Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope

Zenit News Agency ^ | November 30, 2005

[jo kus]

The text has nothing to do with "the nation of Israel to proceed through Jacob

I respectfully disagree. Paul is talking about the Jews in general who have not converted. He is trying to tell them that God's ways are not our ways - that God even chose Jacob over Esau. What does Jacob have to do with this passage, otherwise? Especially when Paul refers to Malachi 1, noting Esau/Edom.

You didn't anwer my questions on Luke or John. What does your explanation have to do with "hate my mother"? Tell me how God tells us to love our neighbor, and then hate our family? Another reason why Calvinism doesn't stand up to the Scriptures. It doesn't take into account so many Scriptures...

Like our Lord Jesus saying "anyone calling his brother a "fool" is endanger of hell" and turning around and calling the Pharisees "fools".

In the first situation, Jesus is talking about a "curse" word, not that someone is actually foolish.

If you feel our Lord just loves everyone you may wish to revisit the Old Testament where God rained fire on Sodom, drowned the Egyptians and instructed Israel to slew the Caanites.

You think that love is "being nice", don't you? Love is sometimes making the hard choice to allow someone to suffer for their long-term benefit - or for the benefit of others. Next, you'll be saying that God doesn't love because He let Jesus die on the cross... In your above examples, God visited His judgment upon those people who were given many chances to turn to God. We are talking about love, aren't we? From my own experience, I don't find a contradiction in punishing the child whom I love when they disobey.

This is really not so difficult to understand. God is love. I really am sorry that this isn't sinking in over there. Because that is the Gospel. That God so loved the world that He GAVE His only Son. GAVE - the operative word in love.

Regards

[jo kus]

Our Catholic friends are in a bit of dilemma IMHO. Assuming Cardinal Ratzinger did not say that all paths lead to God then what are they saying? Are they willing to say the Catholic Church is the "true" Church and every other religion is a false religion. This goes against the spirit of Vatican II and comments being made by the Vatican these days.

Hardly. The problem is that you are having a difficult time understanding my posts, which clearly point out the Catholic stance on 'no salvation outside the Church'. I have more important things to do now, like go and teach a class to people who are open to the truth, so I will have to get back to you at another time.

Regards

[raygun]

Don't be doing that, there's been enough screaming already.

All those people who loudly proclaimed Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, preaching against the immoralities of the priesthood, denying the Roman Church was the Church of Christ, that Peter ever came to Rome, never founded the papacy (popes were successors of emperors and not apostles), Christ had no place to lay his head and yet popes lived in a palace, Christ was property-less and penny-less and Christian prelates were rich, lordly, worldy and fat (certainly the Pharisee's of old returned from the dead), denounced the crusades as murder, laughed at indulgences and relics, pilgrimages, worship of saints and images, and made great use of Scripture to support their position, distributing it freely to anybody who desired it. Just the last offense alone was considered a capital crime (punishable by death), but the most egregious offense of all was to reject infant baptism. These people, who despite Draconian measures designed to prevent it, managed to obtain a copy of Scripture, and discovered therein a secret formula for salvation not through baptism but by faith in the propitiatory substitutional sacrifice of Christ's death as wholly man and God. That salvation was given by grace to those who believed in Him as their savior. These people rightfully concluded that no infant in their right mind is capable of such understanding and faith and were adament that baptism should be reserved for adults (or those sufficiently accountable for their reason in that regard) upon confession of a personal faith.

These people were put to death in excruciating and grotesque fashion for the abominable heretics that they were, or we can just chalk it up to one huge abomnible misunderstanding because we're all God's children in one big happy family. NOT. Their blood screams loud and bloody for justice (and yet not a peep of an apology can be heard from Rome). And yet we're all supposed to be kumbaya brothers.

[HarleyD]

Harley, my understanding, after reading the comments, made by RCC's on another thread, is that it could be possible for the above to make it into purgatory rather than being sent to hell.

That may be true but I believe this is still inconsistent with Catholic theology. What's the criteria for making it into purgatory? God's grace and man's cooperation with that grace? If that is the case how does people outside of the Church maintain this grace if not through the Eucharist? Does that mean people who are excommunication lose their grace while others don't? Frankly its very confusing.

[redgolum]

I am still wading through City of God, and have found a few things that might have been what I was thinking about. Augustine though, changed his stance on many things throughout his life. What he said in the commentary to the Psalms (part of which are talked about in City of God) might not be what he said later. I am attempting to read as many of his books as I can (plus a few of the Anti Nicene Fathers) in the next year.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

And no one sits in Purgatory forever. It was instituted by the RC as a way-stop to purge one's sins in order to reach heaven. Thus, in theory, everyone in Purgatory is headed for heaven, arguably even those who didn't believe in Christ while they were on earth.

So we have the possibility of people who actually denied Christ while alive, who apparently repented of their disbelief in Purgatory and then were admitted to heaven.

The fallacy here, of course, is that every human being on the planet can fit into this category and no one ends up in hell. Who's going to sit in Purgatory and say "Nope, I STILL don't believe it."

An additional problem with the non-Scriptural concept of Purgatory is what, exactly, is this world on earth for if not to train the saints to obey God? Why the second chance? Why not a third and fourth and fifth chance to get it right?

[redgolum]

While trying to stay out of this mud throwing match, I will wander in once again (I have the unfortunate combination of German and English ancestry, so I actually enjoy debate).

Part of the problem that many Lutheran of the conservative strain and a good number of other non Roman Catholics have with proclamations like this is that they just don't seem to square with other proclamations that have been issued before.

Now, there are a whole lot of reasons for this. One is that is the case. I think it was you (or maybe jo kus?) that mentioned that the famous bull "No Salvation outside the Church" was really against a French king who was trying to impose his will on a pope in Avignon, and threatened to depose him (the pope) by a council called by the same king. In which case it makes sense that such a bull would have been issued (the 14th century was full of this type of sniping).

Now, when we hear Benedict XVI say that non Christians just might get salvation, it seems that there is a contradiction somewhere with what many Roman Catholics have told us in the past.

Now, in reality I know what BXVI (if I can use an acronym) was trying to explain. It was the age old question of "what happens to those who do not hear the Gospel?" He appeared to be trying to explain that salvation might be possible for the proverbial "tribesman in Africa" who lives his whole life with out once hearing the name Jesus. Pastors, priests, scholars, and layman have been trying to answer that question for a long time.

The concern is that the perception (though maybe not the reality) is that the doors have been thrown open, and Christ is not necessary for salvation. Understanding that the press release was worded very badly, I doubt that is what BXVI meant to say. The author(s) of the press release appear to be trying to spin the statement into some short of universialist poppy cock.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm coming in on this late but I think you have some misunderstandings of Catholic teachings.

Purgatory isn't a "second chance". After a person dies they go to their particular judgement. After that, they are sent to Heaven or Hell. But some may have to go through purification before entering Heaven. (nothing impure can enter Heaven - Rev 21:27.) So some are sent to purgatory before entering Heaven.

It's not a chance to repent or amend your life. If one isn't in God's grace and friendship at the moment of death, they will be sent to hell.

[rwfromkansas]

About the only thing this can be called is heresy.

And using Augustine to try to prop up his incorrect doctrine is rather disgusting.

[rwfromkansas]

And by the way, Romans seems to make it clear that God will save all the Jews.

But, it will be through a Biblical faith, once God is through with the Gentiles.

[rwfromkansas]

Amen.

[rwfromkansas]

Only for the Jews though.

[HarleyD]

I respectfully disagree. Paul is talking about the Jews in general who have not converted.

Rom 9:10-13 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

You may disagree but the text is clearly talking about two individuals-not nations. But it makes no difference. God loves one. God hates another. And since God show no partiality we can only conclude that it is God’s sovereign choice to love one and hate another.

You didn't anwer my questions on Luke or John.

In the other post I stated: Luke 14:26 and John 12:25 refers to our responsibility to God-not the nature of God. John 13:34, or John 15:12 tells how our Lord loves His elect-not unbelievers. For a further explanation please compare the harmony of Luke against Matthew

Luke states: Luk 14:26-27 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

Mat 10:37-38 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

I doubt if our Lord Jesus meant for us to physically carry a cross around anymore than He wanted us to “hate” our parents. The harmony of these verses shows that we are to love our Lord Jesus more than even our parents otherwise we are not worthy of Christ. The term “hatred” here is NOT used in the same context as Romans 9 where God loves one and hates another. As I stated earlier even if you want to make a case that these are nations and "hate" doesn't really mean "hate" you still have the stark reality that God chose to give His blessings to one and not the other.

BTW-Surprisingly you don’t see the metaphor in Matt 26:26 where our Lord Jesus states “this is my body”.

Another reason why Calvinism doesn't stand up to the Scriptures. It doesn't take into account so many Scriptures...

This is a switch. One of the major complaints I have come across about Reformed theology is that it is too neatly documented. People often complain about all the "ducks being lined up". I've compare the explanations from Calvin's commentaries to Catholic doctrine as listed at newadvent.org. Quite frankly I'll take Calvin's explanation over newadvent's Catholic gobbly-gook any time. The Catholic Church can't even decide what predestined means. Augustine knew. Calvin knew. Luther knew. How can you say they're wrong when you don't know?

You think that love is "being nice", don't you? Love is sometimes making the hard choice to allow someone to suffer for their long-term benefit

This is just a guess but somehow I don’t think raining down fire on people’s heads in Sodom, drowning the human race in the Great Flood of Noah's time or striking down Ananias and Sapphira for lying helped any of them in the “long-term”.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Anyone who is REALLY seeking spiritual truth will eventually find Jesus.

That would be wrong. My quest for REALLY seeking truth led me to Judaism after 30 years of Christianity.

[P-Marlowe]

Do Protestants deny that ALL non-Christian religions are 100% in error?

If the end thereof is the way of death, then that religion is 100% in error. Any religion that does not proclaim the saving Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is 100% in error.

What else matters?

[P-Marlowe]

This is just a guess but somehow I don’t think raining down fire on people’s heads in Sodom, drowning the human race in the Great Flood of Noah's time or striking down Ananias and Sapphira for lying helped any of them in the “long-term”.

There is nothing in the scriptures to suggest that Annias and Sapphira were not saved. They suffered immediate temporal punishment for their sin, but there is nothing to suggest that their sin was not one for which Jesus died.

Other than that, your point is well taken.

Carry on.

[G Larry]

BUMP!

[murphE]

Thank-you for being a voice of reason in this confusion.

[Safrguns]

My quest for REALLY seeking truth led me to Judaism after 30 years of Christianity.

Well, thats interesting... tell me... after 30 years of knowing Jesus, what convinced you that He was not the Christ?
Or did you ever really find Him to begin with?