Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope

I initially agree with your initial thoughts, (!) except for Gal 2:16. Paul is talking about placing our faith in the Law, rather than the Lawmaker. This is in-line with Romans when Paul is adamant that we cannot obligate God, even by doing good deeds. Nothing we do can obligate God, but God IS righteous. Thus, when we obey His commandments with proper motivation - out of love for Him and not earning something - then we are rewarded.

Following the Law in our hearts (if I hadn't heard of Christ) done to please the Lawgiver is what God desires. This gives glory to God. Following the Law to obligate God is giving glory to ourselves.

Regards

Not one of the people you cite has evidence, internal to the biblical text, that he was, in fact, saved. We only know that they asked what must be done, or that the path to salvation was made open to them.

Granted, most of these people doubtless *were* saved, but that's not the point. There is nothing in the Bible that states categorically that they were saved. Since you insist on biblical evidence of the establishde fact, in retrospect, of their salvation, I would submeit to you that there is no direct evidence, only indirect evidence.

It does no good to cite passages supporting a once-saved-always-saved solution to these cases. Harmonization of the entire text shows, as many of us have demonstrated many times here, that there are many qualifying texts that demonstrate that the personal knowledge of salvation, while in this life, is conditional at best. Therefore, even St. Paul, who, if once-saved-always-saved were a correct notion, would certainly qualify, says in many passages (Philippians 2:12, 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 are two examples) that both he and his hearers do not have certain assurance of salvation. They have a moral assurance, provided that they maintain their walk in grace. Therefore, none of your cases *proves* anything, they only provide a certain likelihood that many, if not most, of these people are, in fact, now in heaven.

Therefore, strictly speaking, you cannot prove *anyone* is in saved other than the Good Thief. Not rejecting Tradition, the ancient voice of the Church, I do not have that problem, and know of many people who are in heaven. You will reject the authority that projects that knowledge, obviously, so we won't get anywhere discussing it. But, here again, we have a situation that touches on the issue of "authority," and its vital role in interpreting non only Scriptural quotations, but also matters only indirectly dealt with or defined by Scripture, such as the nature of the Trinity, the duel nature of Christ as a divine person, etc.

It's interesting that so many on this forum constantly remonstrate with the Catholics about what was said at such-and-such ancient ecumenical council, or commentary from the Fathers about the subject matter from them. What doesn't seem to be realized is that, as a foundation to the quotes cited, there is the blaring notion that the Church, in such councils, *knew* it had the *authority* to decide issues definitively. This seems lost on so many people. The Church has authority. It maintains that authority today. Those other Christians who do not partake of it are lost to a multiplicity of differing interpretations, and even fundamental questions involving requirements for salvation cannot be answered with consistency across the board.

I have my answer, because the Church, whose members wrote the New Testament under inspiration, and whose members discerned, vetted, compiled, canonized and interpreted Scripture with authority, can settle such matters.

I initially agree with your initial thoughts

I appreciate your sense of humor. :>)

The point I was making about the law is as you've pointed out....those who trust in their legal righteousness for their salvation. Those who would be saved must "believe God and have their faith credited to them as righteousness..."

Their lifestyle after their acceptance by the grace of God should reflect Jesus' commandment of love; that commandment that lies at the base of all the others.

Their acceptance will always be based on "by grace they have been saved through faith." Their identity afterwards will be known by "show me your faith by your works."

I am not an advocate of once-saved-always-saved....at least not in the way it's generally presented. Therefore, much of the commentary on that subject doesn't apply to me. My position is simply that of Paul, "His Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God." I could ask you, "Are you going to stop believing in our Lord Jesus?" You will answer me, "No way....it's not what I would ever want to do." I would reply, "So, you deeply believe in him." You would respond, "Absolutely." I would finally say, "So, you're one of His children?" You would humbly answer, "Yes, I'm a child of the Lord."

I would claim that to be evidence that His Spirit has testified with your spirit that you ARE one of His children.

On top of all this is the instruction, "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall."

In short, we shouldn't be arrogant about our standing. Better to keep His grace in mind.

So far as the authority of the Church, I have great respect for the authority of the church. After all, I'm ordained in a hierarchical denomination.

Yet, the Church is subject to the authority of the Apostles....and the scripture is our document that preserves their instructions and teachings.

Certainly. Though I would say that your "would" should be changed to "could." And then I would qualify that by saying that we're talking about Protestants who are ignorant of the truths of Catholicism. Those who willfully reject the Catholic Church, even as Protestants, cannot be saved, because, rejecting truth, they reject Him who IS Truth, at least as He would have Himself known to us.

But, again, such rejection must be willfull and conscious. The vast majority of Protestants today do not fall into that category, I'm sure. But I would make this observation: since they do not have the same grace bestowed on them as a Catholic who avails himself of the Sacraments (especially the Eucharist and Confession), I wonder how much more difficult it is for Protestants to actually be saved. I have no idea, of course. This whole thread's theme presupposes the availability of God's mercy. But, while I have the moral assurance of salvation as long as I'm in a state of sanctifying grace, I would never have such assurance as a Protestant who cannot avail himself of the Sacraments.

We all sin, no one remains sinless for long after the initial cleansing of baptism, so I would feel far less sure of where I stand as a Protestant without sacramental reconciliation with God than I would as a Catholic who can, in fact, avail himself of such reconciliation. Therefore, while I certainly concede that Protestants can be saved, I wouldn't even want to speculate about relative numbers. And, in any event, I can say that, if they are saved, they are saved in spite of, not because of, their imperfect communion with the Church Christ established.

"Please tell me... what 'purifies' one in purgatory???"

That's up to God I guess. But there are some clues in Scripture:

Heb. 12:29 - God is a consuming fire (of love in heaven, of purgation in purgatory, or of suffering and damnation in hell).

1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).

1 Cor. 3:15 - Paul says though he will be saved, "but only" through fire. The phrase "but only" in the Greek is "houtos" which means "in the same manner." This means that man is both rewarded and saved by fire.

1 Cor. 3:15 - when Paul teaches that those whose work is burned up will suffer loss, the phrase for "suffer loss" in the Greek is "zemiothesetai." The root word is "zemioo" which also refers to punishment. This means that there is an expiation of temporal punishment after our death, which cannot mean either heaven (no need for it) or hell (expiation no longer exists).

1 Cor. 3:13 - when Paul writes about God revealing the quality of each man's work by fire and purifying him, this purification relates to his sins (not just his good works). Protestants, in attempting to disprove the reality of purgatory, argue that Paul was only writing about rewarding good works, and not punishing sins (because punishing and purifying a man from sins would be admitting that there is a purgatory).

1 Cor. 3:17 - but this verse proves that the purgation after death deals with punishing sin. That is, destroying God's temple is a bad work, which is a mortal sin, which leads to death.

1 Cor. 3:14,15,17 - purgatory thus reveals the state of righteousness (v.14), state of venial sin (v.15) and the state of mortal sin (v.17).

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter refers to this purgatorial fire to test the fruits of our faith.

Jude 1:23 - the people who are saved are being snatched out of the fire. People are already saved if in heaven, and there is no possibility of salvation if in hell. These people are being led to heaven from purgatory.

Rev. 3:18-19 - Jesus refers to this fire as what refines into gold those He loves if they repent of their sins.

Dan 12:10 - Daniel refers to this refining by saying many shall purify themselves, make themselves white and be refined.

Wis. 3:5-6 - the dead are disciplined and tested by fire to receive their heavenly reward.

Zech. 13:8-9 - God says 2/3 shall perish, and 1/3 shall be left alive, put into the fire, and refined like silver and tested like gold.

I agree with essentially everything you say here, except how one could interpret your last sentence. I would cheerfully say the same things about you that you say about me. I would just say, though, that your position here does buttress my own observation about the evidence for salvation of those people you mentioned form Scripture. We have, to a certain extent, a moral assurance of their salvation, but no absolute assurance.

I would agree with your last statement, except that it doesn't go far enough, from my POV. The Scriptures certainly do preserve the instructions and teachings of the apostles, but so does sacred Tradition, so does the official teaching office of the magisterium. I might be possible for a Catholic to say, regarding the three inerrant sources of teaching, "Prima Scriptura," since Scripture is BOTH inspired and infallible, and the other two sources are infallible. But a Catholic will never say "Sola Scriptura," and on that basis I would have to disagree with the bottom-line of your closing point, though I agree with much of its sentiment.

The only reason Sola Scriptura is an acceptable "motto" is because it means "Sola Christ, Apostles, Prophets..."

If the scripture has been verified as their writings, then the scripture is their very words to us. Therefore, we are subject to them. After all, they are the founders of the faith.

I have a great regard for sacred tradition (when it is authentic) because authority has been granted to the church to bind and loose...which is why the teaching authority of the church is also important (what you might call the magisterium.) The teaching authority of the church in concert with the bible can elevate reason and experience, too, when those are viewed in light of scripture and tradition. In short, affirming scripture and tradition should be the equivalent of affirming actual historic Christianity.

The older I get, the easier I find it is to get lost! :)

"The Orthodox dispute the primacy of Rome, and they are still part of the church....They KNOWINGLY do not adhere to Roman teachings and instructions."

I need to clear up something. We do not dispute the primacy of the Pope in The Church. We dispute how that primacy is exercised. Beyond that, you are right that we knowingly do not adhere to various pronouncements of the Pope or of the local councils of the Latin Church (no matter what the Latin Church cares to call them). We are, however, indisputably part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We recognize Latin Rite Orders and sacraments as they do ours. The fact that we are not in communion with them does not mean that we or they are somehow lost. Those ecclesial assemblies outside The Church are another matter entirely and upon which, as I think I mentioned earlier, either here or on another thread, Orthodoxy is of two minds; they are not saved or we don't know. I tend to the latter formulation.

Short answer is that Orthodoxy isn't a good example to use when discussing this subject with the Latins.

The Scriptures certainly do preserve the instructions and teachings of the apostles, but so does sacred Tradition, so does the official teaching office of the magisterium.

But the sacred tradition keeps changing with the winds. Even before the Reformation your traditional teaching was that anyone outside the Church of Rome was damned.

Posted by gscc to P-Marlowe
On Religion ^ 12/01/2005 2:40:07 PM PST · 272 of 325 ^

They have certainly come a long way since:

v Pope Innocent III: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.

v Pope Boniface VIII: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." From his Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.

v Pope Eugene IV: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." From his Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Now your present Pope seems to indicate that not only can you be saved outside the Roman Catholic Church, but outside of Biblical faith and you can be saved from the teachings of the Koran or the Bahagadavita.

That is the problem with your "Sacred Tradition". It changes with the winds and makes the word of God of no effect.

I would say that the differences in the slant from these posts is easily explainable due to the times and culture we live in. The Church made what I consider a grievous error 40-50 years ago, compounding it many times over since the 1970's: it left unchecked the impression that its teachings had softened regarding salvation. Even before Vatican II, the signs were there that individuals were not comfortable preaching doctrine in this area.

Much of this trend, nearly all of it, was in the West, where large segments or majorities of people were non-Catholic Christians. It's uncomfortable to deal with such well-meaning fellow Christians and tell them that they have a highly diminished likelihood of salvation for several reasons, chief among them the unavailability of post-baptismal Sacraments. Speaking the truth in love is not easy, and many in the overly-comfortable times we live in started going wobbly.

Vatican II addressed the issue, in part in the manner I've already quoted. But, compared to earlier councils that may have treated to the issue, the language was less edgy. This lack of directness in Vatican II documents is, in fact, a problem, one jumped on immediately by the "Spirit of Vatican II" crowd in the Church to this day. Salvation issues are no exception in this.

But, the so-called spirit of Vatican II notwithstanding, the Church has not changed its position. The official voice of the Church is not hard to find for those who look for it. The conciliar documents are readily available. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is readily available. Papal encyclicals and other vatican documents treating to this subject and many more are readily available. All of these sources are available in book form or on-line at many websites. They're out there.

The problem is that the Church has, in fact, made a bad prudential judgment over the last few decades in not censuring those who, in the name of the Church, twist, omit, embellish or deny certain Church teachings. The Church, from the Vatican on down, has looked the other way in all but the most egregious cases. That may be changing even now. Benedict appears to be far less inclined than his lst few predecessors to put up with the nonsense. Catholic teaching, from the lowly CCD teacher to the very top, is being put back on track. It may take a while longer to weed out the dissenters and those who can't or won't get with the program, but it's coming.

Meanwhile, the Church has *not* changed its official teachings one iots. They are there, plainly available, for anyone who wants to find them. Soon, it might not be necessary to go on searches anymore.

As for what you say the pope is saying about Muslims, Jews, etc. as being God's children, well, they ARE! We all are. Was the Prodigal Son, who *deliberately* left his father, still not his child? These people, for the most part, have not deliberately left the Father. They were born into the darkness they wander in. They are God's children too, even if they live far from His home. Saying this refutes or modifies nothing in the claims of the Catholic Faith in its self-knowledge as the true religion of God.

This should clear up any misconceptions on the Church and the Pope,s stance on this issue

For this reason it is not enough to continue in the religion one has inherited, but one must remain attentive to the true good and thus be able to transcend the limits of one's own religion.

So what the Pope is really saying is that if you are really really true to your own religion, no matter whether it is Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam or whatever, that you will be saved.

Thanks for clearing that up.

bobby61 Since Dec 2, 2005

Welcome to Free Republic.

BTW have you ever posted under a different screen name?

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.