Paragraph 841 and 1260

[JM]

When I first read the following quotation I thought to myself, “I have to be misunderstanding this teaching.†So I started a thread in a few different forums and here in the RC forum hoping to clear up any misunderstanding I may have, but before I go on, here’s the quotation:

The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
Catholic Catechism Paragraphs 841 & 1260

Here’s a few responses, a mixed bag of quotes, given on another forum when I posted this:

It really does not matter how many worldly bulldosers the RCC runs up the narrow way that leads to life, no one comes to the Father except through Me.

Men are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Scripture is explicitly clear that their is NO SALVATION APART FROM FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST.

Clearly... this is heresy...

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. "

How can you have faith in someone you are completely ignorant of? The above statement is directly at odds with what I said.

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." - John 3:18

There is no saving faith apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

JUDE 1:3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

"The faith" refers to teachings - Scriptures, as compared to "a faith".

Some denominations claim that their teachings are at par or above the authority of Scriptures.
Since history has proven that some of their statements are fallible, doesn't this make their claims incorrect?

That "sincerity" [of belief] is also a fiction. Sinful man neither seeks nor desires to do the will of God.

Abraham had faith in God and His promise. That promise has its full revelation and consumation in the person and work of Christ. Equating the faith of Abraham to that of a "sincere" Muslim is both flawed and blasphemous.

Paul is clear when he asks "how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?"

His is also very clear in Acts 17:30: “the times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commands men that they should all everywhere repentâ€Â

Christ Himself is clear when he says "whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

As has been referenced before, John 3:16-18 indicates that if you do not believe in Christ you are condemned already. Thus salvation due to ignorance is without merit. Salvation after death, God offering a second chance to the innocent and the ignorant is an argument from silence, an invention of man. The innocent and ignorant receive perfect justice in the afterlife, because God is just.

The driving force of these misguided views is a mistaken view of Hell, as a place of unjust punishment, eternal torment of aborted babies and the like, and so the problem is "fixed" by inventing solutions such as the RCC five catigories.

Scripture says only those who have heard and learned from the Father can come to the Son, and only those who believe in the Son have eternal life.

It's really frightening to think that the RCC is teaching that people can be saved apart from belief in Christ, rather, “Those who are doing their best to follow God according to the laws written on their hearts and who desire to known and worship and adore the one true God.†Another poster in the RC forum brought up Romans 2 with the qualifying remark, “clearly tells us that a doer of the law will be justified, even that man who was not given the written Law of Moses, but rather, the Law written on one's heart. We Catholics call this "natural" law, as everyone has a very general idea of what is right and what is wrong. God will not hold everyone to the same standards, as to those given much, more will be expected.†I have no problem with the idea of natural law, it’s how the sinner is condemned, they know and still do wrong. What I and other non-Catholics have a problem with is the idea of being justified by the law or by our “desire.†Paul clearly writes, “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.†Gal. 2:16 No where in Romans 2 do we find man is saved by this natural revelation, they are only made aware of God by this law, not brought to salvation by it.

Are we as Christian doing the wrong thing by evangelism? If we offer the Gospel to someone who has never heard it before and they [having liberatian freewill] deny the offer, wouldn’t it have been better to never have preached the Gospel? Evangelism with this kind of thinking lacks conviction.

Sure sounds like folks earn salvation in some way for it is without faith in Christ Jesus. They seek something that transcendents our physical reality, they seek peace, and they seek good for the community. In other words if you are not self centered you are acceptable to God, even if you are not born again because you received the gospel of Christ.

Sounds about right! This doctrine is repugnant to the word of God, I’ll have more to say latter.

Peace,

jm

 

[francisdesales]

JM,

I can't answer for other people's quotes and applications of the Catechism to real life situations. All I can do is present my understanding of it based on the Tradition of the Church.

Another poster in the RC forum brought up Romans 2 with the qualifying remark, “clearly tells us that a doer of the law will be justified, even that man who was not given the written Law of Moses, but rather, the Law written on one's heart. We Catholics call this "natural" law, as everyone has a very general idea of what is right and what is wrong. God will not hold everyone to the same standards, as to those given much, more will be expected.â€Â

I wrote that. Now to answer your questions.

I have no problem with the idea of natural law, it’s how the sinner is condemned, they know and still do wrong.

Yes, the sinner is condemned - UNDER THE LAW. But under the Law of Grace, God does NOT condemn a person who occasionally falters. First, let me explain the two "laws". Paul is writing (in Romans) against those who beleive they can EARN salvation by their works and by their natural affiliation with Abraham. As if to say "See, God, I am a Jew who has followed your Law. Now that I have died, you owe me a spot in eternal heaven." Paul adamantly refuses such a concept. MAN CANNOT EARN SALVATION. NO ONE can make God a debtor. Everything we do is interlaced with God's graces, thus, no one can boast that they did anything ALONE. So under the Law, no one can earn salvation, because one infraction makes a person guilty of breaking the entire Law. And all men have sinned - so no one can make God owe them a reward. Salvation is a gift, not payment for what we did.

Now, the other "system" is the Law of Grace. By it, we are made children of God by faith in God. ALL have been given a law written on their hearts as at least a minimum. This "law" gives men the desire to seek God in their hearts. But God gives other men even more aids - the Church. The teachings of the Church not only instill within us a faint desire to love, but the MEANS to grow spiritually. Its teachings and the communion offered, the Eucharist and Liturgical Worship all help men realize this inner desire to come to God and meet Him. When we say "yes" (guided by God, not by ourselves), we are fulfilling God's desire - a return (albeit inadequate) of His love, the use of His gifts given back to Him.

Since we are children of God, God has a different standard. No parent expects a child to be absolutely perfect. Our Father in heaven is more than willing to forgive us if we only turn to Him! Thus, we can achieve heaven without being perfect - because Christ brought about a New Law. We can satisfy our Father's desire that we turn to Him, even when we imperfectly love God for His own sake. Thus, the Law and its perfect requirements of fulfillment do not apply to us.

We are not justified by our own works. The key word is "OUR OWN". We MUST abide in Christ and He in us for our works (mine and Jesus') to be of any worth or merit. In the end, we will be judged on such cooperative works, grace and nature.

No where in Romans 2 do we find man is saved by this natural revelation, they are only made aware of God by this law, not brought to salvation by it.

? I disagree. Over and over, Paul says that such Gentiles, with their limited knowledge, who are in good will and seeking to do God's will WILL be justified - not because they have earned it, but because of their FAITH!

"To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath" Rom 2:7-8

"But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile" Rom 2:10

"For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves" Rom 2:13-14

"their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel Rom 2:15-16

"And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God." Rom 2:27-29

Are we as Christian doing the wrong thing by evangelism? If we offer the Gospel to someone who has never heard it before and they [having liberatian freewill] deny the offer, wouldn’t it have been better to never have preached the Gospel? Evangelism with this kind of thinking lacks conviction.

God desires all men to come to the knowledge of the truth. Just because God comes faintly to all men, placing in man a natural law doesn't preclude the Written Law, the Decalogue as interpreted by Christ and taught by His Church. The teachings of the Church clarify and define what we know deep in our hearts, but are clouded by original sin. Since man is damaged as a result of original sin, our intellect alone will have a much more difficult time coming to the truth. Thus, the Gospel is God's means of spreading this surety of the truth through an infallible teacher, Christ's Body.

Regards

 

[thessalonian]

How can you have faith in someone you are completely ignorant of? The above statement is directly at odds with what I said

.

This statement of yours is problematic. It separates God from Christ. All men are to come to a belief in God. That is a part of the law written on their hearts.

Acts 17
[26] And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
[27] that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
[28] for `In him we live and move and have our being';
as even some of your poets have said, `For we are indeed his offspring.'
[29]

Note he is talking to and about non-christians here, saying they might find God. He even quotes a pagan sage. Can't recall the name offhand. Starts with an M I believe.

All creation cries out to his glory. Christ is God and so therefore if men come to a belief in "a God", if they grope to "find him" as Cornelius did BEFORE Peter came to him then they are not completely ignorant of Christ. Therefore they have some rudimentary faith. This by the grace of God who cries out to them from their creation and from the law of God written on their hearts which tells them to worship the one true God in the first commandment.

 

[thessalonian]

Perhaps you can find me someone in scripture who did not hear the word of God yet believed in God like Cornelius who went to hell. That would prove your point.

\The driving force of these misguided views is a mistaken view of Hell, as a place of unjust punishment, eternal torment of aborted babies and the like, and so the problem is "fixed" by inventing solutions such as the RCC five catigories.

Where is it said in Catholic theology that hell is a place of unjust punishment. Where do we say aborted babies go to hell. You better be able to back uo such statements. What five categories?

It's really frightening to think that the RCC is teaching that people can be saved apart from belief in Christ,

Actually this is not something you teach people as in "you can either follow the teachings on Jesus or you can be saved by the laws written on your hearts". This teaching only tells us that we cannot judge men and that we leave it up to God and his mercy and justice, knowing that he will judge rightly and if someone is in hell, they deserve to be there. If in heaven, though we did not know them as Catholics, they were judged rightly and are there according to his mercy. Ignorance cannot be taught as your statement implies. Whoever recieves truth and the grace to understand it must accept it.

 

[Lewis]

Man there are people in the Jungles of South America who will never hear the Gospel of Christ. But they know that someone much greater than them created all that they see.

 

[thessalonian]

So will they go to hell Lewis?

 

[JM]

Thess, this problem you keep having with Cornelius isn’t really that big of a problem. He was a God fearing man being drawn by the Holy Spirit of God from the Old Covenant into the fullness of the faith which is the New Covenant. That’s it. The New Covenant wasn’t fully in affect, the Old which was yet abrogated [Hebrews 8:13] by the coming of Messiah and the New Covenant. From the NT use of the word “devout†Cornelius was abiding by the Old Covenant and it’s probable that he was a proselyte...because of the inter-covenantal period in which he lived and by the simple fact that Jesus Christ was promised in the OT and based upon the words selected by the Spirit in these chapters, Cornelius believed these promises. He was saved. Had Cornelius rejected the resurrected Messiah, there would be no way for him to be saved, for faith comes by no other name…

…unless you’re a Catholic soft peddling the severity of sin for the Muslim cause.

The burden is on the RCC to show in the Bible where people are saved during the Gospel dispensation [dispensation meaning time, not related to dispensationalism] outside of faith in Jesus Christ, the Bible only speaks of saving faith in relation to Jesus Christ.

Thess, the op is filled with quotations, they're in italics.

 

[JM]

God desires all men to come to the knowledge of the truth. Just because God comes faintly to all men, placing in man a natural law doesn't preclude the Written Law, the Decalogue as interpreted by Christ and taught by His Church. The teachings of the Church clarify and define what we know deep in our hearts, but are clouded by original sin. Since man is damaged as a result of original sin, our intellect alone will have a much more difficult time coming to the truth. Thus, the Gospel is God's means of spreading this surety of the truth through an infallible teacher, Christ's Body.

Really? Why didn't you give an answer for this: "Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia" (Acts 16:6)

What about the man that died in Asia where the word was forbidden to be preacher? I believe it's God's will, you believe what? That they are saved by some other means?

 

[JM]

Man there are people in the Jungles of South America who will never hear the Gospel of Christ. But they know that someone much greater than them created all that they see.

Those who don't believe are condemned already...this is what the Bible teaches on this subject...it doesn't allow us to guess at what we think might happen based on our feelings.

 

[thessalonian]

Thess, this problem you keep having with Cornelius isn’t really that big of a problem. He was a God fearing man being drawn by the Holy Spirit of God from the Old Covenant into the fullness of the faith which is the New Covenant. That’s it.

Cornelius was not a Jew. He was not a convert to Judaism. He was not keeping temple sacrifices. He was not living the law. The Jews had great respect for him we are told but he was not among them.

The New Covenant wasn’t fully in affect, the Old which was yet abrogated [Hebrews 8:13] by the coming of Messiah and the New Covenant. From the NT use of the word “devout†Cornelius was abiding by the Old Covenant and it’s probable that he was a proselyte...because of the inter-covenantal period in which he lived and by the simple fact that Jesus Christ was promised in the OT and based upon the words selected by the Spirit in these chapters, Cornelius believed these promises. He was saved. Had Cornelius rejected the resurrected Messiah, there would be no way for him to be saved, for faith comes by no other name…

All this from the word devout? :-?
Would it have been imposible for him to be devout if he was not a Jew? How does this make him a Jew? Where does it say he was a proselyte? Job was not a Jew but no doudt he was devout. Abraham was not a Jew and he found God. I already posted the passage in Acts 17 that says that God can be known to all men. There is a desire in their hearts that longs to find him and that passage says that some do find him. Why did they have to be Jews. Where is the passage that says that Corenelius read the Old Testament? I don't see it. Where does it say he was trained by Rabbi's or attended the Synagouge on Saturdays? Where does it say that he looked forward to a messiah. Your just answering based on your "traditions". But your answer is no better than mine and so we are at an impass on Cornelius it seems. No doud he had to accept Peter's teaching about the Messiah or he would no longer have been led by the Holy Spirit. But the question that you have not answered is, had he died before that moment (there were other Cornelius's I am quite certain in the world at the time and there are today) would he have gone to hell?

…unless you’re a Catholic soft peddling the severity of sin for the Muslim cause.

That is not the point at all. It is no soft peddle. The question is are there Moselms out there who don't go for the wicked elements of Islam and instead try to follow the laws on their hearts, beliving in one God? Having never heard the fullness of the Gospel as Cornelius had not. Yet who have groped and found God and are being led by the spirit like Cornelius? The answer is I don't know and I leave that up to God. You say above that the Gospel had not come fully in to effect and so people were being led by the spirit. I say that the Gospel is not fully in effect today for those who have had no opportunity to grasp it, as those in the Jungles that Lewis spoke of.

The burden is on the RCC to show in the Bible where people are saved during the Gospel dispensation [dispensation meaning time, not related to dispensationalism] outside of faith in Jesus Christ, the Bible only speaks of saving faith in relation to Jesus Christ.

I'm not a dispensationalist so don't try to force your dispensationism (tradition) on my viewpoints. Neither am I bible alone so don't force that context on me either. Those who today hear the Gospel are responsible for it. Those who do not I leave up to God to judge. I see no reason to put it in to a dispensation. Today men grope until the find God just as in Cornelius's days. Lewis gives testimony to that. This is not apart from grace. It is not another path but one in the same path. They are just at a different point along it than you and I who are given the advantages of living in America where the Gospel is readily available.

 

[thessalonian]

What about the man that died in Asia where the word was forbidden to be preacher? I believe it's God's will, you believe what? That they are saved by some other means?

Nope, you twist what I think. I don't know if anyone was saved or not. There may be a cornelius amongst them. I do not believe that Cornelius was a one time person but a manifestation of the desire in human hearts to grope and find God (see acts 17 passage). Would Cornelius have gone to hell had Peter not come to him before he died? A question you have not directly answered but it seems like you might say yes. Now above you say the Holy Spirit was leading Cornilius. Yet you say in Phygra the Holy Spirit could not have been leading anyone. Is there some parts of the world the Holy Spirit cannot go to prompt men to find God. Most definitely it is a punishment not to receive the Gospel in its fullness, but do some not have that desire in them to "grope and find God" based on what part of the world they live in?

Islam is not a path to salvation. Nor are the religions of Phygra. Corenlius however held errors about God or at least did not know the fullness of who God was. Yet he still found God BEFORE Peter came to him. I think it possible that there was a Cornelius in Phygra. Lewis tells us there are some in South America. I leave it to God to judge them based on the grace he has given THEM to put THEM on the point of the path to him that they are on. It is the same path you and I are on but further back.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

Man there are people in the Jungles of South America who will never hear the Gospel of Christ. But they know that someone much greater than them created all that they see.

Those who don't believe are condemned already...this is what the Bible teaches on this subject...it doesn't allow us to guess at what we think might happen based on our feelings.

So they have groped and found God as Acts 17 tells us but still go to hell?

 

[thessalonian]

Are there any men that Christ is not drawing toward him?

John 12
32: and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Is 2:

: It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it,

 

[JM]

Sorry Thess, I really don't have much time to respond to everything in detail, so I'll give you a few points to think about.

There is only one way to God and that is thru Jesus Christ our only meditator. We are told to love the Lord our God with all our whole being including our mind, this gives the sense of knowing what we worship unlike the pagans who worship the unknown god. We are told that God the Father draws men to His son, hence, believers are called into the faith. There is no reason given to believe that we can have more then one way of salvation, which is exactly what your church is falsely teaching.

Cornelius was not a Jew.

Agreed in the lose sense, but show me an example of Jews thinking highly of a gentile from the Bible? I maintain, Cornelius was being drawn by the Holy Spirit into the faith.

Where is the passage that says that Corenelius read the Old Testament? I don't see it. Where does it say he was trained by Rabbi's or attended the Synagouge on Saturdays?

Where is the passage that says that we are to baptize infants? I don't see them. Where does it say the Apostles or believer's sprinkled infants as a form of baptism? Do you now see the error in your logic?

Your just answering based on your "traditions."

You asked me for the old college try, and I gave it without resorting to traditions. I read the passage and offered an answer. The RCC is teaching a works based salvation if they believe living according to the natural law will gain you salvation, this is outside of Christ...talk about traditions!

I'm not a dispensationalist...

Neither am I. Did you fail to read my qualifying remark in brackets? That little rant was uncalled for. It's odd that you'd deny dispensationalism when you both teach multiple ways of salvation...hummmmm....one for those who know Christ and one for those who don't.

I don't know if anyone was saved or not.

That's not what your catechism teaches. "Those who share the faith..." You're not making sense, or at least you disagree with your catechism, does Islam share in your Catholic faith? You can't make up your mind.

...Phygra the Holy Spirit could not have been leading anyone.

I didn't say it, the Bible did. Faith comes by hearing, preaching, sharing the faith. It's a seed that grows...what's a seed that grows, the Gospel. If the Gospel isn't preached, if they don't have a preacher, how can they be instructed in the word of God?

...but do some not have that desire in them to "grope and find God"

For the natural man is hostile to God. Before the work of the Holy Spirit, no. No one seeketh after God. The literal rending is "there is no God seeker."

John 12

This is too funny. Doesn't your Church, the Roman Catholic Church hold the Vulgate as the offical Bible? It reads, "panta, all things" not all men. A little confused? Theodore Beza who collected the mss that became the AV1611, his oldest copies read "all." Not all things, but "all." This is closer to the Vulgate then your modern rendering. If that isn't enough, consider the rest of John 12. Are they drawn for salvation? Doesn't say. The context is judgement, "Now is the judgement of this world..."

Isa. 2

If you choose to use this passage in reference to salvation, I'll lay the charge against you for teaching Universalism. Are all nations, meaning every single person in each nation saved? Or do you mean some from every nation will be saved? I agree with the second. It's hyperbole.

Gotta run.

jm

 

[thessalonian]

There is no reason given to believe that we can have more then one way of salvation, which is exactly what your church is falsely teaching.

Nope not at all. The only way is through Christ. You simply cannot see where people might be at different points on the path. Cornelius did not know Christ before Peter. Was he damned to hell had he died at that time. You have not yet answered this question.

Cornelius was not a Jew.
Agreed in the lose sense, but show me an example of Jews thinking highly of a gentile from the Bible? I maintain, Cornelius was being drawn by the Holy Spirit into the faith.

I agree that he was. But he had errors in his mind concerning God. I highly doudt he knew of a trinity or could descibe the proper relationship between faith and works. He may well have been influenced by the Jews around him. The question once again, would he, "a God-fearing and righteous man" have gone to hell had he died? Please deal with this question.

Where is the passage that says that we are to baptize infants? I don't see them. Where does it say the Apostles or believer's sprinkled infants as a form of baptism? Do you now see the error in your logic?

I am completely baffled by your inability to see my point and accuse me of bad logic, then ask questions using the same type of logic that promted my questions. You said above:

The burden is on the RCC to show in the Bible where people are saved during the Gospel dispensation

It is not my logic that I was asking the question about. It was meant to point out the fallacy of your questoin, "show me x in the Bible". I don't mind if x is in the Bible as long as it is not inconsistent with the Bible. I don't need an explicit passage regarding the baptism of infants. I can see it implicitly. It's not my logic that is the problem. I don't need to show it. you require it but falsely so. you do not live up to your "burden of proof".

You asked me for the old college try, and I gave it without resorting to traditions. I read the passage and offered an answer. The RCC is teaching a works based salvation if they believe living according to the natural law will gain you salvation, this is outside of Christ...talk about traditions!

No in fact you are superimposing traditions over the passage on Cornelius. You are superimposing traditions on the relationship between faith and works and saying that Catholicism is teaching a works based salvatoin. You said that Cornelius was being drawn by the spirit of God. Did you notice that he gave alms? That God recognized his alms? Did his alms save him? No. But they were what the spirit of God promted him to do. It is the spirit of God working in and through us that saves us. That is grace. But the grace cannot be resisted. It must bring about it's desired end or the soul is dead. Grace was working in Cornlius quite clearly before he came to Christ. I do not say that Cornelius was saved prior to this time. But that he did alms and prayed and his prayers were answered is a good sign of that spirit working in his life toward his salvation. Just as if one is trying to live by the law written in their hearts it is a sign that God might be moving in them. It is this law that brought Cornelius to be a God-fearing and righteous man, though he did not read the scriptures. It is this law that prompts men to grope and find God. I leave it up to God to judge these people.

[quote:b0e20]I'm not a dispensationalist...

Neither am I. Did you fail to read my qualifying remark in brackets? That little rant was uncalled for. It's odd that you'd deny dispensationalism when you both teach multiple ways of salvation...hummmmm....one for those who know Christ and one for those who don't. [/quote:b0e20]

Yes I missed your bracketed comment. apologies. But for me it is dispensationism. My view is historically consistent when you understand it. A "Cornelius" today who lived in South America and had not had the Gospel preached to him is viewed identically by God as Cornelius before Peter came to him. Now please answer the question in the next post. God is the same yesterday, today, and tommorrow.
This rant is just as uncalled for as well. your really getting anoying with your multiple ways of salvation rhetoric. Was Cornlius being drawn by a different God because he did not know Jesus? Was it a different path that he was on or a different point along the path? Was his almsgiving salvation by works? God definitely saw it as a reflection of Cornelius's heart. Gee the laws of God are planted on men's hearts. So I guess if God saw it as a measure of Cornelius's heart then perhaps allowing the law on one's heart to lead them to do the right thing must be a good thing. I don't know how I can make it any more plain for you.

I don't know if anyone was saved or not.

That's not what your catechism teaches. "Those who share the faith..." You're not making sense, or at least you disagree with your catechism, does Islam share in your Catholic faith? You can't make up your mind.

Perhaps you can show me in Chruch history where a Catholic said that X moselm was saved? Can and may are the words I see in the Catechism. You take them as definitives because it fits you biases about Catholicism. Where does the Catechism say Moslem's ARE saved. Which Moselm is declared among the 2000 or so Catholic saints who are the only ones the Church says WERE definitively saved?

I didn't say it, the Bible did. Faith comes by hearing, preaching, sharing the faith. It's a seed that grows...what's a seed that grows, the Gospel. If the Gospel isn't preached, if they don't have a preacher, how can they be instructed in the word of God?

I can't help it if you can't grasp my point. Was there a Cornelius like person at Phygra? I don't know. Were there no Cornelius like souls in Phygra? Do you say Cornelius would have gone to hell before Peter came to him? Would someone like Cornelius in Phygra who had not had the Gospel preached to him have gone to hell, had he been a God-fearing and righteous man? If that were the case that there was a "cornelius" in phygra and he went to hell, wheras you believe Cornelius might have gone to heaven before Peter went to him, then I guess salvation is a matter of what address you have. If your p.o. box 60, phygra, your damned, thought you are god-fearing and righteous.

For the natural man is hostile to God. Before the work of the Holy Spirit, no. No one seeketh after God. The literal rending is "there is no God seeker."

Are we going to have to muzzle you like George. Paul contradicting himself? Did Paul mean "theoretically find God". Cornelius was no God seeker? I think you need to look at the context of the passage you refer to in light of the Psalm from which it was quoted from. There's a few problems with your interpretation.

John 12

This is too funny. Doesn't your Church, the Roman Catholic Church hold the Vulgate as the offical Bible? It reads, "panta, all things" not all men. A little confused? Theodore Beza who collected the mss that became the AV1611, his oldest copies read "all." Not all things, but "all." This is closer to the Vulgate then your modern rendering. If that isn't enough, consider the rest of John 12. Are they drawn for salvation? Doesn't say. The context is judgement, "Now is the judgement of this world..."

Now your getting arrogant. I didn't say they were all drawn to salvation. That he draws them too him means they are accountable for the judgement upon them.

If you choose to use this passage in reference to salvation, I'll lay the charge against you for teaching Universalism. Are all nations, meaning every single person in each nation saved? Or do you mean some from every nation will be saved? I agree with the second. It's hyperbole.

Gotta run.

jm[/quote]

Universalism? Are you that confused about Catholic theology and about the things that have been told to you. God's grace goes out to all men but it is not irresistable so that he would draw all men toward him or his Church, ie. give them graces does not mean the all get there. Grace is not irresistable. For me irresistable grace is the worst doctrine of Calvinism. It is a denial fo the free will of man. I know, we're back to accusing me of semi-pelagianism.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

JM,

Let's put this question out in the open so you will answer it.


If Cornelius had died before Peter came to him would he have gone to heaven or would he have gone to hell?

 

[Solo]

JM,

Let's put this question out in the open so you will answer it.


If Cornelius had died before Peter came to him would he have gone to heaven or would he have gone to hell?

If Cornelius would have died before being born again, which happened when Peter preached the gospel of Jesus Christ to him, he would have gone to everlasting punishment and everlasting fire; but since God is in control of one being born again as the Spirit moves, I feel that Cornelius would have been born again, with or without Peter.

.

 

[thessalonian]

Do you agree or disagree with Solo JM? Would a "God-fearing and righteous" man go to hell? Or upright and God fearing as the RSV states it:

22: And they said, "Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house, and to hear what you have to say."


Hey, job was said to be upright and God-fearing. He was not a jew either. Perhaps he went to hell?

 

[JM]

Do you agree or disagree with Solo JM? Would a "God-fearing and righteous" man go to hell? Or upright and God fearing as the RSV states it:

22: And they said, "Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house, and to hear what you have to say."


Hey, job was said to be upright and God-fearing. He was not a jew either. Perhaps he went to hell?

Thess, are you saying a person can be "God-fearing and righteous" without being born again?

No in fact you are superimposing traditions over the passage on Cornelius.

: Thess, come on.

Perhaps you can show me in Chruch history where a Catholic said that X moselm was saved?

See your catechism.

Can and may are the words I see in the Catechism.

"can and may?" Then the catechism isn't saying anything. It offers nothing.

You take them as definitives because it fits you biases about Catholicism.

And you take any non-catholic answer, unless it's liberal, because it fits you[r] biases about Biblicism.

Now your getting arrogant. I didn't say they were all drawn to salvation. That he draws them too him means they are accountable for the judgement upon them.

:smt118 You have to admitt, you didn't see it coming...

Both Job and Cornelius had to have knowledge of the true God and His revelation and there is only one way thru His word. The Bible doesn't say there is any other way but by the preaching of the word. This is implied when one speaks of "fear of God." How does one fear God without knowledge of God? How does one have knowledge of God? Now, how does one have a saving knowledge of God, by what means does God use to call man?

:smt056

 

[francisdesales]

Both Job and Cornelius had to have knowledge of the true God and His revelation and there is only one way thru His word. The Bible doesn't say there is any other way but by the preaching of the word. This is implied when one speaks of "fear of God." How does one fear God without knowledge of God? How does one have knowledge of God? Now, how does one have a saving knowledge of God, by what means does God use to call man?

Sure it does. The Bible CLEARLY says that Gentiles have a law written on their hearts, placed there by the Spirit of God (called natural law)...

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)" Romans 2:14-15

Paul earlier, in Chapter One, says that man DOES know about God through Creation, and thus, has no excuse for at least SEEKING OUT this God.

"that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful: but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom 1: 19-21

This seeking out of God (by faith) is pleasing to Him.

"he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb 11:6

God CAN call man without the preaching of the Church, but NORMALLY, He allows man to cooperate in the salvation of other men through this preaching and calling others to conversion.

Regards