Catholocism: One step closer to universalism!

[Josh]

Um... yikes.

Just noticed THIS little nugget on the Vatican Web site:

In elucidating the psalm, the Pope also referred to a meditation on the subject by St. Augustine in which, he said, "the great Father of the Church introduces a surprising note: he knows that even among the inhabitants of Babylon there are people committed to peace and goodness, though without sharing the biblical faith. In the end, then, God will lead those people to the heavenly Jerusalem, rewarding them for their pure consciences."

Wow.

False anthropology? Check.

False view of the Atonement? Check.

Completely whack soteriology? You betcha.

Scary? More than a little.

[Tom]

that IS scary Josh. do you have a direct link to this text on the Vatican site?

[Josh]

Yeah, see if this link works.

[BennieM]

[Josh]

That statement is perfectly orthodox and has been held by the catholic (Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Anglican, Eastern and Russian Orthodox) churches for centuries.

That's actually true-- the Catholic Church has always put too much emphasis on works and man's goodness, and they've always been borderline universalist. This is just one of the more glaring admissions of this theology in recent memory.

The idea that you must consciously make a choice in this life is a very modern one.

I'm not sure if I would disagree with that or not. For salvation, it is required that you have faith in Christ for your redemption. The question, then, is whether or not faith in Christ can be had unconsciously. The answer, I think, is that yes, it can-- the Spirit moves even in the womb!-- but that it's pretty dadgum rare.

Redemption is offered to all

That's a whole other can of worms, but here I will just say that my problem is not that the Pope is espousing universal atonement, but, it seems, something rather more akin to universal salvation. (Or at least, salvation for SOME who do not serve Jesus Christ.)

Doesn't anyone here read C. S. Lewis, if no one else from a catholic church?

Just finished a paper on Lewis, actually. Great man. Great writer. Great apologist. Not such a great theologian, in many respects.

Augustine?

Yes... if you'll notice, Augustine was actually the theologian the Pope quoted in his statement.

Dante?

Not actually a theologian...

Thomas Aquinas?

Reasonabley good metaphysician. Not such a great theologian.

Dorothy L. Sayers? Jacob Boehme (who was actually Lutheran)? James Boswell?

Also not great theologians.

Reactionary define-the-atonement-my-way theology is so seventeenth century.

And yet... here you are, defining the Atonement your way...  

I'm not championing my personal view of the Atonement; I'm championing the biblical one.

[BennieM]

[bloop]

False anthropology? Check.

False view of the Atonement? Check.

Completely whack soteriology? You betcha.

I kind of want the first claim here expounded a bit.  We're getting plenty of the next two objections in this thread, on each side.

[BennieM]

False anthropology? Check.

False view of the Atonement? Check.

Completely whack soteriology? You betcha.

I kind of want the first claim here expounded a bit.  We're getting plenty of the next two objections in this thread, on each side.

So far as I can tell, the whole point of the thread is to expound on as little as possible. If you are not Reformed (or a child of the Reformation), you are simply wrong, and that is all you deserve to be bluntly told--over and over again.

But I would also be interested in the anthropology side. (Let's drop the other sides maybe...?) How can anthropology (any anthropology, good or bad) denounce the claim that 'even among the inhabitants of Babylon there are people committed to peace and goodness'. I don't see how it's within the domain of anthropologists to say, 'In Babylon there were no people committed to peace and goodness'. Is that what is being proposed? Am I missing something...?    

[bloop]

I don't see how it's within the domain of anthropologists to say, 'In Babylon there were no people committed to peace and goodness'. Is that what is being proposed? Am I missing something...?

That's why I wanted a bit more of that, because I didn't understand that particular objection where I do understand the others (I'm not sure what I think of the other objections, mind, which is why I'm silent concerning them).

[BennieM]

(I'm not sure what I think of the other objections, mind, which is why I'm silent concerning them).

Smart man!  =D  

[Josh]

I'm not trying to ruin this section of The Phorum or anything. I'm just asking you why it's 'one step closer' and (all of a sudden) 'scary'. I don't get it.

You're right-- the way I phrased things made it sound like this was something new for Catholic theology, which really isn't the case.

And, believe it or not, I AM glad to have you at the Phorum. I would never think you were trying to "ruin" it.  =)

I can assure you that he's not espousing any form of universalism. You answered your own concerns earlier. You said that it is possible to have faith in Jesus Christ without knowing about him (or without making the conscious decision).

But I would never say that you can have SALVATION without faith in Christ-- which is what the Vatican statement seems to be suggesting.

Thanks for being so reactionary.

How am I being reactionary? The biblical teaching on soteriology is clearly different than that espoused by Catholocism-- that's not really reactionary.

Why are you so uptight about anything remotely catholic (one-liner 'not great theologians' when I'm not even arguing that they were right, etc.)? Take it easy. The Roman Catholic Church isn't out to get you or anything. And if they aren't, none of the other catholic churches are! If your theology's right, you have nothing to worry about. God is just. Don't worry. It's okay.

I'm not uptight about Catholic teachings, and I certainly don't think they're out to get me. But much of what they teach is abhorrent theology-- and I think there needs to be dialogue about that. My goal here is not to bash the Catholic Church, but to show-- by way of Scripture and reason-- that the Reformed tradition is more theologically correct than the Catholic one. Because truth matters.

If this is a club, though, where people laugh at (without argument) and get uptight about (without provocation) beliefs they don't hold, you should post that notice on the door.

We don't do anything here-- at least, we're not supposed to  =) . But, at the same time, we don't hold to the idea that the point of dialogue and discussion is to remain unchanged. So while mocking other beliefs is out, challenging them is completely acceptable, even encouraged, when done so intelligently.

There is nothing that annoys me more than being quoted as if I'm a machine, not another human being (who may, perhaps, have written something to be listened to, not ranted about or dismissed without discussion). I don't exist for you to dismiss off-handedly (while being off-topic, too).

I don't think I did any of these things-- though I certainly apologize if I gave the wrong impression. My goal was to engage your ideas, not to dismiss them.

If you are not Reformed (or a child of the Reformation), you are simply wrong, and that is all you deserve to be bluntly told--over and over again.

That seems a little unfair. I began the thread with my own views and was glad when someone spoke up to challenge me. But now, you seem to want me to accept everything you say as truth, to let your ideas-- which conflict with my own-- go unchallenged. I agree with you that the discussion should be civil-- and, thus far, I think it has been-- but I disagree with your exhortation for us to all "not worry" and just all get along. A little friendly debate is, after all, a good thing.

But I would also be interested in the anthropology side. (Let's drop the other sides maybe...?) How can anthropology (any anthropology, good or bad) denounce the claim that 'even among the inhabitants of Babylon there are people committed to peace and goodness'. I don't see how it's within the domain of anthropologists to say, 'In Babylon there were no people committed to peace and goodness'. Is that what is being proposed? Am I missing something...?

I don't think that the actual, literal Babylon was ever really in question here. Babylon is often used to represent a place where great sin is present-- that is, pretty much anywhere on Earth. Thus, the Vatican statement misses the mark completely when it speaks of men with a pure conscience and men who love peace and goodness but do not have faith in Christ. After all, apart from Christ, there is no pure conscience, nor is there genuine love for peace and goodness. The statement completely jettisons the depravity of mankind and the taint of original sin.

[BennieM]

[Josh]

Anthropology is the study of man-- or, in theological circles, the doctrine of man. Thus, when the Vatican makes statements that give a false view of mankind, that is false anthropology.

As for specific backing for my claims... I think James White summarizes what is wrong with the Catholic position here by offering this response:

Once again we see that "theology matters," since, of course, there is no one with such a pure conscience to begin with, no one who fears God and does what is right before Him "without sharing the biblical faith."

That pretty much sums it up for me. The Pope's statement suggests that:

1. Salvation is possible without faith in Christ,
2. Salvation is possible on the basis of good works,
3. There actually ARE men who are capable of goodness apart from Christ.

All three of these claims are, at the least, unbiblical, at the most, rather dangerous. The first is refuted... well, many times in the Bible, but one could start with Jesus' words in John 14: 6. The second could be refuted... well, by that same verse, as well as Is. 57:12 and Ephesians 2:9. The final is in clear conflict with Romans 3:11.

Hebrews 11:6 is also relevant here, I think.

Hopefully that makes my position clearer.

[BennieM]

Anthropology is the study of man-- or, in theological circles, the doctrine of man. Thus, when the Vatican makes statements that give a false view of mankind, that is false anthropology.

Thank you. So you don't mean 'anthropology' as the social science (but rather as a sort of other science, as it was originally intended); gotcha. Stupid words.

That pretty much sums it up for me. The Pope's statement suggests that:

1. Salvation is possible without faith in Christ,
2. Salvation is possible on the basis of good works,
3. There actually ARE men who are capable of goodness apart from Christ.

All three are claims which all catholic Christians reject as heresy. (This is probably stronger condemnation than you yourself provided--at least to Catholic ears.) It may be difficult to explain how this is the case, while the Pope and others have said what they have said. (Personally, I think one of the best reasons for rejecting it is that it's so complicated that it's insidious and simple. Rather suspicious that something should be simple, yet hard to explain.)

First of all, Christ is a person. He is not a thing or an idea. Jesus was a person, and so is the Second Person of the Trinity. When Jesus says, "No one comes to the Father but by me," he means exactly that, I think. He means but by him--not by an idea or a thing.

Also, St Paul says that salvation is through faith, he means it. But, of course, when St James says that faith without works is dead, he also means it.

No one is capable of goodness apart from Christ. All Christians are thereon agreed. But, then again, no one is capable of anything without Christ, 'by (through) whom all things were made' in the Creeds--or, instead, in reference to John 1.

I think, so far, it's obvious that the catholic churches do not disagree with your assessment of the 1-2-3 being wrong. What is different is how things are put together from here. The premises are all the same: Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, good works cannot give you salvation, and humanity has no goodness apart from Christ.

But Christ is a person; he is not a thing or an idea or a religion or a confession or a prayer. He is a person. And, as the Word, he is working at all times through all things. That does not, of course, mean that all things are allowing him to work in them. Some resist. The fallen angels are, along with much of humanity, among the resistance.

Thus, faith in Christ is possible without knowing Christianity. If you have faith in the things that Christ moves in you, without knowing how or why, you still have faith in him. You may not know it. You may even say you don't (if, for instance, someone has presented a false 'historical' Jesus to you). But if you do have faith in Jesus, then you do have faith in Jesus.

Now, St James is very clear that faith without works is dead. Our Lord's parable of the sheep and the goats is terrifying even to people who want Christianity to be heretical and turned into a religion of works. St Paul says, 'Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who's working in you.'

Personally, this is how I think about it. There are probably other ways to build it up from here. I'm not a great theologian; I'm just a chemical engineer. So here goes...

Jesus's condition for heavenly glory seems to be to 'believe in him'. But, of course, he does not say to believe about him or to believe theories about him. He says to believe in him. Of course, sometimes it's necessary to believe certain things about him in order to believe in him. You can't know that he said, 'I forgive sins,' and then deny he said that. That would be quite silly. You can't believe in someone and doubt him at the same time. But if you did not specifically know that he said that, you could not have a real opinion on the subject--and yet you could still believe in him, still believe him. You could even believe in him without knowing his name or the right theology about him. After all, he is the Word.

Does that help? I guess my point is that, your three points are viewed the same way by catholic Christians (as heresy). I may not have explained where the differences come in from there, though.

Hopefully that makes my position clearer.

For sure! I think this is going great. =)  

[PaulDA]

The Roman Catholic catechism even says Muslims will be saved just by remaining as they are.
They always did smack of universalism to me in some ways.

[BennieM]

The Roman Catholic catechism even says Muslims will be saved just by remaining as they are.

The Roman Catholic Church has historically thought of Islam as a Christian heresy. Heresy is not a light thing.    

[PaulDA]

The Roman Catholic Church has historically thought of Islam as a Christian heresy. Heresy is not a light thing.  

Then why does it say in their catechism that Muslims will be saved?

[BennieM]

Then why does it say in their catechism that Muslims will be saved?

I need an actual reference. I don't own one.  =)  

[PaulDA]

^http://www.carm.org/catholic/muslims.htm

Here is an excerpt from the Roman Catholic Catechism:

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."[330]

[adriftconscious]

Maybe I'm stupid, but what exactly is meant by the "Plan of Salvation?" Much of this might go back to what I argued a while ago in that Islam thread. They might mean that the Muslims are on the right track but need changes, I'm not sure.
I'm interested to see where this thread goes, as I've been surprised this year by how "Catholic" I am. I don't really swing with the iconography and such, but the "Seamless garment of life" and work emphasis I agree with. Clearly I don't think that my works will save me, but I'm roughly in line with Catholic thought in that my faith will show fruit through works and if I'm not showing fruit I probably don't have much faith. Anyway... continue.

[Josh]

Clearly I don't think that my works will save me, but I'm roughly in line with Catholic thought in that my faith will show fruit through works and if I'm not showing fruit I probably don't have much faith.

I think that's actually more a Protestant view than Catholic-- and Bennie, correct me if I'm wrong here. But the Catholic tradition has always placed more ephasis on works-- as in the quotation that started this thread, in which the Vatican essentially says that loving goodness and peace is enough to save you!

[Vlad!]

I read this debate when it was in larval stage, but I was in class so I didn't have the attention to respond properly. Now that it's matured a bit I'm not sure I have a whole lot to add, but I would like to make one comment:

Why are you so uptight about anything remotely catholic (one-liner 'not great theologians' when I'm not even arguing that they were right, etc.)? Take it easy. The Roman Catholic Church isn't out to get you or anything. And if they aren't, none of the other catholic churches are! If your theology's right, you have nothing to worry about. God is just. Don't worry. It's okay.

This messageboard is built on the foundation of great debates. We've mellowed out a bit (we regulars know one-another's views pretty well and know we're not going to change too many minds by rehashing old issues), but we take our faith very seriously. BennieM, your first post in this thread is easily interpreted as the opening salvo of a debate, and Josh responded in kind. It's not that we're uptight, it's more that this is a place for an exchange of ideas. The Phorum method of idea exchange is often to charge all other ideas head-on.

We will certainly accept you as a person and as a phorum member. If you consider your beliefs to be personal (which you apparently don't, but I'm just sayin'), we are OK with you not discussing them. But if you post a viewpoint in a thread, you must be prepared to defend it. It's not uptightness or touchiness or whatever, it's just business as usual.  

[Rough Draft]

...as in the quotation that started this thread, in which the Vatican essentially says that loving goodness and peace is enough to save you!

"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."

[SALVO]The 'also' seems to suggest there are others -- which suggests that the plan of salvation referred to isn't necesarily eternal salvation itself. The others are apparently those who do not acknowledge the Creator. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but to me it's saying, "And these who believe in God, not the least of whom are the Muslims, are also included in God's plan for mankind." I don't think that it's specifying that those who acknowledge the Creator are saved necesarily because of that attribute.

So no, I don't agree that that's what the Vatican is saying.  [/SALVO]

[BennieM]

Josh:

Clearly I don't think that my works will save me, but I'm roughly in line with Catholic thought in that my faith will show fruit through works and if I'm not showing fruit I probably don't have much faith.

I think that's actually more a Protestant view than Catholic-- and Bennie, correct me if I'm wrong here. But the Catholic tradition has always placed more ephasis on works-- as in the quotation that started this thread, in which the Vatican essentially says that loving goodness and peace is enough to save you!

I think the Catholic tradition has stubbornly refused to place 'emphasis' anywhere. Sure, it mentions works a lot; but it also has the three Creeds. You could probably accuse it of being idiocy, by forever talking about faith as if it were works, and works as if they were faith (because of what St James and St Paul say--and things like Jesus 'believe in me' next to his sheep and the goats). But I don't see any emphasis. And I think that what adriftconscious is talking about is something held dear by Protestants who are close to the heart of their faith and by Catholics who are close to the heart of theirs. Certainly fringe groups of both will not believe it, true. But that does not make it especially one or the other.

[Edit: Also, the Vatican did not say that loving peace and goodness were enough to save you. Jesus saves. Jesus, as I tried to explain earlier, is a person: a person who had to suffer, die, rise again, and ascend to heaven in order to be able to save us: but still a person. And that is what the Vatican means. Works are nothing in and of themselves; and the Vatican would call it heresy to say that 'loving goodness and peace is enough to save you'.]


Vlad!:

We will certainly accept you as a person and as a phorum member. If you consider your beliefs to be personal (which you apparently don't, but I'm just sayin'), we are OK with you not discussing them. But if you post a viewpoint in a thread, you must be prepared to defend it. It's not uptightness or touchiness or whatever, it's just business as usual.

Right, but as I said; at the time I wasn't even interested in whether the viewpoint was right. I think it is. But I didn't care for the sake of the thread. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

And as I said before, I wasn't the one who was asserting, 'You're wrong; next' over and over again--which is not, so far as I know, a debate. I love debates. (Ask murlough or bloop or Paul. =)) As you can see, I'm more than happy to rationally discuss something. But like most sensible people, I do not like to be ratted at, dismissed, and not actually argued with.


Paul: Context would also have been helpful. Rough Draft may indeed be very right.

[PaulDA]

[SALVO]The 'also' seems to suggest there are others -- which suggests that the plan of salvation referred to isn't necesarily eternal salvation itself. The others are apparently those who do not acknowledge the Creator. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but to me it's saying, "And these who believe in God, not the least of whom are the Muslims, are also included in God's plan for mankind." I don't think that it's specifying that those who acknowledge the Creator are saved necesarily because of that attribute.

So no, I don't agree that that's what the Vatican is saying.  [/SALVO]

The Muslims DO NOT BELIEVE in the same God that Christians do!
They claim to believe in the God of Abraham but they DON'T. They worship a false God, they are a FALSE version of Christianity. They deny Jesus Christ is God.
I believe that Islam is one of the 'anti-Christs' that rose up. Satan's religious system to challenge Christianity.
The Roman Catholic catechism is plainly stating that Muslims DO worship the saem God they do. Although, you know my position, I believe many if not most Roman Catholics are not saved because they never asked Jesus to be their Savior, they just genuflect and go through rituals and pray to Mary and saints.

[Vlad!]

Paul, it's time you learned that repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

[adriftconscious]

Thank you, yes. We already went over this in a different thread.

As far as my beliefs go, I would say I'm more along the lines of Bennie-- because I have a hard time thinking that God would condemn someone who has not had a chance to accept Christ or has had Christ shown to him in a distorted way. I feel that this is all in the heart, and while I fervently agree that we can't do anything right by operating in a vacuum from God, but I do feel that if people operate under a basic understanding of what right and wrong are-- and its hard to argue that we aren't designed with that very understanding etched on our hearts-- and do their best to uphold it, then they are indeed following God and by extension Christ because they are one and the same. The Gospel comes down to loving people and loving God, and if a person never gets a chance to express their love for God directly to him but loves the people around him, then I think they ARE loving God and thus could cenceivably be saved.

correct any errors by all means.

[Josh]

As far as my beliefs go, I would say I'm more along the lines of Bennie-- because I have a hard time thinking that God would condemn someone who has not had a chance to accept Christ or has had Christ shown to him in a distorted way.

But... isn't that what's just? Condenmnation is what we all deseve-- God is never unfair for giving it to us. Condemning someone who has not had a chance to receive Christ is not unfair or unloving or anything else-- it's merely just.

I feel that this is all in the heart, and while I fervently agree that we can't do anything right by operating in a vacuum from God, but I do feel that if people operate under a basic understanding of what right and wrong are-- and its hard to argue that we aren't designed with that very understanding etched on our hearts-- and do their best to uphold it, then they are indeed following God and by extension Christ because they are one and the same.

But, without Christ, noone will love or seek righteousness-- no one will do their best to uphold is. And even if they could, their best would not be good enough. God requires that the Law be kept perfectly; trying to keep it isn't nearly good enough.

The Gospel comes down to loving people and loving God, and if a person never gets a chance to express their love for God directly to him but loves the people around him, then I think they ARE loving God and thus could cenceivably be saved.

That's not what the Gospel comes down to at all. The Gospel is this: God's people are saved from the wages of sin by grace, through faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice. The extension of that is that, once we have received the Gospel, we will love God and love people, because our hearts will be transformed. But that comes AFTER the first part. The first part is the heart of the Gospel-- and, thus, it is impossible to have salvation apart from Christ, no matter how hard we might try.

[murlough23]

I generally agree with what Josh is saying. However, I can see where Josh might not be correctly interpreting what Bennie is saying (which, in all fairness, is often difficult to do). So I'm not sure where I stand on this one. If the Catholic Church's official line is what it appears to be at face value to us Protestants, then yeah, that's not cool. But I'm willing to entertain the notion that we could be misunderstanding what's being said.

NP: "Jump Start Your Electric Heart!", Kevin Max

[BennieM]

But, without Christ, noone will love or seek righteousness-- no one will do their best to uphold is. And even if they could, their best would not be good enough. God requires that the Law be kept perfectly; trying to keep it isn't nearly good enough.

Christ is a person. I have already tried to explain this, but no one has commented on it (to ask questions or whatnot). Christ is not a thing or an idea or a confession or a religion; he is a person. Persons can, well, do things. The Person who is the Word is always doing things in everyone and everywhere--whether the Person's doings are accepted or rejected is another matter. But surely the Word is always doing in everyone and everywhere. If that is the case, why should it be surprising that someone who is not a Christian could be saved?

This is the basis for most of (all?) the things that are being misinterpreted.

That's not what the Gospel comes down to at all. The Gospel is this: God's people are saved from the wages of sin by grace, through faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice.

For sure.

I disagree with you on what the 'wages' are and how to define the 'atoning sacrifice', I imagine. But all Christians are agreed on this statement, in essence. That's the beauty of Christianity and its relative lack of schism.

But... isn't that what's just? Condenmnation is what we all deseve-- God is never unfair for giving it to us. Condemning someone who has not had a chance to receive Christ is not unfair or unloving or anything else-- it's merely just.

Receive Christ...? What is he, the host in the Roman Catholic Mass? I kid, I kid. But seriously, Jesus Christ is a person. If your theology is always talking about him as if he's a thing or an idea or a religion, I think that's a bad sign. It doesn't mean you're wrong. But I don't see how it bodes well. Persons, especially Divine Persons, are more than something to 'be received'. Surely you can talk about Jesus as a person, too...?

But I'm willing to entertain the notion that we could be misunderstanding what's being said.

That's cool. I think many people do misunderstand.

[PaulDA]

Paul, it's time you learned that repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

What I said IS 100% true.
Islam is a false religion and their God is of Satan, not of Jesus.
Anything NOT of Jesus is of the Devil. The Bible clearly says people either serve God or Satan. There is no in between. A person is either saved or unsaved.
Up until the moment of conversion that person belongs to Satan.
The Bible says that unless a person has the Spirit of God inside them (ie: has the Holy Spirit), then they do not belong to Christ (ie: they are not a Christian). In order to have the Holy Ghost inside, a person must be saved. There is no other way to have the Holy Spirit.
If you all want to believe that Muslims and others can have a chance of going to heaven by not knowing Jesus Christ, just from seeking a 'god', or just from doing good things, then go ahead and believe it. It's a nice sentiment, because I also wish everyone could be saved, but the truth is there is nothing concrete in the Bible, except for a few ambiguous passages, that says that anyone is going to be saved unless they confess Jesus Christ as their Savior.
We can speculate all we want on the passages like "To whom much is given much is required" and "man has no excuse, the universe declares the glory of God", that these mean people can be saved without knowing Jesus Christ, but the Bible does not actually say that anywhere. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the way, truth, life and NO ONE comes to the Father except through Him. And the Bible goes on to explain in many passages how we are saved: By confessing Jesus with our mouth and truly accepting Him as Lord and Savior.
If there are other ways to be saved, because I wonder about that myself, about the billions throughout the years who never heard of Jesus both before and after He was born, the Bible is not clear what those ways are.

[Josh]

The Person who is the Word is always doing things in everyone and everywhere--whether the Person's doings are accepted or rejected is another matter. But surely the Word is always doing in everyone and everywhere.

I'm not aware of any Scriptural support for this, quite honestly. And besides, the Word "doing" in someone does not mean that the person is saved. At times, God actually "does" things in a person that are harmful to that person-- ie, hardening the person's heart! (See the first, oh, 15 chapters or so of Exodus for numerous mentions of this)

If that is the case, why should it be surprising that someone who is not a Christian could be saved?

Because the Bible makes it clear that ONLY those with faith in Christ-- ie, Christians-- are saved. Your statement is contradicted throughout the entirety of Scripture.

Receive Christ...? What is he, the host in the Roman Catholic Mass? wink.gif I kid, I kid. But seriously, Jesus Christ is a person. If your theology is always talking about him as if he's a thing or an idea or a religion, I think that's a bad sign. It doesn't mean you're wrong. But I don't see how it bodes well. Persons, especially Divine Persons, are more than something to 'be received'. Surely you can talk about Jesus as a person, too...?

Actually, the language I'm using is completely supported by the Sciptures. See Col. 2:6.

I've actually been talking about Christ as a person throughout this thread-- ie, talking about Christ redeeming, Christ atoning, Christ sacrificing, etc. These all suggest a person, not an idea or a religion.. Even the language of "receiving"-- language used in the Bible itself-- is consistent with this. (You can receive Christ just as you might receive a guest in your home, for example.)

[murlough23]

What I said IS 100% true.

And therefore you can't make it any more true. I think that's the point.

[murlough23]

I'm not aware of any Scriptural support for this, quite honestly. And besides, the Word "doing" in someone does not mean that the person is saved.

This makes sense - I mean, God spoke to me through a Madonna song once. It doesn't mean Madonna is saved.

(I know, ironic example, given the topic, but it was honestly the first thing that came to mind.)

[PaulDA]

And therefore you can't make it any more true. I think that's the point.

Please respond to the rest of my post about people being saved by not trusting in Jesus Christ.

[murlough23]

Please respond to the rest of my post about people being saved by not trusting in Jesus Christ.

Please dispense with the reactionary ranting, and argue your points with reason and intelligence; then I will respond to them.

I actually don't disagree with most of what you said. I'm just a bit miffed that all it took was one mention of the word Muslim and you immediately went flying off the handle about a tangential topic. You tend to argue by finding any and every way to poke holes in the thing that you dislike. It's frustrating when it doesn't really pertain to the topic, but instead to an issue that we've already hashed and rehashed to death.

Anyway, I just made the comment to point out that the "it doesn't make it more true" response was not meant to imply that what you said was not true. The intent was to say, "We know, Paul. Now let's stay on topic."

[PaulDA]

^What I said is on topic.
Just because you don't think it is, doesn't mean it isn't.
the topic is 'Catholocism and universalism' and I pointed out that Roman Catholics believe that Muslims will be saved because they think Muslims believe in the same God.
That is close to universalism, thinking a different God is the true God.

[BennieM]

[danny316]

Dangit, I'm expected to step in to defend the Catholic point of view again, I think (if recent comments around here are to be taken seriously, I'm guessing people don't like it when I throw in an alternative viewpoint just to put it out there). Either way, I'm pretty sure I'm the only former Catholic here.

Don't take that as any insult to Catholicism, I don't really have any gripes with it.

To start, I'd like to remind people that the term "catholic" means "universal". The original point was to be inclusive of all who follow the one true God.

....which, oddly enough, is where the issue really comes in. How different can one's beliefs be before they constitute a different God? How can this question be manipulated by corrupt leadership?

Muslims being given a seemingly unbiblical "OK" by the catechism seems like an example of the first question. If you assume that God without grace is still roughly the same God, then sure, why not claim they believe in the same god? I was never fully sold on the idea, but I see where they're coming from.

However, there does get to be a point where someone is considered to believe in a false God because their depiction of God is sufficiently different. That's how heresy is labeled, and abuse of that was why protestantism was needed in the first place. How we answer that question defines how universalistic we are. (You'd be shocked how quickly I label a belief as heretical. In fact, that's part of why I boycott Third Day. ...but that's three other threads, a flame war, and a mod banning...) Whether we think everyone's saved or everyone's going to hell is largely a question of where we draw the line for how incorrect someone's beliefs about God can be and still have them consdiered "saved".

Heh, this didn't end up being a very Catholic perspective at all. It is a different way of looking at universalism and, um, whatever it's opposite is (evangelicalism? fatalism? elitism? the fear of death?) though. I wouldn't recommend being very judgmental on where to draw the line, because everyone's in danger of being too universalist or too elitist here (oh, and sure, the people you do or don't prosyletize as a result of that belief could have thier souls on the line, but that's somewhat of another matter).

A quick edit: Don't forget there's a new Catholic Pope who's a bit more straight-laced these days. Maybe that "line" one crosses to become a heretic will be moved because of that.

[MJanke]

^ good post.