Salvation Comes From Jesus Alone - What Then About Non-christians?

[Kia ora]

Now with capitalisation!

 

This is a topic that was prompted by the interesting discussion 'Why Does The Church Oppose Magic And What Counts As Magic?'

 

We understand the fact that salvation comes from Christ to be something a like a scientific fact - on par with believing in the existence of gravity or that force equals mass times acceleration. It's just the way the world works. We believe that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Christ, contains the fullness of divine revelation, etc. But I think it's important to point out that we believe the Body of Christ isn't just the card-carrying practicing Catholics. We believed that you enter into the Body of Christ when you're baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I think it's an important distinction. It's also why some converts aren't re-baptized, just confirmed. 

In some ways, you're right - Catholics can believe that because salvation comes from Christ alone, and in so far as other religions are similar to Christianity, it's theoretically possible that God can use those religions to bring people to him. Again, it's not those religions that are salvific, but Christ and the Church. But the reason why that is even possible is because of Christ and that the Church exists. Karl Rahner talks about the idea of "anonymous Christians" - people who aren't Christians but are using their reason and conscience and honestly seeking the truth, some of whom can be saved, and that salvation does come from Christ. His ideas sound similar to what you might be getting at. The danger with it is to make sure we aren't supposing that the Church isn't necessary, or that all religions are equally good, or even that all Christian denominations are equally good. 

But yeah, definitely start a new topic on this! I'd love to go into it more with you. :)

 

I have a somewhat more 'radical' or 'liberal' view of it then you do Basilisa Marie and I don't want to misrepresent myself, so I'll try to be as honest as I can.

 

While I said that I don't believe other religions are salvific or can save, this was a simplification of what I believe.

 

I don't believe other religions are salvific apart from Christ. I truly, sincerely believe that only the Word of God saves. It is through his Incarnation, his Crucifixion and Resurrection that we are saved and it is in him that we are saved. However, I do not believe Christ is accessible only in Christianity. I believe Christ is accessible in any time, in any place, in any language, in any culture, in any religion. 

 

I want to be very careful with my words. I think other religions can be salvific only insofar as they lead a person to Christ, but I don't think that if a person follows Christ, that means that the person will follow Christianity. I do believe that people can be saved through, not just despite, their religion, because I believe other religions can lead to Christ even apart from Christianity and in their diverse religious practices only insofar as these religions encourage what is loving, what is kind, what is selfless.

 

1 John 4:7-8

 

7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. ⁸Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.

 

 

 

Basically, if there is love, hope and faith in a person, the three supernatural graces of God, then I believe God is at work. And if a religion encourages and expounds and adores and sings the praises of love, hope and faith, or even just the greatest of these, which is love, then I think this religion can be salvific because God is Love and they are somehow approaching Christ.

 

From St. Augustine's De Fide, Spe et Caritate (my modified translation):

 

And now regarding love, which the apostle says is greater than the other two--that is, faith and hope—the more love in a person, the better the man in whom it resides. For when we ask whether someone is a good man, we are not asking what he believes, or hopes, but what he loves. Now, beyond all doubt, he who loves aright, believes and hopes rightly. But he who does not love believes in vain, even if what he believes is true; he hopes in vain, even if what he hopes for is said to belong to true happiness, unless he believes and hopes for this as well: that he may through prayer be granted the gift of love. For, although it is true that he cannot hope without love, it still may be that there is something without which, if he does not love it, he cannot realize the object of his hopes. An example of this would be if a man hopes for life eternal--and who is there who does not love that?--and yet does not love righteousness, without which no one comes to it. And this is the actual faith of Christ which the Apostle commends: faith that works through love. And what it yet lacks in love, it asks so that it may receive, it seeks to that it may find, it knocks that it might be opened to it.

 

 

Yes, I believe faith saves: but what is faith? An entrusting, not just a belief. Even the demons believe: but they do not have faith in God. What the demons do not do is take up their cross and follow Christ. Why speak only of demons? There are some Christians who don't either, despite professing their belief in the orthodox doctrines, in all the right creeds. Some? Maybe that's too optimistic. Narrow is the path after all.

 

I sincerely believe that a Hindu for example might be a better follower of Christ, might have more faith in him, without even knowing him, while even consciously rejecting him, than a Christian, if that Hindu turns the other cheek and the Christian doesn't. And if his religion tells him to turn the other cheek, when 'Christianity' tells him instead to raise his arm against his enemy, then who is the more Christ-like here? When some kind of 'Christianity' (and I use the term loosely) tells him to use and abuse the Creation that God has granted us as a gift, because we are sovereign over it and sovereign apparently means being a bad landlord, whereas his religion tells him to treat his brothers and sisters the animals with respect, then who is more Christ-like here?

 

To go even further, I don't believe Christianity can even claim to have the fullness of Christ, in other words I don't think that everything that we need to believe or know about Christ, can be captured in Christianity. I believe is Christ so great that he overflows my religion, my understanding of him and the 2000 year tradition of Christianity. I believe that every century we learn more and more about Jesus and we learn how to appreciate and adore him in different and even better ways. Even if this better way is by looking back to a past we've ignored or forgotten, to the Church Fathers or the early church etc.

 

One of the ideas that popped up in the previous thread was whether other religions could do things better than Christianity. I believe they can.

 

Because they are so unlike Christianity, they have things to offer Christians (and vice versa) that we don't have and can't have. Christianity grew up in the intersection between Jewish and Greek religion/philosophy. When people tried to formulate what they knew about the Trinity, they did so in Jewish/Greek terms, with concepts like hypostasis, ousia and so forth. If Christianity had begun in China or in India or in Mesoamerica, where different ideas about what it means to exist, what it means to be a person were formulated, then I don't think Christianity would look the same. Since I believe other religions can lead to Christ, I believe the onus is on the Christian not to simply dimiss them out of hand, but to see if they point to Christ in ways that are different if not better than Christianity.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2014 by Kia ora

[cappie]

Within the celebration of the Mass there is a prayer for the deceased and I believe that gives a clue as to who God saves

 

Eucharistic Prayer 1:

Remember also, Lord, your servants N. and N.,
who have gone before us with the sign of faith
and rest in the sleep of peace.

Grant them, O Lord, we pray,
and all who sleep in Christ,
a place of refreshment, light and peace.

 

Eucharistic Prayer 2

Remember also our brothers and sisters
who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection,
and all who have died in your mercy:
welcome them into the light of your face.

 

Eucharistic Prayer 3

To our departed brothers and sisters, too,
and to all who were pleasing to you
at their passing from this life,
give kind admittance to your kingdom.

 

Eucharistic Prayer 4

Remember also
those who have died in the peace of your Christ
and all the dead,
whose faith you alone have known.

[Amppax]

In terms of salvation of those outside the Church, there are a couple of really important recent documents from the Church. By recent, I'm referring to the last 100 years. 

 

One which is fairly little known is a letter from the Holy Office (pre-Vatican II name for CDF) concerning the doctrine "no salvation outside the Church." It is addressing the situation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, who took a hardline, literal interpretation of this doctrine. He was incredibly popular (he was the chaplain at Harvard University!), and his condemnation was a really important event. here's the document, it's really short: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm. It's also cited by Lumen Gentium, which is often ignored when we discuss Lumen Gentium. 

 

Speaking of Lumen Gentium, the relevant passage is paragraphs 15-16: 

 

 

15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

 

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

 

After Lumen Gentium, another important document is Dominus Iesus, issued by the CDF in 2000, when Pope Emeritus Benedict was prefect. This document is rather unpopular today, but it does have magisterial force. It's subheading is "on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Christ and the Church." That in itself tells us a lot about the content of the document, but it's a really important one to read. So here it is: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html.

 

Also, this is from the other thread, which was the source of this discussion, but Karl Rahner, as far as I am aware, doesn't talk about "anonymous Christians" himself, that actually comes from students of his. At least, that was something that a professor of mine and I discussed at one point, I could be wrong here. To be sure, it's something that flows very naturally from his thought, especially the idea of the supernatural existential. And this flows from his theology of grace, which is radically different from traditional theologies of grace. 

 

If it wasn't obvious before this, I haven't read any of the responses yet, I just wanted to add these sources into the mix of the discussion. I'll come back to this at some point soon when I've got more time, which will hopefully be within the next week. 

 

[Basilisa Marie]

Woot!
 

So. 

 

How then do you account for the radical differences in understanding who God (and Christ, ultimately) are? So you're saying that it all comes down to love, and love expressed to one’s neighbor through compassion/empathy/sympathy, and selflessness. Would you say that some religions get it more right than others? What are they hoping for – people of different religions hope for different things, or is it simply salvation? Because ideas of what constitutes salvation vary greatly. 

 

Yes, I believe faith saves: but what is faith? An entrusting, not just a belief. 

 

And entrusting, okay, of what? Trusting that God loves you, that God will offer you eternal life after death?  Because Muslims and Hindus and Catholics and Calvinists all have very different understandings of who God is and what “entrusting” entails. And living a life of love, what does that mean? Because Christ does say: 

 

 

John 14: 5-7

Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way" Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life,. Now one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."

14:15-17

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive becuase it neither sees him nor known him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you. 

 

 

Sure, if a Hindu lives a life more in keeping with Christianity than a Christian than in some sense, that Hindu is a better Christian. But you can’t ignore a person’s conscious choice, you’re rejecting their autonomy. That’s one of the problems people had with the students of Rahner who took Anonymous Christianity too far. What kind of “Christianity” are you speaking of? Where does it come from? Are you talking about an actual belief system, or simply rogue Christians, who you already admit have an incorrect understanding of what it means to follow Christ.

 

What truth about Christ is absent in Christianity but present somewhere else? I’m genuinely curious. Sure, God is both infinitely simple and yet mysterious beyond all human comprehension. Even Catholics can’t claim to have a full understanding of Christ. When we claim to have the fullness of divine revelation, we mean that Christ planted every kind of seed in our garden, and we’re watching them growing (and watering them) into all kinds of plants. Other religions may have some of the same kinds of seeds as us, but we have the complete set. That doesn’t mean we know what every plant looks like when its fully grown, or in every season. We do learn more about Christ and adore Him in new ways and old ways as the centuries progress.  And Catholics do have a rich tradition of looking back to the early Church and Church Fathers and seeing what they said and did.

 

Sure, Christianity in the Western World is incredibly colored by our traditions and philosophy, and would look a bit different than if it had grown up in other places. Eastern Catholics have a greater emphasis on mysticism than Romans do. But again, can you give an example of some truth that another religion has that Christianity lacks? 

[Kia ora]

Thanks for replying. Okay it's kinda late here, I promise I'll come back tomorrow or the day after to reply to your post in full. Just this one thing caught my eye and I had to respond before going off to bed.

 

So you're saying that it all comes down to love, and love expressed to one’s neighbor through compassion/empathy/sympathy, and selflessness. Would you say that some religions get it more right than others?

 

Ultimately, it does all come down to love.

 

I do think some religions get it more right than others. Christianity in particular gets it most right, I believe, with regards to the Trinity. The Trinity and its resulting implications (the Incarnation and what flows on from then) is the true distinguishing mark of Christianity from any other religion.

 

The unitarian monotheism of Judaism and Islam is beautiful in its own way. And I believe beauty is not just 'merely' aesthetical, but beauty is a transcendental attribute. Things are beautiful insofar as they approach the Beautiful, who is God, so this is high praise for Judaism and Islam, compared to the relatively uglier polytheism of some Greeks, Romans, Egyptians etc. But there's truth in those as well. The Greeks had more beautiful paganisms, Neo-Platonism was a huge influence among early Christians.

 

But unitarian monotheism cannot hold a candle to the trinitarian monotheism of Christianity. And not simply because we're right and they're wrong, although I believe that the Trinity is true, as much as any human understanding of the divine workings can be called 'true'. The Trinity is true, a divine truth, but how we understand that truth is contingent. The history of Christian thought on the Trinity is basically a long struggle by humans about what the Trinity means and how to express it in appropriate concepts and language that was true to the experience of Christians. Modalism didn't feel right, neither did adoptionism. Orthodoxy is as much what people agree the truth isn't as what they agree it is. But the truth is something other than what we can say or not say about it. In the East, don't they make a distinction between the unknowable essence of God and his energies? Well if we can let in a  bit of humility about God there, I don't see why we can't expand our circle of 'I don't know'. I don't think we should get too wrapped up in the formulations and structures that we have built around, when Christians like Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite or other apophatic theolgians say clearly that God is beyond our puny conceptions of him. If we're so beholden to Christ as coming in this form and in this wording, then I think we might miss him if he doesn't come in the form we expect him to. The core doctrines of Christianity are not expendable exterior decoration, that's absolutely not what I'm saying, but if they're the truth, then we should be able to find echoes of it around: just not in our language, our church, our sacraments.

 

It's not just that the Trinity is a straightforward truth about God, but it is truth that deserves to be true, because it means that God is Love. Not just in what he does for us, but in who he is. It is the perfect defense and proof of the claim that God is Love. Without the Trinity, I don't think Christianity would have had a leg to stand on in claiming that God is Love. The Triune divine life and wanting to become part of that love-life between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is possibly the most compelling reason why I'm a Christian at all.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, it is par for course to say that catholics believe that non catholics "can" be saved. for christainity in general, this is not the case, at least in modern USA.

 

but even the bible makes a decent case for nonchsitians being saved, though. this would be more in line with catholic teaching.

here is a short essay i wrote on the matter....

 

 

it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible to say that some nonchristians can be saved

there are four major points in the bible that i can think of regarding salvation of nonchristians.

one is around John 3:16 where it says something to the effect of... "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not parish, but have ever lasting life. for God did not send his son to condemn the world, but that that world should be saved through him. and those who do not believe stand already condemned. and this is the condemnation, that God sent the light, but the people rejected the light because their ways were dark".

one is in a different spot in John where he says something to the effect of "unless you believe that I AM he, you will die in your sins".

one is at the end of Mark, where he says "go forth baptizing people in the name of the father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. those who believe and are baptize will be saved, those who don't, will be condemned".

and there are a few spots in the nongospels part of the new testament, where it says things like "those who engage in immorality will be thrown in along with unbelievers".

the way to interpret these verses. the first three verses here have a presupposition to condemnation.... rejecting Jesus. And, the first example gave a very specific response on that rejection.... rejecting cause your ways are dark. the last verse gives the indication that 'nonbelievers are condemned". but, if you read the verses holistically, a nonbeliever could and should be considered someone who rejects Jesus, and the least common denominator of all the verses indicates that that rejection should include rejecting Jesus cause your ways are dark.

so we see that non only could a hypothetical man on an island who has never heard of Jesus be saved, so could so many people who reject Jesus, but reject him for reasons other than their ways being dark.

indeed, an englightened mind who rejects the truth, has trouble in store for him.

 

[Benedictus]

Most conseravtive evangelicaIs I've come across don't believe non Christians are saved. They don't even think Catholics are a lot of the time! Many dislike, from their view, the shackles the catholic church places on people with man made forms, rules and false teachings. Although I'm sure such evangelicals think people need to think and affirm certain theological doctrines and standards,  so I don't necessarily see the difference. The Catholic teaching that non christians could be saved is an example of where other Chrstians don't agree with Catholics (and others who say the same thing as the Catholic church, although maybe from a different viewpoint such as Universalism)

[Basilisa Marie]

But if the Trinity is such an important truth, why isn't it important to believe in it? 

[Benedictus]

But if the Trinity is such an important truth, why isn't it important to believe in it? 

 

It is, if you are blessed enough to have this information (the fullness of truth and live it). But not everyone is in this position, but God doesn't love them less for it. He works on the basis of how they act and think according to the fullness of what they know to be true. God is pragamatic and his spirit goes everywhere (even where people don't think it's present) :cool:
 

Edited July 26, 2014 by Benedictus

[Kia ora]

How then do you account for the radical differences in understanding who God (and Christ, ultimately) are?

 

I see it from two angles.

 

From the human side. Human life is immeasurably diverse. Globalisation and cultural blinkers have somewhat blinded us to this fact, so that it’s not uncommon to think that this is the way things have always been done, but it’s not true. It’s not true now, and it definitely wasn’t true back then. There are radical differences in understanding who God is, because humans and the societies we live in and the environments we survive in and the times we live in are really really different. A  Jewish monotheistic conception of God may not have even been possible in places like Australia. Judaism’s growing understanding of God is inextricably linked to the fact that Israelite religion was a Near Eastern religion. One of the key concepts in the Bible is the concept of covenant, which is a Near Eastern concept that belonged to civilizations around the area and time.

 

Of course in actuality the idea of a God who strikes up a covenant with his nation never came around in Australia. Not a great shock, Australia didn’t have civilisations where kings struck up convenants with their subjects. Australian ideas about God could not have resembled the ones that are in the Bible.  

 

From the divine side, I don’t think God reveals himself in the same way in every place and time. I believe God could take into account the differences of humans and so modify the way in which he teaches to best suit the people of the time. I believe that rules about slavery in the Bible are a concession to the society of the time, so too rules about menstruation or stuff like that. That doesn’t mean rules about hygiene and food are just junk that people made up. I once thought that, but I’ve since come to accept that the Law was from God, even the ones about slavery and so has theological value, even if the Law had to take the particular form it did as a concession to the people it was being given to.

 

So if God revealed himself to the Australians (and I don’t see why he would have only revealed himself to the Israelites but hidden himself from the rest of the world), then I think he might have done so in very different terms from the ones that we’re familiar with from the Bible or from Christianity.

 

And even when the same message is proclaimed, people see and hear different things according to their persons. When the loving God reveals himself, some people see in him an exterminator. I still want to believe that the Israelites heard what they wanted to hear from God. I can’t reconcile the loving God who tells us to turn the other cheek with God ordering the Israelites to kill, kill, kill. 

Edited July 26, 2014 by Kia ora

[Kia ora]

 

And living a life of love, what does that mean? Because Christ does say: 

 

John 14: 5-7

Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way" Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life,. Now one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."

14:15-17

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive becuase it neither sees him nor known him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.

 

 

 

What kind of commandments did God give? Jesus' entire life. His whole teaching career was not just a lead up to his Crucifixion, but Jesus showed us a perfect, sinless life. What life is meant to be lived like. What does it mean to be a Christian if not to be a follower of Christ?

 

Matthew 16:24-26

 

Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life?

 

 

Sure we're going to fail and stumble, but Jesus told us to be perfect as his Father is perfect. We should strive to be like Jesus in all respects. But he also gave us the two greatest commandments, Matt 22:34-40

 

When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

 

 

I don't believe that you can only love God as a Christian. I believe you can love God without even knowing the name of Christ.

 

The passage you quoted says 'If you love me, you will keep my commandments'.

 

I believe you can keep Jesus' commandments or attempt to keep them, which amounts to being Christ-like in all respects, without knowing the name or the details of the life of the person who gave these commandments. I sincerely believe that if you worship Shiva and yet or because you worship Shiva, you live out a life that adheres to the Sermon on the Mount, for example, then you are keeping Jesus' commandments, including the one about loving God. I don't think that loving Shiva necessarily means you don't love God.

 

There it is. I think I'm probably far beyond what the Catholic Church teaches, but that's what I believe.