-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are Non-Christians Saved?
- Thread starter JFox1
- Start date
- Status
The Galatian
Active Member
Helen, I cannot think of a decree in the Council of Trent that addresses nonCatholic Salvation per se.
There were sixteen doctrines and innumberable decrees, but none that specifcally addresses the subject. I'm open to the argument that one tangentally does, but I don't know what it might be.
Tell us about it.
Supposing that the Church became more receptive to non-Catholics and their salvation. How would that be different than say a church no longer considering blacks as unfit to be ministers, or as objects to be enslaved?
Let's not play "gotcha" with each other. Instead, why not be happy that our respective churches are turning away from the bigotry of the past?
There were sixteen doctrines and innumberable decrees, but none that specifcally addresses the subject. I'm open to the argument that one tangentally does, but I don't know what it might be.
Tell us about it.
Supposing that the Church became more receptive to non-Catholics and their salvation. How would that be different than say a church no longer considering blacks as unfit to be ministers, or as objects to be enslaved?
Let's not play "gotcha" with each other. Instead, why not be happy that our respective churches are turning away from the bigotry of the past?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Galatian said:
Galatian - I hate to even raise this one little point, because I am soooo very on your side on everything else, but it turns out that the only person executed for heresy during Calvin's tenure in Geneva was Michael Servetus, and it is just a fluke that the Catholic church did not get him first, actually. So that makes Calvin a great deal more tolerant than any other religious authority of his era, going by his track record. (Can't defend Luther, though...)
Other than that, I am with you all the way, though!
Last edited by a moderator:
The Galatian
Active Member
That reminds me of a great little book "The Rise and Fall of Nearly Everything." It recounts how Peter the Great killed his own son in a fit of rage, "but he only did it once."
BTW, Calvin had Jacques Gruet tortured and beheaded for atheism, and for writing verses which he interpreted as personal threats to him. Children were executed for disrespect to or for striking their parents, all of this at Calvin's insistence.
He wasn't nearly as bloody as many others, and certainly didn't seem to enjoy killing his enemies. And that was the sort of time he lived in. It was a brutal and unforgiving culture. Torture was an accepted means of getting a confession, and Calvin used it freely.
Certainly Catholic inquisitors, Cromwell, and others of the time have more to answer for than Calvin.
The Galatian
Active Member
OK, you're going to make me read the document, instead of telling me what you think is changed. That's going to take some time. I doubt if any of the specific doctrines promulgated in council have ever changed. But not everything decided in a council is considered infallible; there are limits to councils, just as there are on Popes.
This is going to take a while. Perhaps you don't know how voluminous a document it is.
It would be a lot easier, if you'd just tell me what it was that concerned you.
The Galatian said:
Really! Well, I had heard of the Gruet incident (and I would have perceived his language as pretty threatening myself, in fact) but had not heard any of the rest. And Cromwell? Now you're trashing my bud! But at least we are not trashing the Catholic church anymore...
I hope!
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's a little bit for you to chew on, Galatian:
Picked up a few paragraphs for you off the net.
In his "infallible" papal bull, Unum Sanctum, Pope Boniface VIII declared: "There is one holy Catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation...it is altogether necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This was confirmed by Vatican Council I. Vatican II declared: "The Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods under [Rome]...this holy Council teaches...that the church...is necessary for salvation." (Emphasis ours) (Vatican Council II, Costello Publishing, Austin Flannery, O. P., General Editor, Vol I, pp 364-65 )
About the Council of Trent --
Trent denied every Reformation doctrine, from sola scriptura to salvation by grace through faith alone. It pronounced 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) upon anyone believing what evangelicals believe and preach today. "No one can know with the certainty of faith...that he has obtained the grace of God [anathema to all who claim they know]" (Trent, 6th Ses., Chap. IX). "If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation...but that without them...men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification...let him be anathema" (Trent, 7th Ses., Canon 4).
Vatican II, far from making changes, reaffirmed Trent: "This sacred council... proposes again the decrees of...the Council of Trent" (Vol I, p 412). As for the "sacraments of the new law," which Trent said were "necessary for salvation," Vatican II declared, "For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, the work of our redemption is accomplished " (Vol 1, p 1).
Here are a few more quotes from Vatican II, which prove conclusively that Roman Catholicism is a counterfeit gospel: "Sins must be expiated...through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life...otherwise... in the next life through fire and torments ...[because] our souls need to be purified ...in purgatory the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repentant but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt" (Vol 1, pp 63-64).
On the other hand, the Bible declares: "When he [Christ] had by himself purged our sins (Heb 1:3)...by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us (9:12)...without shedding of blood is no remission [of sin] (9:22 - suffering in purgatory won't do it!)...now where remission of these is, there is no more offering [sacrifice] for sin (10:18)...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (10:10)...for by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (10:14). Catholicism denies this biblical gospel!
Although Rome teaches that one must be "purged" by suffering for one's own sins, it offers "indulgences" to reduce or eliminate that suffering. "Indulgences" can thus discharge what Christ's death could not. Vatican II has 20 complex rules concerning when and how an indulgence may be obtained. For example: "The faithful who use with devotion an object of piety (crucifix, cross, rosary, scapular or medal) after it has been duly blessed by any priest, can gain a partial indulgence. But if this object of piety is blessed by the Pope or any bishop, the faithful who use it with devotion can also gain a plenary [full] indulgence on the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul, provided they also make a profession of faith using any approved formula" (Vol 1, pp 77-78). "The Church... commands that the usage of indulgences... should be kept...and it condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them...[for] the task of winning salvation" (Vol 1, pp 71, 74).
Some articles on Roman Catholicism and its counterfeit Christianity may be found here:
http://www.erwm.com/CatholicIssues.htm
Picked up a few paragraphs for you off the net.
In his "infallible" papal bull, Unum Sanctum, Pope Boniface VIII declared: "There is one holy Catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation...it is altogether necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This was confirmed by Vatican Council I. Vatican II declared: "The Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods under [Rome]...this holy Council teaches...that the church...is necessary for salvation." (Emphasis ours) (Vatican Council II, Costello Publishing, Austin Flannery, O. P., General Editor, Vol I, pp 364-65 )
About the Council of Trent --
Trent denied every Reformation doctrine, from sola scriptura to salvation by grace through faith alone. It pronounced 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) upon anyone believing what evangelicals believe and preach today. "No one can know with the certainty of faith...that he has obtained the grace of God [anathema to all who claim they know]" (Trent, 6th Ses., Chap. IX). "If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation...but that without them...men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification...let him be anathema" (Trent, 7th Ses., Canon 4).
Vatican II, far from making changes, reaffirmed Trent: "This sacred council... proposes again the decrees of...the Council of Trent" (Vol I, p 412). As for the "sacraments of the new law," which Trent said were "necessary for salvation," Vatican II declared, "For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, the work of our redemption is accomplished " (Vol 1, p 1).
Here are a few more quotes from Vatican II, which prove conclusively that Roman Catholicism is a counterfeit gospel: "Sins must be expiated...through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life...otherwise... in the next life through fire and torments ...[because] our souls need to be purified ...in purgatory the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repentant but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt" (Vol 1, pp 63-64).
On the other hand, the Bible declares: "When he [Christ] had by himself purged our sins (Heb 1:3)...by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us (9:12)...without shedding of blood is no remission [of sin] (9:22 - suffering in purgatory won't do it!)...now where remission of these is, there is no more offering [sacrifice] for sin (10:18)...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (10:10)...for by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (10:14). Catholicism denies this biblical gospel!
Although Rome teaches that one must be "purged" by suffering for one's own sins, it offers "indulgences" to reduce or eliminate that suffering. "Indulgences" can thus discharge what Christ's death could not. Vatican II has 20 complex rules concerning when and how an indulgence may be obtained. For example: "The faithful who use with devotion an object of piety (crucifix, cross, rosary, scapular or medal) after it has been duly blessed by any priest, can gain a partial indulgence. But if this object of piety is blessed by the Pope or any bishop, the faithful who use it with devotion can also gain a plenary [full] indulgence on the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul, provided they also make a profession of faith using any approved formula" (Vol 1, pp 77-78). "The Church... commands that the usage of indulgences... should be kept...and it condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them...[for] the task of winning salvation" (Vol 1, pp 71, 74).
Some articles on Roman Catholicism and its counterfeit Christianity may be found here:
http://www.erwm.com/CatholicIssues.htm
If the Catholics did not believe that the only method of salvation was through the Catholic Church then the following doctrines would make no sense in the light of their theology and would be totally unnecessary for them to teach:
1. infant baptism--necessary to be born again and for salvation (but it must be the baptism of the RCC.) The RCC killed the anabaptists because they rebaptized, those that the RCC had already baptized.
2. The sacrifice (or resacrifice) of the Mass. He was once offered for sins. This is claimed to be a bloodless sacrifice of which there is no such thing.
3. Indulgences--paying to get out of purgatory.
4. Purgatory--no going straight to heaven as the Bible teaches.
Plus, of course, all the sacraments by which the Catholic receives grace. It is impossible for a non-Catholic to go to Heaven without belief in these doctrines. Or contrariwise, if it is possible for a person to go to heaven without belief in these doctrines then the teaching of these doctrines would be irrelevant and totally unnecessary.
1. infant baptism--necessary to be born again and for salvation (but it must be the baptism of the RCC.) The RCC killed the anabaptists because they rebaptized, those that the RCC had already baptized.
2. The sacrifice (or resacrifice) of the Mass. He was once offered for sins. This is claimed to be a bloodless sacrifice of which there is no such thing.
3. Indulgences--paying to get out of purgatory.
4. Purgatory--no going straight to heaven as the Bible teaches.
Plus, of course, all the sacraments by which the Catholic receives grace. It is impossible for a non-Catholic to go to Heaven without belief in these doctrines. Or contrariwise, if it is possible for a person to go to heaven without belief in these doctrines then the teaching of these doctrines would be irrelevant and totally unnecessary.
neal4christ
New Member
JFox1 said:
Where is universalism mentioned in the article?
As to non-Christians being saved, I will leave that up to God and Him alone. No man is in the position to save anyone, even himself.
From the Vatican's own website:
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm
Please be careful who you are saying are being a "false witness".
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm
Please be careful who you are saying are being a "false witness".
bmerr said:
Remember David knew that his son went to heaven and he would see him again. I trust God to be God - just and merciful and that He knows what He's doing. Do the unsaved go to heaven? No. But those who are 'innocent' and CANNOT claim the blood of Jesus for themselves will, imo, be judged differently than those who CAN make the decision. I'm thinking of the little ones, the mentally disabled, etc.
Amity,
bmerr here. Concerning those who never hear the gospel, remember when God said "...for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" (Ex 20:5)? That long lost tribe way off in the Congo left off teaching the doctrine of God long generations ago, and the sins of their fathers are being visited upon them.
They are not guilty of their ancestor's sins, but their ancestor's sins are affecting them in that God's teaching is lost to them.
In Christ,
bmerr
bmerr here. Concerning those who never hear the gospel, remember when God said "...for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" (Ex 20:5)? That long lost tribe way off in the Congo left off teaching the doctrine of God long generations ago, and the sins of their fathers are being visited upon them.
They are not guilty of their ancestor's sins, but their ancestor's sins are affecting them in that God's teaching is lost to them.
In Christ,
bmerr
On your first point, a sinner by nature is still not a sinner by practice. Can sin be imputed where there is no law?bmerr said:
On your second, does someone say that there is no salvation apart from obedience to the gospel? Pelagians maybe? I can see obedience to the gospel as evidence of salvation if the gospel is heard, but if it is never heard...?
Read Romans 1:19-20 - "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
What if from "the things that have been made" people do perceive God, even without benefit of gospel preaching? In this scripture you have provided, the Bible states that this is possible...annsni said:
And in the next chapter, Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as 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. 14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
In my quick thinking just now, I think that, again, God is just and merciful and will judge all men rightly. He's obviously not going to hold someone to something that they haven't heard but will judge them on what they DO know and what's in their heart and what has been revealed to them. God can reveal Himself to those who won't hear a Baptist minister come to preach to them.
Whenever I get into this kind of a discussion with someone, the thing I come back to is where do THEY stand! They've heard the gospel - have they responded? If they have, then God wants us to make sure that others hear the Good News too - and so we need to proclaim the truth. Maybe it's OUR job to go to those people to make sure that they've heard. .....
Whenever I get into this kind of a discussion with someone, the thing I come back to is where do THEY stand! They've heard the gospel - have they responded? If they have, then God wants us to make sure that others hear the Good News too - and so we need to proclaim the truth. Maybe it's OUR job to go to those people to make sure that they've heard. .....
- Status