Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Salvation for non-Catholic Christians

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Except, of course, that most religions OTHER than Islam allow you time to study, think, pray, consider, reason..... My impression is that Islam, particularly in the "extremist" version, is pretty much a "decide here and now!" kind of thing.
    And most other religions don't proscribe the death penalty for apostasy, leaving that sort of thing up to God.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    It's also not far off from the theological paradigm that justifies forced conversions: you've been presented with our arguments for, say, Islam, and if you're not convinced, then you deserve death for rejecting God's revelation (nevermind the lack of careful and convincing presentation of the arguments)
    Except, of course, that most religions OTHER than Islam allow you time to study, think, pray, consider, reason..... My impression is that Islam, particularly in the "extremist" version, is pretty much a "decide here and now!" kind of thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Very similar to what OC and NRAJeff used to tell us about Mormonism.
    It's also not far off from the theological paradigm that justifies forced conversions: you've been presented with our arguments for, say, Islam, and if you're not convinced, then you deserve death for rejecting God's revelation (nevermind the lack of careful and convincing presentation of the arguments)

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
    So if a Protestant were to examine Catholic doctrine but conclude that it doesn't coincide with how he understands Scripture, I'm taking it that this would make him culpable and therefore unsaved?
    Very similar to what OC and NRAJeff used to tell us about Mormonism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zymologist
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    If you have good reason to suspect that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ, but you refrain from researching further because you're afraid you might have to convert, that's culpable ignorance.

    On the other hand, sometimes mistaken impressions are entirely understandable. If you arrive at a mistaken impression of what the Church is and are never credibly presented with an invitation to look deeper, then your ignorance would not be culpable.

    Just seeing the Catechism on the shelf in a bookstore isn't enough for St. Peter to say at the pearly gates, "ha, you could've learned about Catholicism, but you didn't, so off to Hell you go!" As I understand it, you have to have some basic comprehension of an idea before you can be culpable for accepting or rejecting it.
    So if a Protestant were to examine Catholic doctrine but conclude that it doesn't coincide with how he understands Scripture, I'm taking it that this would make him culpable and therefore unsaved?

    Leave a comment:


  • Thoughtful Monk
    replied
    Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
    Thanks. This seems to largely reinforce the blog post in the OP. Am I missing something?
    Welcome. Other than being a lot wordier, said the same thing. Like many Protestants don't think Catholics are saved, many Catholics think the same in reverse.

    Leave a comment:


  • fm93
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    No.
    Edited by a Moderator

    Moderator Notice

    fm93 - you are not permitted to post in this area - you must receive PRIOR permission to post here. Please check the rules for each of the fora before posting, and, as the instructions say below - do not argue moderation in this thread.

    Thanks
    CP

    ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
    Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

    Last edited by Cow Poke; 03-14-2015, 05:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    If you have good reason to suspect that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ, but you refrain from researching further because you're afraid you might have to convert, that's culpable ignorance.

    On the other hand, sometimes mistaken impressions are entirely understandable. If you arrive at a mistaken impression of what the Church is and are never credibly presented with an invitation to look deeper, then your ignorance would not be culpable.

    Just seeing the Catechism on the shelf in a bookstore isn't enough for St. Peter to say at the pearly gates, "ha, you could've learned about Catholicism, but you didn't, so off to Hell you go!" As I understand it, you have to have some basic comprehension of an idea before you can be culpable for accepting or rejecting it.
    This is some of your better work, steak flipper!

    Leave a comment:


  • footwasher
    replied
    Catholic Digest. May 1994. Fr. Ken Ryan … page 124

    < the lead question for the month of May--->

    “Your June 1993 issue had a most interesting question regarding the New Covenant. Your answer said that people come under the New Covenant by joining the Catholic Church and taking part in the Catholic Mass, but said nothing about there being any other ways of entering the New Covenant or about limiting salvation to those under the New Covenant. Are there (in Catholic thought) any other ways of salvation, and if there are, doesn’t that fact make the Catholic New Covenant (joining the Catholic church and attending Mass) unnecessary?” Bob.

    The Answer – By Fr. Ken Ryan

    “Not in Catholic theology. God is fair to everyone so He offers His salvation to everyone. The invitation is issued through the New Covenant, and human acceptance of the invitation is properly expressed by membership in the Catholic Church And participation in Christ’s sacrifice of Himself in the Mass. The New Covenant, in its Catholic meaning, is the ordinary way of salvation (getting to heaven).

    God’s expressed command is that everyone belong to the Catholic Church He founded. “He who hears Me” was spoken to the 70 disciples whom He had organized to speak for Him in places He did not personally visit.

    The invitation to membership in the New Covenant is for all people in general, but the acceptance has to be by the individual. One certainly can’t decline an invitation he or she has never heard of. Accordingly, the Catholic Church does not deny the possibility of salvation except to those who have heard the invitation, understood its meaning, and nevertheless rejected it. Those who have never heard it, never understood it, or never made any deliberate rejection of the invitation can still be saved in some extraordinary way., some way other than joining the Catholic Church and participating in the Mass. All these possible ways can be summarized by saying that all persons who sincerely try to have a properly informed conscience and then follow that conscience in their moral actions can be saved by this extraordinary way God offers to all.

    New Covenant as a term is much more prevalent in non-Catholic popular literature than it is in Catholic writings, and has various meanings. But it was Christ Himself who identified it with the Mass which non-Catholics have rejected.

    “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” was spoken at the Last Supper (the first Mass).
    So, according to Catholic thought the New Covenant is the ordinary way to heaven, commanded for our use by Christ, which nevertheless allows salvation by the extraordinary action of God.


    :)

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    You mean riposte?
    No.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
    I'm not sure...it seems to be somewhat vague. I'm honestly not sure what the answer might be.

    Edit: not sure, is what I meant to say.
    If you have good reason to suspect that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ, but you refrain from researching further because you're afraid you might have to convert, that's culpable ignorance.

    On the other hand, sometimes mistaken impressions are entirely understandable. If you arrive at a mistaken impression of what the Church is and are never credibly presented with an invitation to look deeper, then your ignorance would not be culpable.

    Just seeing the Catechism on the shelf in a bookstore isn't enough for St. Peter to say at the pearly gates, "ha, you could've learned about Catholicism, but you didn't, so off to Hell you go!" As I understand it, you have to have some basic comprehension of an idea before you can be culpable for accepting or rejecting it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zymologist
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    If you had to guess at the answer, what would you say?
    I'm not sure...it seems to be somewhat vague. I'm honestly not sure what the answer might be.

    Edit: not sure, is what I meant to say.
    Last edited by Zymologist; 03-13-2015, 10:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
    Is there any official teaching as to the extent of the ignorance necessary for, say, a Protestant? That's a bad way to phrase the question, but I can't think of any other way.
    If you had to guess at the answer, what would you say?

    Leave a comment:


  • Zymologist
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    I'd have posted sooner and with more substance, but, TWeb has been exhausting recently.

    The OP blog post is technically correct. For a person to know beyond any reasonable doubt that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded and not to want to be part of it? To knowingly reject God's plan for the salvation of mankind and for every individual? What else would one expect after that but Hell?

    Of course, there's a bit of room for interpretation about what constitutes vincible or invincible ignorance. One certainly can't be faulted for not investigating every single sect that claims to have the One Truth Path to salvation, but if careful and sustained investigation leaves you with no alternative but to believe that the Catholic Church legitimately claims, despite all its evident and not-so-evident flaws, to be the legitimate continuation of the Church Christ founded, then what is your alternative?
    Is there any official teaching as to the extent of the ignorance necessary for, say, a Protestant? That's a bad way to phrase the question, but I can't think of any other way right now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
    I was wondering if you'd post in this thread. Have any comment on the accuracy of the OP? I'm checking out Thoughtful Monk's link now.
    I'd have posted sooner and with more substance, but, TWeb has been exhausting recently.

    The OP blog post is technically correct. For a person to know beyond any reasonable doubt that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded and not to want to be part of it? To knowingly reject God's plan for the salvation of mankind and for every individual? What else would one expect after that but Hell?

    Of course, there's a bit of room for interpretation about what constitutes vincible or invincible ignorance. One certainly can't be faulted for not investigating every single sect that claims to have the One Truth Path to salvation, but if careful and sustained investigation leaves you with no alternative but to believe that the Catholic Church legitimately claims, despite all its evident and not-so-evident flaws, to be the legitimate continuation of the Church Christ founded, then what is your alternative?

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 05-26-2022, 08:29 AM
28 responses
168 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X