Catholocism: One step closer to universalism!

[murlough23]

^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.

The person you were responding to when you brought up your "not the same God" tirade for the nth time wasn't even saying that he/she thought the Vatican was saying that Muslims were saved. You didn't really read the post; you saw some stuff about Muslims and you threw a shit-fit.

We know your position on this issue. It's not necessary to keep hammering on it. There's a thread for that discussion already if you'd like to continue running it into the ground.

Now, if the Vatican is stating that there's a means of salvation other than Jesus, then I don't see why it matters a whole hell of a lot whether those other supposedly "saved" people believe in the "same" God or whatever. We're pretty darn sure that Muslims don't believe the same stuff about Jesus, so whether they believe in the "same" God is a moot point, as far as this discussion is concerned.

The issue is belief in Jesus and whether or not the Vatican is saying people can be saved apart from this. Now please try to say something intelligent that pertains to that discussion. Thanks.

NP: "Facedown (live)", Matt Redman

[murlough23]

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".

That is a very interesting question, though I still maintain that "Is it still the same God?" isn't exactly the topic we really need to be discussing here. Even if it were, that wouldn't be sufficient for salvation - there's still that Jesus thing to deal with, which is a lot more specific.

This is probably a flawed analogy, but let's say there are two children from the same father, one who remembers next to nothing about that father, and the other who sees and talks to his father on a regular basis. They both know their father to be the same person, in terms of a few basic traits like his name, ethnicity, age, whatever. But only the one son really knows the father due to his relationship with the father - the other is left with distorted facts that he's learned from other people who have opinions about the man which are not based in fact. When they both think of their father, are they thinking of the same person? Does the father somehow become a different entity just because the other son has some incorrect facts about him? No. He's still the same being.

Now when that father dies, and decides who to leave a large sum of money in his will, he may choose to leave it all to the son with whom he actually has a relationship with. The other son isn't going to get the inheritance, not because he believes incorrect facts about the father, but because he has no relationship with the father. Even if he had been given nothing but correct facts about the father by other people, he would still not have a relationship with the father. Knowing the right stuff, while probably a natural outgrowth of actually having a close relationship with a person, isn't what actually forms the bond between you and the person.

Now that's humans, and humans are flawed, so maybe there's a big gaping hole in my analogy that I'm missing. But my point is that there's no conscious attempt made to differentiate, to say that one son's father and the other son's father are two completely different people. Neither child thinks that. The father doesn't split into two different beings just because one child believes in a father with a markedly different personality.

Those who founded Islam descended from those who founded Judaism. Do you think they consciously said, "We now believe in an entirely different being", or simply started to believe different things about that same being? Or is this just a silly game of semantics in favor of what is ultimately a moot point? Same God or different God, the difference that really matters is a lack of belief in Jesus as Savior. I could be a person who is totally down with the Christian God as described throughout much of the OT... and even the NT... but reject the concept of grace and not believe that Jesus has any power to save me. Would I then be saved? No. But I would still believe in the same God - I would just have some very wrong ideas about that God. Does that make sense?

[BennieM]

Same God or different God, the difference that really matters is a lack of belief in Jesus as Savior.

I think this is a very good post with a very good 'analogy' (it's good parable, if you ask me).

But surely the difference is whether you believe in Jesus (in him, in who he is, in him as a person), not 'in Jesus as Saviour'. After all, 'believe in me' are the dominical words themselves. And after all, that is what your parable is actually saying. The son who inherited believed in his father; he didn't believe in his father as something.

[danny316]

A quick point to bring up:

My father is far more likely to be kind to me if I see him accurately than if I think he did something he didn't do that he finds offensive (I feel a sudden need to bring up Hitler here as an extreme example).

Ultimately, Jesus goes with salvation in Christian theology, but I was going more on a rant on people's viewpoints than on theology. So Murlough's right in a completely different kind of way. Just because the ball's round doesn't mean it's not also blue, or bouncy!

[murlough23]

My father is far more likely to be kind to me if I see him accurately than if I think he did something he didn't do that he finds offensive (I feel a sudden need to bring up Hitler here as an extreme example).

Have you learned nothing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

But seriously...

Ultimately, Jesus goes with salvation in Christian theology, but I was going more on a rant on people's viewpoints than on theology. So Murlough's right in a completely different kind of way. Just because the ball's round doesn't mean it's not also blue, or bouncy!

I wasn't sure if I was "right" or not; I merely posed a question. My intent was mainly to separate out the issue of "same God", which is interesting from a purely academic perspective, but quite honestly not all that relevant, from the issue of salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ. Even if we could establish "same God" with any level of certainty, which I'm not sure we can because it appears to be not well-defiend as to where the point is where their god becoems a different being than ours, that in and of itself does not establish salvation. Even Satan and the demons believe that the one true God exists. (Which brings me to another point - "believing in" something can either mean believing it exists, or putting one's faith in it as something that can be relied upon for a positive outcome. For example, I "believe in" Mormons in the first sense - they exist. But not in the second sense.)

[PaulDA]

Now please try to say something intelligent that pertains to that discussion. Thanks.

 

What I said is intelligent in my eyes and I don't give a damn what you or anyone else thinks.
Have fun insulting other people.....

[murlough23]

What I said is intelligent in my eyes and I don't give a damn what you or anyone else thinks.
Have fun insulting other people.....

Well, that approach appears to have worked.    

[Josh]

Paul, what's intelligent in your eyes is not really important here; the point of this thread-- this entire board, actually-- is COMMUNICATION.  

[murlough23]

Paul, what's intelligent in your eyes is not really important here; the point of this thread-- this entire board, actually-- is COMMUNICATION.

I should further note that it's not Paul's point of view that I'm accusing of being unintelligent. It's the way he approaches the discussion that strikes me as a big turnoff - just blasting ideas, going off on rants, getting caught up in tangential points that ultimately don't affect the topic at hand, and not being willing to take the time to respond to valid questions that others are bringing up. So when I ask him to intelligently discuss the situation, that isn't saying that his point of view is wrong and stupid. What actually frustrates me are the times when I agree with his beliefs, but he presents his beliefs in such a pigheaded way that nobody who doesn't already believe the same things would ever want to.

[murlough23]

OK, so to get this back on topic... have we come to a concensus about what the Vatican is saying regarding the possibility of salvation apart from Jesus, or are they even making reference to that in the first place?

[Josh]

OK, so to get this back on topic... have we come to a concensus about what the Vatican is saying regarding the possibility of salvation apart from Jesus, or are they even making reference to that in the first place?

Well, I think the language they use is fairly clear, at least insofar as they are saying that salvation apart from faith in Christ is at least possible. It's not full-fledged universalism-- ie, they DO believe in Hell, judgement, etc.-- but it's also not what Reformation theology would teach-- ie, that salvation apart from Christ is impossible. I think the Vatican statement is pretty clear on this; there isn't much room to maneuver here, at least as far as I can tell.

[BennieM]

Well, I think the language they use is fairly clear, at least insofar as they are saying that salvation apart from faith in Christ is at least possible.

Thank you for reading my posts. This has been a very profitable discussion. I should talk to myself more often.  

As I have said I-don't-know-how-many times, you misunderstand their terminology. But, of course, you have not actually answered or asked about my posts on the subject. You continue to simply say, "I know your beliefs better than you do." I don't care if you think they're wrong, but at least be reasonable. I know them better than you. And the Vatican is not saying this. I have explained why not, but you outright ignore that. Why not admit that there might be more than what you understand?

[Josh]

Perhaps I am just slow. But, thus far, I fail to see how you have sufficiently explained the Vatican saying.

The language that they use talks about Heaven-- the "heavenly Jerusalem," as they all it. It also suggests that God will "reward" those who "love goodness and peace" and "have a pure conscience"-- even though they do not share a "biblical faith" in Christ (and yes, you CAN have faith in a person-- no one is suggesting that Jesus is a mere object!)-- by admiting them into the heavenly Jerusalem.

I fail to see how there is any way around this teaching-- it seems fairly explicit. I also fail to see how your continual assurance that you know more about this than I do and that I'm just not getting it is a satisfactory response. Perhaps you have already answered these questions and I have just missed it, but I just don't see any wiggle room in the interpretation of this text.

[BennieM]

[Josh]

Okay, Bennie, so you and I agree that THIS is what the Vatican is saying:

The language that they use talks about Heaven-- the "heavenly Jerusalem," as they all it. It also suggests that God will "reward" those who "love goodness and peace" and "have a pure conscience"-- even though they do not share a "biblical faith" in Christ (and yes, you CAN have faith in a person-- no one is suggesting that Jesus is a mere object!)-- by admiting them into the heavenly Jerusalem.

So let me offer a paraphrase-- or, more accurately, a summary of the implications of the above statement. Essentially, it seems to me to be saying that it IS possible to have salvation APART from having faith in Christ. In other words, a non-Christian CAN get into Heaven.

Is this a fair assessment of the Vatican teaching? Because that's essentially what I've been trying to get at all along. If we agree on this, we will have agreed on what the statement is actually SAYING and can then move on to talk about whether what it's saying is biblically accurate.

[BennieM]

Okay, Bennie, so you and I agree that THIS is what the Vatican is saying:

The language that they use talks about Heaven-- the "heavenly Jerusalem," as they all it. It also suggests that God will "reward" those who "love goodness and peace" and "have a pure conscience"-- even though they do not share a "biblical faith" in Christ (and yes, you CAN have faith in a person-- no one is suggesting that Jesus is a mere object!)-- by admiting them into the heavenly Jerusalem.

Yup, we're very much agreed on that.

So let me offer a paraphrase-- or, more accurately, a summary of the implications of the above statement. Essentially, it seems to me to be saying that it IS possible to have salvation APART from having faith in Christ.

Absolutely not. All Catholic tradition goes against that statement. I cannot, of course, speak for the Pope. But if he meant this, his own church would denounce him as a heretic.  That would be quite something...  

In other words, a non-Christian CAN get into Heaven.

No "in other words". Those are completely different statements. A Christian is someone who accepts Christian doctrine as true (at least as far as the word was understood until modernism and relativism and fundamentalism started messing with it; and I don't intend to cave in to people who purposefully set out to destroy a well-defined word). You can have faith in Christ without being a Christian. But if you do have faith in Christ without actually being a Christian, I'm quite sure you would be a Christian if given the proper chance, if you were presented it in terms appropriate to your understanding.

[murlough23]

So what does it mean to be "rewarded" and "admitted into the heavenly Jerusalem" if those things do not mean salvation?

You can have faith in Christ without being a Christian. But if you do have faith in Christ without actually being a Christian, I'm quite sure you would be a Christian if given the proper chance, if you were presented it in terms appropriate to your understanding.

Who with the huh?

[BennieM]

So what does it mean to be "rewarded" and "admitted into the heavenly Jerusalem" if those things do not mean salvation?

Those things mean "eternal life" or "going to heaven" or "living on the new earth", I think, yes. Now, I also think "salvation" is a much wider word, but that has nothing to do with the actual topic (at least for now). But yeah, just think of it the same way, and I'm sure we're agreed. The disconnect in the conversation isn't happening over the word "salvation." I don't think so, anyway.

You can have faith in Christ without being a Christian. But if you do have faith in Christ without actually being a Christian, I'm quite sure you would be a Christian if given the proper chance, if you were presented it in terms appropriate to your understanding.

Who with the huh?

Maybe this presents itself very differently to people who have lived part of their life outside the church, but that seems quite a natural thing to me. Why shouldn't I be able to have faith in Christ without accepting Christian doctrine? I think I had faith in Jesus long before I became a Christian. There was a good deal of pride in me, but I really wanted it gone. There was a good deal of wrong, but I loved the right--especially the rare moments of inspiration--much more. I loved the things that were him, that were his doings, long before I knew that it was the divine man we call Christ who was working in me, preparing me to receive the whole Gospel.

I sure didn't have faith in myself (some but not really). I sure didn't have faith in another religion or another person. But looking back, I definitely know I trusted in the thing behind the glimpses that I could understand--the glimpses of Christ, some of which were peace, some of which were doctrinal, some of which were conviction.

So, as soon as I actually was presented Christianity in terms I could understand (not Christianese, explaining the valid objections I had against the strawman I thought was Christendom, etc.), I accepted it. But I definitely was not a Christian before. Yet I don't know what I had faith in if it wasn't the person who is Christ, the Word, Jesus.

This is why I can't understand the idea that humans cannot have faith in the Word, without believing Christianity. I honestly can't explain my life, if I didn't have faith in Christ before I believed Christianity true.

[murlough23]

Bennie, what it sounds like you're saying is that you believed in several ideals, actions, and morals that were exemplified by Christ before you became a Christian. Makes sense - God wouldn't want us to believe in Christ without first showing us that Christ did things which were right and admirable. The character of Christ is probably how God draws in more Christians, and even if someone knows nothing of Christ but believes in/does something good, then God is working in them, because they can do no good apart from God. So far, I get that.

But is that sufficient for salvation? Tougher question to answer. You were seeking at this point in your life that you described; you were on a path that God was leading you down. Is it your belief that if you had died at this point before you came to believe in Christ's death and resurrection as the source of your salvation, that you would still be saved?

If so, then I can see how you could potentially apply that to Muslims (basically, they branched off from Judaism in a misguided but well-meaning way)... but then you could apply that to almost anyone who is genuinely seeking answers about what "higher power" is up there. Only those not willing to seek or to submit to the truth when they found it would be the unsaved, if that definition were applied broadly. I'm not entirely comfortable with that thought (not that I don't want people to be saved; it just doesn't seem totally sound to me), but I may be jumping to a conclusion about what you're saying, so... help me out here.

[BennieM]

You were seeking at this point in your life that you described; you were on a path that God was leading you down. Is it your belief that if you had died at this point before you came to believe in Christ's death and resurrection as the source of your salvation, that you would still be saved?

I don't know. But I think if I would actually have accepted the Gospel then (I don't know because I hadn't yet been given it), then yes, I would have accepted the Gospel. That is, the chance would have been there and I'd have taken it.

If so, then I can see how you could potentially apply that to Muslims (basically, they branched off from Judaism in a misguided but well-meaning way)... but then you could apply that to almost anyone who is genuinely seeking answers about what "higher power" is up there.

Definitely not! Just because you're 'seeking' doesn't mean you'd be humble enough to lay it all down. It doesn't mean you actually want salvation. It doesn't mean the things you have faith in are actually your glimpses of the person of Christ.

You can 'seek' for very selfish reasons. You can enjoy the wrong things in your search. You can enjoy the search itself, the open-minded label it gives you, whatever. And so on. Seekers could very well be the last people to accept the Gospel, in some cases.

Only those not willing to seek or to submit to the truth when they found it would be the unsaved, if that definition were applied broadly.

I think that is more what I mean. But as I say this, I am very much aware that it is hard to want salvation if you do not already know what it is. I think it is very hard. I do not even know for sure if I did until the moment it was actually put before me. But I think, based upon my experience, that it must be possible.

I'm not entirely comfortable with that thought (not that I don't want people to be saved; it just doesn't seem totally sound to me), but I may be jumping to a conclusion about what you're saying, so... help me out here.

What exactly is uncomfortable about it? I think it can fit with the most common Protestant way to define the atonement, if you really think about it hard. You can be covered by the blood of Jesus without accepting the Christian religion, I think (because you can still believe in Jesus, though it must be so much harder to do). But you would really have to want it, just like you really have to want it when you knowingly accept Christianity.

[murlough23]

I don't know. But I think if I would actually have accepted the Gospel then (I don't know because I hadn't yet been given it), then yes, I would have accepted the Gospel. That is, the chance would have been there and I'd have taken it.

You have this funny way of sounding like you're just giving me a lot of double-talk when I know you're really not. I'm assuming you were talking about being in a position where you would have been open to the Gospel; if so, you would have then accepted it. Right?

If so, that means we're talking about people who are in a place where they are open to the Gospel, and would become Christians if the Gospel were presented to them. Makes sense - I know that not everybody is open at all times, and it's God that prepares the ground for the seed that is planted, so to speak.

But are you saying that someone who is in a position of being open could be saved despite not going that entire way (possibly due to a lack of actual information about the Gospel)? Kind of takes us back to the age-old question of some random African bush man who had never heard the GOspel, and whether he could be saved, but I don't know if you're talking about a situation like that where the person has just never heard to begin with (something which isn't their fault, though it generally doesn't apply in Westernized civilation where we've all more or less heard the basics because Christianity permeates our culture).

I'm still lost on exactly at what point the "salvation" happens, though. Some say it's upon hearing the Gospel. Some say it's upon consciously choosing to believe it. Some say it's upon committing certain ritual actions and/or changing one's life/behavior patterns to align more noticeably with Christian morals. Some say that it's entirely independent of any of man's thoughts or actions; Christ Himself did that and those who are saved are saved, end of story. It's all a bit murky to me.

Definitely not! Just because you're 'seeking' doesn't mean you'd be humble enough to lay it all down. It doesn't mean you actually want salvation. It doesn't mean the things you have faith in are actually your glimpses of the person of Christ.

You can 'seek' for very selfish reasons. You can enjoy the wrong things in your search. You can enjoy the search itself, the open-minded label it gives you, whatever. And so on. Seekers could very well be the last people to accept the Gospel, in some cases.

Depends on why you're seeking, I guess. Seeking for your own personal gain is not the same thing as genuinely wanting to know the truth... though there is obviously a lot of personal gain in Christianity! (At least, in the long run.) I do think that for most people, it starts with some sort of a nudge from God, a hint that something greater than oneself exists, which turns into a burning desire to know what that something is. And man is more than prepared with all sorts of wrong answers to that question, I guess. I'm fairly certain that all of those wrong answers came as a result of asking the right questions, but just answering them in selfish or otherwise skewed ways. Which I guess kind of gets at what you're saying about not all seekers being humble.

I think that is more what I mean. But as I say this, I am very much aware that it is hard to want salvation if you do not already know what it is. I think it is very hard. I do not even know for sure if I did until the moment it was actually put before me. But I think, based upon my experience, that it must be possible.

Maybe not in the sense of a strict Christian definition of salvation, but surely at some point, your average person must get the idea that they're not perfect and their life is messed up and they need saving from that, they need a higher power than themselves to look to, etc. People have realized those needs in areas of the world where Christianity is not much of an influence. I'd venture that most world religions look to one or many deities to save them from some sort of an undesirable fate. They might just not realize that a fate as extreme as Hell is a possible outcome.

What exactly is uncomfortable about it? I think it can fit with the most common Protestant way to define the atonement, if you really think about it hard.

In the sense that it's available to all, sure. And hey, I'd love to believe that everyone was saved. But I don't believe things just because I'd like it if they were true. So while I think, personally, that salvation is within the realm of possibility for every soul (that's a separate debate that Josh and I have had on a few occasions, and for the love of God, let's not get into it here), there's a part of me that thinks that it cannot be possible for someone who does not know and understand and accept the idea of what Jesus did for them. And then the other part of me says, "Wait a minute, so their salvation is based on a conscious choice to believe something? Isn't that a 'work'?" And I go round and round with that one a lot... did Jesus' act in and of itself do the saving, or is an effort from the person to be saved required as well? If so, how can a person be saved who falls short of actually doing that thing which needs to be done? Can they be still "in process" at their time of death (it seems that you are saying they can) and still be saved?

You can be covered by the blood of Jesus without accepting the Christian religion, I think (because you can still believe in Jesus, though it must be so much harder to do). But you would really have to want it, just like you really have to want it when you knowingly accept Christianity.

Now you might use different technology for the teachings of Jesus and for "Christian doctrine", the latter meaning teachings that men other than Jesus have come up with afterwards. When I talk about "Christian doctrine", I only mean for it to refer to what the Bible teaches us about God and Jesus, nothing added on by humans after the fact. How can one "accept" Jesus, but not be, in the most literal sense, a "Christian"? I realize that "Christian" basically means "Christ follower", and I suppose one could accept belief of His act of salvation without accepting His other teachings, and therefore not really follow Christ, but if we take "Christian" to simply mean "believer in Christ as Savior", then the two seem to me to be the same thing.

I don't mean to turn this into a game of semantics, but in my experience, different people will use common Christianese words or phrases ("covered by the blood", "saved", etc.) to mean different things, so I'm mostly taking careful measures to be sure you and I are on the same page regarding our terminology.

[danny316]

Have you learned nothing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

But seriously...



I wasn't sure if I was "right" or not; I merely posed a question. My intent was mainly to separate out the issue of "same God", which is interesting from a purely academic perspective, but quite honestly not all that relevant, from the issue of salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ. Even if we could establish "same God" with any level of certainty, which I'm not sure we can because it appears to be not well-defiend as to where the point is where their god becoems a different being than ours, that in and of itself does not establish salvation. Even Satan and the demons believe that the one true God exists. (Which brings me to another point - "believing in" something can either mean believing it exists, or putting one's faith in it as something that can be relied upon for a positive outcome. For example, I "believe in" Mormons in the first sense - they exist. But not in the second sense.)

I've learned quite a bit, but I choose to be stubborn when it comes to this "Godwin's law" nonsense. It's an interesting piece of social commentary, but as a "law", it's insulting. This proves one of the corallaries if I recall correctly, but I think that Godwin's law is a piece of junk that excuses the ability of supposedly grown adults to dismiss anything involving Hitler. Sure, he did some terrible things, but he was a human being, and a fascinating one at that. The amount of power he had and the efficiency of his subordinates speaks volumes to his political skill and leadership ability. It's nothing short of childish to forget that he was a person and a part of history. He's not just a piece of hyperbole, but someone we should learn about so we can avoid repeating his mistakes.

That said, knowing that no one else seems to pay much heed to that, I intentionally decided not to go for a full Hitler reference to avoid invoking Godwin's law. So this falls under Quirk's exception, no?

As far the legitimate part of the post....you bring up a good point. It's hard to comment on because the Catholic church doesn't have a three-bullet-point salvation method we can compare to more popular versions of Christianity. I don't know what exactly to say to your post, but it's definitely a good point to bring up.  

[murlough23]

Just to clarify, I pointed out the Godwin's Law thing for a chuckle, nothing more. It's more of an Internet in-joke than an actual law, I think, though it is fair to say that some people will just to the Hitler/Nazi thing to make an extreme comparison at times, but I don't think that's why you do it (though it does seem to be one of your favorite analogies for a lot of things; that might just be an extension of it being an easily recognizable thing to compare something to). As a way of showing that a statement is absurd and/or not really all that meaningful ("So what, even Hitler could do that"), I think it's often legitimate, actually. It's more when people liken an event or idea to Hitler/Nazis that clearly isn't anywhere near as extreme, that I tend to think they're overreacting and it kind of invalidates what they're saying.

But anyway, it was more so that I could laugh about the fact that according to the rules of Internet Debating, you had just officially ended the conversation and we could all get back to... whatever it is that we were doing.