The pope triples down on his univeralism

[Mungo]

If they're saved, they'll share the Gospel of the grace of God anyway. If they're not, they won't because they never believed it themselves no matter how sincerely religious they may be.

The real issue here, which a few posters here appear not to get (or just don't want to), is not that if everyone obeyed their consciences the world would be a much better place. That was not the point of the start of the pope's conversation. Rather, he clearly said it is possible for Christ-rejecters to still please God without faith, as long as they sincerely did what they thought was right and really tried to obey their consciences. He's (so far) stuck to his guns three times now despite growing noise from angry Catholics around the world.

The problem is, God's Word says without faith it is impossible to please Him. Faith in what? Your own conduct? Your own good works? Keeping a clean conscience? Faith in God helping you climb the big golden ladder? No. Without faith in His Son alone as the satisfaction for your sin, it is impossible to reach the Father. That is what God requires of ANY who wish to come unto Him.

Which means one of them - the Bible or the pope - is wrong.


I go by what the apostles, to a man, all said. If you're as content to contradict the Gospel by loving lost people right into the Lake of Fire as you as you appear to be, you'll answer to Christ for it if you're saved, or will join them there yourself if you're not.

Why do people claim the Bible says something but don't even give a reference for their claim?

However I tracked your claim to Heb 11:6
“And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”

Note the writer is referring to faith in God, not faith in “His Son”, not faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross.

You say:
"Without faith in His Son alone as the satisfaction for your sin, it is impossible to reach the Father. That is what God requires of ANY who wish to come unto Him"

So how did Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham etc. know Jesus?

It was their belief that God exists and their attempt to seek him that pleased God.

 

[musterion]

Why do people claim the Bible says something but don't even give a reference for their claim?

Why do you comment on a thread you don't understand?

The point of both the articles referenced in this thread and of the thread itself is not how God dealt with people who lived before the Incarnation. The point is that no one TODAY can be saved without faith in Christ, yet the pope contradicted this three times. Try to keep up.

Hey look, Mungo, a nice big Candygram for you!

 

[Dodo_David]

Why do people claim the Bible says something but don't even give a reference for their claim?

However I tracked your claim to Heb 11:6
“And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”

Note the writer is referring to faith in God, not faith in “His Son”, not faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross.

You say:
"Without faith in His Son alone as the satisfaction for your sin, it is impossible to reach the Father. That is what God requires of ANY who wish to come unto Him"

So how did Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham etc. know Jesus?

It was their belief that God exists and their attempt to seek him that pleased God.

In John 14:6 (NIV), Jesus says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 8:54-58 (NIV) says the following:

[SIZE=.75em]54 [/SIZE]Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. [SIZE=.75em]55 [/SIZE]Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word.[SIZE=.75em]56 [/SIZE]Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
[SIZE=.75em]57 [/SIZE]“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
[SIZE=.75em]58 [/SIZE]“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

 

[Mungo]

Why do you comment on a thread you don't understand?

The point of both the articles referenced in this thread and of the thread itself is not how God dealt with people who lived before the Incarnation. The point is that no one TODAY can be saved without faith in Christ, yet the pope contradicted this three times. Try to keep up.

Hey look, Mungo, a nice big Candygram for you!

Before the Incarnation someone who had never heard of Christ could be saved.

After the Resurrection someone who has bever heard of Christ is damned.

Those people who lived in America and Australia (for example) were OK before the Incarnation but once Jesus rose from the dead they were suenly damnned.

Children who have no faith in Christ because they either haven't heard of him or do not understand are damned.

Is that what you are saying? Because that's the implication of your statement.



If you want to claim you meant not immediately after the Resurrection but TODAY, then when exactly did the situation change?

 

[musterion]

Before the Incarnation someone who had never heard of Christ could be saved.

If we define "saved" as "made right with God," then yes, for there was no Christ (yet) for humans to hear of - what they WERE saved by was obeying what God said TO THEM, which was very different from what people today, since the revelation of the mystery, need to do to be saved.

After the Resurrection someone who has bever heard of Christ is damned.

Those people who lived in America and Australia (for example) were OK before the Incarnation but once Jesus rose from the dead they were suenly damnned.

No, they were never quite "ok." Even in the blackest depths of heathen paganism, man has still always had the consciences to abide by, the law written on their hearts. Between that and the witness of creation itself, no one has ever been without excuse for their sins.

Children who have no faith in Christ because they either haven't heard of him or do not understand are damned.

Is that what you are saying? Because that's the implication of your statement.

I don't see how that's implied by anything I said but in any case, I do not believe that, thanks for asking.

So allow me, again, to bring your attention to the subject at hand.

“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but NOW commandeth ALL men everywhere TO REPENT" (Acts 17:30).

Paul warned the Romans that there is none righteous, no not one, and that God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all men because oftheir rebellion. Do you deny this? Do you deny that if someone hears the Gospel, he/she will be responsible to God for what they do with it?

Because that is what the pope o' Rome did, three times. He said conscience and good conduct are enough, even for atheists. He didn't warn them of the coming fiery judgment. He didn't point them to the Cross and Christ's blood as the only possible satisfaction for their sin. Are you OK with that? Because that's the implication of your statements.

 

[Mungo]

Before the Incarnation someone who had never heard of Christ could be saved.

If we define "saved" as "made right with God," then yes, for there was no Christ (yet) for humans to hear of - what they WERE saved by was obeying what God said TO THEM, which was very different from what people today, since the revelation of the mystery, need to do to be saved.

After the Resurrection someone who has bever heard of Christ is damned.

Those people who lived in America and Australia (for example) were OK before the Incarnation but once Jesus rose from the dead they were suenly damnned.

No, they were never quite "ok." Even in the blackest depths of heathen paganism, man has still always had the consciences to abide by, the law written on their hearts. Between that and the witness of creation itself, no one has ever been without excuse for their sins.

Children who have no faith in Christ because they either haven't heard of him or do not understand are damned.

Is that what you are saying? Because that's the implication of your statement.

I don't see how that's implied by anything I said but in any case, I do not believe that, thanks for asking.

So allow me, again, to bring your attention to the subject at hand.

“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but NOW commandeth ALL men everywhere TO REPENT" (Acts 17:30).

Paul warned the Romans that there is none righteous, no not one, and that God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all men because oftheir rebellion. Do you deny this? Do you deny that if someone hears the Gospel, he/she will be responsible to God for what they do with it?

Because that is what the pope o' Rome did, three times. He said conscience and good conduct are enough, even for atheists. He didn't warn them of the coming fiery judgment. He didn't point them to the Cross and Christ's blood as the only possible satisfaction for their sin. Are you OK with that? Because that's the implication of your statements.

If we define "saved" as "made right with God," then yes, for there was no Christ (yet) for humans to hear of - what they WERE saved by was obeying what God said TO THEM, which was very different from what people today, since the revelation of the mystery, need to do to be saved.

Why is it very different from today?

I note you avoided my last question - when did it change?


No, they were never quite "ok." Even in the blackest depths of heathen paganism, man has still always had the consciences to abide by, the law written on their hearts. Between that and the witness of creation itself, no one has ever been without excuse for their sins.

Yes I know that. But the point I was making was that these people had never heard of Christ. But you seem to be saying that once Christ rose from the dead they could only be saved by believing in a Christ they had never heard of.

Paul said:
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed?
And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
And how can they hear without someone to preach?

(Rom 10:13-15)​

 

[musterion]

“Testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ”

Acts 20:21

Why are you insisting on derailing this thread from the topic of what the pope has said three times? Is that your way of defending him without coming out and saying you agree with him?

 

[aspen]

I agree with Pope; I do not agree with your strawman, Musterion - perhaps you are not seeing the distinction.

 

[musterion]

The Gospel preached by Paul is a strawman?

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Mungo]

“Testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ”

Acts 20:21

Why are you insisting on derailing this thread from the topic of what the pope has said three times? Is that your way of defending him without coming out and saying you agree with him?

Let me know when you are going to answer the questions and not just post irrelevant quotations from scripture and we may have something to discuss.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

The Gospel preached by Paul is a strawman?

Welcome to my ignore list.

Good work! Just ignore everyone who disagrees with you and you'll have your own little echo chamber. Did you want to discuss this with Catholics who might understand what the Pope was saying or did you just want to solicit agreement from protestants just as ignorant as you are?

 

[Dodo_David]

Good work! Just ignore everyone who disagrees with you and you'll have your own little echo chamber. Did you want to discuss this with Catholics who might understand what the Pope was saying or did you just want to solicit agreement from protestants just as ignorant as you are?

The topic of this thread isn't a "Catholic vs. Protestant" topic.

It is the perception that Pope Francis promoted something rejected by both Catholics and Protestants, that people today do not need Jesus in order to get to God.

Perhaps that perception is wrong.

 

[musterion]

DD,

I will retract everything I said on this topic, publicly apologize for hasty judgment and will request that, at your discretion, you delete this thread IF anyone who objects to what I've said can show where, in the course of his public communications in this matter, the pope stated in no uncertain terms that all who reject Christ face certain and awful judgment lest they repent, just as Christ Himself warned (Luke 13:3 et al). One should expect nothing less from the purported vicar of Christ but until that evidence is provided, it is no mere perception. It is the firm belief of a man who meant what he said and said exactly what he meant.

Vale, I understand your pain. I truly do. Is what your pope said uncomfortable, disturbing or even frightening? Of course it is. Millions of Catholics worldwide are naturally very upset by it, as you're well aware. But shouting down or trying to shut down the conversation won't change the fact that your pope has said that faith in Christ is not necessarily necessary to becoming right with God.

If you don't want to discuss that here or anywhere else, that's fine. But why am I wrong for simply taking the man at his word? That is all I've done from the start. How can you fault me for that?

My offer stands. If you or anyone can show from the pope's own words, in the context of the controversial public statements he has made, that he preached the exclusivity of Christ and Him crucified and without Him the faithless are damned, I will apologize and repent.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

The topic of this thread isn't a "Catholic vs. Protestant" topic.

It is the perception that Pope Francis promoted something rejected by both Catholics and Protestants, that people today do not need Jesus in order to get to God.

Perhaps that perception is wrong.

It's misconstrued, but understandably so. I know Protestants. I know their mindset. So I know how they come to view it that way. What we believe is that salvation comes only through Christ, but full revelation of God in Jesus Christ may not come in this life time. If any lesson can be drawn from all the major world religions it's that God has thrown out cookie crumbs to lead people to Him, even those who have never heard the name of Jesus or for whatever reason have never come to understand the gospel of Christ. For Protestants, all conversions must happen in this lifetime, but we believe that God draws people to him and works to do so even in death.

There's a lot of potential confusion in this, and the immediate thought many Protestants will have is "second chance". But the workings of God to save everyone he can even after death (let's call this Purgatory for simplicity's sake) is not a second chance for those who rejected the love and grace of God in this lifetime. Those people will be given what they chose in this lifetime; complete separation from God. But many people are just like the blind man Jesus healed, "Who is he so that I may believe in him?" (Jn 9:36) Their actions, their works, their piety and how they loved their fellow man shows they were seeking God out even if they never fully understood who he is. Full revelation of God in Jesus Christ may not necessarily occur in this life time for a variety of reasons.

So the Pope was not and never will say that people don't need Jesus to come to God.

 

[Dodo_David]

DD,

I will retract everything I said on this topic, publicly apologize for hasty judgment and will request that, at your discretion, you delete this thread IF anyone who objects to what I've said can show where, in the course of his public communications in this matter, the pope stated in no uncertain terms that all who reject Christ face certain and awful judgment lest they repent, just as Christ Himself warned (Luke 13:3 et al). One should expect nothing less from the purported vicar of Christ but until that evidence is provided, it is no mere perception. It is the firm belief of a man who meant what he said and said exactly what he meant.

Vale, I understand your pain. I truly do. Is what your pope said uncomfortable, disturbing or even frightening? Of course it is. Millions of Catholics worldwide are naturally very upset by it, as you're well aware. But shouting down or trying to shut down the conversation won't change the fact that your pope has said that faith in Christ is not necessarily necessary to becoming right with God.

If you don't want to discuss that here or anywhere else, that's fine. But why am I wrong for simply taking the man at his word? That is all I've done from the start. How can you fault me for that?

My offer stands. If you or anyone can show from the pope's own words, in the context of the controversial public statements he has made, that he preached the exclusivity of Christ and Him crucified and without Him the faithless are damned, I will apologize and repent.

musterion, I did not disagree with you.

I stated that Pope Francis gave the perception that he is promoting something that is rejected by both Protestants and Catholics.

For the sake of discussion, I encourage defenders of Pope Francis to demonstrate that the perception is wrong if it is wrong.

In other words, I encourage both sides of the debate to be presented.

 

[Mungo]

I will retract everything I said on this topic, publicly apologize for hasty judgment and will request that, at your discretion, you delete this thread IF anyone who objects to what I've said can show where, in the course of his public communications in this matter, the pope stated in no uncertain terms that all who reject Christ face certain and awful judgment lest they repent, just as Christ Himself warned (Luke 13:3 et al). One should expect nothing less from the purported vicar of Christ but until that evidence is provided, it is no mere perception. It is the firm belief of a man who meant what he said and said exactly what he meant.


My offer stands. If you or anyone can show from the pope's own words, in the context of the controversial public statements he has made, that he preached the exclusivity of Christ and Him crucified and without Him the faithless are damned, I will apologize and repent.

You are ignoring the scripture I quoted:
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed?
And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
And how can they hear without someone to preach?
(Rom 10:13-15)

It is one thing to have heard of Christ and reject him and another to have not heard of him.

If people have not heard of Christ but lead a good life according to their consciences, are they damned?

Someone who has not heard the gospel is not rejecting Christ but they can still be saved by Christ's saving work. Do you agree with that?

 

[musterion]

DD, Now I understand what you meant, thanks for clarifying.

It's misconstrued, but understandably so. I know Protestants. I know their mindset.

No you don't, as I'll demonstrate in a moment.

So I know how they come to view it that way.

I lurk at several Catholic boards and monitor ecumencial and Catholic news feeds. Many of your churchfellows are outraged over this, justifiably. So stop trying to characterize this as a protestant tempest in the teapot of this one message board - it's WAY bigger than that, You know it, we know it, so cut the false outrage.

What we believe is that salvation comes only through Christ, but full revelation of God in Jesus Christ may not come in this life time.

The Bible is God's full and final Word on Christ. You would say, "No, my church's traditions are on par with the Bible and are necessary to making the Bible understandable." Okay, fine. Your church has held for over a thousand years that salvation comes by no other than through Christ, and the only way to get to Christ is through your church. Problem: Your pope just short-circuited ALL of that. How does that have ANYTHING to do with the protestants you are ranting about?

If any lesson can be drawn from all the major world religions it's that God has thrown out cookie crumbs to lead people to Him,

The Gospel of the grace of God is not cookie crumbs. It is God's final Word to man on salvation today and He requires ALL who hear it to obey it.

even those who have never heard the name of Jesus or for whatever reason have never come to understand the gospel of Christ.

God can, has and will get Word of His will to whoever seeks it. Relatively few people on earth today do not have access to a Bible but even if they do not, God's arm is not shortened by that. He has many means of getting the saving Word to anyone, anywhere, whose heart is truly seeking after Him.

For Protestants, all conversions must happen in this lifetime, but we believe that God draws people to him and works to do so even in death.

Irrelevant to this topic. Your pope's public statements are the focal point here, not protestants.

There's a lot of potential confusion in this, and the immediate thought many Protestants will have is "second chance".

Wrong. The FIRST thought any Bible-only believer had was NOT, "Oh boy, the pope's offering this atheist the good news of purgatory." No, the FIRST thought we had was, "Wow, the pope had three opportunities to share Christ with an unbeliever who asked him for an interview, but instead said his conscience and good conduct will make him right with God!" THAT is what Bible-only believers thought, so please stop assuming so much about us. You don't know how we think half as well as you believe you do. You CAN'T - we have a completely different OS from you.

Their actions, their works, their piety and how they loved their fellow man shows they were seeking God out even if they never fully understood who he is.

All of that is as filthy rags and dung without the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Full revelation of God in Jesus Christ may not necessarily occur in this life time for a variety of reasons.

It already has happened. 2 Cor 5:16, Romans 16:25, Ephesians 3:8-9, Colossians 1:25-26. There is no further revelation of Christ beyond what God has already given as contained in scripture, and that is what he requires all to believe.

So the Pope was not and never will say that people don't need Jesus to come to God.

Don't put words in his mouth. He didn't once mention the unbeliever's need for Christ and impending judgment lest he repent. He didn't say it because, evidently, he doesn't actually believe it. But Paul, Peter, James and John did believe it, and so they preached. Yet THIS guy is the vicar of Christ?

Remember this if you ever find yourself wondering how people like me can be so staunchly Bible-only. Your pope has made a better case for sola Scriptura than I ever could.

 

[Dodo_David]

This is getting interesting.

 

[Mungo]

This is getting interesting.

While we are waiting - do you think musterion will answer my points, or just duck them?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

You are ignoring the scripture I quoted:
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed?
And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
And how can they hear without someone to preach?
(Rom 10:13-15)

It is one thing to have heard of Christ and reject him and another to have not heard of him.

If people have not heard of Christ but lead a good life according to their consciences, are they damned?

Someone who has not heard the gospel is not rejecting Christ but they can still be saved by Christ's saving work. Do you agree with that?

These are some solid arguments. Protestants instinctively reject good works as having ANYTHING to do with salvation. It's unbiblical, but then again, so is the Reformation, for never are we told to deal with disagreements by starting our own church. But I digress.

We Catholics understand that good works cannot be separated from loving communion with God because we do good works as a response to God's grace in our lives and those good works form a relationship with the author of all that is good. If you ask Protestants, they see good works as something in lieu of accepting Christ but Catholics see no such conflict. The call to good works is a call to God and many who come to Christ can look at their BC days and see the ways God has been calling them through acts of charity toward their fellow man. Protestants tend to take an all-or-nothing approach to salvation in that they believe that anything that falls short of a full epiphany and conversion is futile and useless. They don't see faith as a series of baby steps but rather as one grand even short of which is a loss of salvation.

I lurk at several Catholic boards and monitor ecumencial and Catholic news feeds. Many of your churchfellows are outraged over this, justifiably. So stop trying to characterize this as a protestant tempest in the teapot of this one message board - it's WAY bigger than that, You know it, we know it, so cut the false outrage.

This is an uncompelling argument. What you run across in Catholic websites is not at all indicative of what Catholics believe on a global scale. We have implicit trust in the Pope as servus servorum Dei, the servant of the servants of God. Our trust is not in the frailty of man, but in the Holy Spirit who is given to guide the Church into all truth. Moreover, Catholic teaching is not a popularity contest and the Church has been and always will be an institution of authority, not a democracy.

The Bible is God's full and final Word on Christ. You would say, "No, my church's traditions are on par with the Bible and are necessary to making the Bible understandable." Okay, fine. Your church has held for over a thousand years that salvation comes by no other than through Christ, and the only way to get to Christ is through your church. Problem: Your pope just short-circuited ALL of that. How does that have ANYTHING to do with the protestants you are ranting about?

That's your misguided opinion. I've seen the Popes comments and find them well in line with the tradition of the Church. But then again, I'm more educated on what the Catholic Church teaches than most lay Catholics; not to brag, it's just the truth. Your rant about tradition vs the Bible betrays a damning bias. The Pope isn't contradicting the tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church, the Pope is merely contradicting your interpretation of the Bible.

God can, has and will get Word of His will to whoever seeks it. Relatively few people on earth today do not have access to a Bible but even if they do not, God's arm is not shortened by that. He has many means of getting the saving Word to anyone, anywhere, whose heart is truly seeking after Him.

Incorrect. Many cultures ban the Bible and people are too poor to have adequate internet access. In China and North Korea, the Bible is banned and the internet controlled. Bibles have to be smuggled into those countries. And yet you correctly point out that God's arm is not shortened. It means that God can reach people even lacking a full revelation of the gospel of Christ. He does so through a relationship punctuated by good works and charity. People can demonstrate their love for God even before they know fully who God is.

Wrong. The FIRST thought any Bible-only believer had was NOT, "Oh boy, the pope's offering this atheist the good news of purgatory." No, the FIRST thought we had was, "Wow, the pope had three opportunities to share Christ with an unbeliever who asked him for an interview, but instead said his conscience and good conduct will make him right with God!" THAT is what Bible-only believers thought, so please stop assuming so much about us. You don't know how we think half as well as you believe you do. You CAN'T - we have a completely different OS from you.

What's sad is that the only one making unfounded assumptions here is you. I was raised with both Catholic and Protestant influences in my life. I've sat through hundreds (no exaggeration) of Protestant services and fellowshipped in Bible studies and other events. Yes, I do know the Protestant mindset and intimately so. Besides, I don't disagree with what you said is the typical Protestant response. You hear that God calls people to him through any means, any religion, any philosophy, and conclude that we're saying that full revelation of God in Christ Jesus has just become disnecessitated. I know you think that, and your assumption is in error.