Salvation Of Non-christians

[dairygirl4u2c]

this is primarily for noncatholics, as the CC teaches you're bound by what you know and is pretty reasonable here (well, now, other than the extra null salus thing)....

the bible only says if you reject jesus you're damned. i don't think any of us are wise enough to know how one can truly reject him. (though we can be pretty sure sometimes) is hearing a damnation preacher who says all are going to hell and he's on repeat, and doesn't dialouge with you, as you walk through campus enough, gee i don't want to follow Jesus, to say you're damned? Did that person really reject Jesus in a way that means anything? and if you're trying to discern the faith, is that enough to reject if you happen to die while discerning?

whatever the case, the bible never says if you don't accept him because you were unfamiliar that you would be damned. i suggest reading and thinking carefully the different between rejecting and not accepting, in teh passages of the end of Mark, John 3:16 where he goes on to define condemnation, and when Jesus says in John "i told you i am. unless you accept that, you're doomed". these all dleal with proactive rejectment where the person knew what they were rejecting.

that doesn't mean the gospel shouldn't be preached. knowing the gospel will save many, as the bible says.
just something to consider...

ideas?

[thessalonian]

Actually dairy, your post sounds pretty Catholic to me. Men are accountable for what they are given the grace to know. If someone does not know out of invincible ignorance (of which God is the judge, not us) he MAY make it to heaven. God is not limited by his sacraments and can do what he chooses in such cases. Corenlius in Acts 10, 11 was a God fearing and righteous man BEFORE he became a Christian. The Good Samaritan was held high as a Christian example, even though the Samaritans were a mixture of paganism and believing in the Jewish God as one of many God's. The three wise men were neither Christian, nor Jew and likely had no opportunity to believe in a trinity. We leave God as the judge of these and trust in his mercy as much as his justice.

Even in John 6 there were those there who heard Jesus words and turned away. Those who heard and accepted them. But there were also those not there of whom we can make no judgement and leave such matters for God alone who alone is qualified to judge.

[Budge]

One thing I would to know about modern Catholicism is why it is so focused on the OUT CLAUSES of salvation instead of The Great Commission.

To anyone who says that a person s lost without Jesus Christ, you folks start quibbling about how mean they are, and how there are all these levels of special ignorance categories to "protect" them once they get in heaven.

Come on why is the focus on THAT? instead of bringing the gospel [not church membership to a lost world]

If a kid dies in the Amazon Rain forest thats never seen a Bible, I trust God as the most just Judge to deal with it, but I think the whole interfaith thing has confused the lot of you.

Youve turned God's mercy and perfect Justice into this watered down lukewarm interfaith pluralism mush.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well budge has gotta point. she trusts god to deal with it, which isn't acknowledging the possiblity, but she does have a point about what is oftentimes the focus.

[Mateo el Feo]

Budge seems to take the most pessimistic view of the Church that she can regarding its fidelity to spreading the gospel message. Of course, Catholic missions have converted entire continents to the Gospel message, but one would never suspect that reading Budge's perspective.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1264389' date='May 4 2007, 04:11 PM']well budge has gotta point. she trusts god to deal with it, which isn't acknowledging the possiblity, but she does have a point about what is oftentimes the focus.[/quote]This is the problem for me: sometimes people see what they want to see. In this case, Budge's position isn't easy to distinguish from the Catholic teaching, yet she has to conjure up a distintion so that she can see herself as separated from the Catholic Church's teachings.

If, for example, a Catholic had suggested the same example of the Amazonian child who hadn't heard the gospel, would Budge have passed judgment on that Catholic for emphasizing the "out clauses of Salvation"? I'm not sure she could resist.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that's an even more insightful point mateo. she should say, yeah i could see how it might really be two sides of the same coin. but no, she has to separate herself. it's good to provide the balance she did, but she's gotta counter that with her own admissions.

if she tends towards saying non's can't be saved, i see how she's unbalanced. but, if that's what she thinks, she's not providing any biblical evidence for it. (which is what i started the thread for) (or theological if she's willing to reason beyond only what's in the bible) only then can she be as unbalanced as she is.

Edited May 4, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[mortify]

If people can make it into heaven by sheer ignorance, we are saying people are naturally worthy of heaven and that one can only lose the right to heaven by rejecting the Truth (Christ.) The reality is the opposite, we are born alienated from God and can only make it into heaven through Christ, that means being a member of His Body, obeying His commandments, bearing the mark of His blood, being born of God and enduring in this state to the end.

[Sojourner]

My take on this (and I have been told that it is harmonious with Catholic teaching here, although if it isn't then I am open to correction) is that we are each responsible for the level of revelation we have received. Some hear the full gospel, others here a partial gospel, and still others hear only the slightest bit of gospel but nonetheless are responsible for what they HAVE heard (as it says in Romans 1 creation tells the story of the Creator leaving all of us without excuse when it comes to whether we pay heed to his call or not). So we all answer for our response to the revelation which was made to us.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I don't think anyone's saying they can make it by sheer ignorance mortify. We haven't been saying how, but that's not what's being said. What is being said is that they could make it if they follow the dictates of their conscious, which is input into all, the best they can. Only then if they don't happen to hear they might be excused. As many warn though (which may be what you're getting at), people are naturally alienated from God, and their nature is sinful, as you said. So, we should follow the great commission and spread the gosple.

[KnightofChrist]

They can only make it to heaven if God wills it, even if their good people. All unrepented evil souls likely go to hell, Christian or not. Christians have the promises of Christ if we remain until the end we will be saved. Non-Christians do not have these promises so their salvation is unknown and has a great chance not to be, they will have to depend on the good graces of God. Who is a God of Love and Justice, who would still remain a God of Love and Justice even if He sent every non-Christian to hell.

[Budge]

[quote]well budge has gotta point. she trusts god to deal with it, which isn't acknowledging the possiblity, but she does have a point about what is oftentimes the focus.
[/quote]Thanks dairy, I appreaciate that you understood what I was saying.

It isnt just something that has affected the Catholic Church by the way but has taken over the mainlines and moving into evangelicalism via Rick Warren etc.

[quote]
Budge seems to take the most pessimistic view of the Church that she can regarding its fidelity to spreading the gospel message. Of course, Catholic missions have converted entire continents to the Gospel message, but one would never suspect that reading Budge's perspective.[/quote]

Since the Bible makes it clear there will be a great falling away..."itching ears' etc

why is that pessimistic....[narrow way etc]

Was Jesus being a "pessimist" when he said Shall I find Faith upon the earth?

Ill do a post early next week on Jesus's parables and falling away of the church.

[quote]This is the problem for me: sometimes people see what they want to see. In this case, Budge's position isn't easy to distinguish from the Catholic teaching, yet she has to conjure up a distintion so that she can see herself as separated from the Catholic Church's teachings.[/quote]I am seperated from the Catholic church's teachings, I dont agree with the interfaith movement.
[quote]
If, for example, a Catholic had suggested the same example of the Amazonian child who hadn't heard the gospel, would Budge have passed judgment on that Catholic for emphasizing the "out clauses of Salvation"? I'm not sure she could resist.[/quote]

Heres the problem, nowdays too many Catholics and Prots, would consider it an offense for the gospel to be carried to that child. Why are you downing his "native" religion. When I read writings in the Vatican praising animus religions, and witchdoctors, thats scary stuff, and shows an immense diversion from any "preaching of the gospel" This deals with african native religions but Ive read about this being applied to others elsewhere.
[quote]
Code: ZE05011207

Date: 2005-01-12

Dispelling Misconceptions About "Traditional Religions"

Vatican Conference Views a Far-flung Phenomenon

VATICAN CITY, JAN. 12, 2005 (Zenit.org).- A[b]n international conference here is focusing on "the resources for peace in traditional religions," which are frequently and inaccurately referred to as "animist."[/b]

The meeting at the Vatican, which began today and ends Saturday, is promoted by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, whose president is Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald.

Conferees are analyzing "the contributions that can be made to peace by followers of tribal cults, spread throughout the continents, especially in Africa, where their number is estimated at 60 million," Vatican Radio reported.

Archbishop Fitzgerald explained that "when we speak of traditional religions, we are thinking of ethnic or tribal religions, that is, those that have developed in a specific ethnic group and which, therefore, are different from the world religions, which go beyond national borders."

"When we speak of traditional religions, we often think primarily of Africa," he explained on Vatican Radio. "But they are not only in Africa. There is the whole spirituality of the Indians in Latin America. There is also the African religion that has gone to Latin America."

These religions are also present in Asia. "In India, they are called 'tribal' and they have their particular spirituality, while in the Philippines followers of traditional religions live in the hills and mountains," he added.
[b]
"We avoid the word 'animist,' as it gives the idea that animism considers wind, water and animals as inhabited by spirits which demand worship: In reality, it is not so," the prelate said.

"Normally in these religions there is belief in the creator God, a supreme God, but there are also other mediating entities between God and humanity: forebears and other spirits.[u] But it is not worship where a forest, tree, etc., is venerated[/u]. Divinity is not there," the archbishop said.[/b]

(ugh, wrong..and creepy sounding in that this archbishops seems to be getting started with the hyperdulia talk to be applied to trees.)

The traditional religions "are not organized in a hierarchy. Many times the 'chief' is the head of the family, who offers prayers [and] sacrifices," he added. Moreover, "they have secrets which they guard and which they don't want to talk about. However, many people have converted to Christianity, starting from the 'background' of these religions.
[b]
"The Holy Spirit inspires good everywhere and we can see good things in these traditional religions that might also help our society."
[/b]
(like what?)

"And this is the objective of the study we are undertaking: to see what are the values of these religions for today's society, for peace," Archbishop Fitzgerald added.

"Participants in this congress are all Catholics, experts in traditional religions. There are no followers of these religions, as it is somewhat difficult to engage in direct dialogue with them."
[b]
(Ok so they didnt get any of the witchdoctors at the conference--they are just planning outreach to them now but someone tell me why they are seeing VALUES in these religions as opposed to Christianity?)[/b]
email this article[/quote]

I have a friend online whose lived in Africa, she knows the real deal with native religions, as did a missionary from my old church in Bolvia, much of these religions are based on out and out withcraft and necromancy, consulting familiar spirits, to gain "favors". There is even possesion that is sought.

And the Vatican is praising this stuff, instead of insiting as any Christian to release these people from their bondage in love. The Bolivian Missionary would tell me of the lives changed via Christ, where all that stuff would be laid aside. While Rome praises these religions, the true Christian knows our main perogative is to bring a person to Christ and leave those things behind.

Edited May 5, 2007 by Budge

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='Budge' post='1264634' date='May 4 2007, 06:51 PM']I have a friend online whose lived in Africa, she knows the real deal with native religions, as did a missionary from my old church in Bolvia, much of these religions are based on out and out withcraft and necromancy, consulting familiar spirits, to gain "favors". There is even possesion that is sought.[/quote]

You have experience in just about everything, don't you?

[Budge]

Im not a young-un, and Ive been around and I like to talk to people.

[mortify]

Budge, concerning the interfaith movement I agree with you for the most part, as for the Church falling away, it is true that a portion (albeit large) will fall away but there will be a remnant holding on to the Truth.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='mortify' post='1264537' date='May 4 2007, 06:06 PM']If people can make it into heaven by sheer ignorance, we are saying people are naturally worthy of heaven and that one can only lose the right to heaven by rejecting the Truth (Christ.) The reality is the opposite, we are born alienated from God and can only make it into heaven through Christ, that means being a member of His Body, obeying His commandments, bearing the mark of His blood, being born of God and enduring in this state to the end.[/quote]


Where did I say that one is saved by ignorance. It is truth that sets us free. Paul tells us that the laws are written on every mans heart and that none is without excuse (rom 1 and rom 2:14-16). The heavens cry out to the glory of God and some grope and find him (Rom 17). We are also told in Luke 12 that the one who did not know will recieve a light beating (perhaps a ref to purgatory) while the one who knew and did not obey (the Christian who falls) will be treated with the unbeliever. Those who know therefore are held to a higher standard. But with creation and what is on our hearts, NONE are totally ignorant and what truth they have is of salvific value. It is not that ignorance saves. If the grace has not been recieved it is not culpable.

If a man makes it though ignorant of some things it is still Christ that saves, for the law on their heart is there because of Christ's sacrifice. The grace to respond to it is recieved because of Christ's sacrifice. By the way, are you calling Pope JP II and Benedict XVI heretics. I am consistent with what they have said.