God And Hell And Free Choice

[bonkers]

double post

Edited December 28, 2008 by bonkers

[bonkers]

Did you even read the article?

[quote name='mortify' post='1736449' date='Dec 27 2008, 04:00 PM']So you read the part where the author says [i]"Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen held that the Wisdom of God gave (saving) graces to people of every generation, both Greeks and barbarians"[/i]?[/quote]

Grace alone doesn't save, these same fathers taught faith and work were required for salvation. Noticed you added the word 'save' in there for effect, nice.

[quote]We already mentioned that St Justin Martyr believed Socrates was saved because he obeyed the Divine Logos, even if he did so unconsciously. Clearly Socrates and other "[i]Greeks and Barbarians"[/i] were outside of the visible Church, and yet salvation was not closed to them.[/quote]

"The saving grace of which these theologians were speaking, however, was given only to [b]pagans who lived before the time of Christ. [/b]"

[quote]This is hard for you to understand because the Church is not simply a visible body that came into existence after Christ. The Church is also [i]spiritual[/i] and [i]ancient[/i], existing even before it was visibly manifested. That's why we can say innocent Pagans who obeyed the Divine Logos were saved because they were *not* outside of the Church.[/quote]

The term 'invisible church' was coined by Augustine. He was referring to true Christians who had been saved and transformed by gods grace and truly loved Christ. The invisible church does not precede the visible church. He did not mean to include heretics, schismatics, Jews and pagans (after christ) in the invisible church, he believed and taught these people were going to hell.

"We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

"No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church." (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)

[quote]The author also states that the phrase [i]"no salvation outside of the Church"[/i] was primarily targeting heretics and schismatics. In other words, it's not addressing the innocent Pagan living on an island.[/quote]

"but they do not appear to have been any more optimistic about the prospects of salvation for pagans."

[quote]The article says that by the high patristic age it was assumed that the Gospel had been promulgated everywhere, and so only those who were Christian could be saved. This makes sense because those "outside the Church" would consist of heretics, schismatics, and obstinate Pagans. Even if "innocent pagans" existed, they would be relatively few and perhaps this is why their salvation isn't really addressed until the Medieval period.[/quote]

Jews as well. I would say the number of Jews and Pagans would be greater than a "few", I imagine they did not stop in their efforts to preach the good work following the conversion of Rome. Pagans is said to be a broader term to describe those of other religions, Moslems, Hindu's, non believers basically anyone who was not Christians, schismatic or Jew.

[quote]The article says in this period a significant development was made by Medieval theologians, basing themselves on [b]Acts 10:34-35[/b] and [b]1 Tim. 2:4[/b], they said God desires the salvation of every human being. St Thomas Aquinas believing the Gospel was promulgated everywhere, hypothesized a situation were a man was born in a wilderness isolated from society. If he lived an upright life in God's grace, St Thomas speculated God would reveal to him the christian faith supernaturally.[/quote]

"In his Summa Theologiae, however, Thomas omits any reference to miraculous instruction; he goes back to the Augustinian theory that those who had never heard the gospel would be eternally punished for original sin as well as their personal sins. "

[quote]When voyages to the Americas, Africa, and Asia revealed not even the upright inhabitants received supernatural illumination of the Christian faith, theologians already believing in God's desire for the salvation of all people, began to reflect on the possibility of these people being saved despite their innocent ignorance.[/quote]

Bit late for that. I read somewhere the church condemend the teaching supposing Moslims and Jews could be saved, and reiterated the traditional teaching of "no salvation outside the church". It wasn't until Pius XII this teaching "expanded" to maybe include some pagans, and gradually extend to what it is today, that almost anyone can be saved as long as he lives a good life and isn't aware the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ (in other words just about everyone who is non-Catholic).

[quote]What they realized is these people lived in a state [b]identical[/b] to those living before the time of Jesus Christ. The statements the Fathers made concerning the salvation of those prior to Christ could now be applied to those who were "invincibly ignorant." Only those who knowing the Church was necessary by Christ, and willingly resisted or opposed God's grace could be considered "outside of the Church." It's no wonder then that the first clear Papal statement regarding this issue were made in the 1800s.[/quote]

I'm amazed how you can just cherry pick certain quotes and add interpolations here and there and spin the facts to conform with your view. The term "invincibly ignorant" was invented by Pius XII, previous popes did not because they understood no salvation outsdie the church for what it was, no salvation outside the church, ignroance never factored into it (at least not for Augustine and Aquinas)

[quote]This is all based on what the article said... can't you see why this is a reasonable development?[/quote]

No. If I was still Catholic I could accept this as a change, I could accept it that earlier popes were ignorant, possibly callous, and erronous in their attitudes towards non-Catholics, they stuffed up, or they were just misguided, I couldn't accept it the way you do, which is being intellectually dishonest.

I don't want to debate this any more. I feel I've made my point, and regardless of the facts you wont change because it might make you feel uncomfortable in your faith. It;s pointless going on.

[mortify]

The previous post would have been impossible if I did not read the article.

[quote]Grace alone doesn't save, these same fathers taught faith and work were required for salvation.[/quote]

It's become a characteristic of your posts that you delve into things you know nothing about. Grace alone *does* save, its faith that does not save without works.
[b]
"Noticed you added the word 'save' in there for effect, nice."[/b]

The context of that quote is found reveals it's referring to "saving grace," you actually quote the sentence immediately after which demonstrates this:

[quote]"The saving grace of which these theologians were speaking, however, was given only to [b]pagans who lived before the time of Christ. [/b]"[/quote]
This proves pagans were saved outside of the visible Church

[quote]He did not mean to include heretics, schismatics, Jews and pagans (after christ) in the invisible church, he believed and taught these people were going to hell.[/quote]

We're not including heretics, schismatics, and obstinate pagans and Jews in the Body of Christ either, so your point is irrelevant. If you understood the difference between someone who willfully rejects the Church, and someone who is innocently ignorant, you would have saved yourself some copying and pasting.
[quote]"but they do not appear to have been any more optimistic about the prospects of salvation for pagans."[/quote]

First, please note it says "they do not [b]appear[/b] to be more [b]optimistic[/b]..." this doesn't mean it's absolutely impossible for them to be saved.

Secondly, a lack of [i]apparent[/i] optimism is natural because without the fullness of truth it's difficult to cooperate with God's grace. Likewise, they believed the Gospel was promulgated to the whole world, so the existence of a person sincerely ignorant of Christianity was unlikely.

[quote]Jews as well. I would say the number of Jews and Pagans would be greater than a "few", I imagine they did not stop in their efforts to preach the good work following the conversion of Rome.[/quote]

I was not referring to pagans in general but specifically *innocent* pagans, in other words, those who are sincerely ignorant of the Gospel. In the patristic era the size of the known world was relatively small, so in their view the Gospel was promulgated to whole world. This means when they made statements like, [i]"There is no salvation outside of the Church... anyone outside goes to hell"[/i] they are referring to heretics, schismatics, and pagans who are aware of the Gospel but reject it. The idea of a person existing who is ignorant of the Gospel was either nonexistent or rare.

[quote]"In his Summa Theologiae, however, Thomas omits any reference to miraculous instruction; he goes back to the Augustinian theory that those who had never heard the gospel would be eternally punished for original sin as well as their personal sins. "[/quote]

There are three places where St Augustine addresses the result of those who die without hearing the Gospel, and in all of them he assumes they did not receive the grace necessary for salvation. What he was rejecting was the Pelagian heresy that someone, by their natural works without grace, can earn salvation. What the Medieval Theologians began to uncover is that God seriously desires the salvation of all human beings, and that means every human being receives sufficient grace to be saved. That natural works without grace can't save remains a true statement, but we also know that God does provide grace to all. If a pagan is living among Christians this grace may entail becoming Christian, if the pagan lives among pagans ignorant of the Gospel, it may entail the grace to desire God and live an upright life. If in both cases the Pagan freely responds to God's grace, they can be saved. The difference between the two is that the Church provides richer spirituality, spiritual advancement, and secure salvation. For those outside of the fullness of truth salvation is difficult and perilous, I believe relatively few will make it.

[quote]Bit late for that.[/quote]

The existence of numerous populations who knew not the Gospel made this a pressing issue. Did God ignore them and allow them to perish? Acts 10:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:4 reveal this is not possible, God desires the salvation of all. The solution was realizing that these people were in an identical state with those pagans who lived before the Gospel.
[quote]I read somewhere the church condemend the teaching supposing Moslims and Jews could be saved, and reiterated the traditional teaching of "no salvation outside the church".[/quote]

If you read the statement carefully it probably rejects the idea that a person can be saved *by* another religion. Only Catholicism possess the means of salvation, meaning only our religion possess the fullness of Truth and Worship that is intrinsically pleasing to God. An innocent Muslim who desires to be closer to God because of the grace God gave them, can be made acceptable to God not because he prayed five times a day, or because he sacrificed a camel on hijrah, but because of his *desire.* Even implicit desire is sufficient if the person is ignorant of the fullness of truth and strives to be closer to God through His grace.

[quote]It wasn't until Pius XII this teaching "expanded" to maybe include some pagans, and gradually extend to what it is today, that almost anyone can be saved as long as he lives a good life and isn't aware the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ (in other words just about everyone who is non-Catholic).[/quote]

I think you mean Pius IX, but really before you understand anything these Popes said you have to understand everything before it.

[quote]I'm amazed how you can just cherry pick certain quotes and add interpolations here and there and spin the facts to conform with your view. The term "invincibly ignorant" was invented by Pius XII, previous popes did not because they understood no salvation outsdie the church for what it was, no salvation outside the church, ignroance never factored into it (at least not for Augustine and Aquinas)[/quote]

Previous Popes didn't address it because the invincibly ignorant were virtually non existent in their world view.

Edited December 28, 2008 by mortify

[DominicanPhilosophy]

One must remember that, while God is loving, He is also just. God's nature is free will, and when He created man in His own image, inviting us into a covenant with Him, He granted us free will, too. Freedom is the ability to know the truth and choose the good. When we know the truth and [i]reject[/i] the good, we are freely willing to reject God, who is Truth and Goodness. If we were to live our lives in ways that reject the true, the good, and God Himself, then God would be going against his just nature to allow us a free pass into Heaven with Him. God cannot contradict Himself, His own nature.

+JMJD

[Ziggamafu]

Bonkers, just what are getting at? What is the point of your thoughts, what is your thesis? That the Church has changed? Is that supposed to be scandalous? The Church is in a constant state of evolution. It changes. So what?

I think what you are trying to infer is that the Church has contradicted itself in dogmatic issues. If that is the case, then you need to clearly state and cite the dogmas in question (e.g., two canons from separate ecumenical councils that contradict each other).

I said before that the Church evolves and changes both in its general teachings (speculative theology) and its dogmatic teachings (infallible theology). It is guaranteed to be free of contradiction in dogmas only, although the clarity of the dogmas increases over time. You seemed surprised by this. Karl Adam's wonderful book, "The Spirit of Catholicism" is available for free online and has some good stuff on this topic.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1741370' date='Jan 2 2009, 10:08 AM']Bonkers, just what are getting at? What is the point of your thoughts, what is your thesis? That the Church has changed? Is that supposed to be scandalous? The Church is in a constant state of evolution. It changes. So what?

I think what you are trying to infer is that the Church has contradicted itself in dogmatic issues. If that is the case, then you need to clearly state and cite the dogmas in question (e.g., two canons from separate ecumenical councils that contradict each other).

I said before that the Church evolves and changes both in its general teachings (speculative theology) and its dogmatic teachings (infallible theology). It is guaranteed to be free of contradiction in dogmas only, although the clarity of the dogmas increases over time. You seemed surprised by this. Karl Adam's wonderful book, "The Spirit of Catholicism" is available for free online and has some good stuff on this topic.[/quote]

Zigga,

It's very complex and I don't have all the information and evidence to make a compelling argument. If you go to this beginning of this particular discussion you will some people here made the argument the church never [b]changed [/b]it's position on salvation, or rather some people believed it has always been understood that "pagans, Jews, Muslims and heretic" could be saved. I think a man of your intelligence and rationality will reject that notion, and accept given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and seemingly scant evidence in support of the modern view, that the vast majority of eminant theologians and popes throughout history held to the rigorist view, that salvation for exclusive to visible members of the Catholic Church, or rather that Jews, Muslims, pagans and schismatics would NOT be saved, regardless of whether they were obstensibly ignorant or even had they not heard the gospel at all. This is what Aquinas and Augustine taught, and I'm not particularly interested in dissecting their writings to find evidence for support of the modern view, because this what they understood it to mean which is clearly in contradiction of the more pleasant definition given in the CCC. The doctrine may have developed, evolved, whatever, that I can accept, what I can't accept the deliberate cherry picking and distorting of history and traditional views to justify the modern view. It changed, at least the paradigm did, that is all I'm arguing. I'm not so much interested in what was written on paper, and how modern theologians find gaps here and there, and add a little context here and there to arrive a whole new socially acceptbale dogma. Anything seemingly contradictory can be reconciled by adding a little context.

[Ziggamafu]

The "paradigm" did change. Obviously. Good grief, if all you've been trying to say is that the attitude of the Church towards a certain dogma - that no person outside the Catholic Church may be saved - changed, I don't know what all the headaches are about. The dogma has not changed. What has changed is our understanding of the Catholic Church. I think this has been mentioned to you in earlier posts; perhaps you understood that to mean that no change at all has occurred.

You must understand that the word "change" can carry a lot of baggage on a board like this. Any fool knows that to live in this universe - to exist in temporal motion - is to change. The Catholic Church deals in a certain set of principles that, together, represent [i]the [/i]"Principle" of Truth itself; that is, "God". Since the focus of the religion is Truth itself, obviously it is believed that the public revelation of Truth (from itself no less!) is absolute; it never changes.

Still, as temporal beings, the Church Militant is constantly clarifying our understanding of Truth's self-revelation. Affirmations called "dogmas" are not perfect in the sense of perfect wording or perfect timing - or even a perfectly grasped concept - but rather are "infallible", which the Church understands to mean divinely protected from direct error. Thus we believe that the statement "nobody outside the Catholic Church is saved" is true (God wouldn't have let it be dogmatically stated if it were not in some way true); but the understanding or wording of that statement may not be perfect.

Subsequent theological reflection and perhaps even a new dogmatic statement may be necessary to more properly grasp what the previous dogma means to say. Prior to such periods of reflection, it is only natural that most people will take the dogma only for what it says and not necessarily what it means (and even its authors may only think they know what it means and may themselves fail to understand the deeper layers of God's truth). We can only behave and act according to our current maturity and knowledge. As we grow, so too does the clarity of our perception of this world's truths.

[Apotheoun]

As an Eastern Orthodox friend of mine likes to say: "We know where the Church is, but we do not know where it is not."