Posted on 11/30/2005 6:41:45 PM PST by 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them to be citizens of Jerusalem, on the condition, however, that, living in Babylon, they do not seek pride, outdated pomp and arrogance."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."
Stephen and the rich man on the cross do not exhaust the biblical possibilities since the doctrine of the bible teaches us what is required for salvation. The Philippian jailer asked Paul, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."
Therefore, I'd add the name of that jailer and anyone in the Bible who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ since that is the criterion set forth.
I would also add any person since then who has believed. I'd also add Abraham because of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Because of the statement, "his faith was credited to him as righteousnes," I would add those who were believers in the true God in Old Testament times. We are told that Melchizadek was High Priest of God at Salem, and that Abraham subjected himself to that man.
But, you are correct, I cannot think of even one example of an unbeliever who I would claim is saved.....whether in the Bible or outside of it.
Non-believer and unbeliever do have the problem definition. I can see them being equal, equivalent, or different. A nonbeliever, in my mind, is one who does not believe. The same is true of "unbeliever."
I can assign one word to include those who have rejected the faith, and I, too, would choose unbeliever for that role over the word nonbeliever, but it would be based on an arbitrary, although well-intentioned, decision.
Is the word "unbeliever" in scripture. Nothing comes to mind.
Our sins were forgiven on Calvary. Christ paid for our redemption with His blood. No further "purification" is necessary, a notion which actually seems to demean Christ's sacrifice by implying it was incomplete.
Certainly, though, wouldn't you agree that if it is true that nonbelievers in Christ can be saved, that Christ believing protestants would certainly be saved?
You did not say that God is not omniscient. You are correct.
I was commenting on your statement above. Since God knows everything, He "knows" who the saved and who the lost will be.
I would not go so far as to say that all religions have at least elements of the decalogue in them. You probably mean "all the world's major religions." (For example, I can't agree that rostafarianism or satanism or molechism would include elements of the decalogue.)
That said, I think salvation is based on faith and not on doing the works of the law. (I'm not saying that one can ignore those commandments....after all Jesus said that "love" would include the acts of the decalogue.) Placing my hope in my performance of legal acts will be futile. I must place my hope, through faith, in the grace of God. His grace granting me mercy & forgiveness is the only real hope I have.
I know that "fair" isn't all it's cracked up to be, but it would strike me as a bit unfair if nonbelievers could be saved, but believers could not, just because they happen to be affiliated with a scripture-based, Christ-accepting movement known as protestantism, while those nonbelievers could belong to Christ-rejecting alternative religions.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia declares: "In the final analysis, the Catholic doctrine on purgatory is based on tradition [emphasis mine], not Sacred Scripture." (Vol. XI, p.1034)
It is the condition of the soul of a person who has died in a state of grace but who has not been purged, or purified, from all possible stain of unforgiven venial sins (pardonable, less serious offenses against God), or whose mortal sins (serious offenses against God that destroy sanctifying grace), imperfections, or evil habits have not been remitted. Souls in such conditions must thus be purified before entering Heaven. This doctrine of Purgatory was brought into the Church by the likes of Origen (a real weird dude in his own right), Augustine & pope Gregory.
Notwithstanding that the doctrine of purgatory is not scriptural, it's not even necessary. It really is that simple. No amount of human suffering can remove sin; only the blood of Jesus removes sin. "Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin (Heebs 9:22)."
Rome teaches that purgatory is an intermediate place between Heaven and Hell where the soul spends an indeterminate length of time, depending on the gravity of unpardoned sins and the number of indulgences granted on the soul's behalf. An indulgence is the performance of some act of merit, such as prayers, 'Hail Mary's, rosary exercises, etc., which can be applied to departed friends to shorten their stay in purgatory. The pope claims the right to proclaim indulgences and pass judgement on their value.
The wages of sin is death (Rm 6:23). The Bible declares unequivocally that: through the blood of Christ poured out upon the cross in payment for sin, and by a new birth of God's Spirit in the soul through faith in Christ and His finished redemptive work. The doctrine of purgatory is false on two accounts: 1) It is impossible for suffering to cleanse the heart of sin (sin is part of the very nature of mankind); and 2) it is unecessary for the pardoned sinner to suffer for his sin because Christ has already paid the full penalty demanded by God's justice. The condition of sinners is termed "guilt", which is not an emotional but a legal term. It charges the accused with a responsibiiity for liability of a penalty imposed for a crime. Justification is a declaration of righteous, this is not mere acquital, this is all charges being formally dropped with extreme prejudice (and there's no punishment demanded of the innocent) due to insufficient evidence. The Good Book say, "like the east meets the west, your sins I will remember no more."
Christ paid a ransom for our souls. This is a commercial term used to describe our redemption, and pertains in a quantitative sense His sacrifice for us. His redeeming our souls provides us with freedom through the payment of a price, the result being on the individual and not God. This redemption is a propiatiatry expiation (removal of charges by somebody bearing the penalty through the sacrifice of a very valuable thing). We see the result of our redemption in Eph 1:7; I Pt 1:18,19. In I Cor 6:20; Rev 5:9 we see the word agoradzo, meaning to purchase in the market, buying or acquiring something. We see in Gal 1:3 the word exagoradzo, meaning to purchase out of the market, or buying or acquiring out of the market, and we see lutroo, to loose, set free in Titus 2:14; I Pt 1:18,19, carrying the meaning of release on receipt of a ransom.
The OT is clear that a redeemer must be a blood relative, the redeemer must be able to redeem (Acts 20:28), must not be guilty of the same crime the accused is charged with (Heb 7:26), must be willing to redeem (Jn 10:17-19), and finally must carry the redemptive act out (I Pt 1:18).
In Gen 15 there is an interesting account of a deal made between God and Abraham. In v5, God presents the deal. In v6 (believed by some to be the key verse in the entire OT, a proof text of the doctrine of the justification by faith alone) Abraham believed what God told him. In v13-16 God give Abraham a preliminary view of events in his family's future. In those days, when a covenant was made between two parties, they would dig a ditch, and then sacrifice a cow, goat, ram, turtledove and a pidgeon. Their blood would flow into the trench, and then the parties would walk through the trench. HOWEVER, something interesting happens in v12: Abraham falls into a deep sleep. While he's asleep, something incredible happens in v17. This is explained as being the Lord himself, who upheld Abrahams part of the bargain with respect to formalizing the covenant because Abraham would be unable to hold his end of the deal up so God did it for him. And it is in this same reason that Christ became incarnate, and died on the cross for us as a propitiatory sacrifice: because we could not do what was required to redeem ourselves. We being slaves to sin. And no slave can purchase their own freedom.
This in of itself is the profound reason why purgatory is an impossible doctrine: a sinner can't purge themselves of sin even if they wanted to. Legally it is an impossiblity. 62 times in the OT we are informed that animals that were sacrificed for the remission of sins "were without blemish." (Ex 12:5; 29:1; Lev 1:3; etc.) These were "types" or symbols of Christ, the sinless, holy Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world (Jn 1:36,29). And they knew exactly what John the Baptist was talking about when he said that ("Behold! said John, "the Lamb of God that comes to take away the sins of the world.
Of Christ we are told that He was sinless (I Pt 2:22), knew no sin ((II Cor 5:21), and in him was none (I Jn 3:5). Absolute sinlessness was essential or else under the penalty of death or else Christ could not have died for our sins. Peter tells us that the just suffered for us that he might bring us to God (I Pt 3:18). He's not talking about some incomplete work, that needs a finishing coat or something. "It is finished." and then he sat down on the right hand of God the Father in heaven.
II Mac 12:46 is always cited as being the proof text for purgatory. There are, however, three obvious problems with that verse. First: there's no example of anybody whatsoever praying for the dead in the entire Bible. Quite to the contrary. In II Sam 12:22,23 David fasted, wept and slept on the dirt (a king noneless) all the while his child was sick. But when the child died, he rose, washed, sported some righteous kingly threads, and had a feast. The servents were flabergasted but Kind David (no slouch by any stretch) had it all figured: the kid's dead, and he'll never come to me, but I'm going to him one day. I prayed while the kid was alive, for who can tell whether God will be gracious to me that the child might live. No initimation there about some sort of limbo nonsense either (David knew where his child was. The Bible states that it is appointed men to live but once, and then the judgement (Heebs 9:27). Its too late for prayer after death.
Secondly: those of whom II Mac 12:46 was said of were guilty of idolotry. II Mac 12:40 is clear about that. This is a mortal sin, and the Catholic catechism is quite clear about those guilty of mortal sins (these people wouldn't be in purgatory, they'd be in hell). So not is it a complete and utter waste of heartbeats praying for these clowns, it is contemptable blasphemy. Hardly a sound basis for accepting a doctrine, eh?
Thirdly: the very book of Macabees is a fraud, as Macabees itself states in I Mac 9:27; 14:41. The book is self-admittedly uninspired, and as such doesn't belong in canon. Anything that is not canonized has no basis for formulating doctrine.
The doctrine of purgatory is erroneous for a number of other reasons also. It forgets that we all have offended God's infinite justice (Jm 2:10) by the slightest, smallest and shortes sins possible. Since we're finite beings, there's no way that we could pay the ininite penalty required. Even if Christ didn't pay the complete penalty for our sins, but an exceedingly large amount approaching 100%, the equation is that of a limit. That is somewhere out at infinity the equation approaches zero guilt, but never actually achieves that value. So after an infinite amount of time in purgatory, we'd still have a vanishingly small amount of guilt to attone for and even after an additional infinite amount of time, the guilt still wouldn't be zero because we're finite and that's infinity.
But even worse than all the foregoing, the doctrine of purgatory contains one fatal and damning contradiction. On the one hand we're told that the sacrifice by Christ is not enough to get one to heaven, so in addition to Christ's sufferings on the cross the forgiven sinner is required to suffer torment in order to be purged of their sin. ON THE OTHER HAND, though, the Mass re-presents, or perpetually renews, Christs original insufficient sacrifice, and that this reduces (by some unknown amount) one's suffering. Taking this to its logical conclusion, presumably, if enough Masses were said, one could be purged by the expiation of all sins without any suffering at all. Hmmmm. Nifty. I like that idea. One potentially wouldn't have to suffer at all to be purged. If one actually had to suffer any amount before heaven's gate could be opened, then the Church would have nothing to offer, the same being true if Christ actually did die and purge everybody's sins completely. The Catholic Church would be out of Business. And that's exactly what the Catholic Church is: a business that sells salvation. Isn't it amazing: what Christ couldn't accomplish on his own while on the cross, if its re-presented often enough it becomes efficatious in removing the penalty of sin. That re-presenting thing in itself is a fascinating excercise in mental gymnastics in its own right. But I digress.
Finally, the suffering of the living are said to be efficatious in reducing the time needed for purging in purgatory. The stigmata of Padre Pio and the suffering of the "saints" can thus accomplish what the sacrifice of Christ on the cross could not. You see: Christ's cross could merely forgive sin, but could not actually purge it. But the crosses carried by others actually has value in that regard.
If I'm getting this right, the doctrine of purgatory teaches that we must suffer to be purged of our sins, and yet we need not suffer if certain rules are followed, i.e., have enough Masses held on one's behalf, or have enough people suffer in one's stead, or through various indulgences (all of course for a fee). As if heaven can be bought. It really goes to show you, there's no problem ever invented that can't be made to go away provided enough money is thrown at it. Dave Hunt indicated in his book, that one of his friends father had passed away in the early 1990's. The man is reported to have paid the Church more than $2000 for Mass cards for the father's funeral. These cards would entitle the deceased to have a number of Masses held for the express purpose of helping the deceased father get out of purgatory.
Basically it boils down to that there actually are only two religions in the whole world: the religion of do, and the religion of done. I accept Scripture at face value and there's nothing I have to do; its been already done for me.
It wasn't until later that purgatory came into being along with the practice of indulgences (paying to get people out of purgatory). Doesn't anyone see a connection???
Regarding the teaching "no salvation outside the Church", it is true that some Catholics in the past interpreted this to mean that one must be a Roman Catholic. This is utter nonsense and is aimed at the polemics of Rome vs. Protestantism. We must remember the atmosphere of those days when looking at the reasons for some Catholics in preaching that false message. This was not the way of the ancient Catholic Church. Again, I bring up the concept of Baptism when done by a heretic. Pope Stephen in the mid-200's said that this was valid. EVERY Church Father who talks about the Church or Baptism connect the two - Baptism is the means of entry into the Church. Thus, a validly done Baptism brings a man into the Church, even if done by a heretic. As a result, the ancient Church believed that those OUTSIDE the ROMAN Church could be saved. This is clear also from the writings of such men as Justin the Martyr who said that the Greek philosophers before Jesus were "Christian". And while the Luther's and Calvin's are perhaps roasting in hell for causing dissension, the ignorant followers do not necessarily share their complicity. Thus the term, "invincibly ignorant". Yes, Protestants are entering the Kingdom of Heaven even before Catholics...
The Church is not throwing open the gates of heaven to all men. Those who reject Christ - either directly, or indirectly by "hating" their neighbors, will be condemned (actually, the Scriptures say "already condemned"). Those who believe will be saved. Those who don't KNOW Christ, we must refer to Romans 1, 2 and the Law written on the hearts of those who have not been taught the Law. This is what the Pope is referring to. Those who have not been taught the Gospel. And hearing the Gospel at the point of a sword or rifle is NOT hearing the Gospel! Thus, we see the Pope is going even back to St. Aquinas and showing that a Muslim is NOT necessarily rejecting Christ. To REJECT, one must KNOW. Can WE say a particular Muslim has truly been given the whole Gospel? We leave it in God's hands to decide this. The Pope is merely saying that we cannot condemn people out of hand, just because they are Muslims, Protestants, Hindus, or whatever.
To those who cannot except this openness to all men, I suggest that they read the following from JESUS CHRIST:
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said to them, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day?' They said to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He said to them, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.' "So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, 'Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.' And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.' But he answered one of them and said, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?' So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen." Matthew 20:1-16
To all Christians who have problems with this teaching, I suggest you pray that God gives you the grace to love others - as one who disagrees has a problem with love of neighbor.
Regards
Paul quotes from the OT for a reason. Go back to Malachi 1 and read the first four verses. Go back to Romans 9-11 and determine who Paul is talking about. It is not rocket science. He is not giving the Romans a lesson about Jacob, but using him as an example of God's action that goes against human reason, much like God reaching out to the Gentiles while His "people", the Jews, were being condemned.
I doubt if our Lord Jesus meant for us to physically carry a cross around anymore than He wanted us to “hate” our parents
Jesus said "carry OUR cross", not "A cross" or "MY cross". Careful Scriptural readings such as that will prove your concepts wrong again. Of course we are to "Hate" our parents - meaning love them less. That was my point. And we read the SAME thing for Jacob/Esau (the men) - the SAME Greek word is used in both Romans and Luke/Matthew. So now you are back-tracking and my "made up" definition seems to work for you....
God gives His blessings to all. He rains on both the good and the evil. (Mat 5:45) His "seeds" fall on ALL men. As the parable of the sower point out, our response to the Word will help to determine our "fruit". And it is by our fruits that we will be judged.
BTW-Surprisingly you don’t see the metaphor in Matt 26:26 where our Lord Jesus states “this is my body”.
No. Why don't you explain it to me? I, like the Jews of John 6, understand perfectly what Christ meant. But you, separated by 2000 years and a translation of a translation of a translation know better. LOL! The arrogance...
One of the major complaints I have come across about Reformed theology is that it is too neatly documented
Meaning what? What does that have to do with complying with the Scriptures? It doesn't, sadly. God hates? You are missing a fundamental message of the Scriptures...
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?
It's not that Catholics cannot decide. It is that Catholics are flexible in our beliefs. The Church only declares the BOUNDARIES of what we are to believe. When a Luther goes too far, the Church says "that's not what we believe". And they define the LIMITS of our belief. In the case of Predestination, the boundaries are set. But there is flexibliliy on the issue. One can believe as Molinara or Aquinas. Unfortunately, you are taken in by the Age of Enlightenment and the Crowning of the Reason of Man. WE, as men, do NOT know everything about God. This is Calvin's problem. He trys to set God in a box that contradicts the Scriptures. God is a mystery. Even the Church doesn't know everything about God. In the case of predestination, we will have to accept what God has REVEALED. Recall Christianity is a revealed religion, not one of reason where we tightly fit everything into neat little categories. That is why our faith is often called "mystery". That is faith. ACCEPTING God's Revelation
Regards
Ah, the peace of mind of "one saved - always saved"...
Regards
So Hell is empty, correct?
Regards
Wouldn't you agree that God has different arrangements for those who REJECT Christ, and those who do not KNOW Christ but obey the Law written in their hearts?
John 3 is condemning the former. Nothing is said about the latter group in that Scripture.
Regards
Catholics do not traditionally believe that all men outside the visible confines of the Roman Catholic Church will go to hell. The polemics of the Reformation lead to that twisting of our beliefs. The Pope is merely returning to our Tradition, as re-established firmly at Vatican 2. Protestants ARE part of the Body, in a mysterious way, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED. ALL who have been baptized are somehow part of the Body of Christ. Certainly, there are degrees of affiliation, but only actual heretics, not those who are ignorant of the Church, are in jeopardy of losing eternal life (1 Cor 6:9-10).
Certainly, we pray that Protestants will rejoin the visible Church and come to share more fully in God's graces given through the Sacraments, esp. the Eucharist. But only willful rejection is condemned by Christ.
Regards
Who said Christ-denying heathens are forgiven? The Pope is speaking of those who do not KNOW Christ, not those who know Him and REJECT Him. And PROTESTANTS are not anathemized unless they willfully reject, knowing fully the teaching in question. Generally, anathemas are directed towards individuals, not entire organizations.
And, of course, you aren't putting the Word of God before the traditions of men - you follow the tradition of Calvin to the exclusion of the Scriptures that teach the God is love. So be careful what you accuse others of.
Regards
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1531691/posts?page=39#39
The above link was where I posted some initial thoughts that deal with the question you've just posed. I was attempting to show those unbelievers who could not possibly qualify.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.