A logical extreme of the teaching of faith-based salvation.

One may say that those who never heard of Jesus would be given the choice to be saved after they die. This would be an astronomically huge advantage over those who were witnessed to on earth from other humans. One would know for sure that everything about the gospel is true, and would probably get to receive the offer from God or Jesus in person.
On earth, things are much more ambiguous and vague. It is not even certain by most whether the Abrahamic God himself even exists, much less the status of Jesus as savior. Logically, rejection through unbelief means a one-way ticket to Hell after one dies. After all, no still means no.
Who ever thought that the command to spread the gospel would have a soul fatality count? It sounds better to have let all generations through the past 2,000 years be born, live and die in ignorance.

Originally posted by EllaMarina
One may say that those who never heard of Jesus would be given the choice to be saved after they die. This would be an astronomically huge advantage over those who were witnessed to on earth from other humans. One would know for sure that everything about the gospel is true, and would probably get to receive the offer from God or Jesus in person.
On earth, things are much more ambiguous and vague. It is not even certain by most whether the Abrahamic God himself even exists, much less the status of Jesus as savior. Logically, rejection through unbelief means a one-way ticket to Hell after one dies. After all, no still means no.
Who ever thought that the command to spread the gospel would have a soul fatality count? It sounds better to have let all generations through the past 2,000 years be born, live and die in ignorance.

If you're the sort who likes to read, I'd recommend "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis. It's a novel that is Lewis' view of what purgatory might be (even though he wasn't a Catholic,) and it demonstrates how someone might still say "no" to God, even when all doubt is gone. I had that very question at one time, and Lewis answered it quite adroitly.

The most recent view that I've been given was from a Roman Catholic priest, who said that the only ones who go to hell are those who know that Christ is the way, but reject him anyway. That would "let off" people who had never heard of Christianity, heard of it, but were from a culture that kept them from considering it, and those who lacked a belief. I still need to muddle my way through a Catechism to see if that is, in fact, a valid Catholic teaching (because, to be honest, it kinda sounds like it wouldn't be,) but it is a rational answer to your point.

And, if Lewis' view of Purgatory is correct, it wouldn't equate to a "get into heaven free" card, even for those who get past hell.

reply to post by EllaMarina


Dear EllaMarina,

Our faith is not in a name, it is in a person, a way of thinking about others, the mind of Christ. Jesus Christ's name means "God's Salvation" or "God's forgiveness". It is the belief that all can be free of sin if they forgive others, that is the true essence of Christianity. Hell is separation from God; but, what does that mean. It means that we reject the love of others in favor of our love over self. God does not reject us, there is only one unforgivable sin and it is rejecting him and he is love for all and free will. If we do good just to be saved, he will reject us. If we love others then we will do good and he will accept us because we have accepted his essence, the mind of Christ.

This is the point I was trying to make to you when I said he gives us a ball and lets us figure out what games to make up with it. We were given the ability to know right from wrong; what we do with that is up to us. None of us are perfect and we all mistakes and we all act up sometimes; but, the issue is where is your heart. God judges us based on our hearts not on our ability to guess how his name is spelled or the sound of his name. Don't worry if you don't get the rituals or name right; worry if you don't care about others. If all we care about is ourselves then eventually, that is we get, that is hell, eternal solitary confinement which is chosen by us.

I saw your thread when you posted it and had to think about whether or not I would chime in. I discovered that nobody else had and decided to. The bible says that many will come to him saying "Jesus, Jesus" and he will tell them that he never knew them. They will say that they never met him and he will tell them that everytime they saw need and pain they saw him and he will ask them why they didn't do anything to help others. That is the heart of Christ, not that we be perfect; but, that we care and try.

Salvation is based on faith, faith that others matter and that we don't have all the answers; but, that the answers are out there, the answer is love for all, forgiveness for all and concern for all. If you have these things in your heart, you will not be able to stop yourself from helping others, you will feel a need to and that is the heart and mind of Christ. It leads to salvation and our ability to live in love with others for eternity. Eternity is the question and love is the only answer that makes it possible for us to be us for eternity. IMHO.

reply to post by adjensen


Dear adjensen,

I gave you a star. Are you going to become one of my newest friends? LOL. I am enjoying reading your posts. I am not a Catholic; but, grew up as one. I would ask you to read my response to the OP. I don't know that it fits Catholic dogma and do not know if it does not. It fits my understanding of the word. Peace.

reply to post by AQuestion


Your reply is a good one, as well, thanks for that.

I have spent many years as a Catholic-leaning Protestant, but I have decided that, at least for this year, I will be a Protestant-leaning Catholic and see if that is closer to my personal theology. One of the main things that attracts me to Roman Catholicism is the notion of Purgatory, which I believe resolves most of the questions that I personally had in regards to salvation, justice and God's infinite mercy.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Your reply is a good one, as well, thanks for that.

I have spent many years as a Catholic-leaning Protestant, but I have decided that, at least for this year, I will be a Protestant-leaning Catholic and see if that is closer to my personal theology. One of the main things that attracts me to Roman Catholicism is the notion of Purgatory, which I believe resolves most of the questions that I personally had in regards to salvation, justice and God's infinite mercy.

Dear adjensen,

I prefer mercy over justice, I have been a very bad boy in my life. I am far from perfect and don't want to pay for my sins; but, if I do, I have no complaint. What is unacceptable is not growing or loving more, I can't be that person. Purgatory is merely the final decision making point; but, the decision gets harder as we become more selfish, we have to take responsibility for all the harm we have done and it becomes harder and harder to admit that to ourselves. Peace.

Originally posted by EllaMarina
One may say that those who never heard of Jesus would be given the choice to be saved after they die. This would be an astronomically huge advantage over those who were witnessed to on earth from other humans. One would know for sure that everything about the gospel is true, and would probably get to receive the offer from God or Jesus in person.

Not an astronomically huge advantage really. I tell you those atheists aboard those Greenpeace ships who chose to abandon their personal lives, the worldly comforts to uphold the welfare of God's creatures are probably closer to God than those regular Sunday Christians!

Jesus wasn't demanding plain belief in him, he demands action, he demands change.

Jesus doesn't demand belief in his name - these are for casting out demons and prayers.

Luke 13:5
Revelation 20:13
Matthew 5:19

These three verses doesn't demand believing Jesus as a person but rather works and change (repent).

The deity Jesus calls Father and Jesus himself is not unfair. Who is unfair is the mainstream/orthodox Christian church. The Book of Enoch teaches the same about righteousness, rather than plain beliefs.

Salvation is all about action and loving what you do which is just and pleasing to God. You don't have to have been in the Church to find it. I can't say I've been an atheist and became a believer overnight. I've been a Christian from Birth, but the mainstream teachings have blinded me that I'm good as unbeliever.

I've found the truth through poverty, suffering and realizing that something must be wrong in this world and something could be done. If nothing could be done, we could at least die with honor - upholding the welfare of others above own, dying for the things that is just and fair to everyone including animals.

Let's cite an example. Supposing you have a car that you love very much. There's a guy next door whom you knew so well and knows you too, greets you every morning with a smile but he keeps bumping your car with his things whenever he goes out and doesn't care if he scratches the paint of your car that you love.

Then there's a stranger whom you never knew, doesn't live around the neighborhood doesn't know you too. But he comes every morning, cheerfully cleans your car with the best quality and love he can give without expecting anything in return. He just loves your car, he would treat it as it's own even if he never gets anything from it.

Now I ask you, which of the two will be closer to your heart? If you have to reward one, to whom will you send the reward?

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Your reply is a good one, as well, thanks for that.

I have spent many years as a Catholic-leaning Protestant, but I have decided that, at least for this year, I will be a Protestant-leaning Catholic and see if that is closer to my personal theology. One of the main things that attracts me to Roman Catholicism is the notion of Purgatory, which I believe resolves most of the questions that I personally had in regards to salvation, justice and God's infinite mercy.

God doesn't have infinite mercy. He is also righteous and just. Read Proverbs 1:24-33 to see exactly how He feels about the wicked when they die. Not a pretty picture brother.

Originally posted by EllaMarina
those who were witnessed to on earth from other humans.

Mark 16:15 (KJB)

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

If every Christian took it to heart and did everything, spend all their money, summon all their courage to reach even the most hostile regions of the Planet to preach the Gospel to the lost..

..Then you won't be making this post.

Although I did say every man and woman has the capacity to know the truth independent of any religion, it still helps that someone preached the gospel to them. Maybe 1% will only truly believe and follow Jesus, but 1% is still a lot better than nothing.

There is no such thing as a Sunday Christian and a follower of Jesus. There is only one which is the latter. Christians who wants God, in addition to the good things they have or want to have in this world, are not Christians at all, they never repented.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
God doesn't have infinite mercy. He is also righteous and just. Read Proverbs 1:24-33 to see exactly how He feels about the wicked when they die. Not a pretty picture brother.

Well, there is wicked, in the sense of the Richard "God sucks" Dawkins wicked, and wicked, in the sense of the average Joe, who is a cradle Christian, goes to church, but doesn't put Christ foremost in his life.

From my way of thinking (and this has been my thinking for many years,) Dawkins is never reconcilable -- assuming that he continues to hold his beliefs, I would say his chances of being condemned are pretty high. Average Joe, on the other hand, hasn't done anything to oppose God, he's just been rather indifferent, neither exceedingly good nor exceedingly bad.

I would agree that the cause of justice would not be served by sending Joe to heaven, because he didn't really serve God in a meaningful way, but I don't think that justice would be served by sending him to hell, either, because he wasn't evil and didn't really oppose God.

So, where does that leave us? In my mind, it leaves us with the need for a purgative place, where the "less than righteous" can be healed from their deficiency, and brought into the Kingdom of God. If they refuse that healing, as per Lewis' "The Great Divorce", then they are consigned to hell.

That notion preceded my conversion to Roman Catholicism by many years, because I truly felt that the either/or proposition was inherently unjust. I don't think that God saves everyone (as per Rob Bell,) but I think he gives people who are good, but outside of Christ, a decent chance.

Howdy, adj

The most recent view that I've been given was from a Roman Catholic priest, who said that the only ones who go to hell are those who know that Christ is the way, but reject him anyway. That would "let off" people who had never heard of Christianity, heard of it, but were from a culture that kept them from considering it, and those who lacked a belief. I still need to muddle my way through a Catechism to see if that is, in fact, a valid Catholic teaching (because, to be honest, it kinda sounds like it wouldn't be,) but it is a rational answer to your point.

What you are looking for has the key term invincible ignorance. It was articulated by Pius IX (a very busy guy), and while it appears in several works, if I were your priest friend, I would hang my biretta on article 7 of the 1863 encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore,

www.papalencyclicals.net...

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

If you're looking for cathechism references, you might try such articles as 845-848, and 1793

www.scborromeo.org...

You may also find some discussion under the concept baptism of desire, also searchable.

I would say, then, that your priest friend is on fairly solid ground. And speaking of Catholic-leaning Protestants, I have long been impressed by this clip,

www.youtube.com...

And so, Professor Dawkins? I bow to nobody in my contempt for him, but "There is a wideness in God's mercy." That might come in handy for me someday. I can hardly begrudge it to him.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
God doesn't have infinite mercy. He is also righteous and just. Read Proverbs 1:24-33 to see exactly how He feels about the wicked when they die. Not a pretty picture brother.

Well, there is wicked, in the sense of the Richard "God sucks" Dawkins wicked, and wicked, in the sense of the average Joe, who is a cradle Christian, goes to church, but doesn't put Christ foremost in his life.

From my way of thinking (and this has been my thinking for many years,) Dawkins is never reconcilable -- assuming that he continues to hold his beliefs, I would say his chances of being condemned are pretty high. Average Joe, on the other hand, hasn't done anything to oppose God, he's just been rather indifferent, neither exceedingly good nor exceedingly bad.

I would agree that the cause of justice would not be served by sending Joe to heaven, because he didn't really serve God in a meaningful way, but I don't think that justice would be served by sending him to hell, either, because he wasn't evil and didn't really oppose God.

So, where does that leave us? In my mind, it leaves us with the need for a purgative place, where the "less than righteous" can be healed from their deficiency, and brought into the Kingdom of God. If they refuse that healing, as per Lewis' "The Great Divorce", then they are consigned to hell.

That notion preceded my conversion to Roman Catholicism by many years, because I truly felt that the either/or proposition was inherently unjust. I don't think that God saves everyone (as per Rob Bell,) but I think he gives people who are good, but outside of Christ, a decent chance.

That's why you have different levels of Hell, from the "outer darkness" to the lake of fire. Christ taught that on the day of judgment eternal destruction would be more tolerable for some people, generations, and cities than for others. If that's true the inversion principle states that it must also be true that for some people, generations, and cities condemnation will be less tolerable. Read that passage in Proverbs, it says how God feels about the plight of the condemned. He no longer shows them "mercy" but contempt. His mercy is "longsuffering", not infinite.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
God doesn't have infinite mercy. He is also righteous and just. Read Proverbs 1:24-33 to see exactly how He feels about the wicked when they die. Not a pretty picture brother.

Well, there is wicked, in the sense of the Richard "God sucks" Dawkins wicked, and wicked, in the sense of the average Joe, who is a cradle Christian, goes to church, but doesn't put Christ foremost in his life.

From my way of thinking (and this has been my thinking for many years,) Dawkins is never reconcilable -- assuming that he continues to hold his beliefs, I would say his chances of being condemned are pretty high. Average Joe, on the other hand, hasn't done anything to oppose God, he's just been rather indifferent, neither exceedingly good nor exceedingly bad.

I would agree that the cause of justice would not be served by sending Joe to heaven, because he didn't really serve God in a meaningful way, but I don't think that justice would be served by sending him to hell, either, because he wasn't evil and didn't really oppose God.

So, where does that leave us? In my mind, it leaves us with the need for a purgative place, where the "less than righteous" can be healed from their deficiency, and brought into the Kingdom of God. If they refuse that healing, as per Lewis' "The Great Divorce", then they are consigned to hell.

That notion preceded my conversion to Roman Catholicism by many years, because I truly felt that the either/or proposition was inherently unjust. I don't think that God saves everyone (as per Rob Bell,) but I think he gives people who are good, but outside of Christ, a decent chance.

You really think God would punish the wicked through hellfire and brimstone? What would that accomplish? A lifetime of infinite torture with no chance to return? Why would God want to punish those whose culture/logistics/environment forbid them from learning about Him or the Son? Why would a loving, all knowing God know that if a person is predestined to be wicked, send them to torture? And why would Father have a place of torture for mankind RIGHT NOW when lucifer him/her/whatever ( i know lucifer exists but i don't know the gender of the rebel ) is not being tortured as of the present moment? This doctrine of eternal torture in hell makes no sense to me.

Hell is eternal separation from God... If there was torture in the fiery pits of hell, that would limit the omnipotence and the infinite love of God. I look at hell as death of the soul, your soul being non existent, which would postulate eternal separation from God. And you choose that outcome yourself, after the end of the physical experience of life, because of all the wrong deeds you have done after you have had a chance to reexamine all of your life experiences.

Ezekiel 18: 21- 24
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.

To add my thoughts onto verse 24, that person will not live because they knew what they were doing was wrong when they have known better, and cannot get over the guilt, and thus choose eternal separation.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Christ taught that on the day of judgment eternal destruction would be more tolerable for some people, generations, and cities than for others

Why would eternal destruction be more tolerable for some people, generations, and cities than for others? Because those specific people, generations, and cities all heard the good news, rejected it, and finally when faced with the truth, cannot bear their guilt, and choose eternal destruction of the soul.

reply to post by DelayedChristmas


The destuction of all 'others' will reveal the kingdom. The belief in 'other' is what causes the suffering. Only when you realize oneness - there is no 'other' in oneness - will you know Heaven.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by DelayedChristmas

 

The destuction of all 'others' will reveal the kingdom. The belief in 'other' is what causes the suffering. Only when you realize oneness - there is no 'other' in oneness - will you know Heaven.

edit on 10-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Que pasa Bromigo? "Others?"

reply to post by DelayedChristmas


In reality there are no 'others'. 'Others' are imagined.
There is just oneness so how can there be 'others'?
Man imagines there is more than this. This is all there is and man imagines the rest.

The destruction of 'all else' reveals God.
'All else' never existed in reality but humans 'think' and 'believe' there is more than this present isness.

To help clarify;
youtu.be...

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
Hell is eternal separation from God... If there was torture in the fiery pits of hell, that would limit the omnipotence and the infinite love of God. I look at hell as death of the soul, your soul being non existent, which would postulate eternal separation from God. And you choose that outcome yourself, after the end of the physical experience of life, because of all the wrong deeds you have done after you have had a chance to reexamine all of your life experiences.

I don't claim to have knowledge of what hell is, but I have generally tended toward the same thought as you. Hell is not somewhere that God sends us, it is the place that we choose to go to, by rejecting him. Being tortured for all eternity by demons would seem to reward the demons, which doesn't sound like something God would see as being just.

We know that at the time of the Second Coming, this reality is reborn, the righteous are resurrected in body, and God comes to live with us. Theoretically, that empties out the place that is Heaven, where Christ and those who have died in him reside, right? Maybe the final judgement is the destruction of that place, and all that remain in it (those in Hell, both the condemned and the demons.)

I have had to reconcile afterlife beliefs after the death of my wife. She died in what the Catholic church says is a state of mortal sin (and which the Bible specifically states is a sin,) which she chose out of compassion for another person, but I have seen unmistakable signs that she is with God, and I doubt that God would have condemned her, and then sent me fake signs that told me otherwise.

So, I just don't know, but as I said earlier, the either/or proposition of saying that the state one is in at the point of death, for me, has some inconsistencies that I think are addressed best by the doctrine of Purgatory. That gets me in some hot water with those, like my friend NOTurTypical, who do see the either/or as being right, and my deference to that claim is that, since he may well be right, I don't tell people that it doesn't matter what they believe, they'll get saved in the end anyway. It just helps me to sort out some issues that I have had (and which pre-date my wife's passing -- the circumstances following that just served to bolster the conclusion that I had already come to.)

reply to post by EllaMarina

One may say that those who never heard of Jesus would be given the choice to be saved after they die.

Since you are talking about Jesus, then you would, or probably should be referring to the New Testament since this is where we find the bulk of information about him.
I don't think there is any teaching in the NT that would suggest this premise to your question is in fact true, but the fundamental thing in Christianity is living a life that is not evil, and it would be something that comes up in every person's life at some point, to do evil or to do good, and that is what we are judged on, with Jesus being the measure against which we are compared, whether we realize that beforehand or not.

reply to post by EllaMarina

The conversation continues and the news is continuing to be preached even while new discoveries are being made which validate the historical person and Great Work of Jesus Christ. It's all good, "no worries" as Jesus taught us.

Those who preach hell for the unsaved and the damned, they might have to taste it themselves for a bit, that's about as bad as it gets as far as I can tell.