A sincere question for Catholics

[Kathryn]

Even the devil can quote Scripture, it's believing it that counts.

The devil does not say "Jesus is Lord". Cardinal Arinze confesses this every day.

God Bless

 

[DanielFive]

Kathryn,

I wasn't meaning to suggest anything other than the fact that your post proved nothing. I'm not suggesting he is anti-christ.

God Bless

Enda

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by enda:
Bill said:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Did Christ die for all of mandkind? Is it God's desire that all would come to Him, via the salvific sacrifice on the cross?

Christ died for the elect, all of the elect WILL come to Him.

If you agree, then what about the individual who, having never heard of Christ, nevertheless lives the life that Christ would have him to live, cannot the salvific cross apply to him as well?

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep AND AM KNOWN OF MINE.

Bill, are you saying that Christ would have one of His elect live a life in which He was completely ignorant of God. Strange theology. Now faith is not required at all, is that what you believe?

How can anyone live the life that Christ would have him live if he has never heard of Christ let alone surrendered his life to him?

God Bless

Enda </font>[/QUOTE]First of all, can it be said that God would have all of mankind come to Him, yet in His infinite knowledge of all things, that He indeed, know who is the "elect"?

I would almost sound like if you are "not of the elect," you have no choice from the womb that you will be able to go to heaven!

Stated such, there there is no free will of choice, that one could choose between good and evil!

The mystery is, God can know the fate of every soul, yet not interfere with the free will of choice! WEe cannot understand this "supernatural logic" until and when we get to heaven ourselves.

In any case, I think you steer the thread off-topic as we ponder the fate of those who never hear the gospel of Christ, yet live the lives that Christ would have them to live.

And I have met persons that come very close to that condition in my Navy career.

The bottom line is, we cannot know the heart of any person, except God who is the supreme judge...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Hello All,

As I said before, I am not intending to actually engage in the debate that has been started, but I would like to know if the Catholics here who are represented by this man agree with what he DID INDEED say?

Kathryn and Grant,

I appreciate that the Cardinal did say more than the Dallas paper quoted, and with good reason. They were making a point.

If I wanted to prove that Bill Clinton said 'unborn children are not children', it wouldn't take me quoting his entire speech to prove that, it would just take me quoting that singular statement.

So there is no deception on either my part or the part of the Dallas paper. They quoted what was relevant to their point, and I quoted their article.

The point here is that he DID say those things. How do you feel about what he DID say? Would it make a bit of difference to you if I said "Jesus was just a man that did some good things", but then later said "Jesus came in the Power and Name of the Almighty God"? Would my TRUE statement cancel out the lie?

God Bless,
Kelly

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
That was not the original question. Read carefully below:


Arinze responed, "If a person were to push what you said a little
further and say that if you're not a Christian you're not going to
heaven, we'd regard that person as a fundamentalist...and
theologically wrong. I met in Pakistan a Muslim. He had a wonderful
concept of the Koran. We were like two twins that had known one
another from birth. And I was in admiration of this man's wisdom. I
think that man will go to heaven. There was a Buddhist in Kyoto, in
Japan. This man, a good man, open, listening, humble-I was amazed. I
listened to his works of wisdom and said to myself, "The grace of
God is working in this man." The interviewer then repeated the
question, "So you can still get to heaven without accepting
Jesus?" "Expressly, yes [he
laughs with the audience]" (Dallas Morning News, 3/20/99)

Psalm, if you were to read carefully, you would see that the only question in the above paragraph is:

"So you can still get to heaven without accepting
Jesus?"

None of the other sentences end with a question mark. They end with a period. They are not questions.

Why don't you answer my question which I have asked three times now?

"Was every person that lived on the continent of America (and Australia for that matter) from the time of the Ressurection until the colonization of those continents absolutely condemned to hell because they could not have ever even heard of Jesus, let alone accept Him?"

 

[Briguy]

Interesting stuff!

Hi Kelly

I understand the CC concept here for those who would become Christians, if given the right circumstances, going to heaven. The issue that has been avoided is one with strict scriptual backing, that is, once the Budist and Muslim had Christ shared with them by the Cardinal, could they still go to Heaven? John 3:16,17 gives a definite answer here. The Holy Spirit would be drawing these men once they heard and they would have to reject Christ to remain in their current belief system.

Looking for a Catholic answer to this tough question,

In Christ,
Brian

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
Are we assuming that this buddhist, being in contact with this bishop never heard of Christ? Shame on that bishop! this man chose to remain in his false religion and despite this fact the bishop said he could still go to heaven. Right?
This is a diferrent situation that the hypothetical scenario that you set up.

So. Can a man who is a buddhist, after hearing about Christ, still go to heaven and remain a buddhist?
Any other Catholic want to answer this one? T2U is avoiding the issue with alot of his usual disingenuousness. [/QB]

No, Psalm. I'm just trying to get you to not dismiss the Catholic position out of hand. I'm trying to get you to think about it a little.

If someone who never heard of Jesus can be accepted into Heaven then "accepting Jesus" isn't the only conditon, is it? That is why you will not anser my very simple question about those who never heard of Jesus.

As to someone who does hear about Jesus, that is a different matter.

What did they hear? What is the level of their ability to understand? Are they living their life in accordance with what they think that God wants?

You recall previous threads concerning invincible ignorance?

If so they you should have some idea of what I am talking about.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Briguy:
The issue that has been avoided is one with strict scriptual backing, that is, once the Budist and Muslim had Christ shared with them by the Cardinal, could they still go to Heaven? John 3:16,17 gives a definite answer here. The Holy Spirit would be drawing these men once they heard and they would have to reject Christ to remain in their current belief system.

Looking for a Catholic answer to this tough question,

Hi Brian,

Two words - invincible ignorance.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Interesting stuff!

Hi Kelly

I understand the CC concept here for those who would become Christians, if given the right circumstances, going to heaven. The issue that has been avoided is one with strict scriptual backing, that is, once the Budist and Muslim had Christ shared with them by the Cardinal, could they still go to Heaven? John 3:16,17 gives a definite answer here. The Holy Spirit would be drawing these men once they heard and they would have to reject Christ to remain in their current belief system.

Looking for a Catholic answer to this tough question,

In Christ,
Brian

The answer is that if they were presented it in a manner in which they could understand and recieved the grace of God to do so and willfully rejected it, then that would not be good. Further are there biases (for example rabid-anti-catholicism instilled from childhood by parents) not of his fault that do not allow him to understand what has been preached to him. The Church does not say these people will be saved, it only leaves them to God's mercy and says that we cannot judge anyone as to their final outcome. There is no "these people went to hell" list. God is the sole judge of whether or not they have been presented Christianity in a way in which they can be held accountable. Catholicism does hold that people go to hell. We just leave the judging of who those people are to God alone as judge. We hope as if all are going to heaven and pray as if all are going to hell. I am quite confident of the Cardinal's understanding of theology in this area and as Grant rightfully points out the author definitely does not understand Catholic theology and distorts the Cardinals words.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm surprised that the late Karl Rahner's concept of the 'anonymous Christian' hasn't come up yet (although it's been hinted at). What do people make of that concept?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm surprised that the late Karl Rahner's concept of the 'anonymous Christian' hasn't come up yet (although it's been hinted at). What do people make of that concept?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Interestingly enough this is the first I have heard of it (though Rahner was a heretic and his writings condemned) so I looked it up on the web.


"Non-Christian religious traditions are thus valid and capable of mediating the saving grace of God, until the gospel is made known to their members, after which they are no longer legitimate from the standpoint of Christian theology. 3) The faithful adherent of a non-Christian religious tradition is thus regarded as an "anonymous Christian"

Dominus Iesus written by JP II comes out against indifferentism. This appears to be dangerously close to indifferentism bordering on universalism. The basis for anyone possibly being saved who lives his life in ignorance outside the Catholic Church is not in following his religion. It is based on his following the truths that God has placed in his heart according to Romans 2:15. In following those truths he alligns himself with the Christian religion, informally. These truths in his heart manifest themselves in other religions so in following that part of that religion which is true (the law written on their hearts may well be written up in their religious tenants, i.e. some form of the Golden rule do unto others... is seen in some form in every culture) he might be an anonymous Christian of sorts. That which is false in his religion is at best of neutral value and quite likely detrimental. But it does not sound like that is what Rahner's definition is.

Romans 2:14
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

That is my take.

Blessing Brian.

Gerald

 

[Ps104_33]

"Was every person that lived on the continent of America (and Australia for that matter) from the time of the Ressurection until the colonization of those continents absolutely condemned to hell because they could not have ever even heard of Jesus, let alone accept Him?"

Lets look at the example in Acts chapter 10.

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. Acts 10:1-2

Look what the Bible says about Cornelius in verse 2. He was a Devout man , he did good works , he prayed. But he was lost! He didnt accept Christ until around verses 44-48.

You might ask " What if he would have died right after verse 2". Its a moot point because he was one of God's elect and God would have saw to it that Peter would have reached him with the gospel.

Its the same thing with your question concerning those on this continent right after the ressurrection. If any one of them was one of God's elect, God would see to it that they would hear the gospel. So my answer to you is if they never heard of Christ I'm afraid they would go to hell.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. John 6:37


Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the Gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation. John Calvin


Now answer my question. If the Buddhist after meeting the bishop chooses to remain a buddhist and is a sincere man a devout man a praying man does he go to heaven?

[ June 19, 2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Ps104_33 ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
So my answer to you is if they never heard of Christ I'm afraid they would go to hell.

Thanks, Psalm. My but it sure took you long enough to spit it out.

Now answer my question. If the Buddhist after meeting the bishop chooses to remain a buddhist and is a sincere man a devout man a praying man does he go to heaven?

It depends.

Remember the words "invincible ignorance"?

God looks at the particular circumstances for the individual, looks as his heart, etc. and then God decides.

Why would you have a problem with that?

You believe that you are saved when you accept Jesus. Doesn't God look at that acceptance and decide whether it was genuine or not?

Does everyone "accept Jesus" with the same enthusiasim or sincerity?

Will everyone who thinks that they have accepted Jesus be saved?

Or will God judge?

 

[neal4christ]

Does everyone "accept Jesus" with the same enthusiasim or sincerity?

Sincerity should be yes, enthusiasim not necessarily, since that is based on emotions. Emotions are not necessary for conversion but I feel sincerity definitely is.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[thessalonian]

"Look what the Bible says about Cornelius in verse 2. He was a Devout man , he did good works , he prayed. But he was lost! He didnt accept Christ until around verses 44-48."

I don't see that verse that said he was lost in that chapter. Can you help me out with it. Clearly he was not lost because God provided for his salvation. It is quite apparent that God sent peter to him because he was devout. Because he prayed. God had prepared him for the moment of accepting Christ. When presented with Christ he accepted him. His being devout and his prayer were a result of God's grace working in him prior to his being faced with the decision about Christ. If not, then he could claim a portion of his own salvation. Had he not been presented with Christ by Peter would he have been in hell. I don't see in the text where it gives us that answer. How many other Cornelius's were there out there and before Christ who did not have the opportunity to accept Christ as he did, yet would have gladly done so had Peter come to their door?

Hypothetically if Cornelius had died at that moment instead of having Peter come to him and Christ stood before him at judgement would he have accepted or rejected him?

Blessings

 

[Ps104_33]

So then the fact that we accept the death of Christ as an atonement for our sin is not the basis of our entrance into heaven then. The criteria is our sincerity in whatever faith we adhere to.
Then what was the purpose of Christ coming to earth to die. We would all be better off never to have heard about Christ and be a sincere buddhist or muslim. It seems belief in God is enough regardless of what one thinks of Christ

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
So then the fact that we accept the death of Christ as an atonement for our sin is not the basis of our entrance into heaven then. The criteria is our sincerity in whatever faith we adhere to.
Then what was the purpose of Christ coming to earth to die. We would all be better off never to have heard about Christ and be a sincere buddhist or muslim. It seems belief in God is enough regardless of what one thinks of Christ

Not what I said.

I suggest you read it again.

 

[Ps104_33]

You believe that you are saved when you accept Jesus. Doesn't God look at that acceptance and decide whether it was genuine or not?

Does everyone "accept Jesus" with the same enthusiasim or sincerity?

Will everyone who thinks that they have accepted Jesus be saved?

That is a far cry from the individual who adheres to buddhism. We are talkig about whether or not a person's acceptance of the gospel is sincere or not can only be known by God and that individual. But a preson who chooses buddhism over Christianity, can that person go to heaven? Answer the question with yes or no please.

 

[Ps104_33]

Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
But a preson who chooses buddhism over Christianity, can that person go to heaven? [/b]Answer the question with yes or no please. [/QB]

I did answer.

It depends.

God decides.