Salvation outside Christianity...?

[adventistnomore]

reen12:

Hi, adventistnomore,

Wait a minute…

I took a bit of a rest, and while doing so, I considered the
following:

-if a righteous gentile is considered one who follows the
Noahide Laws - which includes no idolatry

-and the Catechism states that all who do not know of
Christ etc*.may* be saved

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.htm
#1260

-where is an idol worshipping individual- who never heard
of the One God- better off, in terms of salvation?
With Christianity.

Facnating point.

Hmmm… I’m not a Rabinnical student (to say the least). The teaching that a non-Christian can recieve salvation without complete knowledge of the truth presupposes that their conscience is too hindered to understand the sinfulness of their own acts. I have no idea if the rabbis, when touching the Noahide laws, also allowed for such an exception.

In Romans 1, Paul seems to indicate that natural law should be sufficient to condemn gentiles of the sin of idolatry… but the contex is righeounessness or judgment in the sight of God not necessarily one’s own personal conscience awareness of his/her sin. It certainly raises the possibility that the sinfulness idolatry may be discovered by one’s conscience, (as the fathers assumed of the Greek philosophers who decred idolatry), but it provides no indication that they will absolutely realize the sinfulness of idolatry. That’s the only passage that seemed at least a bit promising.

Now, in Catholic soterology, a gentile who knows more truth than another (though neither is initiated into the Christian faith) is not necessarily better off than the other wthout baptism. Sacramental Baptism is always square one. He is certainly responsible for the added knowledge has, however, which is an added burden only if he chooses to reject it. And yet, the Catechism does give a higher place to Jews and Muslims, because of their close affinity with Christian beliefs. They certainly have more of the truth available to them, which brings them closer to the Catholic Church (the wellspring f salvation). Nonetheless, their situation, in the eyes of the Catican II and Dominus Iesus, is still deficient, and grace does not flow from the practice oftheir religion, though it can reach them despite.

 

[reen12]

OK, I’ve been wrestling with this on the forums since this past February. Thanks to my fellow posters, I have arrived at the following conclusions: [many thanks to you, adventistnomore]

In the midst of several faiths claiming to

be the Truth, I figure that God allows all

Judeo/Christian faiths to contribute to an

understanding of Him and His plan of salvation:

Judaism is right:

Love the Lord, thy God, with thy whole

mind, heart and strength

What is hateful to you, do not do to

another

It’s continual call to monotheism, and

the sacredness of God’s Name

It is also correct, in it’s refusal to accept

the notion of original sin

The concept of *teshuvah…*the turn back

to God…as are:

Most branches of Evangelicalism,

in terms of no one required between a human

being, and his repentance before God

Catholicism is right, in it’s understanding of

the Mass, and the need to offer the perfect

sacrifice, Jesus, continually to the Father,

for the sins of man

It is also correct in saying that Baptism is required,

for Christ told His disciples to do same.

It may or may not be correct in considering

Baptism salvific…it probably is correct, but

not for the reasons it states, i.e.,original sin

Orthodoxy is right, in it’s firm grasp of letting

some realities rest in the realm of mystery

Lutheranism is right, in saying that we should

cling to Christ, and rely on His righteousness,

in the face of our sins

Each of these faiths acts as a corrective to

the others.

Since Orthodox Judaism [the parent faith] and
Catholicism [the original Christian faith], agree on
about 95 percent of moral issues, it seems clear
who to heed, in any moral quandry.]

[Stand back, Murgatroid, here comes the deluge. ]

reen12
aka Tiny Tim…who’s feeling much better, now

 

[javelin]

What a very interesting discussion…thank you all for your posts thus far!

My current place of understanding is something like this, FWIW:

Salvation is a complete gift from God. It is cannot be earned, won, or bought by any person.

Therefore, how presumptuous it would be of any of us to say we KNOW who is or is not going to receive that gift. There is no “doctrinal box” on God’s power to save. He can save anyone, anytime, anywhere.

And so I believe the Church is wise in not saying that definitively, children are “saved”. In the same manner we can never say with certainty that an individual is condemned.

Why, Reen12, do you demand that God give us a “black and white” revelation on the issue of the salvation of children? Is it not His perrogative that His Will be done, in His time and by His means?

Why do you think that the possibility that God might not save an innocent child is impossible when the OT scriptures dictate God commanding Israel at times to slay their enemies, including women and children? God’s justice is perfect, and our deserved punishment – all of mankind’s deserved punishment – is severe.

It was only God’s perfect Mercy that abated His hand of Justice until Jesus came and laid Himself down as the perfect atonement for the sins of mankind. It is to the mercy afforded us by Christ that we ALL entrust ourselves, not only the innocent children.

Peace,
javelin

 

[CheesusPowerKid]

javelin:

What a very interesting discussion…thank you all for your posts thus far!

My current place of understanding is something like this, FWIW:

Salvation is a complete gift from God. It is cannot be earned, won, or bought by any person.

Therefore, how presumptuous it would be of any of us to say we KNOW who is or is not going to receive that gift. There is no “doctrinal box” on God’s power to save. He can save anyone, anytime, anywhere.

And so I believe the Church is wise in not saying that definitively, children are “saved”. In the same manner we can never say with certainty that an individual is condemned.

Why, Reen12, do you demand that God give us a “black and white” revelation on the issue of the salvation of children? Is it not His perrogative that His Will be done, in His time and by His means?

Why do you think that the possibility that God might not save an innocent child is impossible when the OT scriptures dictate God commanding Israel at times to slay their enemies, including women and children? God’s justice is perfect, and our deserved punishment – all of mankind’s deserved punishment – is severe.

It was only God’s perfect Mercy that abated His hand of Justice until Jesus came and laid Himself down as the perfect atonement for the sins of mankind. It is to the mercy afforded us by Christ that we ALL entrust ourselves, not only the innocent children.

Peace,
javelin

I really like this summary…I think that the best any of us can do is pray for everyone, especially those who have never heard of or accepted Christ…because we do not know the will and action of God, who He choses to save or not, we should continue to pray for all souls in case they have not yet achieved the gift of eternal life from Him.
We will never know until we reach Him…God’s will is perfect, He knows what He’s doing with the souls of man, and our job is to do the very best we can on earth to help bring all those we can to Him.

In Him,
Britty

 

[reen12]

Hi, javelin,

quote:** javelin**

Why, Reen12, do you demand that God give us a “black and white” revelation on the issue of the salvation of children? Is it not His perrogative that His Will be done, in His time and by His means?

I’m glad that you’ve found the discussion interesting and
that you’ve joined in.

As to the question posed above, part of it I addressed in
post #7.

quote:javelin

Why do you think that the possibility that God might not save an innocent child is impossible when the OT scriptures dictate God commanding Israel at times to slay their enemies, including women and children? God’s justice is perfect, and our deserved punishment – all of mankind’s deserved punishment – is severe

.

I guess my response to that would be to quote
C.S.Lewis *

Most people wouldn’t want to be the God they’ve
created in their minds. They would be more Just, more
Merciful. [paraphrase]

or, to quote my own post

quote: reen12

Try telling an 12 year old kid that the fate of unbaptized
babies is left to the mercy of God. The kid may well
think: Well, they seem pretty darn sure of so many
things, why hedge on this one? A baby is innocent.
Even I

know that, and I’m a kid.
But, then, this 12 year old hasn’t budgeted for doctrine.

That doctrine, Original Sin, actually makes it possible
for some Christians to conceive of a God Who might send an *infant *to hell.

The only way that I can maintain rationality*,*
in terms of any Judeo/Christian faith, is to come to
an understanding that no faith accurately conveys
the mind of God, without distortion…usually in the
form of doctrine, rather than scripture.

---

Perhaps two of God’s greatest gifts to us are rationality and a
sense of humor [which is actually a sense of proportion.]

Best wishes, javelin,

reen12*

 

[Matt16_18]

reen12:

Each of these faiths acts as a corrective to the others.

No, the Catholic Faith is the corrective to the errors of the Lutherans, Evangelicals, Orthodox, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists ….

The Catholic Church alone teaches no error on matters of faith and morals.

 

[buffalo]

Matt16_18:

No, the Catholic Faith is the corrective to the errors of the Lutherans, Evangelicals, Orthodox, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists ….

The Catholic Church alone teaches no error on matters of faith and morals.

and the Catholic Church alone possesses the “fullness of truth”!

 

[reen12]

Hi, Matt16_18,

quote: Matt16_18

No, the Catholic Faith is the corrective to the errors of the Lutherans, Evangelicals, Orthodox, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists ….

The Catholic Church alone teaches no error on matters of faith and morals.

I understand your postion, and that of the Roman Catholic

Church, as stated in the quote above.

---

The RCC is the flagship of Christianity, the Noah’s Ark

of faith, the barque of Peter -and has run onto the rocks, on

occassion.

-Catholics are right on the Mass and offering a continual

perfect sacrifice to the Father, and insisting on baptism

-Lutherans are right about clinging to Christ, and His

righteousness, in the face of our sins

-Evangelicals are right in stressing that no Church acts

as a “mediator”…that Christ, alone, is the Mediator

Be well, Matt16_18,

reen12

 

[Matt16_18]

reen12:

Catholics are right on the Mass and offering a continual perfect sacrifice to the Father, and insisting on baptism.

Of course. The Catholic Church teaches no error in matters of faith and morals.

Lutherans are right about clinging to Christ, and His righteousness, in the face of our sins.

The Lutherans leaned this from the Catholics.

Evangelicals are right in stressing that no Church acts as a “mediator”…that Christ, alone, is the Mediator

If this is so, then the Evangelicals don’t know the true nature of Christ’s Church.

Jesus taught about the nature of the church in the parable of the vine and the branches: I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.
John 15:2-6Christ’s Church is not composed of just the branches, the true church is BOTH the vine AND the branches. The branches (the Catholic faithful) have divine life because they are attached to the vine (Jesus). Jesus is indeed the mediator between the Catholic faithful and God the Father. The divine life of God is mediated through the Sacraments of Christ’s church, especially the Sacrament of the Eucharist.“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
John 6:51

MEDIATOR. A title of Christ as the one who reconciled God and the human race. It is based on the teaching of St. Paul, that “there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, Himself a man, Christ Jesus, who sacrificed Himself as a ransom for them all” (I Timothy 2:5-6). Christ is best qualified to be the mediator, i.e., one who brings estranged parties to agreement. As God, he was the one with whom the human race was to be reconciled; as a human being, he represented the ones who needed reconciliation. Christ continues his work of mediation, no longer to merit the grace of human forgiveness, but to communicate the grace already won on the Cross. Moreover, others than Christ may also be called mediators in a totally secondary sense, “in that they co-operate in our reconciliation; disposing and ministering to men’s union with God” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, 48, 1). In fact every person, insofar as he or she co-operates with divine grace, is a kind of mediator between himself or herself and God. (Etym. Latin mediator, from mediare, to stand or divide in the middle.)

Pocket Catholic Dictionary - John A. Hardon, S.J.

 

[javelin]

reen12:

Try telling an 12 year old kid that the fate of unbaptized
babies is left to the mercy of God. The kid may well
think: Well, they seem pretty darn sure of so many
things, why hedge on this one? A baby is innocent.
Even I know that, and I’m a kid.
But, then, this 12 year old hasn’t budgeted for doctrine.

I certianly see your perspective, but this is based completely on the assumption that the “innocent” deserve a place in Heaven.

The trouble with that is no one deserves a place in Heaven. Salvation is a gift – not earned or deserved by virtue of our innocence.

The only thing we can do is place our trust in God and His promises that have been divinely revealed to us. From this we can, in many cases, believe things will be a certian way with faithful confidence, but that is not the same as assurance.

This is one reason the Church has always held that it is a good thing to baptize infants. The Church knows, because of the revealed words of Christ, that baptism is a powerful means of conveying the sanctifying Grace that saves. We have Christ’s promise that through sacramental baptism we are born to new life in Christ, and it is that new life within us that moves our souls to salvation. What does Christ say about the unbaptised? Well, nothing that gives the Church the authority to say they will assuredly go to Heaven if they are good people. For them, we can only trust in the Mercy of God.

The Bible, especailly the epistles (as you so rightly pointed out) actually paint *such *a bleak picture for unbelievers, or the unbaptized, that many fundamentalist “Bible only” Christians believe that NO ONE other than professed Christians can possibly be saved.

Although my experience is that only those strongly indoctrinated in fundamentalist theology really believe that. Most rank-and-file Christians believe that God’s mercy allows for non-Christians to have a chance of being saved.

I like using Jesus’s parable of the judgement of the nations to illustrate how this can be. In the parable, it is the goats who did not treat mankind with mercy (you did not feed, clothe, etc. even the least of my children…) who are condemned. Those sheep who were saved, though, ask Christ “When did we see you and give you food, or drink, or clothing, etc?” The critical point is that they were serving Jesus even though they did not know it was Him. Thus the argument can be made that Jesus is showing us how those who do not recognize the Christ can still serve Him by serving His family, His creation. Through that service, they are united to Christ, and through Christ (the Head) to His Church (the Body). That is how “none are saved apart from the Church”, yet those who are not formal members may still be saved “through the Church.”

Hmmm, I see this post has meandered a bit. My apologies.

One question for you, reen12:

If valid theology, in your opinion, MUST include assurance that innocent children who pass away are destined for Heaven, at what point/age does that assurance go away? Brith? 2 years old? 4? The “age of reason”? 18? If we could say with certainty that they MUST be saved, then surely we would also know with certainty when that assurance is gone, right?

Peace,
javelin

 

[Nan_S]

reen12:

The RCC is the flagship of Christianity, the Noah’s Ark of faith, the barque of Peter -and has run onto the rocks, on occasion.

-Catholics are right on the Mass and offering a continual perfect sacrifice to the Father, and insisting on baptism

-Lutherans are right about clinging to Christ, and His righteousness, in the face of our sins

-Evangelicals are right in stressing that no Church acts as a “mediator”…that Christ, alone, is the Mediator

reen12

Thank you for your kind comments. As a Catholic I completely agree with the first two statements.

As to your statements about Lutheranism and Evangelicalism, we’ll probably have to agree to disagree. I would put it this way:

-Lutherans are right about clinging to Christ and His righteousness, but wrong in believing that Christ’s righteousness only covers our sin instead of wiping us clean.

Evangelicals are right in stressing that our faith must be passionate and reach out to others, but wrong in believing that only Christ can mediate on our behalf. Christ’s role as mediator was to be the one mediator of the New Covenant (Heb 8:6, Heb 9:15, Heb 12:24, 1 Tim 2:5). Christ continues to advocate for us before the Father, and we are also commanded to mediate/intercede/pray for each other and all men (1 Tim 2:1-2, 1 Tim 5:5, Eph 6:18, Luke 4:38, Heb 13:18, Jam 5:14-16…).

While we men and our Church can not mediate another new covenant, we still perform a lesser mediation for each other under the terms and guidelines of Jesus’ New Covenant.

I recognize your perspective. I just don’t agree with it.

Nan

 

[WBB]

reen12:

Try telling an 12 year old kid that the fate of unbaptized
babies is left to the mercy of God. The kid may well
think: Well, they seem pretty darn sure of so many
things, why hedge on this one? A baby is innocent.
Even I know that, and I’m a kid.
But, then, this 12 year old hasn’t budgeted for doctrine.

That doctrine, Original Sin, actually makes it possible
for some Christians to conceive of a God Who might send an *infant *to hell.

Hi reen!

How about this…is not the salvation of all people, baptized or not, left up to the mercy of God? I don’t see the Church is hedging on this so much as not proclaiming the whole idea of salvation being a gift of God due to His infinite mercy when the issue of unbaptized infants is being discussed. See what I am getting at?

 

[joeforjesus]

Matt16_18:

Of course. The Catholic Church teaches no error in matters of faith and morals.

The Lutherans leaned this from the Catholics.
If this is so, then the Evangelicals don’t know the true nature of Christ’s Church.

Jesus taught about the nature of the church in the parable of the vine and the branches: I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.
John 15:2-6Christ’s Church is not composed of just the branches, the true church is BOTH the vine AND the branches. The branches (the Catholic faithful) have divine life because they are attached to the vine (Jesus). Jesus is indeed the mediator between the Catholic faithful and God the Father. The divine life of God is mediated through the Sacraments of Christ’s church, especially the Sacrament of the Eucharist.“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
John 6:51

MEDIATOR. A title of Christ as the one who reconciled God and the human race. It is based on the teaching of St. Paul, that “there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, Himself a man, Christ Jesus, who sacrificed Himself as a ransom for them all” (I Timothy 2:5-6). Christ is best qualified to be the mediator, i.e., one who brings estranged parties to agreement. As God, he was the one with whom the human race was to be reconciled; as a human being, he represented the ones who needed reconciliation. Christ continues his work of mediation, no longer to merit the grace of human forgiveness, but to communicate the grace already won on the Cross. Moreover, others than Christ may also be called mediators in a totally secondary sense, “in that they co-operate in our reconciliation; disposing and ministering to men’s union with God” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, 48, 1). In fact every person, insofar as he or she co-operates with divine grace, is a kind of mediator between himself or herself and God. (Etym. Latin mediator, from mediare, to stand or divide in the middle.)

Pocket Catholic Dictionary - John A. Hardon, S.J.

THERE IS ONLY {ONE MEDIATOR} BETWEEN GOD AND MAN, JESUS. It says only one, why the confusion?
NO ONE ELSE. THERE ARE PLENTY OF ERRORS IN THE RCC, BUT NOBODY WANTS TO ADMIT IT. EVEN WHEN IT’S RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE.
SORRY TO BE SO ABRASIVE, BUT IT’S TRUE.

JOE

werresjoe@msn.com

 

[WBB]

joeforjesus:

Edited out rude rant

JOE

Perhaps the errors about which you are speaking are not “errors” when understood in their proper context. I don’t see the Catholic Church saying that there is more than “one mediator between God and Man, and that is the man Jesus.”

 

[joeforjesus]

buffalo:

and the Catholic Church alone possesses the “fullness of truth”!

DO YOU BELIEVE THERE ARE NO ERRORS IN THE RCC BELIEFS?

JOE

edited out e-mail address

 

[javelin]

joeforjesus:

Edited out rude rant

JOE

edited out e-mail address

Joe,

First, please don’t type in all CAPS. It is poor forum etiquette, and mentioned in the useage guidelines for these forums. If you continue, you may be contacted by the forum administrators.

As to Jesus the “one mediator”. Your interpretation of scripture is perfectly clear to you because your tradition has taught you that this means a certian thing, and that it means something different than what Catholics believe.

Your error is that you’re really only looking skin deep into the issue. God’s Word is so much more than what you claim. See the post by Nan S a few posts ago and think about it. You are pigeonholing yourself into an interpretation (created by men) of what “one mediator” means. Can’t you see that YOU are “mediating” when you try to evangelize, or even when you pray for someone?

If you find the strength to shed the traditions your protestant faith has indoctrinated you with, you will begin to understand how much more Catholicism has to offer than any other faith, and how it truly embraces all of the Bible while its doctrine reveals the Truth of God’s perfect Revelation.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

joeforjesus:

DO YOU BELIEVE THERE ARE NO ERRORS IN THE RCC BELIEFS?

JOE

edited out e-mail address

I believe there are no errors in Catholic dogma.

javelin

 

[petra]

reen12:

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.

Why?

God has revealed to us what is needed for us to direct our behavior and affections toward Him. This assumes the mental development, sufficient knowledge, and opportunity to respond as such. The fact that God has not specifically revealed His plan for individuals that don’t yet have the ability to respond doesn’t mean He doesn’t have a plan for them. It just means that particular plan doesn’t apply to us, so it isn’t revealed to us. That does not consitute deficiency.

God is just, loving and merciful. We know that. So what is the problem?

We can choose to develop a worldview in one of two ways:

1. we can decide what we want religion to look like and shop around for one that best fits our view (or even mix and match doctrines from various religions, OR
2. we can first discern and discover Truth and mold our worldview to Truth.

The former is self-dilusion and is the easy way. Requiring that “truth” conform to our preferences is comfortable and there are no issues to struggle with. This path also sets one up as his own god. Rather than being a seeker of truth, one attempts to be the author of his own truth.

But the latter approach requires that we change. It is often difficult, uncomfortable, and humbling–from the standpoint that we must sometimes admit that not understanding something completely is due to our limited abilities as a creature. The fact that we may not understand an eternal truth is our failing, not that of the doctrine.

The theme of original sin and the need for atonement runs throughout the OT scriptures. The Jews definitely had a concept of sin, consequences in the afterlife, and a need for salvation. The first Christians were Jews, afterall. If they had no concept of original sin, consequences in the afterlife, and the need for salvation, they wouldn’t have understood what Jesus taught.

Reen, I know you’ve been on a difficult journey. But rejecting Jesus Christ as your Savior is not the answer.

Peace to you.

 

[reen12]

Hi, NanS,

quote:NanS

Thank you for your kind comments. As a Catholic I completely agree with the first two statements.

As to your statements about Lutheranism and Evangelicalism, we’ll probably have to agree to disagree. I would put it this way:

-Lutherans are right about clinging to Christ and His righteousness, but wrong in believing that Christ’s righteousness only covers our sin instead of wiping us clean.

Evangelicals are right in stressing that our faith must be passionate and reach out to others, but wrong in believing that only Christ can mediate on our behalf. Christ’s role as mediator was to be the one mediator of the New Covenant (Heb 8:6, Heb 9:15, Heb 12:24, 1 Tim 2:5). Christ continues to advocate for us before the Father, and we are also commanded to mediate/intercede/pray for each other and all men (1 Tim 2:1-2, 1 Tim 5:5, Eph 6:18, Luke 4:38, Heb 13:18, Jam 5:14-16…).

While we men and our Church can not mediate another new covenant, we still perform a lesser mediation for each other under the terms and guidelines of Jesus’ New Covenant.

I recognize your perspective. I just don’t agree with it.

Fair enough, NanS.
And a gracious and reasoned presentation, IMHO.

-Lutherans are right about clinging to Christ and His righteousness, but wrong in believing that Christ’s righteousness only covers our sin instead of wiping us clean

.

I agree. I don’t see it in terms of “wiping us clean”, but
rather *restoring *us, in an ontological sense. Do you
understand this view- agree or disagree?

quote: NanS

I recognize your perspective. I just don’t agree with it.

Again, fair enough.

Appreciate your thoughts, and I’m glad that
readers of this thread now have your reasoned response
to consider.

Best,
reen12

 

[WBB]

reen12:

I agree. I don’t see it in terms of “wiping us clean”, but
rather *restoring *us, in an ontological sense. Do you
understand this view- agree or disagree?

I think I would agree with this. Restoring us to original justice. Is this what you are talking about?