Salvation outside Christianity...?

[reen12]

Hi, javelin,

I really profitted from your post, #88.

quote:javelin

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?

An excellent point!
Hmmmm. I’ll have to think fast on this one, in order to
retain consistency. Give me 24 hours to reason this
through, OK?

However, I’m still going to give you an argument on:

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.

…in terms of infants.

quote: reen12 believe I’m quoting my own post]

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

Well done, javelin, IMHO. A post like that makes being
on the forums a pleasure.

Best,
reen12

 

[reen12]

Hi, WBB,

Good to see you!

quote: WBB

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?

Yes, I do see, WBB. It still leaves me with the point that
“blows my mind” [to employ a colloquialism ]

quote: reen12

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

[emphasis, mine]

---

I just saw your post referring to “original justice.”
Again, will you please give me a bit of time to
weigh whether I can sign on to that description?
Thanks.

---

Best wishes,
reen*

 

[WBB]

javelin:

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.

[snip]

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

YAY javelin!! That is most excellent!! I was trying to say the same thing when I said that the salvation of* all* is left up to the mercy of God, but you did a better job! You even impressed reen! Way to go!! :clapping:

 

[Nan_S]

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?
Best,
reen12

In one way we are restored, back to the holiness and purity in which we were conceived. But although we are born innocent we are also born ignorant. So in another way it is correct to say that Christ’s righteousness wipes us clean. Having come to know Christ we can not go back to ignorance - we are a New Creation (2 Cor 5:17, Eph 4:24, Gal 6:15).

The part I’ve heard from Lutheran and certain other non-Catholic Christians that I disagree with is this - that humanity is sinful and unclean by its basic nature, that nothing can change our uncleanliness, and Christ’s “cloak of righteousness” covers us so that the Father turns a blind eye to it.

Yet I’ve always wondered how they can hold that position and reconcile it with Rev 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter the New Jerusalem. What a pity, to know what they will miss.

Thanks for your kind words.
Nan

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

petra:

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.

Thanks for that explanation! I’ll definitely have to keep that in mind next time I have a conversation about salvation.

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.

Let’s pick number 2!

 

[reen12]

Hi, NanS,

quote: NanS

The part I’ve heard from Lutheran and certain other non-Catholic Christians that I disagree with is this - that humanity is sinful and unclean by its basic nature, that nothing can change our uncleanliness, and Christ’s “cloak of righteousness” covers us so that the Father turns a blind eye to it.

Isn’t this called “imputed righteousness”? Never made sense
to me, either. I think I’ve seen it referred to as a “legal fiction.”

Yes, the thought of being a New Creation is critical here,
I think.

quote: NanS

The part I’ve heard from Lutheran and certain other non-Catholic Christians that I disagree with is this - that humanity is sinful and unclean by its basic nature…

My instinct tells me that, not only is this a distorted view
of the nature of human beings, but that Judaism may
indeed be correct in saying that human beings were made in the
image and likeness of their Creator, and that no act,
however sinful, can alter that immense reality.

I offer the link:
aish.com/spirituality/growth/Human_Nature_Inherently_Good_or_Evil$_Ethics_of_the_Fathers_17.asp

Thanks for your thoughts, NanS,

Best,
reen12

 

[reen12]

Hi, petra,

Thanks for taking the time to post your reflections on
my reflections.

quote: petra

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 theme of original sin and the need for atonement runs throughout the OT scriptures.

But, you see, it doesn’t, petra. That’s my whole point.

aish.com/spirituality/growth/Human_Nature_Inherently_Good_or_Evil$_Ethics_of_the_Fathers_17.asp

And that’s what makes Original Sin such an odd doctrine, in my view.

quote: petra

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.

Or,
we can hold what we were passed on, [often by our families,
through religious training in youth], up to the light of
increasing experience, study and thought.

That it is assumed that:

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

is necessarily what motivates an individual to offer challeges to
a given doctrine, fascinates me. The concept that an individual might be looking for what is true, rather than what is claimed to
be true, somehow doesn’t seem to exist in the realm of
what I call the “Theory of Suspect Motivation.”

quote: petra

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 …] Rather than being a seeker of truth, one attempts to be the author of his own truth.

That’s what I keep “telling” St. Paul. If the notion
of Original Sin doesn’t exist in the parent faith [Judaism]
…make one up! Build a whole theology around it.
Later Sages [Fathers of the Church] will devote reams
to explicating same.
Paul’s “preference” for Original Sin now becomes Truth.
To question same, now becomes

self-dilusion

?

And 20 centuries later, the reality that the concept *didn’t *exist
in the faith that was “fulfilled”, will be lost to posterity, and the vast majority of Christians will take it for granted that Original Sin was part and parcel of Judaism.

quote: petra

God has revealed to us what is needed for us to direct our behavior and affections toward Him.

Something we can agree on.:tiphat:

 

[reen12]

I just read my last post to my husband, [a convert to
Catholicism], and his reply?

"I’ve no time for all of this. I’ve just come back from
a meeting of United Syncretists, and I’m trying to
“mold” …etc.

He is not in sympathy with my syncretistic views.
[He is also a *very witty human being.]

Best,
reen12

 

[Pace]

reen12:

But that’s what happens when doctrine overtakes reason. The doctrines build a “box” which
makes it impossible to make a humane statement
about whether God chooses to save those who had
no opportunity to even hear about Him.

The “box”:

peterkreeft.com/topics/love-sees.htm

The (perhaps only) way out of the “box”:

mulhollanddrive.com

 

[Strider]

Hey, Maureen,
How are you?
I’ve got some questions. I know the Pentateuch contains Genesis. If St. Paul “made up” the concept of Original Sin, could you explain to me the Jewish interpretation of Gen 3:1-19.
As you know, Catholic interpretation of these passages contains not only a description of original sin, but also the Protoevangelium, the “First Good News,” the foreshadowing of redemption for what had just taken place. I went to the link you provided, but I’d really like to read your interpretation.

Also, (this isn’t a thread hijack), a few days ago, you wrote:

"It’s so quiet, reading the Rabbinic Sages. Nobody
calls me names, and Judaism wishes me well, here
and eternally. They don’t question my love of God,
they encourage it.

I do, occassionally, “lean against” the cross, and
tell Jesus that I don’t know what to make of Him,
but that more than a few of His followers and organizations
have driven me nuts.

As I’m not “wrapped too tight” to begin with, I
find it more peaceful, less stressful, to say
prayers of praise to God, and hope for the best."

Which brought to mind my very favorite passage in Scripture:
Jas 1:2,3 Count it all joy, my bretheren, when you meet various trials, for you know that the testing of your fith produces steadfastness.
Which is something non-Christians and many non-Catholic Christians (back to the thread) don’t understand. Christianity expects, no, demands, suffering, and suffering gladly.
In Mt 16:24, Jesus says, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”
It’s difficult to explain this concept to non Christians, but it must be done.
Christianity demands of us not mere suffering, for everyone suffers because of Original Sin, but acceptance and embracing of suffering and giving our suffering to Christ on the cross.
Our peace, our joy is in the life to come. We are the “Church Militant,” and must “run the race to the end.”

 

[reen12]

Hi, Strider,

quote: Strider

Jas 1:2,3 Count it all joy, my bretheren, when you meet various trials, for you know that the testing of your fith produces steadfastness.
Which is something non-Christians and many non-Catholic Christians (back to the thread) don’t understand. Christianity expects, no, demands, suffering, and suffering gladly.
In Mt 16:24, Jesus says, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”
It’s difficult to explain this concept to non Christians, but it must be done.
Christianity demands of us not mere suffering, for everyone suffers because of Original Sin, but acceptance and embracing of suffering and giving our suffering to Christ on the cross.

Don’t you think I understand that, Strider?

There are some, on these forums, who are aware of the
fact that I am quite ill, mentally [both with neurobiological
illness and also psychological illness, as a result of the impact of early experiences in my life. I am, in fact, in a constant state of “shock” -PTSD- and experience varying degrees of dissociation.]

While this has never impacted my ability to reason, it
has impacted my view of “certainties” which seem so
attractive to others, not so afflicted.

So, yes, I understand.

See ya around, guys. Can’t hack the emotive element
in “pick up your cross.” Too difficult to explain to the
younger “parts” of me, that are still so “present.”
It’s called regression, for the benefit of the cognocenti.

I’ve enjoyed the discussion in the thread. Thank you.

reen

 

[Pace]

See ya around, guys. Can’t hack the emotive element
in “pick up your cross.” Too difficult to explain to the
younger “parts” of me, that are still so “present.”
It’s called regression, for the benefit of the cognocenti.

This is the reason why God sent us Mulholland Drive.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Pace,

I know that you spoke of that, further up the thread.

Many thanks,
reen12

 

[reen12]

It’s me, reen12.

I took a nap and am feeling somewhat restored.

Strider, thank you for sharing your favorite quotes.
Reading them acted as a “trigger” for me, and I
spun down into upset. [Gives an example of what
life with mental illness is.]

But I’m an old campaigner, so I selected “nap”, from
my collection of coping strategies. Later, I’ll take
a look at a Scooby Doo cartoon, to complete
the restoration “sequence”.]

I think I exchanged views on Genesis 3 in another
thread, recently. I’ll see if I can find the posts.

Best to you, Strider, my friend,

Maureen

 

[Pace]

Drop everything, reen…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Ummhhh…maybe I’ve missed something , but what does Mulholland Drive have to do with any of this? I haven’t seen the movie, and I have no idea what it’s about. All I know is it’s rated R for violence, language, and some strong sexuality. I guess it doesn’t really stand out to me as something that would have great insight on salvation.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Iambic Pen,

Quote: Iambic Pen

I haven’t seen the movie, and I have no idea what it’s about

Whoa!!! Just checked a couple of web pages on the movie.
*

Don’t think I’ll be going to see same, anytime soon.

But thanks for the thought, Pace,

Best,
reen12*

 

[reen12]

Hi, Strider,

quote: Strider

I’ve got some questions. I know the Pentateuch contains Genesis. If St. Paul “made up” the concept of Original Sin, could you explain to me the Jewish interpretation of Gen 3:1-19.

Couldn’t find the post with discussion of Gen.3 *.

Nevertheless, here is the Judaic commentary [by Rashi]
on Gen. 3

chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8167&showrashi=true

[This website: http://www.chabad.org/”]www.chabad.org* contains commentaries on
OT books. The entire site is one of interest to me.]

If you look into it, let me know what you think, will you
please?

Thanks,
reen

Short bio on Rashi:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi

 

[javelin]

I found it interesting that today’s homily at my parish was all about…

(drum roll please…)

Salvation outside of Christianity!

coincidence???

Maureen,

I’ve been thinking more about this statement, and I understand your trouble with it.

reen12:

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

Indeed, it echoes a problem most people have with their idea of Christianity. By the way, have you thought of a response to this question?

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?

I’m going to re-phrase it slightly, and the answer may be evident to you then (or at least a reconciliation of the concept):

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

This is a problem many people have, and one I haven’t completely reconciled myself. The perfectly innocent include children, of course, and even can include other very good people who are not Christian because of the circumstances of their upbringing.

Many have essentially the same problem with Calvin’s predestinarianism. That doctrine conceives of a God who creates many souls predestined for eternal damnation.

In both of these cases, it hardly paints the picture of a Just and Loving God.

So, an answer to the question I posed that is at least partially sufficient is that one is no longer assured of salvation when one is no longer perfectly innocent. This would at least be consistent with the world view you seem to hold, while recognizing our inability to put a date and time on one’s “loss” of the assurance of salvation.

So, now I’m arguing with myself, I guess…

What do you think?

Peace be with you.
javelin

 

[reen12]

Good grief, javelin, you are very perceptive, IMHO.

Yes, I have given thought to:

quote:javelin

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?

OK, how’s this?

I could maintain that it is a matter between God and the

individual, as to the age when consent to sin is possible.

The Church states that the age of reason is age 7,

which, BTW, is the reason why communion is offered

to a child of that age, not before. Theoretically, a child

is old enough to “understand” Who h/she is receiving,

sufficently.

[At least, that was the view presented in the 1950’s.]

So, there is no room for complaint, on my part, on God,

in His omniscience, deciding if a child knows that- what

h/she is opting to do- is sinful. [Telling a lie, for example.]

This, however, is eons away from saying that God might

choose to send an infant to hell, IMO. That would be

unjust in any circumstance, as opposed to God deciding

when a given individual [who is still in childhood] is

culpable, in a given instance.

As for the interpolation:

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

the Church addresses that in the CCC:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1260.htm

if I’m understanding the interpolation correctly.

I see it as:

1] God might choose to send an infant to hell = a caricature of God

versus

2] God, being omniscient, has the Divine right to decide when an

individual of *any *age, has sinned.

The first offers a caricature, IMO, that cannot be addressed

in any credible sense,

The second cedes to God what is His, as God, and would

not constitue a caricature.

The first impugns God’s Justice and Mercy,
the second acknowledges His omnisicience,
without distortion.

The very definition of the nature of God [Just, Merciful,

Omniscient] would not be invalidated, in the second case,

as it is in the first.

I haven’t had this kind of intellectual workout in ages.

[Makes me feel like I’m residing in the 16th century.]

Do you see any flaw in this reasoning?

Best,
reen12