 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Eric3141
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bardstown, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| First Name: | Eric | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic revert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 11:37 pm |
|
Jesus said in the Bible that those who did not believe in Him were condemned. Yet the Church says that even those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are not condemned so long as they sincerely do not believe it. However, this contradicts the words of Jesus Himself who did not make an exception for those who heard and rejected but did so because they sincerely did not believe it.
I'm having a hard time reconciling the teachings of Our Lord with what the Church is teaching on this issue.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2277 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 12:04 am |
|
The Church says that even those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are not condemned so long as they sincerely do not believe it.
This is not exactly what the Church teaches. Those who have not heard the gospel are not required to believe it and accept it insofar as they remain in ignorance. Those who have heard the gospel may be blind to its meaning, its truth or the obligation it places on every human being, and so effectively may remain in ignorance. However, those who do understand and still sincerely reject the gospel are condemned by it. This follows the same logic as the rule for the commission of mortal sin: it must be a grave sin, one must be aware that it is a sin, and one must do it willingly anyway.
The Church, therefore, follows the gospel to the letter.
DavidLast edited on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 09:12 am by David W. Emery
|
|
|
SBC2RCC
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | York, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 132 |
| First Name: | Monte | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | was Southern Baptist Minister, now Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 12:37 pm |
|
| Amen to that David, "the Church follows the gospel to the letter." This was one of the many factors that brought me to the Catholic Church. She follows the WHOLE GOSPEL and takes very seriously all of what the Bible teaches, rather than only what fits in a particular hermeneutic.
____________________
In Christ,
Monte W
(Formerly on CHN Forum as "Pilgrim Paul"
Minima Maxima Sunt
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 08:03 pm |
|
Eric3141 wrote: Jesus said in the Bible that those who did not believe in Him were condemned. Yet the Church says that even those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are not condemned so long as they sincerely do not believe it. However, this contradicts the words of Jesus Himself who did not make an exception for those who heard and rejected but did so because they sincerely did not believe it.
I'm having a hard time reconciling the teachings of Our Lord with what the Church is teaching on this issue.
So Eric, have you been talking to or listening to Protestants? I've noticed from some of your posts that you seem to have some serious questions regarding your Catholic faith. Do you have some doubts about your decision to revert?
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Eric3141
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bardstown, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| First Name: | Eric | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic revert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 4th, 2007 12:35 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote: The Church says that even those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are not condemned so long as they sincerely do not believe it.
Those who have not heard the gospel are not required to believe it and accept it insofar as they remain in ignorance. Those who have heard the gospel may be blind to its meaning, its truth or the obligation it places on every human being, and so effectively may remain in ignorance. ... This follows the same logic as the rule for the commission of mortal sin: it must be a grave sin, one must be aware that it is a sin, and one must do it willingly anyway.
The Church, therefore, follows the gospel to the letter.
David
You say that the Church follows the gospel to the letter. Please show me from the Bible where the above can be found. Particularly, please show me where it says that someone can hear the gospel, not believe it and not necessarily be condemned. Also, you say the gospel says that ignorance removes the requirement to believe. I can think of several passages that say one must believe in Christ to be saved but none that say what you are saying. I'm interested in seeing these references if you care to share them. I'm not talking about reason or logic -- you made the point that what the Church teaches on this issue agrees with the gospel so I'm hoping to see the passages you are referencing.
I don't think everything has to be in the Bible, by the way. But I do think that nothing the Church teaches should be contrary to what the Bible teaches. And I can think of passages that say that one must believe to be saved but none that make an exception for those who have not heard or those who have heard but sincerely disbelieve.
Last edited on Sat Aug 4th, 2007 12:46 am by Eric3141
|
|
|
Eric3141
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bardstown, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| First Name: | Eric | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic revert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 4th, 2007 12:39 am |
|
Darlene wrote: Eric3141 wrote: Jesus said in the Bible that those who did not believe in Him were condemned. Yet the Church says that even those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are not condemned so long as they sincerely do not believe it. However, this contradicts the words of Jesus Himself who did not make an exception for those who heard and rejected but did so because they sincerely did not believe it.
I'm having a hard time reconciling the teachings of Our Lord with what the Church is teaching on this issue.
So Eric, have you been talking to or listening to Protestants? I've noticed from some of your posts that you seem to have some serious questions regarding your Catholic faith. Do you have some doubts about your decision to revert?
Darlene
No, I haven't been talking to Protestants. For years I have been aware of what appear to be inconsistencies regarding these issues. Rather than continue to let it bother me, I decided to go to a site where faithful Catholics are (this site) and ask questions. I'm hoping someone can provide answers that will show me that these inconsistencies aren't so after all.
Do I have doubts you ask. Well, like I said, there are things the Catholic church teaches that are difficult to accept. Not difficult because I don't like the teaching but rather difficult because they seem to contradict scripture or logic. So, I thought I'd try and work thru these difficulties by asking questions of other faithful Catholics. I hope it hasn't annoyed you.
Eric
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2277 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 4th, 2007 04:18 pm |
|
Please show me from the Bible where the above can be found. Particularly, please show me where it says that someone can hear the gospel, not believe it and not necessarily be condemned. Also, you say the gospel says that ignorance removes the requirement to believe.
Eric, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding going on here. I did not say that ignorance removes the general requirement to believe. I said that they are excused from that requirement who have either not heard the gospel or have not understood it. The requirement remains; those who have not heard the gospel are not held personally culpable, but the consequences of their unbelief remain.
Again, let us look at the situation from a moral point of view. A person who commits a grave sin out of ignorance is not accused of that sin by God when he comes to the judgment. Nevertheless, the consequences of that sin will be played out in his own life and in the lives of those who are affected by his sinful act. How do I know this? I have read the gospel, where it says, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). The sin of unbelief is just like any other; it will be forgiven if done out of ignorance.
Furthermore, it is not true that those who do not know the true God will all be sent to hell. For St. Paul says, “It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 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. 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 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus” (Romans 2:13–16). Therefore, those who, without knowing God, obey him will be saved because his law is “written on their hearts,” and God will “render to every man according to his works” (Romans 2:6).
The reason for this is that right faith will save only if it leads to righteous works: “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’” (Matthew 7:21–23). The following parable (vv. 24–27) makes this doubly clear. Therefore, lack of explicit belief is forgiven if a person’s deeds follow the will of God. And even if those deeds are not perfect, God takes what the person is capable of as being “good enough.” This is all deduced from the scriptural passages given.
Regarding the question of moral culpability, let it be known that even the existence of venial sin (as opposed to mortal sin) is spelled out in the bible: “If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal” (1 John 5:16–17). Let us, then, not condemn the unbeliever before it is clear that he has sinned mortally.
You may not have understood the post in this thread made by SBC2RCC. What he is saying is that we need to be careful not to read too much into a single verse of scripture taken out of context and interpreted according to today’s standards. The Church’s understanding of scripture covers 2,000 years and many minds. Moreover, the Church considers the whole of scripture — as Monte says, “the whole gospel” — and not just a few isolated verses when making a decision as to what we should believe. People who rely on “a particular hermeneutic” are taking the wrong approach, because this is precisely to take an isolated verse and expound on it without relating it to the rest of scripture. This is the difference between private interpretation and the authority of the Church.
The Church predates the bible because it created and recommended the bible as it exists today. The bible is known to be the inspired word of God only because of the authority of the Church. So let us not attempt to say that the Church should follow the bible without also saying that the interpretation of the bible should follow the Church. Agreed?
David
|
|
|
Eric3141
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bardstown, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| First Name: | Eric | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic revert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 4th, 2007 05:06 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: Please show me from the Bible where the above can be found. Particularly, please show me where it says that someone can hear the gospel, not believe it and not necessarily be condemned. Also, you say the gospel says that ignorance removes the requirement to believe.
Eric, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding going on here. I did not say that ignorance removes the general requirement to believe. I said that they are excused from that requirement who have either not heard the gospel or have not understood it. The requirement remains; those who have not heard the gospel are not held personally culpable, but the consequences of their unbelief remain.
Thank you for your reply. And I did understood you. The Church is making the exceptions you mention in reference to the eternal consequences for unbelief.
A person who commits a grave sin out of ignorance is not accused of that sin by God when he comes to the judgment.
According to what you said it seems that the vast majority of non-Catholics are incapable of committing mortal sin because they quite literally don't have full knowledge that it's mortal. That would mean that by telling them the gospel then they would subsequently be capable of committing mortal sin and going to hell. This logic seems to be saying that non-Catholics would all almost certainly go to heaven as they can't commit mortal sin. This seems a bit odd.
For St. Paul says, “It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 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. 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 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus” (Romans 2:13–16). Therefore, those who, without knowing God, obey him will be saved because his law is “written on their hearts,” and God will “render to every man according to his works” (Romans 2:6).
Yet Romans 3:19 says "For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law..." and Romans 3:21 "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law... the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe."
It seems that faith and obeying God's law are required. Romans 3:19, 21 and other verses seem to be clear that "no human being" will be justified by the law apart from faith in Christ.
The reason for this is that right faith will save only if it leads to righteous works...
Yes, I think that's what scripture says. And without that faith righteous works will not save.
So let us not attempt to say that the Church should follow the bible without also saying that the interpretation of the bible should follow the Church. Agreed?
Well, I'm having trouble with that. I understand the Church wrote the Bible and in it said a number of things about salvation. Outside the Bible in Tradition it seems to be saying other things contrary to what it said in the Bible. That's what is concerning me.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2277 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 4th, 2007 11:40 pm |
|
As I read through your replies, Eric, what I see is a confusion concerning the whole idea of moral responsibility and divine authority and judgment. You say you have returned to the Catholic Church after some time away. I can only assume that your difficulty comes from what you believed in the interim, for it seems still to be your point of view. Maybe this is part of why you left in the first place.
The requirement remains; those who have not heard the gospel are not held personally culpable, but the consequences of their unbelief remain.
…I did understood you. The Church is making the exceptions you mention in reference to the eternal consequences for unbelief.
You are seeing only part of the equation. I was not speaking just of eternal consequences, for there are also temporal consequences. These temporal consequences are the proof that sin remains sin even after it is forgiven. It is not magically changed into something else.
According to what you said it seems that the vast majority of non-Catholics are incapable of committing mortal sin because they quite literally don't have full knowledge that it's mortal.
Your conclusion overreaches my statement. Full knowledge is not required; partial knowledge is quite sufficient. How many people on this earth have no knowledge at all?
Furthermore, I am not saying that these sins are simply “dropped” by God, as if they were no sin at all. They are grave sins, and sin remains sin. The difference is in the imputation. The person still sins, but not mortally.
Confusion and misunderstanding are forms of partial knowledge. The soldiers who crucified Christ seem to have had such an understanding of what they were about, for they had heard the rumors and accusations. Was this not the basis of their mockery and mistreatment? What, then, do you say about Christ’s own words concerning them: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”? Were the soldiers forgiven or not? And if they were forgiven, on what basis were they forgiven? How does this square with what you are telling me?
You quote me as I cite St. Paul, “It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 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.” Then you go on to quote the same St. Paul in another place: “For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law.” Are you telling me that St. Paul contradicts himself? Are you implying that the bible is internally inconsistent? What are you saying here?
It seems that faith and obeying God's law are required.
Yes, agreed — both/and, not either/or. But this does not invalidate the forgiveness God offers the ignorant, for it is of a different order.
Well, I'm having trouble with that [recognizing the Church’s divine mandate and authority]. I understand the Church wrote the Bible and in it said a number of things about salvation. Outside the Bible in Tradition it seems to be saying other things contrary to what it said in the Bible. That's what is concerning me.
Yet, the same authority is manifest in both scripture and tradition.
DavidLast edited on Sun Aug 5th, 2007 05:53 am by David W. Emery
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 854 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 5th, 2007 03:53 am |
|
Eric3141 wrote:
Yet Romans 3:19 says "For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law..." and Romans 3:21 "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law... the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe."
It seems that faith and obeying God's law are required. Romans 3:19, 21 and other verses seem to be clear that "no human being" will be justified by the law apart from faith in Christ.
I am not sure if anybody brought this point up, but it really helped me to clarify Paul. Note that he says nobody will be justified apart from 'works of the law.' This is not referring to good and penitential acts of obeying the natural laws in our conscience. This is simply saying that grace is necessary. That nobody can earn salvation and the works and obedience to the law is referring to the Mosaic law specifically. The bible seems to mandate good works elsewhere. So the non-believer can neither be justified by being a good enough person or by the old sacrificial and ceremonial laws. When the bible speaks of salvation not being by works of the law try to keep in mind if he is talking about the Mosaic law or doing good works in general. This is how Paul can say we are not saved by works, yet in chapter 2 he seems to say that are works will count for something, and of course this concept also helps us resolve James and Paul who really do not disagree.
The works that are salvific are enbled by grace and are works of charity and penitence. They are a response to the work of God in one's soul, therfore the product of faith in God or what one knows about God. So they would be an example of saving faith and not the contradiction of being saved by works. But we agree that both are necessary and must work together. One without the other will certainly be missing something essential.
Here is how I think about the idea of those who do not understand being saved. They are saved through the grace and mercy of God because of the saving work of Jesus Christ. They are saved like we are, through an active faith in God. If a person has never heard of Jesus, yet they somehow in their conscience know to love their neighbor, to seek God as best they can, forgive people, and feel remorse over sin and try to make it right, these people do believe in the gospel they just have never understood that it is Jesus in name that they believe in. They are still being saved by the mystery of Jesus' incarnation, death and resurrection which offers redemption to all of creation if we are willing to accept and follow.
Christ is not just a person. While I do think faith in the actual person Jesus is necessary, if one does not know Him by name, this Jesus exists eternally as the 'logos'. To strive toward good and love and God is to seek Jesus. They do believe in Him as best they can. Their hearts and lives demonstrate that they love Jesus Christ even if they do not know it.
Would you think those who lived before Christ should be condemned because they never believed in Jesus by name? Would you think children or those in unevangelized nations are destined to hell for what they never even heard of? How could Jesus die for all, if all do not have some opportunity to know Him. Not to mention it is possible that He reveals Himself as one dies, if He wishes to do so. It is possible for all we know.
Anyway, keep in mind that we do not necessarily say all these people are going to heaven. We trust in a merciful God and thankfully the theology we have allows us to have a somewhat optimistic view in certain cases. But each person will be judged fairly, and each person had the grace available to him at some point for conversion. I do not assume that these unbelievers are all in heaven or hell. I do not know. We only know it is possible that God can reveal Himself in ways that we are not familiar with. But if they do not respond they are guilty of rejecting the truth and will be judged accordingly. But it is not for us to say how and when that has or does happen in any individual's life.
Where I am with you, is not wanting to get so leniant that we forget things like the reality of the chance of hell, the mandate to preach the gospel, and other crucial matters. Though I judge nobody, any time I see a person who knows something about Jesus and seems to disbelieve I definitely have concern for them, and I hope that they don't believe because they simply do not understand Him yet. I also think that those without the help of the Church are in a more difficult position because they are not being nourished by the graces that flow directly to us in the sacramental life. They may or may not still invisibly experience these graces, but I worry that they may have this disadvantage. Of course for us I worry that we are responsible for more because we do know more truth.
Hope that helped a little. You are asking good questions. God knows the answers, we only know as much as is revealed to us.
Brian
Last edited on Sun Aug 5th, 2007 04:12 am by brian
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 9th, 2007 09:54 pm |
|
Eric3141 wrote: No, I haven't been talking to Protestants. For years I have been aware of what appear to be inconsistencies regarding these issues. Rather than continue to let it bother me, I decided to go to a site where faithful Catholics are (this site) and ask questions. I'm hoping someone can provide answers that will show me that these inconsistencies aren't so after all.
Do I have doubts you ask. Well, like I said, there are things the Catholic church teaches that are difficult to accept. Not difficult because I don't like the teaching but rather difficult because they seem to contradict scripture or logic. So, I thought I'd try and work thru these difficulties by asking questions of other faithful Catholics. I hope it hasn't annoyed you.
Eric, No, it hasn't annoyed me. I've been a Protestant for at least 30 years, and through investigating the Catholic faith, have had to confront many of the Churchs' teachings that I opposed for so long. You seem to be going in a different direction than me. I hope that you can get some satisfactory answers to your questions on this forum. One of the hurdles that I had to overcome, having been an Evangelical Protestant, was that of Sola Scriptura. I believed that if one couldn't prove their point from scripture alone, then they were flat out wrong. God bless you on your journey of faith and may you know the peace of Jesus Christ within and abide with Him always. Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 01:06 pm |
|
Hi Eric,
This is indeed a difficult question.
According to what you said it seems that the vast majority of non-Catholics are incapable of committing mortal sin because they quite literally don't have full knowledge that it's mortal.
I think you misunderstood the meaning of "mortal sin". The point that matters is understanding that it is a rejection of God. If a non-Catholic commits murder and does not repent, it is a rejection of God. Essentially, non-repentance is the unpardonable sin.
That would mean that by telling them the gospel then they would subsequently be capable of committing mortal sin and going to hell. This logic seems to be saying that non-Catholics would all almost certainly go to heaven as they can't commit mortal sin. This seems a bit odd.
You forget that even pagans have no excuse. God's law is written in their hearts and is therefore their conscience. A nonCatholic, nonChristian, who has never read the Bible is still subject to his conscience. His conscience tells him that murder is wrong. If he rejects his conscience, he rejects God's Spirit which dwells in his heart and therefore is condemned:
Romans 2
11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. 13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: 15 Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Yet Romans 3:19 says "For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law..." and Romans 3:21 "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law... the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe."
In both cases, St. Paul is referring to the fact that Abraham was justified before the law was instituted. Abraham came before Moses. This illustrates that the law is not necessary for justification. However, Abraham is a case study in works of faith. Read Genesis 12 through 18. You'll see that Abram believed when ordinary men would have have scoffed.
Genesis 12 1 And the Lord said to Abram: Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father's house, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed. 3 I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee, and IN THEE shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed: 4 So Abram went out
Genesis 15 1 Now when these things were done, the word of the Lord came to Abram by a vision, saying: Fear not, Abram, I am thy protector, and thy reward exceeding great. 2 And Abram said: Lord God, what wilt thou give me? I shall go without children: and the son of the steward of my house is this Damascus Eliezer. 3 And Abram added: But to me thou hast not given seed: and lo my servant, born in my house, shall be my heir. 4 And immediately the word of the Lord came to him, saying: He shall not be thy heir: but he that shall come out of thy bowels, him shalt thou have for thy heir. 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said to him: Look up to heaven and number the stars, if thou canst. And he said to him: So shall thy seed be.
6 Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.
Genesis 17 1 And after he began to be ninety and nine years old, the Lord appeared to him: and said unto him: I am the Almighty God: walk before me, and be perfect. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee: and I will multiply thee exceedingly. 3 Abram fell flat on his face. 4 And God said to him: I AM, and my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.....10 This is my covenant which you shall observe, between me and you, and thy seed after thee: All the male kind of you shall be circumcised: 11 And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you. .... 23 And Abraham took Ismael his son, and all that were born in his house: and all whom he had bought, every male among the men of his house: and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskin forthwith the very same day, as God had commanded him. 24 Abraham was ninety and nine years old, when he circumcised the flesh of his foreskin. 25 And Ismael his son was full thirteen years old at the time of his circumcision.
Hebrews 11;
8 By faith he that is called Abraham, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
By faith, Abraham obeyed.
It seems that faith and obeying God's law are required.
Correct.
Romans 3:19, 21 and other verses seem to be clear that "no human being" will be justified by the law apart from faith in Christ.
Romans 2 seems to be clear that those who don't obey the law will not be justified and are therefore condemned.
Romans 2
13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Therefore it is neither works alone nor faith alone but faith and works.
James 2
18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
Yes, I think that's what scripture says. And without that faith righteous works will not save.
Amen!
Well, I'm having trouble with that. I understand the Church wrote the Bible and in it said a number of things about salvation. Outside the Bible in Tradition it seems to be saying other things contrary to what it said in the Bible. That's what is concerning me.
The Church teaches through the Bible that God will:
1 Timothy 2
4 ... have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
and :
Romans 2:
14 Forwhen the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves:
Therefore, it seems to me that the Church explains the Word of God quite well as concerns the salvation of those who have not received the Word.
Luke 12 47 And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Eric3141
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bardstown, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| First Name: | Eric | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic revert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14th, 2007 11:05 pm |
|
According to what you said it seems that the vast majority of non-Catholics are incapable of committing mortal sin because they quite literally don't have full knowledge that it's mortal.
Your conclusion overreaches my statement. Full knowledge is not required; partial knowledge is quite sufficient. How many people on this earth have no knowledge at all?
You are the first person I've heard say that full knowledge is not required. I've heard the term "full" as part of the formula so many times I literally cannot count them all. And I've heard this from conservative, good, faithful priests. So, assuming you are right about that, how would a non-Catholic be forgiven of a mortal sin? For Catholics one has to have perfect contrition to be forgiven a mortal sin if one cannot go to confession. Do the same rules apply to non-Catholics? If so, then the mandate to evangelize makes a lot of sense to me as I imagine there are very few people who have perfect contrition - I mean we humans do almost nothing perfectly.
Confusion and misunderstanding are forms of partial knowledge. The soldiers who crucified Christ seem to have had such an understanding of what they were about, for they had heard the rumors and accusations. Was this not the basis of their mockery and mistreatment? What, then, do you say about Christ’s own words concerning them: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”? Were the soldiers forgiven or not? And if they were forgiven, on what basis were they forgiven? How does this square with what you are telling me?
Before I answer your question I have to say I'm confused. They obviously knew he claimed to be the Son of God as they said so during their mockery. So where is the confusion or misunderstanding? I don't see that - I do see some guys who heard and decided they did not believe. And, yes, I guess I'm saying that sounds internally inconsistent with Christ forgiving them anyway and the other scriptures (ex: John 3:18) which say unbelief = condemnation.
You quote me as I cite St. Paul, “It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 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.” Then you go on to quote the same St. Paul in another place: “For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law.” Are you telling me that St. Paul contradicts himself? Are you implying that the bible is internally inconsistent? What are you saying here?
My point there was this: on many doctrinal issues you may find one or two verses that seem to say one thing while the vast majority of the other verses say exactly the opposite. I tend to believe what the vast majority of verses have to say about any particular issue. In this case, the vast majority of verses say that faith in Christ is required.
I don't "have my mind made up". Rather, I am struggling and trying to make sense of these issues. The vast majority of scripture says that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. Christ says He is the only way and we must enter heaven through Him and by following Him. Yet the Church today says that those who have never heard of Him may also enter heaven -- so they are entering by following Jesus even though they never heard of Jesus. This sounds weird and hard to believe. And the Church says that those who have heard but sincerely don't believe in Jesus as the way to salvation somehow still are following Jesus anyway - even though they consciously rejected Him. This makes no sense.
Jesus said that if we don't eat His flesh then we have no life within us - i.e., we are spiritually dead. He makes no exception "unless you never heard or sincerely don't believe". However, those outside the Church have no access to it and cannot take the blessed sacrament. Yet the Church teaches they are not necessarily spiritually dead. I don't see how the current teaching is not a contradiction of what Jesus said.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 854 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15th, 2007 02:13 am |
|
Those are some good questions. I think I may hav easked them as well. All I know is that the church knows what has been revelaed to us and that we have a special power of binding and loosing. But e do not know as much as God knows. I think that our views are consistent with scripture, but it is such a lrge book that there are bound to be some dificulties resolving everything, which is one reason why private interpretation is so dangerous. This was something Racaela wrote in a different post that I liked. And C.S. Lewis is pretty friendly to people of just about all denominations.
"However, I'd like to add something else. I don't think that these people necessarily went to hell. See, in CS Lewis's Last Battle, when the Narnians arrive in "heaven" they see one of the Calormens, Emeth, a man who spent is life workshiping the demon-god Tash, there as well. Why is he there, the Narnians wonder in shock!
Aslan, the good Narnian God, goes to him and tells him that because he was serving Tash, the only god he knew, from true devotion and a pure heart, honestly seeking god and what was right, he was actually serving Aslan the entire time, not Tash at all, and is therefore in heaven. I tend to adhere to this view, spefically for those who haven't had any chance to hear the truth."
I know that your problem is with people who have heard of Jesus and did reject Him. Only God knows how much they actually had a true chance to accpt or not. Maybe someone who is Catholic but was abused by a priest will never have really had the opportunity to reject becasue the issue is so clouded. They have heard of Jesus, but can they entirely be blamed if they can not believe in a loving god when His representatives act in such a way?
In any case, keep in mind that I am not saying they will definitely go to heaven. Simply that God will know what to do and act justly and mercifully. I believe that those in hell are those who want to be there. Those who choose to reject God in whatever way they had the chance to know them. But like you, just because I like to imagine it is possible for other people who are not Catholic or Christian to get to heaven, I certainly would not predict if they have a good chance or not. I still would fear for any human who dies without acknowledging Jesus as Lord. I hope for the best for them and I pray for them, but I would not be surprised if a lot or most of them go to hell. Then again since God wants all men to be saved I would not be surprised if He appears to them and gives them one last chance as they die and most of them go to heaven. I simply do not know. But like you, I do think that those who truly reject Jesus, whatever that means, are in trouble.
I struggle as well with the John 6 text about needing to eat His flech and drink His blood. I asked that same question. Not sure if any answer satisfied me. I mean, we do say that chapter literally refers to the Eucharist and the necessity to receive it, we do believe people of other faiths may enter heaven, so how does that work. But what of the thief on the cross, he was never baptized nor did he ever eat Jesus' flesh. Or tohse who diesd before Christ So my take, is that Jesus told us everything we need to know and share with others to bring people into the kingdom. For those instances where the information does not get passed along or where someone is ignorant, I like to believe that God will act as mercifully as He wills, and can make anything possible. We only know what possibilities we are called to offer to the world.
Brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2277 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15th, 2007 11:09 pm |
|
Eric3141 wrote:You are the first person I've heard say that full knowledge is not required.
Here’s how I understand it:
Outside of God himself, nobody knows it all. (We are creatures, are we not?) Full knowledge is knowing it all. So partial knowledge had better be good enough, or nobody would ever commit a mortal sin.
However: Let’s not get carried away. We still have to have sufficient knowledge to make proper distinction, do we not? So we need not just more than nothing, but enough that we do not make mistakes. This “sufficient” knowledge is the “full” knowledge that others are speaking of. I don’t like the word “full” in this context because it implies that we must know more than what is sufficient.
Now when we consider the soldiers who executed Jesus, how much knowledge did they have of what they were doing? None? Just enough to do the job? Enough to understand the moral implications? Enough to repent? Everything, and they did it anyway?
I would opt for the second choice: They knew just enough to do their job. They weren’t into moral questions at all; as pagans, they probably wouldn’t understand them anyway. The only clue we have that they had an inkling that this Jesus was somebody important was the storm/eclipse, the earthquake and the way he died. This is what led one of the soldiers to exclaim: “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39). Now did he mean this in such a way that he was proclaiming himself a Christian? I think not. Yet Jesus prayed: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).
What sin had they committed if they were ignorant? The Church recognizes that they sinned in cruelly torturing, mocking and putting to death the Son of God. Otherwise, how were they to be forgiven?
Yet if they had committed this sin and, for all intents and purposes appeared to be unrepentant, how is it that Jesus asked his Father that they be forgiven? Was that prayer heard? Were the soldiers, in fact, forgiven?
We know that Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him” (John 8:28–29). And again, “Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. I knew that thou hearest me always” (John 11:41–42). What do you think? Did the Father forgive the soldiers according to the prayer of the Son?
And if these soldiers were forgiven the ultimate sin of deicide, would not those millions of others you claim ought to be cast into hell also be forgiven, “for they know not what they do”?
Note, however, that Jesus did not request that the chief priests and the scribes, who handed him over to Pilate, be forgiven. They did not really know the extent of their sin; they thought they were doing a good thing in protecting their nation by ridding it of heresy and insurrection. Yet Jesus withheld his forgiveness. Why? Because they “knew enough” — their sin was not committed in complete ignorance, even though it was committed without genuine “full knowledge.”
What is the difference between the one and the other? A certain level of knowledge? No. Really, it was a blindness. Jesus explains: “Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.’ Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, ‘Are we also blind?’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, “We see,” your guilt remains’” (John 9:39–41).
They thought they saw — they thought they knew, but they didn’t. They were deceived by their sin, just as Eve was deceived by the evil one in the garden.
Let’s go back and pick up your train of thought now.
They (the soldiers) obviously knew he claimed to be the Son of God as they said so during their mockery. So where is the confusion or misunderstanding? I don't see that — I do see some guys who heard and decided they did not believe.
In fact, the soldiers did not know he claimed to be the Son of God; they had heard that he was charged with being the king of the Jews. Therefore, to them, he was an insurrectionist, just as the Jews had claimed in denouncing him.
They did not “hear and decide they did not believe.” They believed the charges. Only later, when Jesus died on the cross, did one of them think there must have been something more to the man. But even then he did not understand. Otherwise, why would Jesus have asked for their forgiveness? He stated the reason for his request quite clearly: “for they know not what they do.” But if they did know, then Jesus himself was deceived. And that would make him something less than the Son of God he claimed to be.
So what are we saying? How does the Church untie the knot?
You cite John 3:18: “He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” On the other hand, we have the following from St. Paul: “But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?” (Romans 10:14–15). Yes, Paul goes on, “But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have” (v. 18); however, as the context shows, he speaks of the Jews, not the Gentiles. They knew; therefore they had no excuse. But the pagans were a different story.
Therefore, condemnation for unbelief is reserved for those who have heard the message and rejected it.
Again, when we ask how anyone is forgiven, how does it come about? Through the grace of God. And if this is the case, how do we avoid throwing out the entire idea of human response and just saying with the Calvinists that he who enjoys God’s favor will be saved, while he who does not will be condemned no matter how hard he tries to be good?
We do this by positing a good God. For he “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). So he will not arbitrarily send anyone to hell just because he has not given him the grace to believe and thus be forgiven. Then we come back full circle, to the sequence of logic outlined above for the man who has not heard the gospel.
We end up, Eric, not with everyone going to hell, nor yet with everyone going to heaven. We remain with a system that will allow, according to the inner recesses of the human heart, a just judgment. This is what God promises. And this is what we believe.
David
|
|
|
Eric3141
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bardstown, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| First Name: | Eric | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic revert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 18th, 2007 11:55 pm |
|
St. Paul: “But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?” (Romans 10:14–15).
I really do appreciate your effort. You obviously spent much time on your post. Unfortunately for me, the above just seems to support the idea that people can't believe w/o hearing. This does not contradict John 3:18 which says that not believing = condemnation. Nowhere in scripture (that I am aware of) does it actually say that the teaching in John 3:18 does not apply to those who have not heard. Additionally, there are a considerable number of teachings of popes, saints, and councils that seem to back this up. A few of them are here:
The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, replied: “It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned.”
Pope Paul III: “And since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, ... (Sublimus Deus)
St. Augustine: “But even the ignorance, which is not theirs who refuse to know, but theirs who are, as it were, simply ignorant, does not so far excuse any one as to exempt him from the punishment of eternal fire, though his failure to believe has been the result of his not having at all heard what he should believe; (Grace and Free Will 5)
Pope St. Pius X: “Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: “We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.”” (Acerbo Nimis)
St. Louis De Montfort: “My heart is penetrated with grief when I think of the almost infinite number of souls who are damned for lack of knowing the true God and the Christian religion. The greatest misfortune, O my God, is not to know thee, and the greatest of punishments not to love thee.” (Love of Eternal Wisdom)
Pope Pius XI: “Behold how many souls are lost every hour! Behold the countless millions of those who live in barbarous regions and do not know Jesus Christ!” (Raccolta 628)
Council Lyons II, ex cathedra: “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, to be punished however with disparate punishments.”
“Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction: For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus, Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins.” (Romans 3)
St. Augustine: “They who are not liberated through grace, either because they are not yet able to hear or because they are unwilling to obey... are indeed justly condemned; because they are not without sin, either that which they have derived from their birth, or that which they have added from their own misconduct. (Nature and Grace 4)
St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori: “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Saviour of the world, what would have become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? [...] We would all have perished.” (Preparation for Death)
St. Jerome: “Or lastly make your own the favourite cavil of your [Pelagian] associate Porphyry, and ask how God can be described as pitiful and of great mercy when from Adam to Moses and from Moses to the coming of Christ He has suffered all nations to die in ignorance of the Law and of His commandments. For Britain, that province so fertile in despots, the Scottish tribes, and all the barbarians round about as far as the ocean were alike without knowledge of Moses and the prophets. Why should Christ's coming have been delayed to the last times? Why should He not have come before so vast a number had perished? Of this last question the blessed apostle in writing to the Romans most wisely disposes by admitting that he does not know and that only God does. ” (Letter 133, 9)
Grace, then, is not given to all; for certainly they cannot be participants in that grace, who are not believers; nor can they believe if it is found that the preaching of the faith has never come to them at all.” (Synodal Epistle of St. Fulgentius and other African Bishops)
Council of Florence: “The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church.”
St. Francis Xavier: “Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before, especially as those who had not worshiped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obliged to answer: there is absolutely none.”
St. Francis Xavier: “I intend to write what I have found, not only to India, but to the Universities of Portugal, of Italy, and above all of Paris, and admonish them, while they are devoting themselves heart and soul to learned studies, not to think themselves so free and disengaged from responsibility as to take no trouble at all about the ignorance of the heathen and the loss of their immortal souls.”
|
|
| | |
