Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope

Zenit News Agency ^ | November 30, 2005

[NYer]

Refers to St. Augustine's Commentary on Psalm 136(137)

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope made this affirmation today at the general audience, commenting on a meditation written by St. Augustine (354-430).

On a rainy morning in Rome, the Holy Father's meditation, addressed to more than 23,000 people gathered in St. Peter's Square, concentrated on the suffering of the Jewish people in the Babylonian exile, expressed dramatically in Psalm 136(137).

The Pontiff referred to Augustine's commentary on this composition of the Jewish people, noting that this "Father of the Church introduces a surprising element of great timeliness."

Augustine "knows that also among the inhabitants of Babylon there are people who are committed to peace and the good of the community, despite the fact that they do not share the biblical faith, that they do not know the hope of the Eternal City to which we aspire," Benedict XVI stated.

"They have a spark of desire for the unknown, for the greatest, for the transcendent, for a genuine redemption," explained the Pope, quoting Augustine.

This spark

"And he says that among the persecutors, among the nonbelievers, there are people with this spark, with a kind of faith, of hope, in the measure that is possible for them in the circumstances in which they live," the Holy Father continued.

"With this faith in an unknown reality, they are really on the way to the authentic Jerusalem, to Christ," he clarified.

Continuing with his quotes from Augustine, the Pope added that "God will not allow them to perish with Babylon, having predestined them to be citizens of Jerusalem, on the condition, however, that, living in Babylon, they do not seek pride, outdated pomp and arrogance."

The Bishop of Rome concluded by inviting those present to pray to the Lord "that he will awaken in all of us this desire, this openness to God, and that those who do not know God may also be touched by his love, so that all of us journey together toward the definitive City and that the light of this City might also shine in our time and in our world."

[Buggman]

Good summary, xzins. I would add that each person will be judged according to the light they are given:

Yeshua said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin. But now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains." (Jn. 9:41)

"And that servant who knew his lord's will and did not prepare, nor did according to His will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he not knowing, and doing things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For to whomever much is given, of him much shall be required. And to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Lk. 12:47-48)

Now, the existence of the Creator is a universally-known truth, one which requires willful blindness to pervert into idolatry (Rom. 1:20-23). A few years ago, I heard an interview with an ex-shaman from Africa who had converted to Christianity. It's interesting that he pointed out that all shamans know of the existence of the "Great Spirit" who created the world, but ignore Him in favor of lesser spirits that they can make bargains with.

So then, is it possible that there are those who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ, and yet who know the invisible God by His visible creation, worship only Him, and who, knowing that they are sinful and convicted by the Spirit, trust in His mercy rather than "being good enough" to be saved?

Certainly. Abraham didn't know exactly how God would redeem the world (at least not that we're told) or the name of the Messiah, and yet he was saved by his faith. However, I daresay that such a person must be a rare specimen, and that they would come to believe in Yeshua almost immediately after hearing of Him.

Now here's a puzzle for you: What of the person who loves and fears God, but who rejects Jesus Christ on the basis of having been given a distorted view of Him by professing Christians? If he rejects the distortion of the Messiah given him, has he therefore also rejected the true Messiah?

I honestly don't know. I'm not sure we're meant to know, lest we start trying to create loopholes for everyone so as to remove our responsibility to spread the Gospel.

[P-Marlowe]

BTW,I know you are not arguing but other,s are that,s why I addressed all

Interesting punctuation.

Have you ever posted here under a different screen name?

[redgolum]

I will wander in here for a moment.
The Greeks, and to an extent the Romans, had a vague idea of some Supreme Godhead that transcended all the polytheistic stuff. In short, many really were monotheistic, or at least close.

Plato sticks out as one who tried to describe the "unmoved mover". The problem was that they claimed that there is no way to really know God, and the various pagan gods were intermediaries to that Unknown God. Part of the reason that Christianity took hold so fast in the East is that the culture already pointed to a single God.

[P-Marlowe]

Sorry newbie, but the Koran is a book which specifically blashpmemes Christ, denies his divine mission and denies everything that is sacred to the Christian faith.

You can't explain the Pope's actions by anything other than ignorance or blasphemy. While I believe the former, I cannot rule out the latter.

[PleaseNoMore]

Totally OT but it is ironic to me that you mention Him being I Am.

In my prayer time and study I was meditating upon this name. I felt impressed in my own spirit that "I Am" is not only His name but a confirmation of who He is in our lives.

I Am your healer.

I Am your deliverer.

I Am your living water.

I am your burden bearer.

I Am your salvation.

I Am everything you need to sustain you. And so on.

It just struck me that you mentioned this and I wanted to comment. Sorry to be OT.

[magisterium]

No, I can't. Specific people's eternal destinies are unknown to us, categorically as far as damnation is concerned, nearly categorically in cases involving salvation (canonized saints being the exception). But why should this surprise? You cannot point to one specific instance of salvation, either, acording to your own criteria, apart from Stephen and the Good Thief, perhaps.

With Stephen, it is certainly implied that he went to heaven as a martyr, but his asking God to receive his spirit constitutes no absolute proof. I KNOW he is in heaven, for that is the faith of the Church. But there is no Scriptural "proof," only a Scriptural likelihood. As for the Good Thief, even there, a "special case" applies. The man was not baptized, which is objectively required. He had no demonstrable faith in Jesus as the Son of God, as is also objectively required; he merely supposed Him capable of being called "Lord." But the circumstances of the learned Jews of the time show that calling the Messiah "Lord" did not *necessarily* equate to calling Him God (Matt. 22:42-45). He never partook of the Bread of Life, also normative for salvation.

In this man, Scripture admits of an exception where the "normative means of salvation" could not apply. One exception admits the possibility of others. We only claim the possibility. We don't claim specific instances can be known. But, as with the Good Thief's case, God *can* save whom He wills, His own decreed norms notwithstanding.

[P-Marlowe]

All the Pope is saying is that No man can be the Judge of another man,s Salvation Why is it so hard to grasp?

Because that is not what is reported to have been said by the Pope. This is what he reportedly said:

Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith

That is in direct contradiction to what the Bible says. The bible says that who believe on Christ will be saved and everyone who does not believe "is condemned already."

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18 KJV)

You can try all you want to try to sugar coat it all you want, but if that is what your new Pope said, then I think it's time you guys considered impeaching him or demanding his abdication.

[gbcdoj]

ray,

This long post of yours is just a rant. It comes down to this: you are wrong about what the Pope said, and so your complaints are null and void. Sorry!

Catholicism is the only truly biblical religion.

God bless.

[jo kus]

For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Rom 9:15

If God has mercy and compassion on everyone this is a rather strange statement for God to be making.

You are taking this out of context. "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy" (Rom 9:16). God does not answer to man for His decision to allow the nation of Israel to proceed through Jacob, the younger, rather than Esau, the oldest.

Man's ways are that the older child will receive the inheritance. God chose to work through Jacob, despite he being the younger of the two. In the same way, God chooses to work through the Gentiles to bring back the Jews to God. "It is not as if God's Word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." And so forth. Paul continues to explain that God has His reasons, which have nothing to do with man.

It has nothing to do with God "hating" Esau. Paul uses Scripture from Malachi in terms of NATIONS - PEOPLES. Read Malachi 1:1-4. Esau represents Edom, not the man Esau. Jacob represents Israel. Before one reads Paul, one must understand the Scripture context he is quoting. Romans 9-11 is speaking of the Jews and why they are not becoming Christians and the question "will they be saved"? Paul tries to answer this in the context of NATIONS and PEOPLES. The Gentiles are held out as God's way of bringing the stiff-necked people back to God, just as God chose Jacob, the younger, to continue the promise made to Abraham. Paul is showing that God works His plan how He sees fit. Not by our ways, but His alone, as Paul finishes in Romans 11:33-35. ALL Israel will be saved in HIS way.

As far as "hate" and my "made-up" definition, reconcile: "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26

Or "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." John 12:25

And then reconcile them with:

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. John 13:34

This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. John 15:12

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment. And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Mark 12:28-31

The Reformed theology implodes when Scripture as a totality is read. According to you, God can't make up His mind. Are we to hate our brothers and sisters or parents? Or are we to love them, placing God first, our earthly relatives second in priority? Unfortuantely for your theology, the Scriptures are to be interpreted as a whole in light of Christ. Thus, "hate" means to love to a lesser degree. Otherwise, you are considering the Scriptures contradictory.

It's easier if we create God in our image.

Or place Him in a box that you invented.

Regards

[gscc]

Zenit apparently did get the message wrong. What is disturbing is how so many heard the wrong message and rallied around these false teachings because they thought the pope had uttered them.

[Pyro7480]

What is disturbing is how so many heard the wrong message and rallied around these false teachings because they thought the pope had uttered them.

Uh, where did that happen?

[jo kus]

I think people are confusing "nonbeliever", meaning "I never heard of Him" with "unbeliever", meaning "I refuse to believe Him".

The Gospel of John condemns the latter person, not the ignorant one. Such a God would be truly unjust, if He condemns a person who never heard of Christ and used that as a pre-requisite to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Regards

[gbcdoj]

"Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith"

This is a quote from Zenit, not from the Pope. The Pope did not say this. Zenit is giving their own, very wrong, interpretation of the Holy Father's long quotation from St. Augustine. St. Augustine didn't believe anyone could be saved without faith, and neither does the Pope.

[magisterium]

How do you *know* he had a revelation? Maybe he did. But maybe he was merely acting on the information he already had about this Jesus of Nazareth. Calling him "Lord" does not necessarily prove he understood that Christ was God. The context supposes he thought that Jesus was at least the Messiah, but that is in itself insufficient faith, since Christ is much more than merely that.

There is no proof, biblical or otherwise, that the Good Thief "had a revelation" or understood through any other means that Christ is God-in-the-flesh. His faith may have been objectively quite faulty. Certainly, he met none of the criteria Jesus Himself established as normal means for obtaining eternal life. He had no time or opportunity for any of that. yet he was saved, regardless.

[P-Marlowe]

Actually take the time and re read the post.

I did. Shadrach Meshach and Abednigo suffered the flames of the fiery furnace rather than to bow down to an idol.

The Pope was not even under threat of death for refusing to kiss the Koran and I'd be willing to bet that you can not find a picture the Imam that gave him that book kissing any Bible that the Pope gave to him.

Is anyone on this thread willing to bow down respectfully and kiss a copy of the Koran? I'd be willing to be that no one here would be that stupid. Why then did the Pope do it? Courtesy? That is hardly a good reason to bow before idols.

[P-Marlowe]

This is a quote from Zenit, not from the Pope.

But the thread is about that alleged quote. What I find disturbing is that there are Christians out there who would defend that quote or try to explain it.