I honestly disagree with tomndebb’s interpretation of this statement. If, the blind follow the blind, they both fall into the pit. At what point does not knowing the truth presented in the gospels become a person’s fault?
The title should of course be, do non Christians go to heaven, but we’ll cope, right people?
[Moderator Hat ON]
I fixed the thread title, since it was confusing.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
From the Vatican II document DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS - NOSTRA AETATE
(Revised Standard Version)
(italics mine)
Well, that begs the question, tomndeb: What if they don’t WANT to go to heaven? Tough noogies?
Yer pal,
Satan
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, three weeks, three days, 23 hours, 16 minutes and 51 seconds.
8318 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,039.85.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 21 hours, 10 minutes.
David B used me as a cite!*
Thanks, Gaudere!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tomndebb *
I absolutely agree with that.
But, Paul here really do not cover the case of those who do not know the Truth.
I also agree with this.
This too. Well, at least we aren’t going to have a faith versus works argument, amigo.
Yes, sure – people who do what the law requires are saved. But there are people who hold to a relgion that might have a totally different understanding of what that “law” is, and if these people do not keep the true law of freedom, and what point do they become culpable for not knowing what the true law is?
You imply the Church says they are never culpable. And, I suspect, although no mind reader, you are implying that everyman knows what is right and what is wrong inherently.
The error of this is there would then be no reason for Jesus’s commands to spread his word. In fact, were that true, there would be no reason for Jesus at all.
Well, gee, what if there isn’t any heaven? Then maybe the RCC and most of Christianity is just wrong.
The context of jmullaney’s question (following on the discussion over in do jews go to heaven?), appeared to be a consideration of whether God was inviting everyone to get to heaven (provided one believes in that sort of thing) or whether God had some really strict rules that kept all sorts of people out, regardless of why they did not follow “the rules.”
My perception of RCC teachings, that you questioned and that jmullaney has challenged, is that the RCC perceives God as more inclusive than exclusive. I have provided the citations to support my views of RCC teaching. Historically, the RCC has gone through periods where they would have gone for the narrowest view. Currently, we are not in such a period.
- If there is no God, the point is moot (not to say silly).
- If God has set up all sorts of hurdles to allow only a few elect to get to him, then the teachings I have cited are in error and the Scripture I have cited is incompletely presented or quoted out of context.
- If, however, the RCC and I have some small grasp on the truth, then the citations I have provided indicate where the RCC and I agree and where the RCC agrees with Scripture. (People who disagree with that interpretation of Romans will have different perspectives, of course.)
I’m not sure that a long, involved discussion on who will be saved will get us anywhere, but I figured I owed jmullaney the courtesy of at least showing up at the beginning of his thread, since it was an objection to my statements that prompted him to post.
(And if anyone truly does not want to go to heaven, there are lots of ways to avoid it laid out in the Bible: murder, theft, adultery, etc. You can probably avoid it simply by acting in a righteous manner, but telling God to go stuff it each night.)
Sorry, my second post was in response to Satan.
As was discussed in this thread the Church’s recent declarations seem to say in effect that the Catholic Church is a “better” or surer way to salvation, but that adherents of other religions aren’t necessarily all hellbound. The Church really has lightened up on the issue quite a lot; groups of conservative Catholic dissidents argue–with some justice–that this kinder, gentler Catholicism represents a major departure from historic church teachings which were once central to the Faith.
If you could perhaps explain how it is you interpret these scriptures and not expect me to somehow reach the same understanding you are, that would help. Paul says there are people who keep the law of Chist without ever having heard the law of Christ and such people are saved. I don’t have an argument with that. The RCC says, additionally, other religions have elements of truth in them. Fine. But, you said people who do not recognize the Truth for whatever reason are still saved. I don’t find what you have quoted in and of itself to explain or go along with your reasoning.
But you, with all do respect, do not seem to agree with this scripture nor with what the church says in what you have cited.
If you just want to concede…
My church holds that all those who are virtuous go to some sort of “just reward”- maybe a separate corner of heaven, maybe “valhalla” or whatever they beleive in. That us Christians simply have it “easier, and better”- as we can repent sins. We have “salvation”- they have to be virtuous, and follow the Law.
And, how do we interpret Romans above? Easy- the words of Paul, as just that- only the words of JC are the Word. Paul is no more the voice of G-d than any other early Church leader- ie we respect him for his wisdom- but he is not a Source, only JC is.
It says no such thing.
The passage says that if people try to do good, God will judge their efforts. It does not say that they have to guess what doing good means and that God will judge them by how close they get. “What the law requires” could be following specific rules (e.g., the holiness code from the Torah which Paul is actively setting aside), or it could equally mean “attempting to do right by others.” Paul is not explicit on that point.
The purpose of spreading the message of Jesus is that if it is properly proclaimed, the world will be a better place for all. God will grant salvation to individuals who have responded to the law “written in their hearts.” However, as you point out, their interpretations may be at variance with the law that Jesus brings. Therefore, the purpose of spreading the message of Jesus is to increase the number of people for whom the “law in their hearts” is the same as the law of Jesus.
In addition, I have not said that “people who do not recognize the Truth for whatever reason are saved.” I have said that the RCC recognizes that there are different reasons why someone would not recognize the specific Gospel of Jesus (as interpreted by the RCC). Whereas some Fundamentalist groups will grudgingly acknowledge that a person who has never heard the Gospel preached should not be condemned, but will insist that anyone who has heard the teaching of Jesus is condemned if they don’t fall in line, the RCC holds that prior religious beliefs (which, themselves have truth, but not the complete truth), can come between a person and their understanding of the truth. If you do not see that position in the passages I cited, I’m afraid I have no way to explain it to you.
Fascinating stuff!!
So tell me - Why don’t the Protestants feel this way? In addition, what is the point of Catholics proselytizing? The Jews don’t because, in part at least, because one doesn’t have to be Jewish to be “saved.” Yet Catholics do, indeed, proselytize. Not as much as Protestants…
I’m beginning to get the idea that this might be one of the big issues that Martin Luther and the other protestors had… Is this correct?
Yer pal,
Satan
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, three weeks, four days, 30 minutes and 46 seconds.
8320 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,040.10.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 21 hours, 20 minutes.
David B used me as a cite!*
Some Protestants do feel that way. Those who parted from Rome more for political reasons (Church of England) are more likely to have a theology similar to the RCC. In addition, there is a difference within Protestantism between peoplemore influenced by Martin Luther or more influenced by John Calvin.
The RCC had gotten into the whole “save yourself” bit (in violation of RCC doctrine) with the added corruption of “selling” indulgences. Luther reacted against that (rightly) that only God saves. However, Luther went further with his view (based primarily, but not exclusively) on the later portions of Romans that the only way that we are saved is through our response to God in Faith.
Part of his formulation was expressed as Sola Fide; Sola Scriptura. Only Faith; Only Scriptures. (The RCC had, in debates with Luther, referred to various traditionally held beliefs. Luther asserted that if it wasn’t in Scripture, it wasn’t part of the Faith. (That discussion won’t fit here.))
I do not know where Luther actually would have come down in this discussion. (Maybe a Luther scholar can throw in some citations?) However, I suspect that at the time of the Reformation, all Christians would have believed that anyone not Baptized into the (proper) faith was damned.
As Christianity has matured, several groups have moved away from this more rigid belief. (The First Circle of Dante’s Hell, a.k.a. Limbo, was one early Catholic attempt to deal with the injustice of condemning the unbaptized who had led just lives. Even before the Reformation, the speculation was put forth (possibly by Thomas Aquinas) that those people could not be admitted to the presence of God, but that they were not desrving of hellfire and torment, so they were put in a place of “natural” happiness where they would not suffer, but they would never see the supernatural joy of God. Later, people recognized that infants who died unbaptized did not deserve punishment, so they got dropped into Limbo, as well.) Limbo was never a doctrine of the RCC. It was theological speculation that got picked up and accepted by a large number of people, but it never had the effect of Church teaching.)
The Protestants rejected Limbo (rightly so), but I don’t know where they sent their unbaptized kids. < eg > Protestants who were influenced more strongly by the harsher pronouncements of Calvin simply sent all the unbaptized to Hell. This trend popped up in the late nineteenth century in the U.S. in the group that came to be known as Fundamentalists.
Catholics believe in proselytizing in order to get the Truth of Jesus to the world. While the RCC is not willing (now) to condemn everyone to Hell that doesn’t agree with them, it is still a tenet of RCC belief that the RCC is the best repository for God’s Truth. (Hence all the hoopla about that recent document that called on Catholic teachers to not act or teach as though all religions were equal: Vatican says Catholicism is the ONLY way to salvation (As pointed out in that thread, the document did not say what the thread title said. It claimed that Catholic Doctrine was most true–like they were supposed to say “We’re number 2!”?–but it was intended as an instruction to Catholic teachers to not teach that all religions were equally good.) The issue is that the RCC believes that is has the most pure message from God (like that’s a surprise), but it does not believe that people who have beliefs with errors are condemned to Hell.
Christians proselytize because many are not virtuous,and have sinned greivously- and thus their best chance of salvation- except thru a lot of good works, etc- is JC.
Also, it is HOPED, that if one follows the Word of JC, that one will also sin less. (There have been a LOT of folks, who while claiming to be “Christian” <0r muslem, or…>have acted otherwise, and have claimed their clearly wrong actions to be “in the name of G-d”).
Most “liberal” Protestants feel that way also. However, our “brethren” in the Southern Baptist Church seem to feel that only THEY are going to be “saved”- Boy do THEY have a surprize coming! 
“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” – Mark 16:16
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” – John 3:18
“Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”-- John 14:6
Check the KJV versions of the same:
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. - Mark 16:16
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
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6
Well, the Mark 16:16 one is much more insidious; the rest are pretty much the same…
Gee… Maybe them there Protesting types are more on the money here? Nah… 
Yer pal,
Satan
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, three weeks, four days, 5 hours, 4 minutes and 10 seconds.
8328 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,041.06.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 22 hours, 0 minutes.
David B used me as a cite!*
Which means that agonistics and people who have never heard of god can be saved?
The RCC position on that collection of verses is that they are addressed to people who recognize that Jesus has come to bring Salvation but who choose to turn their backs on Him, anyway.
“Coming to the Father only through Jesus” is the background text for this whole discussion. The RCC holds that the very fact that Jesus has come into the world provides the method whereby all people come to the Father “only through” Him. Certain denominations read that to mean that a person has to go through the motions of acknowledging Jesus, personally, for that to happen. The RCC holds that Jesus is more powerful than that, and that people can be drawn to God even without going through a formal process of acknowledgement.
This carries over to Moses and Abraham and Isaiah and Jeremiah and all those folks, as well. There are a few Christian groups who hold that those people are all damned because they did not confess Jesus as their personal savior. There are a few other groups who dance around the issue with various strategems that let the patriarchs and prophets acknowledge Jesus in order to get saved. (I’m not really familiar with those strategems as I’ve never felt a need to inquire after them.)
The RCC position is that God, in eternity, is outside Time. Therefore, when Jesus became man, His action was good for all people at whatever time, even though his presence was a specific event in history as humans reckon it from the perspective inside time.
The RCC certainly believes that people who have never heard of God can be saved if they respond to God’s call in their hearts to act justly. The RCC generally stops short of proclaiming that agnostics and atheists (who have presumably heard the Word and ignored or rejected it) are saved. My personal take is that if God is not going to punish someone for being raised in the “wrong” religion, He’s not going to punish someone for viewing the world skeptically. The RCC has never formally endorsed my views on that point.
No, it does not say try. There is no “try”, only “do”, to coin a phrase. 
Or he could mean the law of Christ. But, OK, no one ever accused Paul of being lucid in his use of the term “law.”
But, Paul isn’t saying everyone has the law in their hearts – only those who by nature do what the law requires. These people, therefore, already have the correct law written in their hearts.
But you do agree that people have to walk in the light of truth to be saved, right? As Jesus said, whoever loves him keeps his commandments, and vice versa, whoever keeps his commandments, whether they know it or not, loves him. I don’t think this precludes those who struggle to know truth and act upon it yet never quite figure things out on their own power from salvation – and maybe only God can figure out when that point is – but people who have heard the truth and have merely hardened their hearts against it, whatever their backgrounds, don’t merit salvation and it is a stretch to say the Church teaches otherwise.