marvel, in Benedict XVI,
it produced the finest theologian the world has ever seen-
Saul of Tarsus- and yet, logically and spiritually, it doesn’t
cohere.

reen12

 

[Wormwood]

The fact is, I raised the same point:

Hehe well sorry. It was just full of the perfect phrases for me to make my point I would never intentionally single one person out (except ghosty or shoshana hehe ) I was just trying to pick out the anti-merciful opinions.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Matt16_18:

That is that horrible thing about sin, it doesn’t just affect the person doing the sinning, it leaves a wake of devastation behind. Think about the alcoholic wife beater that sexually abuses his children. The man’s sins are not just affecting himself.

That is certainly true. And, sadly, oftentimes it seems that the children are more likely to commit the same sins. So, it can be seen that a person’s descendants certainly inherit the tendency to commit a certain sin or sins. What I still have trouble grasping is the idea that a person’s descendants can also inherit their ancestor’s guilt. Many Protestants believe that we inherited the “sin nature” from Adam and Eve, that is to say, the tendency to sin. However, until we actually commit a sin, we are guiltless. So, infants who die obviously go to Heaven, because they have not sinned. They do possess the sin nature, but the shortness of their life did not allow them to act in accordance with their inherited sinful nature.

A Protestant that believes in the doctrine of the private interpretation of scriptures is forced to be his own ultimate temporal authority on matters of faith and morals. If he finds that he disagrees with what his current Protestant sect teaches, to have any integrity at all, he must leave his current Protestant sect and find another Protestant sect that conforms to what he believes. And if he later changes his mind about what he believes, he must once again shop around until he finds a different Protestant sect that agrees with his new understanding of Christianity. But a Protestant can NEVER be sure that he has found the church that teaches the unvarnished truth, because all he has to rely on is his own private interpretations of scriptures.

All of what you say here is true, which is one of the reasons I continue to study Catholicism. I guess, though, that it’s not a simple matter to immediately accept Catholicism just because of the flaws of Protestantism. This is why I study all of the “hard issues” and doctrines that have mystified Protestants for some time. If I become a Catholic, I want to be a real one, not some “cafeteria Catholic” who is basically a Protestant who goes to a Catholic Church.

Is the existence of thousands of bickering, contentious, and doctrinally opposed Protestant denominations the work of the Holy Spirit, or the work of the author of confusion?

I do tend to lean toward the latter possibility.

Where can one find the church that Jesus founded, the church that Jesus promised would be guided by the Holy Spirit, the church that Jesus guaranteed that powers of Hell would never prevail against?

Another good question.

No Protestant sect can be that church founded by Jesus, because every Protestant sect was founded by a man, not by Christ.

Very true.

No Protestant sect can be that church founded by Jesus, because not one Protestant sect existed during the first thousand years of Christianity.

This is an area with which I still struggle. How do I know the Coptic Church wasn’t more correct? How do I know that when the Orthodox/Roman Catholic split happened, that the Orthodox Church wasn’t the correct church? I also remember reading about how when Augustine of Canterbury arrived in Britain, he discovered Christians there who were shocked by some of the Catholic Doctrines he was preaching. How do I know they weren’t more correct than Augustine? I don’t accept the common Protestant idea that there was some sort of underground “true” church hiding from Catholicism for 1500 years. However, I also don’t believe that just because Catholicism was accepted by the majority, that that automatically means it’s true.

I guess it all comes down to authority, as I’ve said in other threads. Without accepting the authority of the Catholic Church, I have only the Bible as my authority. Since many of the commonly objected to Catholic doctrines are not explicitly stated in Scripture, the Church I see is teaching different things than the Bible. It can be confusing at times. Still, I know the argument that Scripture (the canon of which was decided by the Catholic Church) and Tradition both work together to show us what to believe. Please pray that I’ll know what is right and follow it! Thanks for your posts!

God Bless!

 

[Faithful_One]

reen12:

Yes.

I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah.

Best,
reen12

But you acknowledge that you have sinned??..broken God’s law ?

Faithful One

 

[reen12]

Dear Wormwood,

quote: Wormwood

Hehe well sorry. It was just full of the perfect phrases for me to make my point … I was just trying to pick out the anti-merciful opinions.

No problem!

BTW, there’s a thread, currently running, on the fate of
unbaptized infants:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=68005

Oh, my sainted aunt!

Best,
reen12

 

[Mickey]

The Iambic Pen:

This is an area with which I still struggle. How do I know the Coptic Church wasn’t more correct? How do I know that when the Orthodox/Roman Catholic split happened, that the Orthodox Church wasn’t the correct church?

East and West are not really at odds. (although there are many on both sides that would tell you differently). The West emphasizes a more scholastic approach and the East has embraced the mystical side. These are not opposing viewpoints–they are quite complimentary. Unfortunately, people have used the schism to denigrate eachothers Traditions. This is a sin.
Eastern Catholicism is a wonderful marriage of East and West recognizing all the beautiful and Holy Traditions of both. So the short answer to your inquiry would be: The Catholic/Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It will likely you take you much study and prayer to arrive at satisfactory answers to your many questions. We are all pilgrims on a journey toward eternity. May God Bless you on your journey Iambic pen!

 

[reen12]

Hello, Faithful One,

quote: Faithful One

Originally Posted by reen12

Yes.

I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah.

Best,
reen12

But you acknowledge that you have sinned??..broken God’s law ?

I’ve sure sinned my share, in 59 years.

My belief is that God has always forgiven sin, if I make

the “turn” back to Him. teshuvah].

You see, God is called “the Redeemer” in the OT.

I hold that there is an everlasting Covenant - with Israel.

Not a “New” Testament…the “Old” Covenant is eternal.

That God is One…not 3 Persons in One.

“If your sins be as scarlet, I will make them whiter than snow.”

That sentence is in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Tanach,

which is referred to as the Old Testament.

Original Sin -which gives Christianity such difficulty when

dealing with innocent babes and their certain fate-

is not found in the parent faith of Christianity, Judaism:

aish.com/spirituality/gr…_Fathers_17.asp

Hence, no problem with the certain fate of infants.

Or, as I said above, in a post:

But, you see, my heart tells me that if a religon cannot
state with certainty that God accepts the souls of
unbaptized babies, then that religion is deficient in
some critical way

Hope the above explains my belief, the place of teshuvah, when I sin*,* and how my belief connects with Salvation outside Christianity…

BTW, there’s also an ongoing thread on Limbo.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=61888

Best wishes,

reen12

 

[Faithful_One]

reen12:

Hello, Faithful One,

I’ve sure sinned my share, in 59 years.

My belief is that God has always forgiven sin, if I make

the “turn” back to Him. teshuvah].

You see, God is called “the Redeemer” in the OT.

Well, you sound like a Christian now; for you recognize that repentance ('turning back") toward God is necessary.
However, even in Old Testament God requires something more:
He requires atonement for sin.

So where is your atonement for sin?
In Old Testament ( which apparently you believe) God required a sacrifice ( animal, etc.) for atonement of sins; and he required it to be done according to strict adherence to the law .
Do you make atonement each year according to the law for your sins?

Faithful One

 

[reen12]

Hi, Faithful One,

quote: Faithful One

So where is your atonement for sin?
In Old Testament ( which apparently you believe) God required a sacrifice ( animal, etc.) for atonement of sins; and he required it to be done according to strict adherence to the law .
Do you make atonement each year according to the law for your sins?

jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq042.html

I am not a Jew, nor do I intend to convert. I do not speak

for Judaism. In addition, Judaism is not a prosyletizing

faith, though it’s members seem willing to respond to

questions about their faith.

Christians are urged to do likewise:

"Always be prepared to give an answer for the

hope that is in you" [paraphrase]

I am not a member of Judaism. I’m a Noahide.

ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1605

That’s all that I can offer, at this time, without
turning the thread from it’s original topic.

Many thanks for your questions.:tiphat:
Best,

reen12

BTW, the sixth Law, regarding “live animals” , is
a general prohibition against mistreatment of animals.

 

[Matt16_18]

Matt16_18:

Many Protestants believe that we inherited the “sin nature” from Adam and Eve, that is to say, the tendency to sin. However, until we actually commit a sin, we are guiltless.

Is that what Protestants mean by “sin nature”? The Catholic Church is a little more careful when using the word “nature”. Human beings have human nature, and our human nature is wounded by original sin. What you are calling “sin nature”, the Catholic Church calls concupiscence.

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

418** As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the “spirit.” Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.

1264 … certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”

As you can see, if you substitute “concupiscence” for “sin nature”, the Catholic Church teaches exactly the same thing that you are saying. We struggle with concupiscence (our “sin nature”) even after we become Christians, but the inclination to sin is not in itself a sin; i.e. “Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.” (CCC 2515)

So, infants who die obviously go to Heaven, because they have not sinned. They do possess the sin nature, but the shortness of their life did not allow them to act in accordance with their inherited sinful nature.

Here you need to be careful, because this isn’t taught anywhere in scriptures. Indeed, following your line of reasoning, abortion would be a sacrament of salvation, since aborted infants would automatically go to heaven. Abortion is most certainly NOT a sacrament of salvation!

The real question is this: does the church on earth (the Church Militant) have any means at its disposal to help the slaughtered innocents receive the sanctifying grace that they need to remove the effects of original sin? Jesus never spoke directly to this question, so we can’t look to scriptures for an explicit answer. The living Magisterium of the Catholic Church has not yet spoken officially on this question either. That is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church says this: 1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation.

 

[Matt16_18]

The Iambic Pen:

I guess, though, that it’s not a simple matter to immediately accept Catholicism just because of the flaws of Protestantism. This is why I study all of the “hard issues” and doctrines that have mystified Protestants for some time. If I become a Catholic, I want to be a real one, not some “cafeteria Catholic” who is basically a Protestant who goes to a Catholic Church. … I also don’t believe that just because Catholicism was accepted by the majority, that that automatically means it’s true.

If you sincerely seek the truth, no matter what the cost, the truth will be revealed to you.

This is an area with which I still struggle. How do I know the Coptic Church wasn’t more correct? How do I know that when the Orthodox/Roman Catholic split happened, that the Orthodox Church wasn’t the correct church?

Excellent question! I believe this can be answered by asking how each church resolves the question of how the faithful know when an Ecumenical Council is valid.

The Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholics all acknowledge that there were councils that were called that were intended to be Ecumenical Councils, and that some of these councils were, in fact, not valid. Even though these councils issued teachings, the teachings were flawed, and they were never accepted as infallible teachings of the church. So how do the faithful know whether a particular Ecumenical Council was valid or invalid? For example, the Catholic Church recognizes that the Council of Florence is valid, the EO and the OO do not.

The Catholic Church can answer this question of how the faithful can know if a particular Ecumenical Council is valid, and she can quote scriptures and the Church Fathers to back up her position. But if you ask the Oriental Orthodox or the Eastern Orthodox how the faithful can know when a particular Ecumenical Council is valid you will NEVER get a straight answer from the hierarchy of these churches. Obfuscation is all you will ever get. Which should lead you to ask, how is it possible that after two thousand years of Christianity, that the OO and the EO are totally incapable of answering such a fundamental question? The OO and the EO are just as incapable of answering this question as any Protestant sect, and that should raise alarms. If the faithful have no way of knowing if a particular Ecumenical Council is valid or not, then the faithful have no way of knowing what Christ’s church really teaches.

I guess it all comes down to authority, as I’ve said in other threads. Without accepting the authority of the Catholic Church, I have only the Bible as my authority.

Does the Bible ever teach that it is the SOLE authority? No it doesn’t. The doctrine that Bible is the sole authority is a false tradition of men, and this false doctrine is the root cause of the scandal of thousands of Protestant denominations that cannot all agree on one single doctrine of the faith. Is this scandal caused because men are deliberately misinterpreting that bible? I don’t think so, for many of the Protestants that I know are quite sincere in their beliefs. They are sincere, but they are also sincerely mistaken. The Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses that come to my door are sincere, but that doesn’t make them right.

Please pray that I’ll know what is right and follow it!

I consider it an honor to pray for you to receive the gift of wisdom and discernment in your quest to know the uncompromised truth. I invite all the other faithful Catholics reading this thread to pray for you too.

 

[Matt16_18]

reen12:

I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah.

I am not a Jew … I’m a Noahide.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Are you member of COGAF?

If not, what denomination, if any, do you belong to?

 

[reen12]

Dear Matt16_18,

quote: Matt16_18

Originally Posted by reen12

I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah.

I am not a Jew … I’m a Noahide.

Thanks for clarifying that.

You’re welcome.:tiphat:

Best,
reen12

 

[buffalo]

Let’s see in Jesus’ own words:
John** Chapter 10** 1 1 2 “Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber. 2 But whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice, as he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 3 When he has driven out all his own, he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice. 5 But they will not follow a stranger; they will run away from him, because they do not recognize the voice of strangers.” 6 Although Jesus used this figure of speech, 4 they did not realize what he was trying to tell them. 7 5 So Jesus said again, “Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 6 All who came [before me] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. 10 A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 A hired man, who is not a shepherd and whose sheep are not his own, sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf catches and scatters them. 13 This is because he works for pay and has no concern for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep 7 that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. 8 This command I have received from my Father.” 19 Again there was a division among the Jews because of these words.

 

[Faithful_One]

reen12:

jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq042.html

I am not a Jew, nor do I intend to convert. I do not speak

for Judaism. …

I am not a member of Judaism. I’m a Noahide.

ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1605

That’s all that I can offer, at this time, without
turning the thread from it’s original topic.

reen12

.

Saying you are a ‘Noahide’ still doesn’t answer the question about how you get atonement for your sins. God’s justice requires that sin be punished.

Apparently then I can conclude that you have adopted the position that no atonement is necessary in order to obtained God’s forgiveness. This in direct contradiction to all the fundamental teaching of both Old Testament and New.

Apparently, the 'Noahides" have their roots from O.T. Judism, but they have decided to eliminate certain of God’s requirements for forgiveness of sin.

I am not trying to criticize you but only making it clear for those posters here about your true philosphy with regard to punishment of sin.
Yours is a very common philosophy today among many sects who have started their own religion (many even based on O.T.), who don’t want to face **God’****s requirement for a substitute to bear our punishment for sin. **

They try to obtain God’s forgiveness (or deceive themselves into thinking they have obtained His forgiveness) without fulfilling the clear requirements God has set down in Scripture.

Eliminating the need for a substitute to bear our sin is a clear denial of God’s Word, and leads one to the erroneous conclusion that one can gain God’s favor by their own efforts and therefore don’t need a Savior. Jesus was God’s answer to the fundamental problem of sin; he became the sin bearer. The punishment you and I deserve was laid on him.

Hope you understand and** truly** practice ‘teshuvah’.
Thanks for the response;
Faithful One

“Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; but he that acknowledges the Son, hath the Father also” Apostle 1John 2:23