Response To A Roman Catholic

Hey Sicarii,

I do face that eternal question / contradiction alot about Christ’s love as well.

Many ask, if God is so loving, why does he still condemn people to hell.

So just adding to your point, God is love. The very embodiment of it, that he sacrificed himself to save us.

My point is rooted in Romans 5:8

“And God proved his love for us in this, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

One thing we tend to not see in an all loving God, is also a God who is Justice, and is accountable to Himself first and formost.

Christ has already opened the way back to heaven in that we believe Christ died for our sins. But he has to serve out his own end of the covenent, and preserve holiness, in that whoever does not believe, is condemned to hell.

So who condemns? God? or our disobedience? So many times, we put the blame on God instead of ourselves.

I for one, am glad that my God is loving, and unwavering in his promises and nature from the Alpha till the Omega. And that is why i believe in a God who does not change, and can believe that what he tells us through the word can be taken for what it is. because he has not compromised, not even because of love.

Thanks for helping me revist this -)

- brian

This RC should read less of Vatican II and more of Constance, if he wants to know the historical position of Roman Catholicism towards those of other faiths. But anyway, after JPII and now Ratzlinger aka Benedict XVI, RCism is throwing away whatever appearance of orthodoxy it once possess. No wonder there are Sedevacantists around.

P.S.: Actually, the modern position of RCism is not universalism, but inclusivism.

Hell must be a pretty empty place with all these darned good people around.

I for one hope Genghis Khan made it to the pearly gates. I’ve always admired his flair for peaceful diplomacy, and it’s something I try to emulate in my own life.

Hi Isiah,

I read with interest on the exchanges between you and “ordinary guy”.

I, for some time and still is now, have been trying to accept that only by being a Christian, will one enter heaven. Not because I doubt the Scripture, but the more I think abt it, there are too many questions. I have been trying to accept it: only Christians are saved. I have been in toggling between only Christians are saved or not only Christian are saved.

Why?
1 part of me knows what is said in Scripture, and another part of me believe that the Scripture might not be so straight forward to the point (meaning sometimes cannot take the meaning literally) and also because I have 3 BIG questions:

1) What about a baby or a child whose life is too short to even know God, and most probably not baptised?

2) Surely there are people who live in mountains or extremely remote places, eg. the eskimos
What if the Gospel did not reach there?

3) There are countless cultures and background of people that Christianity seems alien to them. It is not easy for them to just simply accept the concept of Christianity ? Unless life changing events or certain circumstances cause them to be in contact with Christianity. How many actually experience it? Or should we say they are unlucky? We who are Christians are lucky chosen ones? If so, does that mean God does not want all humans to be saved?
Have you thought of the circumstances that made you a Christian? Will others encounter God like you do?

We will never know if God will nudge all human subtly to become Christians. But I am aware that there are many who have not heard the Gospel. So these pple are not even given a chance to choose ?

The Bible is a guide book to the Lord’s way. It is not an answer book. If it is, Christians will be united in its understanding. Our life here on earth is to seek, learn and understand the will of God. It is a staging place to prepare us for the Kindom of God. We cannot fully understand God, but we must try and I believe we cannot be at fault to look for answers, to have doubts, because the Lord says “Seek and ye shall find”. The Bible gives us glimpse of the Truth, but it does not tell us all we need to know. It is through life experience that we will find the missing pieces.

Daniel,

Re. inclusivism,

“That some unevangelized men are saved, in the present life, by an extraordinary exercise of redeeming grace in Christ, has been the hope and belief of Christendom. It was the hope and belief of the elder Calvinists, as of the later.” William G. T. Shedd, 1888, Dogmatic Theology 2:706

Isn’t it shocking to see this from Shedd?

Aha! Daniel and friends … this is for the fun of discussion

I am busy working and cramming for exams, so this is what I can afford for now.

Re: Inclusivism

How do you understand this from the WCF?

“III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” Westminister Confession X:3 (1646)

Any takers?

Looks inclusivistic to me!

(PS: For definition of “inclusivism,” see http://www.theopedia.com/Inclusivism)

I also have these questions: Will Jews be saved ? Or Muslims ? They are not Christians. Jesus is not a Christian.

Isaiah,

The Bible is the Truth, but there is truth behind truth. The Bible is ambiguous, as seen from the debate between scholars throughout history. I will continue my search for a reasonable answer so that I may accept that is what the Scripture really meant. ‘Cause I believe God wants us to seek answers. I am unable to accept it now, cause we are instill with something called conscience. And my conscience is at war within. God gives human conscience for a reason. The Bible has answers but it also don’t have answers. What I mean is, it is like a scratch n win. You need to uncover it. So if the Bible is ambiguous, it cannot be interpreted in a straight forward way.

“To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.”

Hello Isaiah,

I would like to recall the very first posting you made and highlight a few points which I will elucidate in a moment.

You quoted:

“‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.’ (John 3:16)

And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:11-12)

In addition to our Lord Jesus Christ’s proclamation that He is the way, the truth and the life which you said was allegorical, the Bible asserts that it is only through Christ Jesus that one can inherit eternal life.

‘For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.’ (Romans 5:19)

We are born with sin and into sin through the disobedience of one man, Adam, but through the obedience of another, our Lord Jesus Christ, we can be made righteous before God when we believe and put our trust in Him.”

End quote.

Nothing wrong there. Sounds kosher. I bring this up again in juxtaposition with the questions raised by Martin regarding what has mistakenly been termed ‘universalism’ by one and more to the mark, ‘inclusivism’, by another.

Your earlier quotes expressed your beliefs very clearly when you say “It is quite clear that it is only through belief in Christ Jesus that one has eternal life.”

Absolutely right. But here it is that I must draw out certain distinctions.

What is belief? And for that matter, what is faith?
In your replies to Martin, you pinned the validity of your replies upon having faith and believing in Christ, but this is much more nuanced than it seems at first glance.

In the Greek (koine), what we call faith in English is derived from the present indicative active form of the verb ‘pisteuo’ (in English transliteration), which is more akin to ‘faithing’. It is an active continuous process, not a static possession one can come into inheritance and leave it at that. I would even be right to say that the very word connotes ‘relationship’.

Because faith is as such, it is not merely intellectual assent, something static that remains in the head, like a mathematical sum. It must also be rooted in the heart, and it must flow out through your hands - in action. Faith encapsulates and is expressed and is experienced in the whole person: the Head, the Heart, and the Hand.

It is here that in recognising that there are so many levels in which one can be ‘faithing’ that your replies to Martin fall short of answering his queries in any justifiable manner.

What of the poor Eskimo who crosses the Bering straits with every season in search of food and who has never had any contact with any missionary? Supposing he recognises a supreme power, a being that remains unknown to him. He adheres to the meagre traditions that have come down to him and he lives as honourably as he can by the norms of his culture and tribe, for he knows no other. In his heart, he is at peace and at oneness with the unknown supreme being and because of this, his life is lived according to this knowledge and relationship. What would be lacking to make this picture congruent to your earlier quotes would be faith in Christ, but how can he, since he has absolutely no way of knowing him. Yet, he has a relationship with his unknown God and those around him. Will he be saved?

What of Christians who confess their beliefs obediently on Sunday but have no relationship with God and besmear the name ‘Christian’ through their very word and action? Will they be saved?

It is comforting to fall back upon those quotes you made at the beginning but that simply does not address the questions arising from reality, logic, and conscience.

The bible is truly the word of God, the Good News, and rightly so. But it was written by those inspired by the Spirit, no doubt, but written nonetheless in human language and idiom, which is anything but perfect. One must understand the context and meaning of every verse, which is what biblical theology is all about, but that is far from an empirical science.

To reduce everything to what you find in Scripture, or worse yet, to complacently find and fall back upon ready made answers put into the mouths (or ink strokes) of the evangelists is very questionable. Unfortunately, that is precisely the impression I get in surveying your replies to Martin. There has been no attempt to address his points 1, 2, and 3 in any way, yet it is precisely here that such attempts are needed. Where does Scripture address any of these points?

Your reply to this is:

“…but I have learned that where the Bible is silent on an issue, it’s because God did not deem that we need to know His ways regarding that issue. And where the Bible is silent on a topic, we should also be silent on it and not speculate or even make wild guesses.”

Is this not a circular argument? You quote your namesake to reinforce this but this is hardly an attempt at resolving the issue. Worse, it smacks of an implicit form of idolatry rampant amongst many Protestants today. It is almost as if Scripture were the be all and end all of all controversy. A sort of encylopedic manual that one can refer to for the answers to everything.

In your own words, “it seems like you are trying to fit God’s Word into *your* own theology”.

To brush aside those questions 1 to 3 by Martin might be the easiest thing to do. But ask yourself, how does what you’ve been taught square with a loving God who invites all to enter into a relationship with him - a relationship that can be entered upon at so many different levels in the human person? How can anyone get to say that someone is saved and someone else isn’t? Last time I checked, I’m not God.

Far from being offensive, my intention is purely to spur you, Isaiah, to come to a deeper understanding, and perhaps if this is to be found outside the circles of your denomination and in the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church, I urge you to explore the questions raised by Martin in these circles and to leave any biases at the door.

pax et bonum

Haha … Isaiah,

I’m working AND studying(mugging), so I’m not only “lonely,” but also BORED

Like the name of my dogs?

Sure, Isaiah. If it’s about my life in the BP church, feel free to email me (I wouldn’t want to talk about this in a public domain).

God bless,
Vincent

Vincent:

there’s always email, plus I tried to call you quite a couple of times….

Vincent:

With regards to the WCF article, I interpret that to mean that the Westminster divines admit that it is not necessary that an elect person (Invisible Church) must be part of the Visible Church to be saved. With regards to Shedd, I would like to read the context before jumping to conclusions over what he has written. After all, the Neo-Amyraldians like Tony Byrne, David Ponter et al just love to rip passages out of context and read their modern concepts anachronistically into such passages (just like what RC apologists do to the writings of the church fathers), so I think looking at the context would be certainly most helpful. =)

Eh…. for the WCF, my previous reply was regarding the first part on the elect infants. With regards to the second part, perhaps they have in mind those mentally incapable of hearing and comprehending the Gospel? Certainly it cannot be normal unregenerate sinners because the WCF does state the belief of salvation through Christ alone, and apart from Christ there is no salvation.

To all:

Read Rom. 1:18-23 for the reason why all Man regardless of whether they hear the Gospel or not, whether they are born in the “wrong culture” or not, deserve to go to hell. You can look up Rom. 2 also, but make sure you follow Paul’s line of argument instead of playing the fallacy of proof-text (ie no usage of Rom. 2:6 without reading it in context)

Dear Daniel and friends,

I know what you mean.

But isn’t the essence of “incluvism” the possibility of salvation apart from the external call of the gospel (including infants and the mentally “disabled”)?

Steve Camp has stated the question clearly here:

http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-wide-is-narrow-roadthe-gospel-of.html

That is why I said it looks inclusivistic (WCF 10:3).

Ron Nash likewise thinks that infant salvation is too simplistic a view, and not derived from scripture. The scripture seems to be silent on this (infants and mentally disabled).

I have wanted to stimulate more thinking into this matter.

PS: I’m working most nights; I’m sorry if you cannot get me for the time being. Will catch up with you when I have time to breathe )

Yours in Christ,
Vincent

Please see the definition of Inclusivism again. Thanks.

http://www.theopedia.com/Inclusivism

“Inclusivism posits that even though the work of Christ is the only means of salvation, it does not follow that explicit knowledge of Christ is necessary in order for one to be saved. In contrast to pluralism, inclusivism agrees with exclusivism in affirming the particularity of salvation in Jesus Christ. But unlike exclusivism, inclusivism holds that an implicit faith response to general revelation can be salvific. God expects from man a response proportional to the light given. Saving faith is not characterized so much by its cognitive content as it is by its reverent quality.” - Ken Keathley

So the key issue for discussion is this, “IS explicit knowledge of Christ and His Gospel necessary for salvation for ALL?”

A very interesting question for you, dear friends.

If all babies prior to the (mysterious) “age of accountability” are saved when they die, isn’t it true that they are ELECT? So if we take any baby and murder him/her, that baby goes straight to heaven, yes?

But if all babies are elect, then isn’t it true that ALL HUMANS ARE ELECT, since all of us (elect and allegedly “reprobates”) were babies once?

So how can a “reprobate” adult be “elect” when he was a child/baby, and becomes a reprobate after the age of accountability? Does he get un-elected? LOL!

Isaiah:

nay, I am not an expert in the WCF, just that I have read it before with the (historic) Presbyterian worldview.

Vincent:

I think the WCF is not saying that ALL babies and ALL intellectually disabled people without exception would go to heaven, or that ALL babies are elect either. Rather, they are saying that ALL in those groups which are elect would be saved (and therefore conversely ALL in those groups which are reprobate will not be saved either). So no, not all babies are elect, but whether there are any babies in hell is not for us to know.

I guess with regards to the idea of explicit knowledge vs. implicit knowledge, why not posit instead the dichotomy of explicit profession and implicit profession? Would that be better? (I am just throwing out a thought; this may not be what I believe)

Yes, Daniel. I don’t think the wording in the WCF is specific enough. I wasn’t referring to the WCF when I discussed “infant salvation.”

But isn’t that what many (Reformed and Unreformed Christians) believe? I remember asking a couple of Reformed ministers in Singapore about this, and they unanimously agreed that ALL infants are saved.

In Keathley’s definition of inclusivism, I think the “explicit knowledge” part refers to supernatural revelation (cf mere natural revelation). So the dichotomy was created by Keathley . And rightly so, as the debate between exclusivists and inclusivists includes the question as to whether natural revelation apart from special revelation is sufficient for some.

But anyway, the question remains, “Is explicit knowledge and/or profession of Christ and His Gospel necessary for salvation for ALL?” [presuming that “explicit profession” means an outward public profession of faith in Christ (?).]

What is “implicit profession?” Don’t get you here …

Vincent, ok, maybe that’s the wrong word, perhaps it should be “implicit confession”. That is to say people who have true faith in Christ which is not outwardly expressed in any form because of various reasons (ie incapable of doing so)?