Catholic Confusion ,or, Who are the Faithful

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Buddhism is atheistic - they deny the existence of a God.

Hinduism denies the existence of a creator.

Look at all the world religions; the few monotheistic religions are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. We share something in common, and so it makes perfectly good sense to let them know that we share something in common. It's common ground that we can use to point to Jesus. This is SO not hard to understand.

From

http://aomin.org/YouTell.html
In a similar way the Pope seemed to be in line with section 841 when he said,

VATICAN CITY, SEP 9, 1998 (VIS) - At today's Wednesday general audience in St. Peter's Square, the Pope spoke on the theme of The Spirit of God and the 'Seeds of Truth' in non-Christian Religions. The 'seeds of truth', said John Paul II, are 'the effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body', the wind 'which blows where it wills'. The Holy Father explained that in all authentic religious experiences, the most characteristic manifestation is prayer. ... Every true prayer is inspired by the Holy Spirit, Who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person. Through the practice of what is good in their own religious traditions, and following the dictates of their consciences, members of other religions positively respond to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even though they may not recognize Him as their Savior. The attitude of the Church and of individual Christians with regard to other religions is characterized by sincere respect, deep kindness, and also, where it is possible and appropriate, cordial collaboration. This does not mean forgetting that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator and Savior of the human race. Nor does it imply lessening the missionary effort to which we have an obligation, in obedience to the command of the Risen Lord: 'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'. This attitude of respect and dialogue, concluded John Paul II, represents a due recognition of the 'seeds of the Word' and of the 'groans of the Spirit'. It also prepares the proclamation of the Gospel in awaiting the time when the Lord shows his mercy.

Seems muslims shouldn't be singled out, according to your holy father. Hindus, sheiks..heck..even athiests and agnostics (humanists) can be saved with this admission.

In Christ,
jason

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Am I free to create a mythical Baptist who is troubled with all sorts of confusion concerning Baptist beliefs, and then expect you to answer them as though it were real?

Actually, yes. It's called writing or story telling. Every hear of it? What do writers do when they tell a story with fictional characters? I am not saying that is the case here, but it is a legitmate way to get a point across.

Though, if one does take this approach, one must be prepared to defend their character portrayal or to revamp and update their characters position if it is stated incorrectly.

 

[Briguy]

Hi Ron, I have to agree with others that standing alone this statement says that Muslims have salvation based on their belief in (or adoration for) the God of Abraham. Is the following staement being cut short or is there another explanation?

statement:
""CCC 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.""

Ron, looking forward to your reply. Obviously, we both believe that there is no way to have salvation without Jesus, so what is really being said here or is there an official CC teaching giving exceptions to salvation coming by way of faith in Christ alone?

In Love and Truth,
Brian

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Hi Ron, I have to agree with others that standing alone this statement says that Muslims have salvation based on their belief in (or adoration for) the God of Abraham. Is the following staement being cut short or is there another explanation?

statement:
""CCC 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.""

Ron, looking forward to your reply. Obviously, we both believe that there is no way to have salvation without Jesus, so what is really being said here or is there an official CC teaching giving exceptions to salvation coming by way of faith in Christ alone?

In Love and Truth,
Brian

Brian, before we address your question concerning Muslims, allow me to ask you a few questions (not to trap you but to set the stage for our further discussion).

Are aborted children condemned?

Are children who die before the age of 3 or 4 condemned?

Are the mentally impaired, who do not develope a mental capacity to understand the concept of Jesus as Savior, condemned?

Is a person who was born, raised, and died on some small distant island, without ever making contact with anyone who had even remotely heard of Jesus, condemned?

Is a person who was born, raised, and died in a country controlled so tightly by an anti-Christian government that he never heard of Jesus, condemned?

You probably see where this is going.

Ron

[ September 24, 2002, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
Actually, yes. It's called writing or story telling. Every hear of it? What do writers do when they tell a story with fictional characters? I am not saying that is the case here, but it is a legitmate way to get a point across.

Though, if one does take this approach, one must be prepared to defend their character portrayal or to revamp and update their characters position if it is stated incorrectly.

Would it also be necessary to disclose that it is fiction and not present it in such a way so as to lead others to think differently?

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Briguy:
Hi Ron, I have to agree with others that standing alone this statement says that Muslims have salvation based on their belief in (or adoration for) the God of Abraham. Is the following staement being cut short or is there another explanation?

statement:
""CCC 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.""

Ron, looking forward to your reply. Obviously, we both believe that there is no way to have salvation without Jesus, so what is really being said here or is there an official CC teaching giving exceptions to salvation coming by way of faith in Christ alone?

In Love and Truth,
Brian

Brian, before we address your question concerning Muslims, allow me to ask you a few questions (not to trap you but to set the stage for our further discussion).

Are aborted children condemned?

Are children who die before the age of 3 or 4 condemned?

Are the mentally impaired, who do not develope a mental capacity to understand the concept of Jesus as Savior, condemned?

Is a person who was born, raised, and died on some small distant island, without ever making contact with anyone who had even remotely heard of Jesus, condemned?

Is a person who was born, raised, and died in a country controlled so tightly by an anti-Christian government that he never heard of Jesus, condemned?

You probably see where this is going.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]So why preach the gospel, if it gives people a chance to reject it? Wouldn't it be better keep everybody ignorant? Why did God send Peter to the Cornelius? Cornelius was a good man according to the Jews, yet he still need to know Christ.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted trying2understand:

Are aborted children condemned?

Are children who die before the age of 3 or 4 condemned?

Are the mentally impaired, who do not develope a mental capacity to understand the concept of Jesus as Savior, condemned?

Is a person who was born, raised, and died on some small distant island, without ever making contact with anyone who had even remotely heard of Jesus, condemned?

Is a person who was born, raised, and died in a country controlled so tightly by an anti-Christian government that he never heard of Jesus, condemned?

You probably see where this is going.

Ron

Posted by DualHunter:
So why preach the gospel, if it gives people a chance to reject it? Wouldn't it be better keep everybody ignorant? Why did God send Peter to the Cornelius? Cornelius was a good man according to the Jews, yet he still need to know Christ.

You seem to be jumping ahead.

Perhaps you could answer my questions.

Are all of the above condemned?

Ron

[ September 24, 2002, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Dualhunter]

The first 3 could be condemned but given what we know about God's loving nature and King David's view on where his still-born son went, probably are not. The last 2 probably are condemned based on the urgent need for the Gospel to be preached and the examples of Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch, where God has sent a messenger to make known the Gospel to people (in the case of the eunuch, he was in a remote location and yet that did not stop God from getting the message to him).

There are missionaries in some very anti-Christian countries and the early Church tended to be severly persecuted by various Roman emperors. There are also missionaries in remote countries and even in the early Church missionaries were being sent out to remote places such as India (more remote for people back then).

So why preach the Gospel, if it gives people a chance to reject it and loose their claim to "invincible ignorance"?

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Would it also be necessary to disclose that it is fiction and not present it in such a way so as to lead others to think differently?

In short, no. One would not have to tell if it is fiction or not. Perogative of the author.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Would it also be necessary to disclose that it is fiction and not present it in such a way so as to lead others to think differently?

Posted by JasonW:
In short, no. One would not have to tell if it is fiction or not. Perogative of the author.

What would be the difference between:

telling fiction presented in a way to lead others to think it is not fiction

and a lie?

Ron

 

[Briguy]

oops!!

[ September 24, 2002, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

[Briguy]

Ron, Your questions are excellent ones. They however are not easily answered as demonstrated by Dualhunter. The Bible says that "the wages of sin is death". Don't get ahead of me as in all honesty this issue is one I struggle with and I am not saying I strictly believe the above scripture has no exceptions, I am not saying there are exceptions either, I truely am not sure.
Dual made a good point with King David in terms of babies but I have seen the argument both ways. This really hits on the whole election issue. If God gives to Jesus whom he elects then God, since He already knows whom he elected, gave faith to those he elected and they are the ones Jesus then saves. That view would mean that yes, those of any age, in any situation, without faith are condemmed. Why? because they are born into Sin and are condemmed and will get what they deserve.
The view is sound but I am not convinced. You know the other view which has God electing those who he knows will come to faith and not condemming those unable at any level to have saving faith. If I sound confused it is because I have not come to a final verdict in my mind what scripture as a whole supports. I do know this, that most muslims do hear about Jesus and reject Him. They are drawn by the Holy Spirit and reject the God whom they say they serve. They are condemmed based on their rejection, that is a sure teaching, even if the name of Jesus only crosses their path once, because we know the Holy Spirit will draw them toward the truth. Well that is it in a nutshell, OK, more like a cracked eggshell

Ron, Dual asked some great questions as well. Where do you and the CC stand on all this.

Sincerely in Christ,
Brian

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
The first 3 could be condemned but given what we know about God's loving nature and King David's view on where his still-born son went, probably are not. The last 2 probably are condemned based on the urgent need for the Gospel to be preached and the examples of Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch, where God has sent a messenger to make known the Gospel to people (in the case of the eunuch, he was in a remote location and yet that did not stop God from getting the message to him).

There are missionaries in some very anti-Christian countries and the early Church tended to be severly persecuted by various Roman emperors. There are also missionaries in remote countries and even in the early Church missionaries were being sent out to remote places such as India (more remote for people back then).

So why preach the Gospel, if it gives people a chance to reject it and loose their claim to "invincible ignorance"?

Two points:

We preach the Gospel because that is what God has instructed us to do.

You seem to be saying that God will condemn others who do not hear the Gospel because of the lack of action on the part of those who have heard and fail to spread the Word.

Is there any other example of God condemning someone based not on that person, but on the actions (or inactions) of others?

Ron

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
What would be the difference between:

telling fiction presented in a way to lead others to think it is not fiction

and a lie?

Ron

Medium. If I am writing a book, I have no obligation to anybody to tell if it a make believe story or something that is completely true. Though, it is good form to do so, I am by no means required to do this.

However, if I stand up in front of a grand jury and tell the same story (fiction) as if it were true, that is a lie.

If you can't see this distinction, you can't watch a movie, read a book, watch tv or go and see a play. No one says up front in any of those situations that a story is wholely fictional, marginally fictional or completely true. I can write a movie based upon actual happenings in my life while still having the book be a work of fiction.

For instance: The recent movie Spiderman. Obviously a work of fiction, but characters in that movie could be based upon real people the writers knew.

Or..

Say...Thelma and Louise. Is that a true story? I personally don't know. Does that make the writers liars? No, it makes them good and entertaining.

Are actors liars as well? No. Would they be if they took the character off screen and tried to pass themselves off as that character? Yes.

See the differences?

jason
(a fledgling writer himself)

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dualhunter:
The first 3 could be condemned but given what we know about God's loving nature and King David's view on where his still-born son went, probably are not. The last 2 probably are condemned based on the urgent need for the Gospel to be preached and the examples of Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch, where God has sent a messenger to make known the Gospel to people (in the case of the eunuch, he was in a remote location and yet that did not stop God from getting the message to him).

There are missionaries in some very anti-Christian countries and the early Church tended to be severly persecuted by various Roman emperors. There are also missionaries in remote countries and even in the early Church missionaries were being sent out to remote places such as India (more remote for people back then).

So why preach the Gospel, if it gives people a chance to reject it and loose their claim to "invincible ignorance"?

Two points:

We preach the Gospel because that is what God has instructed us to do.

You seem to be saying that God will condemn others who do not hear the Gospel because of the lack of action on the part of those who have heard and fail to spread the Word.

Is there any other example of God condemning someone based not on that person, but on the actions (or inactions) of others?

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]I am simply saying that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Him. God is able to get the message to people, no matter where they are on this planet. I've heard of Muslims to whom Christ has revealed Himself even though they live deep in anti-Christian Muslim countries, I mentioned the Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius. God is able to send a messanger. While it is not 100% conclusive, the evidence strongly suggests that those who have not heard are perishing and therefore in need of the Gospel of Christ because a person who is basically good is not perfectly good and thus falls short of the glory of God and therefore Jesus is their only hope.

[ September 24, 2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Dualhunter ]

 

[Ps104_33]

Are aborted children condemned?

Are children who die before the age of 3 or 4 condemned?

Are the mentally impaired, who do not develope a mental capacity to understand the concept of Jesus as Savior, condemned?

Is a person who was born, raised, and died on some small distant island, without ever making contact with anyone who had even remotely heard of Jesus, condemned?

Is a person who was born, raised, and died in a country controlled so tightly by an anti-Christian government that he never heard of Jesus, condemned?

You probably see where this is going.

Ron

I am surprised that the great Bible scholar that you are that you didnt know that Paul dealt with questions as these in Romans chapter 1. We are all without excuse!

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
See the differences?
jason
(a fledgling writer himself)

Sure.

Now what about within the specific context of this thread?

What would be the diffence here, in this situation?

Ron

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Are aborted children condemned?

Are children who die before the age of 3 or 4 condemned?

Are the mentally impaired, who do not develope a mental capacity to understand the concept of Jesus as Savior, condemned?

Is a person who was born, raised, and died on some small distant island, without ever making contact with anyone who had even remotely heard of Jesus, condemned?

Is a person who was born, raised, and died in a country controlled so tightly by an anti-Christian government that he never heard of Jesus, condemned?

You probably see where this is going.

Ron

Posted by Psalm:
I am surprised that the great Bible scholar that you are that you didnt know that Paul dealt with questions as these in Romans chapter 1. We are all without excuse!

So then your answer would be, "Yes, all of the above are condemned"?

BTW, why so hostile?

Ron

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
I am simply saying that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Him. God is able to get the message to people, no matter where they are on this planet. I've heard of Muslims to whom Christ has revealed Himself even though they live deep in anti-Christian Muslim countries, I mentioned the Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius. God is able to send a messanger. While it is not 100% conclusive, the evidence strongly suggests that those who have not heard are perishing and therefore in need of the Gospel of Christ because a person who is basically good is not perfectly good and thus falls short of the glory of God and therefore Jesus is their only hope.

Great. However, at the same time, you acknowledge that there are certain groups of people who may not be condemned even though they have never even heard of Jesus, let alone believed.

So the difference that you have with the Church becomes one of degree, not an absolute.

Further, the Church does not say that all are saved, but only that some may be. In other words, it is left up to God.

Which is probably closer to the attitude that God wishes for us to take? That we can judge the state of salvation of others and decide with certainty who will not be saved? Or we leave the judging up to God?

The Church is saying the later, which are you choosing?

Ron

 

[Dualhunter]

It's a question of accountability for one's actions. The first 3 groups listed are not accountable, the last 2 groups are. The last 2 know that they have done wrong at some point in their lives, the first 3 don't know much of anything.