Salvation Of Non-christians

[Budge]

[quote]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[/quote]

do you believe this is happening now?

{I do} {by the way most of the Prot and evangelical church is following Rome in falling away}

I was friendly with many Trad Catholics on my way out and definitely we saw eye to eye on the interfaith stuff, though I do not believe the same about the Catholic Church as the Trads do of course.

Edited May 5, 2007 by Budge

[thessalonian]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1264389' date='May 4 2007, 03:11 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]


As Mateo says budge sees what she wants to see and apparently you as well. Haven't you heard of the "new evangelization". Does Dominus Iesus ring a bell. There is much evangelization going on in the Church right now. Many converts. The teaching I have spoken does not say we should not evangelize. It says we should not judge those whom we evangelize. We do not assume anyone is saved but hope that God will have mercy on those who don't have the opportunity. For us we are culpable if we avoid evanglization. We deny the Eucharist and sacraments if we do not evangelize. We deny the truth when we withhold it from those who do not have it. Ignorance is not salvificic and does not sanctify. Further it does not bring about perseverence.

[mortify]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1264672' date='May 4 2007, 09:01 PM']By the way, are you calling Pope JP II and Benedict XVI heretics.[/quote]

No, I'm not, nor was my statement addressed to you or anything you said. I was responding to Dairygirl's post.

As far as I'm aware I haven't said anything contradictory either.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Budge' post='1264634' date='May 4 2007, 09:51 PM']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?[/quote]Dairy understood what I was saying. Apparently, you don't understand. I can't be any clearer.

[quote name='Budge' post='1264634' date='May 4 2007, 09:51 PM']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]Animist...not animus. There are people who are primitive in their understanding of religion (e.g. animists and fundamentalist baptists) who we are called to share the authentic Gospel of Jesus with.

In any event, let's recall: you were unable to condemn the pagan Amazonian child to hell for her ignorance of the Gospel, despite the explicit warnings of Holy Scriptures such as John 3:5. Why don't you defend your position with a quote from Holy Scripture? In particular, I'd love to see how you plan to argue alternative paths to heaven for a non-Christian.

But, speaking of non-Christians, I often wonder how much Baptist parents must worry about their un-baptized and un-born again children, with the remote possibility of an untimely death. How could those parents justify keeping the saving waters of baptism from their own flesh and blood, when the example of saintly women such as Lydia in the book of Acts shows entire households being baptized as a result of a mother's faith. So, let's skip the child in the Amazon. How about the child of Independent Fundamentalist Baptist parents in the Bible Belt? Would that child be saved?

[quote name='Budge' post='1264634' date='May 4 2007, 09:51 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.

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.[/quote]I noticed that you tend to go off on strange tangents like this when you don't have much to say on a particular thread. Let's stay focused on the topic.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1264681' date='May 4 2007, 11:09 PM']As Mateo says budge sees what she wants to see and apparently you as well. Haven't you heard of the "new evangelization". Does Dominus Iesus ring a bell. There is much evangelization going on in the Church right now.[/quote]I don't think that Dairy had an agenda in her comment, so I would hesitate to say she was trying to "see what she wanted to see." I think it's fair to say that we Catholics are now mobilizing our evangelization efforts much more effectively today. But evangelization suffered in the end of the 20th century because of a general lack of catechesis in the Catholic Faith.

[N/A Gone]

I put this in another thread, but it works better here.



This questions can take on numerous forms. The issue is present in every Christian field, from ecumenism, to theology, and greatly in the mission field. Faith confessions have different ideas as to what the answer is, but that answer effects how they relate to the world and how the relate to God.
I am going to address this answer from the perspective of Dr. Greg Boyd first. Dr. Boyd was my first mentor, a theologian that set the initial foundation to how I do theology, and how theology has moved from a mental exercise to something of the heart.
In the book Letters from a Skeptic, Dr Boyd addresses the objections set by his atheist father. In the process of the conversation, the issue was asked if “all non-Christians go to hell.” Initially Dr. Boyd is mature in admitting that this issue is “a lot of disagreement, even among evangelicals” admitting that he will be disappointed if he is searching for absolute certainty in resolving the issue.
The approach that Boyd decides to work from is from the known to the unknown. He calls this the “clear to the opaque.” He says that we do not know for certain what happens to those who die without Christ, it is opaque. In this Boyd works from five principles that he sets in determining his opinion on the matter.
The first principle can be summarized as an understanding that there are complexity of variables from which God interacts with us. Our perspective on reality is so small that we must just simply trust God although we do not see it. The second principle laid out by Boyd is the idea of the left hand of God, a doctrine that Boyd cites from Luther, but is in fact much older. The idea is that our predominate revelation of God is found in His Son. So if we have something from the entire biblical complexity, such as hell, or issues in the Old testament, we need to understand them as part of the greater mystery of God. A side of God or an aspect of God that we may not completely understand.
The third perspective Boyd introduces is in explaining to his father that there is no salvation outside of Christ. Boyd explains that this is the main theme of the New Testament. He does not expound on “how” the person is saved with Christ. He does not explain if a person needs to consciously acknowledge Christ, or if the sacrifice of Christ opens the door to everyone.
Boyd does acknowledge that the sacrifice of Christ embraces more that those who consciously embrace it. He cites the example of the old testament fathers of faith that were set as our examples of faith, yet did not know the name of Christ. He understands that in this God applies to them the sacrifice of Christ for other reasons that we do not understand. In this, to “go through” Christ is not exclusively to “believing in,” allowing for someone to be covered in Christ without knowing Christ. Boyd continues this line of thought to include Children, “retarded people” and others who are prevented from knowing Christ through no fault of their own. In conclusion, Boyd understands that God will judge people according to their hearts according to the light of truth which they did have to respond to, and according to the faith which was implicit in their hearts.
Boyd regresses from universalism to express the idea that the people who have not heard and believed in the gospel are in grave danger. In scripture we have a small amount to hold onto the hope that they can still find salvation, but we should still present a sense of urgency about expressing the gospel to these people. We know that an explicit faith in Christ will have salvation, but we are unsure about those outside the faith.
This is the perspective of one of the evangelical communities brightest minds, and one of their most compelling leaders. The next part of this paper I want to reflect on the thoughts of our present Pope, who at the time was known as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
In an interview with secular journalist Peter Seeward. The question he was asked was “How many ways are there to God?” In this, Cardinal Ratzinger answers

[quote]QUOTE
"As many as there are people. For even within the same faith each man's way is entirely personal one. We have Christ's word: I am the way. In that respect, there is ultimately one way, and everyone who is on the way to God is therefore in some sense also on the way are identical in terms of consciousness and will, but, on the contrary, the one way is so big that it becomes a personal way for each man"[/quote]In this, the Cardinal is reflecting on a position called Lauterkeit which is that in all religions there are men of interior purity who through their myths somehow touch the great mystery and find the right way of being human.
So the idea is not that other systems of faith are valid. But that someone can still be touched by grace, still find salvation while in those systems. Not because of those systems, and not always in spite of those systems. CS Lewis7 and other theologians have wrote that in the other myths of the world there are partial truths, those truths can led to a pursuit of other truths, and sanctifying grace.
Vat 2 teaches a few things here. In regard to protestants it is the understanding that in their eccesiologies there are variance of truths that can lead to sanctifying grace. The key is to find those truths and be open to the seeking of more truth. Not to be in these systems because they feel that it is enough. For to truly seek truth will bring you to more truth.
It has nothing to do with a denial of Christ. or simply being good. but by discovering the sanctifying grace. Plenty of people are good people but do not have grace. Thats a product of modernism. The individual people can discover grace. Not the people-groups overall. These communities do have partial truths. The world itself has partial truths. In romans Paul is able to convict the gentiles because they should be able to be moved towards grace simply by creation. Now, if a little Islamic boy is raised Islamic and is faithful to his faith and truly submits to truth and responds to it. I feel that grace can be found. The Holy Spirit moves all of creation towards Him. People in these systems can be moved by the spirit. Not because of these systems. Not in spite of them. As catholics we have more truth. We have the sacraments and the dogmas of truth. We have more truth expressed for us to react towards. But the key is still the reaction to grace expressed.
Paul says that the Lord has impressed his law on the hearts of men. This is called "natural law." It insures that no man has an excuse. Everyone will be held accountable for their actions, to the degree to which they have had the opportunity to know and accept the Truth. "To whom much has been given, much is required." I know Jesus Christ. I know his Church. I know what is True. Thus, much is required of me. But, for the Indian who never knew Christ and never will, he surely cannot be held to the same standard as me. It's impossible, and unjust. Thus, he is held accountable to the natural law imprinted on his heart. You don't have to know Jesus Christ to know that some actions are "good" and other ones are "bad."


[quote]QUOTE
“men of different nations are in possession light that God has given to people, especially in the fact that God has revealed Himself through nature/creation, and through prophets throughout history. It is human's duty to respond to the light/revelation that one has. I also believe that salvation only comes through grace, through calvary. So, if one is to be saved, somehow the merits of Christ have to be applied to him/her somehow.”[/quote]
I believe this is the concept that has been presented in the sources I have provided to you with the numerous concepts. I will end by providing one more source.

[quote]QUOTE
"'Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.' Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."[/quote]


Here we see that we respond to grace, and that grace can be expressed in ways that we are unable to know or understand. Salvation is based on our ability to respond to the grace as it is presented to us. In this, the missionary has the task of exposing more grace to the people who have yet to hear the gospel. Give them more opportunities to respond to grace and be brought into communion with God.

[son_of_angels]

[quote]Thus, much is required of me. But, for the Indian who never knew Christ and never will, he surely cannot be held to the same standard as me. It's impossible, and unjust. Thus, he is held accountable to the natural law imprinted on his heart. You don't have to know Jesus Christ to know that some actions are "good" and other ones are "bad."[/quote]

This is true. However, Christ did not come to redeem us, simply, from the personal sins we commit, but also from the condition in which all mankind finds itself from Adam.

As St. Paul points out in the Letter to the Romans "by the works of the Law no human being shall be justified before him, for through law comes the recognition of sin." In other words, it does not logically follow that simply through not messing up, not transgressing even the natural law written on our hearts, that there would be a justification for sin, and, being under the constraint of original sin, "if any man says he has no sin he lies and the truth is not in him" says St. John. Rather, it is the confession of the Church, and the express teaching of Holy Scriptures that faith is necessary for justification.

When one claims that we only need Christ for the particular sins which we commit, and not universally, this is no more than Pelagianism.