Something that has been bothering me for a while now

[Godfollower]

dzheremi;5870950:

CCC ¶ 841 doesn’t say that. It only says they adore God – not that they understand Him correctly, not that they are somehow equal to Christians, not that they are saved, or what have you.

What I don’t understand about this position is that it seems to assume that there is some simple misunderstanding of God at work, rather than an out-and-out rejection of Him. This is no doubt true of many Muslims who have never actually heard Christianity explained from a Christian (as opposed to the charade presented as Christian believe in the Qur’an), which is why we must never cease evangelizing the Muslim world, but for those who have heard and rejected in accordance with the Quran’s command that they do so, it is a doctrinal matter, not a misunderstanding.

dzheremi,

I tentatively venture to suggest that I might have figured out the reason for this position and I offer the following as a possible explanation.

I agree with you that this can be seen as a doctrinal matter and I feel fairly certain that those Catholics who are disagreeing with you not only appreciate that perspective but also have given some thought as to its implications. Although you clearly asserted in your Original Post that not every sentence in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is dogma, if the content of this apparently equivocal paragraph does indeed come under the heading of faith and morals it becomes almost impossible for a Catholic effectively to address the objections you outlined in your Original Post within the parameters wherein you raised them. And so I suspect that some Catholics on this thread suppose that if they were to concede any of your points or admit that you have a genuine difficulty it would result in you stepping firmly upon the road that your uneasiness is leading you to consider taking. To relegate the issue to the category of “misunderstanding” is thus quite logical. The only winning move, as Joshua declared in the movie, War Games, is not to play. I would describe the motive here, if this indeed be it, as noble.

That’s just my opinion but I could be right.

Speculatively,
Mick

I respectfully disagree. First, there’s really nothing equivocal about this paragraph. It just states that they adore the one God. Honestly, I have a hard time believing that that statement is even controversial. Second, I suspect that a lot of what’s going on here is really just miscommunication, with various people using the same terms in different ways (e.g., “adore” doesn’t mean “worship in exactly the same way and agree on all doctrinal points”). Third, the real answer to a difficulty understanding what the Church is saying is to examine it in light of the Church’s other statements (e.g., the Catechism makes very clear in the same passages that Muslims are not co-equal with Christians and do not understand the Trinity correctly), compare it to Scripture (e.g., “You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know” – what a beautiful springboard for discussion with Muslims), pray about it, and see where God leads us – which is not away from the Church.

Honestly, the idea that one clause of one phrase in one sentence in the Catechism – examined alone, without reference to the surrounding paragraphs, or to 20 centuries of Church teaching – could lead one away from the Church, is shocking, to say the least.

In any event, I freely admit that Dzheremi is having difficulty with this passage, but that doesn’t mean that the Church committed error in teaching faith and morals. It just means that I’ve failed (so far) in trying to explain it.

 

[SSTeacher]

I respectfully disagree. First, there’s really nothing equivocal about this paragraph. It just states that they adore the one God. Honestly, I have a hard time believing that that statement is even controversial. Second, I suspect that a lot of what’s going on here is really just miscommunication, with various people using the same terms in different ways (e.g., “adore” doesn’t mean “worship in exactly the same way and agree on all doctrinal points”). Third, the real answer to a difficulty understanding what the Church is saying is to examine it in light of the Church’s other statements (e.g., the Catechism makes very clear in the same passages that Muslims are not co-equal with Christians and do not understand the Trinity correctly), compare it to Scripture (e.g., “You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know” – what a beautiful springboard for discussion with Muslims), pray about it, and see where God leads us – which is not away from the Church.

Honestly, the idea that one clause of one phrase in one sentence in the Catechism – examined alone, without reference to the surrounding paragraphs, or to 20 centuries of Church teaching – could lead one away from the Church, is shocking, to say the least.

In any event, I freely admit that Dzheremi is having difficulty with this passage, but that doesn’t mean that the Church committed error in teaching faith and morals. It just means that I’ve failed (so far) in trying to explain it.

Comment duly noted. This is my last post on this thread. Bye, y’all.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[2nd_Adam]

**God is unknown to those who do not know His Son. **

Paul Addresses the Areopagus

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. - Acts 17

 

[dzheremi]

I agree with you that this can be seen as a doctrinal matter and I feel fairly certain that those Catholics who are disagreeing with you not only appreciate that perspective but also have given some thought as to its implications.

I should hope so, whether they ultimately assent to it or not.

Although you clearly asserted in your Original Post that not every sentence in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is dogma, if the content of this apparently equivocal paragraph does indeed come under the heading of faith and morals it becomes almost impossible for a Catholic effectively to address the objections you outlined in your Original Post within the parameters wherein you raised them.

I mentioned the “not dogma” part to emphasize that this does appear to be one area in which reasonable and fidelitous men and women can differ, in as much as Vickie, Morningstar, and others apparently have problems with CCC 841, too, and yet presumably don’t feel any less “Catholic” as a result. I also wanted to emphasize that I do not mean to take on the magisterium or any other authority within the Church or its right to declare whatever doctrine it wants to, but to explain why I have come to abandon that which I previously believed to be true.

And so I suspect that some Catholics on this thread suppose that if they were to concede any of your points or admit that you have a genuine difficulty it would result in you stepping firmly upon the road that your uneasiness is leading you to consider taking.

Hmmm. Maybe. I had never considered that, honestly. Granted, I started this thread, but it wasn’t to announce that I’ll be leaving the Church over this or any other matter. It was in the knowledge, however, that I would not be the only one to have come to such a realization over this particular idea or some related idea. So I wanted to hear how other people dealt with it, if it was a problem for them (or, conversely, if it wasn’t a problem for them, I wanted to know how I might regain the sort of understanding I once had; I’m pretty sure that’s gone at this point, though).

Where I end up, whether in the Church or outside of it, is ultimately in God’s hands, not the internet’s (not that I don’t respect anyone here; far from it).

To relegate the issue to the category of “misunderstanding” is thus quite logical. The only winning move, as Joshua declared in the movie, War Games, is not to play. I would describe the motive here, if this indeed be it, as noble.

I would tend to agree, actually. I don’t know. Perhaps I’ve been too stubborn or too dogged in my pursuit of an ultimate “answer” for this. But I figured if the Church doesn’t have the answer as to its own doctrine that I’m supposed to share in order to be able to call myself Catholic, then where should I be? Why do I even bother trying to come back to the Church? That’s what this has ultimately meant to me.

I no longer receive communion, for whatever that’s worth. I don’t feel it would be right under these circumstances.

That’s just my opinion but I could be right.

You could be, I could be, they could be…let’s all speculate for another 15 pages…

Deflatedly,
Jeremy

 

[Godfollower]

**God is unknown to those who do not know His Son. **

Paul Addresses the Areopagus

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. - Acts 17

Your conclusion is contradicted by the Scriptural passage you cite. Paul clearly recognizes that it’s possible to worship God without understanding Him: “What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.” Jesus made a similar statement to the Samaritan woman: “You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know.”

Yes, the only way to know God is through His Son. But Scripture says it’s possible to worship God without knowing Him.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Your conclusion is contradicted by the Scriptural passage you cite. Paul clearly recognizes that it’s possible to worship God without understanding Him: “What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.” Jesus made a similar statement to the Samaritan woman: “You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know.”

Yes, the only way to know God is through His Son. But Scripture says it’s possible to worship God without knowing Him.

I know people know God without Christ. But not in the way that you think.

The Righteous Shall Live by Faith

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. - Rom 1

 

[2nd_Adam]

Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. - 1 John 5:10

Those of the Islamic Faith, Hinduism, Judaism, and other non-Christian religions are calling God a liar. The wrath of God are on all those who are not united to Christ. They are known by God as the object of His wrath.

 

[fbl9]

Hello fb19, and thank you for your response.

I am not sure why the Jews would be any less able to see God “in truth” than the Gentiles of the N.T. who had no or zero prior relationship with God.

Why would Moses be less able to handle seeing God “in Truth” than an early (gentile) Christian?

Again my question is- If God was not revealing himself to the Jews ( Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses) “in truth” What was he revealing himself as?

Hello again robsully…people sure have been busy on this thread Our little conversation has given me cause for much thought and for myself it has been of a deepening of knowldege,not too deep though.
Christ’s sacrifice on the cross opened the world to God’s grace,prior to that this grace was avaible only to the Jews through the sacrificial method.For it was God’s plan to fully make Himself known to all peoples at the time of Christ’s sacrifice.In the OT there was no mention of an indwelling of the Holy Spirit,but still the Holy Spirit was recognized by the Jews,After Jesus’s sacrifice the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was made possible,due to the atonement made for orginal sin,which goats and such could not make…
So it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that one can truly know God.
“in truth” by this are you sugesting that i implied God was lying to Abraham about who He is? Look at it this way if you asked me if i had five dollars to give you, and i having such said no would it be a lie?
No it would not be because i needed that five dollars to buy food for my family therefore i did not have the five dollars to give to you.
So you’ll have to ask God why He did not reveal Himself totally at the time of Abraham and others but only gave to them the promise of His Son.

 

[morning_star777]

Please don’t take this as an argument. I am just trying to remind us as Christians… how important the gospel message is in regards to proclaiming the gospel to the entire world. We share with great passion the good news about the grace of God found in His Son with all tongue, tribes, and nations.
.

Ya thanks.and God bless.

 

[morning_star777]

Sure, the Jews worship the God of the Bible – but it’s the Old Testament only. We worship the God of a Bible they don’t acknowledge. I would think that should be a problem.

Yep,but I think they have the better chance to be saved because atleast they follow Old testament that was sent by our God.But Islam came after the fulfillment of prophecy,so I don’t think that they have better chance.Perhaps same to Hinduism because although Muslims’ are monotheist and recent day Hinduism is practicing polytheism,but still one logic and that is Hinduism is an ancient religion and it’s back ground was monotheistic in post Vedic Era.So If muslims’ has any chance then Hindus also have the same chance,or perhaps better,and if Hindus have no chance then also Islam has no chance,because Islam is not greater than Hinduism.Atleast Hinduism is not going to devour our God’s name because if anyone want to leave God’s path as a result of provocation,then he/she can’t enter in hinduism after leaving Christianity,because as far I know Hinduism is tribal religion and no one is welcomed here,I mean they do not accept others as converted Hindu.But it was not my main point,my main point is,there is many religions in the world and they have greater teaching than islam,and atleast their( other non christian religions) teachings are not stolen from Bible.But here we see that most of good teachings of islam is from bible.But it was not necessary to establish a new religion and if Muhammed had any respect to God then he also would accept Christianity instead of establishing new religion that is completely against Christianity,and it’s main aim is to remove God’s(trinity) name from the world.So It can’t be the follower of our God but it may consider as a conspiracy against the God of Abraham.And i don’t think that a conspiracy can have the better chance than an ignorant polytheism,just because of that the conspiracy has a monotheist coat. And exactly that is it, what I wanted to say in my previous post.Thanks.

 

[1beleevr]

[What does Christ say about salvation? His answer was simple. Keep the Commandments! If a person does that, according to Christ he is saved. Do Muslims keep these? Do the Jews? Does anybody? I have always believed that those who follow Christ’s example are following Him more closely than many who call themselves “Christian”. I personally try to live my religious life within the context of the Roman Rite. This gives me the guidlines that I need. There are many things that are hard to explain when it comes to faith. I can only try my best. That’s all I believe anyone can do.]

It is virtually impossible to keep all of the Commandments, that is why we cherish the grace we have been given! Does this give us a license to sin?No, according to the words of Paul! God knows that we have a sin nature in us, and are vulnerable to the ways of this world, but He is “faithful to forgive”(1 John 1:9). This Christian walk, for that matter this walk through life, is challenging, and I for one cannot imagine taking it without Jesus!

 

[morning_star777]

But God did reveal Himself to the Muslims: He wrote the Bible. They’ve been misled by Mohammed’s false teaching, but that doesn’t mean they worship some other god; it just means they don’t know Him properly.

thanks for this link,I will read it after sometimes.But now I want to know when God reveal himself to Muslims?And i think now Muslims can easily read new covenant to save themselves.Because if most of Muslims will do so,then rest of them can’t resist them,but we know most of Muslims are doing the opposite,and if few Muslims want to convert to God’s path then they tortured by rest of them,so i do not find any hope for Muslims because they are just protesting people to find the true God.And even Christian Missionaries have lost their courage because of majority of Muslims.So will we still think that they can be saved by not only rejecting God’s path but also by working against the path of God?I do not believe it.And if any group is deceived then that’s can be a better logic because we have free will and we can choose the path.but in reality Muslims’ have no interest to read anything,Did you hear this song "Hotel California"Eagles?islam is really Like that.You can enter in islam anytime but you can never leave!And why you can never leave?because of the violent behave of Muslims’ and I don’t think that they have any chance from God,until they are not accepting the true God.My only question is why i still couldn’t find a safe option of direct baptism?because of Muslims.In my area there is no church.So if I want to be baptize officially then I must have to baptize openly and it can be even deadly for me,like other ex muslims.So should i think that a kind of blessed people (or can be blessed easily because they have an Abrahamic coat?)are ready to murder us who want to enter God’s in house?Atleast if Muslims will stop abusing or killing apostates and other peoples and if they will allow christian missionaries to preach God’s name in Muslim world,only then I am ready to accept that they also have a few chance.But i am not ready to accept it only because it(Islam) has a coat of Abrahamic faith.A coat of lamb can’t make a wolf a Lamb.but this coat of lamb is Just to deceive others( with this coat).And lamb coated wolves are much more harmful than normal wolves.And exactly Bible said so.

 

[robsully]

Hello fb19 and again thank you for responding.

In my quest try to understand Christianity I come across doctrine that I do not understand. I thank you for your efforts in trying to clarify some of my inquiries.

All I have to use to decern doctrine is logic. And that is where I fail to see the logic that the God that the Jews worship did not reveal himself “in truth”. That the Jews faith in God was (is) incomplete.

I think we can agree God is God. God has not nor has ever changed. That the God you worship ( in trinity ) is the same God that saved Noah (Gentiles) and gave humanity a covernant and laws. The same God that saved Issac and made Abraham the first (Jew) of many. And yes the same God that revealed his back to Moses and gave the Jews the laws in which some are kept by Christianity and Islam.

Is it logical for God to prescribe a method of reconciliation, that would be incomplete, yet let his “chosen” believe it was complete for thousands of years?

I thank you again for your time and effort.

 

[Nine_Two]

Hello fb19 and again thank you for responding.

In my quest try to understand Christianity I come across doctrine that I do not understand. I thank you for your efforts in trying to clarify some of my inquiries.

All I have to use to decern doctrine is logic. And that is where I fail to see the logic that the God that the Jews worship did not reveal himself “in truth”. That the Jews faith in God was (is) incomplete.

I think we can agree God is God. God has not nor has ever changed. That the God you worship ( in trinity ) is the same God that saved Noah (Gentiles) and gave humanity a covernant and laws. The same God that saved Issac and made Abraham the first (Jew) of many. And yes the same God that revealed his back to Moses and gave the Jews the laws in which some are kept by Christianity and Islam.

Is it logical for God to prescribe a method of reconciliation, that would be incomplete, yet let his “chosen” believe it was complete for thousands of years?

I thank you again for your time and effort.

I’m not sure they ever believed their faith was complete. They were waiting for the messiah, and even had new revelations given to them through the prophets.
Whether modern Jews believe their faith to be complete or not is not something I am knowledgable enough to comment on.

 

[morning_star777]

Your conclusion doesn’t follow logically from what precedes it. Judaism and Islam can be compared (and they have been compared, earlier in the thread) with respect to their rejection of the Holy Trinity. You can’t just make an exception for Jews without explaining why.

Later i respond to 2ndAdam,that I want to leave it directly ( Jewish decision) to God.But since islam is the only cause of religious terrorism and only they are murdering peoples,raping non muslims girl who do not wear veil and for their fear we most of former muslims can not openly come to God’s path.And since all are the teaching(direct and indirect) of islam and that’s why I just can say that if they will show little tolerance by refusing a part of their scriptures then indeed they can have some chance because then they will frankly know the way of God.But now islam is an iron prison,trust me tom,but it is not only for islamic laws but also for their followers.you must know that a rule can be established if followers are faithful to it.And Muslims are horribly faithful to islamic laws.But as i said before,if they can show little tolerance then atleast they can hear the God’s way from missionaries.but missionaries have no courage to openly preach in Muslims.I am the finest example.I never ever saw any missionary in my life.I would convert officially (although secretly) if I could find them.But in Muslim countries why missionaries are inactive?I know because of fear.And I trust that salvation of God is for everyone but people must have to follow it,atleast they must have to hear it and not protest others to know it a a path of satan.So without true followers a cult can’t be established.So we must have to think in a different way.If some people want to be deceived and happy with it,then should we think that it is not their fault,but the fault of only it’s founder?

 

[morning_star777]

Of course they believe in the same God we do; there’s only one God!!!

Jews’ belief is incomplete; Muslims’ belief is incomplete.

But they adore the only God who exists!

Ya indeed,so hindus also believe the same God as we do.Although their rituals are polytheistic but their philosophy is monotheistic.What about JW?i do not know much about them.if they also adore the abrahamic God then they also can be the saved just after Christians,Atleast they can be saved before Muslims because they think Jesus as angel Michael,and indeed michael is greater than a second rate prophet Isa(jesus) who had no authority to give law like other greater prophets.BTW here is 2 link of Monotheist hindu text Upanishad.Later the teaching was altered by hindus and polytheism entered in it.hope it can help to understand the monotheist Background of hinduism.

hinduwebsite.com/upanishadindex.asp

sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/index.htm

PS.Muslims’ belief is not incomplete but flawed that easily can be considered as a conspiracy because islamic faith came after the complete path.So i do not think that people should be confused with this two.So perhaps we can claim that A complete faith must be better,but a new heresy can’t be compared with an incomplete faith.if the new heresy can be compared( with the followers of old law) then everyday new different cults also can be established under Abrahamic monotheist coat.

 

[morning_star777]

Later i respond to 2ndAdam,that I want to leave it directly ( Jewish decision) to God.But since islam is the only cause of religious terrorism and only they are murdering peoples,raping non muslims girl who do not wear veil and for their fear we most of former muslims can not openly come to God’s path.And since all are the teaching(direct and indirect) of islam and that’s why I just can say that if they will show little tolerance by refusing a part of their scriptures then indeed they can have some chance because then they will frankly know the way of God.But now islam is an iron prison,trust me tom,but it is not only for islamic laws but also for their followers.you must know that a rule can be established if followers are faithful to it.And Muslims are horribly faithful to islamic laws.But as i said before,if they can show little tolerance then atleast they can hear the God’s way from missionaries.but missionaries have no courage to openly preach in Muslims.I am the finest example.I never ever saw any missionary in my life.I would convert officially (although secretly) if I could find them.But in Muslim countries why missionaries are inactive?I know because of fear.And I trust that salvation of God is for everyone but people must have to follow it,atleast they must have to hear it and they must not protest others to know it(God’s way) by claiming it (the way)as a path of satan.So without true followers a cult can’t be established.So we must have to think in a different way.If some people want to be deceived and happy with it,then should we think that it is not their fault,but the fault of only it’s founder?

correction for a typing mistake in previous post.

 

[morning_star777]

BTW, I hope my statement was clear.I am not saying that hindus can be saved without the way,I just wanted to say,if Muslims can be saved and if they have better chance just because they have a monotheist cover,then all cults( members )after new covenant can be saved because of monotheist cover!!And if all monotheists cult(if presents then it is also true for the future cults)have better chance to be saved then Jesus’ crucifixion is meaningless.And if jesus Crucifixion is not meaningless then no cult can be saved(even not have the better chance) without new covenant.Is this statement so illogical?

 

[tomarin]

Later i respond to 2ndAdam,that I want to leave it directly ( Jewish decision) to God.

I’ve been looking for your post so that I can see what you mean by “leaving it to God” but I can’t find it. Maybe God wants you to show some charity towards Muslims by recognizing that they are fellow monotheists and therefore closer to the truth than say, Hindus?

As for the rest of your post, I don’t think Islam and violence are essentially linked in any way that differs from the way all religions can be perverted to condone violence and barbarism.

 

[ralphinal]

I think we need to go back to the basics of Christianity and the known attributes of God. We know that God is perfectly Holy and just, and He is also merciful, compassionate, and abundantly graceful. God is love, yet God’s wrath is holy. Since God is holy and just, He cannot forgive us apart from justice being served on those who sin against Him. Therefore, the cross is the perfect solution in which God is perfectly just and merciful at the same time. Do you believe that all mankind is deserving of eternal damnation for our sin against God? Would God be moral and just if He forgave sinners apart from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for their sins? By sending His Son into this sin cursed world to die, God is just and the justifier at the same time. It would be really amazing if God sent His Son to save just one sinner from my perspective. God sent His Son to save the ungodly and wicked, those who are His enemies.

The Righteousness of God Through Faith

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. - Rom 3

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.- Rom 5

No answer. Are native Americans who lived prior to the time of Columbus in hell? If you must accept Jesus to get to heaven, where are those who were physically unable to know of him through no fault of their own?