that does it for me

[Pax]

The problem comes in when we realize:

Jam 2:10 “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.”

This is the purpose of the Gospel and Christ’s sacrifice.

Rom 3:20 “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.”

James also says:

Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.[James 1:21-22]

The Old Law did not empower one to fulfill it…instead it only points out sin. Living by faith through grace is another story altogether. Living by grace in the spirit is being a doer of the word and not simply hearers of the word. Those that are not doers of the word by grace are deceiving themselves and the implanted word will not save them.

Slightly off topic, but important nevertheless.

 

[Atemi]

James also says:

Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.[James 1:21-22]

The Old Law did not empower one to fulfill it…instead it only points out sin. Living by faith through grace is another story altogether. Living by grace in the spirit is being a doer of the word and not simply hearers of the word. Those that are not doers of the word by grace are deceiving themselves and the implanted word will not save them.

But James was not talking about those who never heard the Word.

The poster earlier said that those who are unbelievers and doers of the law will be saved.

Slightly off topic, but important nevertheless.

 

[Milliardo]

Then let me ask you outright:

If a Hindu asked you if the Church said that he can be saved as a Hindu, what do you say?

If he asks me, then in essence then he has the opportunity to know Christ and His Church. He has no excuse then. The Church is clear that salvation for those outside His Church is for those who do not know Him through no fault of their own–which means they have no recourse to the Gospel, no contact with missionaries, and has absolutely no knowledge of Christ.

 

[tdgesq]

But James was not talking about those who never heard the Word.

The poster earlier said that those who are unbelievers and doers of the law will be saved.

So how exactly are you disagreeing with what the OP paraphrased? You admit that there are circumstances where a person can be saved who was raised in and adheres to the teachings of a non-Christian religion, specifically where they have never heard the Gospel message.

Maybe it’s the “as long as they lived up to the graces that God has given them” part that you have a problem with. Although I don’t know exactly what she means by that statement (keep in mind that it is a paraphrase), I do know she doesn’t mean that someone will go to heaven who has heard and understood Christ’s message yet rejects it for a false non-Christian message.

What there may be between these two extremes is open for debate in the context of her paraphrased statement I think. It appears that everyone here agrees that there are some circumstances where people who are part of a non-Christian religion might be saved, and that it involves living out a life where they don’t reject the grace that God has given them.

Do you disagree with anything I’ve said up to this point?

 

[Odell]

The problem comes in when we realize:

Jam 2:10 “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.”

This is the purpose of the Gospel and Christ’s sacrifice.

Rom 3:20 “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.”

Thats funny because Paul wrote

Paul (Rom 2:13) “for it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather those who observer the law will be justified.” There is a such a thing as moral Law such as the commandments that is part of the law. He is saying that the commandments still count. The commandments have to be observed.

Jesus said I came to fulfill the law not to abolish the law. (Lk 10:25-37).

(Mt 19:16-17) “Now someone approached him and said, teacher what good must I do to gain eternal life? If you wish to enter life keep the commandments.”

If you want the full context of the verse I gave you read the verses around it. Im not going to post the entire chapter. I will give you verse 15 though “They show that the demands of the law are written in there hearts while there conscience also bears withness and their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them.”

One other thing you seem to think that the Law no longer counts but it certanly does Jesus did not abolish the law but fullfiled it.

I am affraid you do not understand what it means to be free from the law

Ill let Christerpher West explain this to you

[Christopher West Book Theology of the body for beginners pg 40]
“Most people look at Christian morality-especially sexual morality-as an oppressive list of rules to follow. How far this misunderstanding is from the living morality proclaimed by Christ! The Gospel dosen’t give us more rules to follow. The Gospel is meant to change our hearts so that we no longer need the rules(see cathichsm 1968) To the degree that we experince this change of heart we experience freedom from the law(Rom7;Gal 5) not freedom to break the law; freedom to fullfill it.”
"Heres an example of what freedom from the law looks like: Do you have any desire to murder your best friend? This may seem like an odd question, but it actually demonstrate the point. Assuming you do not, then you dont need that comandment. Thou shall not murder thy best friend. Because you have no desire to break it. To this extent you are free from the law. In other words, you don’t experience this law as an imposition because your heart conforms to it.

before original sin the human heart comformed to Gods. that is what Christ came back for to show us how to conform our will to his. and the Church is there to help

one last thing
When we allow Chist into our hearts we no longer need the law because we no longer desire to break them. What law do you still need? What teachings of the Church still feel like a burdan or impostion to you? Perhaps the problem isn’t the law or the Church, but with your “hardness of heart” dont throw away the law surender your disordered desires to Christ and let him transform them.

we are not the ones who are not entering fully into his Grace

We are not bound to the Law we fullfill it.

 

[guanophore]

This view is hugely problematic.

With this view the desire to evangelize is greatly diminished and that is what we see from many Catholics today, IMO. Why evangelize people that can already be forgiven and be saved following whatever religion they already do…even if that religion boldly rejects Jesus Christ?

If this was true, it would not be “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” but “live up to the graces you have been given and you will be saved.”

We find that nowhere in the entirety of God’s Word.

What we find in Scripture is that the world is full of sinners that need to believe the Gospel and be saved.

Telling idolators that they can be saved by just being who they already are is extremely dangerous and alien to the purpose of the Gospel, IMV.

There is no need to preach that message to non-Christians because they already hear that message from their own faiths.

Are you saying that you are satisfied with others having a primitive or blinded understanding of the Gospel? Are you saying that Christ’s great commission is not a worthy cause?

 

[guanophore]

No. I am not misunderstanding. I nowhere said that.

What I am saying is this:

If a Hindu ever asks a Catholic if the Church teaches that he can be saved as a Hindu, the Catholic can only emphatically say “Sure.”

Pax is right, Atemi, you are misunderstanding. Once a Hindu asks, he is then exposed to the Gospel. Such a one no longer is covered by invincable ignorance. Once the gospel has been shared, then each soul has to make a choice. Before that time, each person is judged in the light of his own conscience.

Rom 2:14-16
14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. "

Where it says gentiles, read those not enlightened by the revelation of God.

This is not the Apostolic method. The Apostolic method is “repent and be baptised.”

Merely telling someone that “the odds” are better that they will be saved if they are Catholic is not evangelization.

Good! Hope you don’t do that. You are right, the apostolic method is that all should repent, and be baptized. However, God is not bound by the apostolic method as we are. We must not be presumptuous before God about who he saves, or why. It is up to Him.

 

[guanophore]

hola,

except for invincible ignorance Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, there is no salvation outside the Church… this person is clearly incorrect…

que Dios te bendiga

This is a commonly misunderstood concept. Catholics recognize that there is only one church. Jesus has only one body. therefore, all who are saved are part, somehow, of that body, though we may not understand how that is.

 

[Randy_Carson]

My goodness.

God surely does know. That’s why he is omniscient.

There is no “yet” in God’s mind.

I’m with you on this one.

See? Some common ground…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nor can you be blamed if you do not understand why sola scriptura is false.

It’s what you have been taught.

You see? Like the Hindus and the Muslims, your own culpability is for God to judge.

They cannot accept Christ…you cannot accept “Rome.”

Ironically, Protestants are quick to condemn those who have not accepted Christ, but then they chafe when Catholics suggest that there is “no salvation outside the Church.”

Same basic concept…ignorance of the truth. It’s just a matter of degree, isn’t it?

Should we be as hard-lined toward non-Catholics as most fundamentalists are toward non-Christians?

It only seems fair, doesn’t it?

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Bump.

 

[Atemi]

If he asks me, then in essence then he has the opportunity to know Christ and His Church. He has no excuse then. The Church is clear that salvation for those outside His Church is for those who do not know Him through no fault of their own–which means they have no recourse to the Gospel, no contact with missionaries, and has absolutely no knowledge of Christ.

So all educated Hindus, Muslims and Jews in the Western world are damned?

 

[tdgesq]

So all educated Hindus, Muslims and Jews in the Western world are damned?

I disagree with Milliardo’s assessment, but is that your conclusion as well?

 

[Atemi]

Pax is right, Atemi, you are misunderstanding. Once a Hindu asks, he is then exposed to the Gospel. Such a one no longer is covered by invincable ignorance. Once the gospel has been shared, then each soul has to make a choice.

So all educated Muslims, Hindus, and Jews in the Western world are damned according to the RCC?

BTW, I did not know merely asking a question equated to being “exposed to the Gospel.”

Another Catholic poster told me earlier that a Muslim today would have to be exposed to the entire NT before he could reject it. I am not getting consistent responses.

You are right, the apostolic method is that all should repent, and be baptized.

That is not the claim of Ms. Moss in the OP.

The OP makes clear that Muslims and Jews who have “lived up to the graces that God has given them” don’t need to do that.

 

[MariaG]

So all educated Hindus, Muslims and Jews in the Western world are damned?

That is God’s job to judge not ours.

We understand as Catholic Christians, that anyone who is not a Catholic Christian is in danger of hell, moreso than a faithful Catholic Christian. It is our job to spread the good news of Christ and His Church.

We acknowledge the scriptural truth that nothing is impossible for God and He may choose to save anyone He wants (through Christ), without in anyway lessening the importance of spreading the Good News.

There is no salvation outside the Church. We will only be saved through Christ. But equally true, nothing is impossible for God. So while we diligently spread the good news, we can also pray for His infinite mercy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So all educated Hindus, Muslims and Jews in the Western world are damned?

They may be invincibly ignorant. Some “Christians” may fall into this category, also.

We are justified by grace through faith working in love. Or some related formula.

Are you prepared to declare with confidence that a Hindu who hears a brief (or lengthy) presentation of the Gospel and fails to respond to the altar call is damned?

I’m not. I don’t know all the circumstances of his life.

I don’t know that his mother was killed by “Christians” in a riot when he was a boy. I don’t know that his father worked for years for the British during the colonial era and suffered greatly at the hands of his “Christian” superiors. I don’t know that some “Christian” street preacher has been haranguing him with a “hellfire and brimstone” message that he cannot hear.

Hearing the gospel is not the same as HEARING the gospel.

Grace is a free gift of God. The Spirit blows where He will. God’s ways are not our ways. That’s about as consistent an answer as you can get.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

So all educated Muslims, Hindus, and Jews in the Western world are damned according to the RCC?

You are not listening (again) Atemi.:banghead:

BTW, I did not know merely asking a question equated to being “exposed to the Gospel.”

Are you telling me that someone could ask you a question, and you would PASS UP the chance to share the gospel?!

Another Catholic poster told me earlier that a Muslim today would have to be exposed to the entire NT before he could reject it. I am not getting consistent responses.

Same goes for you, Atemi, if you keep getting exposed, and keep rejecting.:banghead:

That is not the claim of Ms. Moss in the OP.

The OP makes clear that Muslims and Jews who have “lived up to the graces that God has given them” don’t need to do that.

Yes? I guess I don’t see how those two things are incompatible. Everyone is judged in the light of truth they have received. Just as you will be.

 

[Milliardo]

I disagree with Milliardo’s assessment, but is that your conclusion as well?

CCC 846-847. It’s not my assessment; it’s in the Catechism.

 

[tdgesq]

CCC 846-847. It’s not my assessment; it’s in the Catechism.

No. It is not what the Catechism says. I’ve read the portion you’ve cited over the years more times than I care to count. This part is right:

The Church is clear that salvation for those outside His Church is for those who do not know Him through no fault of their own

A good job there, but the next part is your own interpretation that I think there are good reasons to disagree with:

which means they have no recourse to the Gospel, no contact with missionaries, and has absolutely no knowledge of Christ.

No contact with missionaries, and absolutely no knowledge of Christ? That’s not what the Church teaches. I believe someone could have contact with missionaries or have some limited knowledge of Christ and still not be held at fault for being outside of the Church. I respectfully disagree with your assessment here.

 

[Atemi]

No contact with missionaries, and absolutely no knowledge of Christ? That’s not what the Church teaches. I believe someone could have contact with missionaries or have some limited knowledge of Christ and still not be held at fault for being outside of the Church. I respectfully disagree with your assessment here.

The problem I am having here is that we have a Magisterium that claims to be the infallible interpreter, but we have two well educated and well catechised Catholics disagreeing on a very important point of Catholic teaching.

If the Catechism is not clear here, then who is the infallible interpreter for the infallible interpreter?

If even the Catechism cannot be appealed to to settle doctrinal dispute, then what is appealed to next?

This has always been my problem with claims that the Scriptures need an infallible interpreter, but then the interpretations themselves need another infallible interpreter to interpret them…and on and on…

 

[Atemi]

So all educated Hindus, Muslims and Jews in the Western world are damned?

That is God’s job to judge not ours.

We are now back to the point of the OP.

So you believe that educated Hindus, Muslims and Jews in the Western world can be saved?

Especially if they “lived up to the graces that God has given them”?

We are getting different answers all over the board here.