Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

[Derrick]

I have a sincere question to Christians, when God chose Israel's people for His covenant and then they did not fulfill said covenant, He later "extended" it to the rest of the world, the question is, why bother with a chosen people in the first place? why not be present to the whole world instead of a select region/people from the get go?

You're right in that God set aside a special people to have a relationship with, however it was always an eventual plan to redeem the world. At several points the Israelites faltered and were punished for it, however God didn't decided to extend his convent to the whole world nor did he decide to cut them off at that point.

God judged them based on how they responded to the truth they had access to. The Catechism (CCC 847 ) says that those who, through no fault of their own, don’t know Christ or His Church but seek God sincerely and follow their conscience can still be saved by God’s grace.

"If someone sins and violates any of the LORD’s commandments even though he was unaware, he is still guilty and shall bear his punishment".-Leviticus 5:17.

Absent a sinless life (which none of us can live) the only way to salvation is through Christ: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".- John 14:6 Without a saving relationship in Christ all are dead in their sins.

 

[Frick Marisa]

"If someone sins and violates any of the LORD’s commandments even though he was unaware, he is still guilty and shall bear his punishment".-Leviticus 5:7.

Absent a sinless life (which none of us can live) the only way to salvation is through Christ: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".- John 14:6 Without a saving relationship in Christ all are dead in their sins.

Jesus is the only way to salvation, and sin leaves us all in need of His grace. But the Church teaches that God’s mercy can reach those who, through no fault of their own, don’t know Christ, if they seek God sincerely and follow their conscience (CCC 847 ). Christ’s sacrifice saves them too, even if they don’t know His name, because God’s love covers all of history, since God is eternal.

CCC 847

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

 

[Harvey Danger]

Ultimately, why God chose this method is a mystery rooted in His wisdom.

I like to think it mirrors creation's fractal nature. The covenant for salvation isn't static, it was scaled up at the point of failure each time.

God started with a single person, Adam. He fell, and God eventually renews it with a family, under its head of household, Abraham. Once his descendants become numerous enough, they fail again, and God renews it with a more formal nation, Israel. Once they calcified into religious formalism and rejected the Messiah, God opens it up to the whole world, at a point where "the whole world" was a reachable concept.

Depending on what you think of eschatology, maybe the next failure is global so God has to start over with a Rapture, Tribulation, thousand year reign, a new Earth, etc. Or maybe we scale up and aliens get the Gospel next. Who knows, none of the previous covenant holders could have predicted the next iteration. We're just responsible for holding up our end.

 

[Frick Marisa]

I like to think it mirrors creation's fractal nature. The covenant for salvation isn't static, it was scaled up at the point of failure each time.

God started with a single person, Adam. He fell, and God eventually renews it with a family, under its head of household, Abraham. Once his descendants become numerous enough, they fail again, and God renews it with a more formal nation, Israel. Once they calcified into religious formalism and rejected the Messiah, God opens it up to the whole world, at a point where "the whole world" was a reachable concept.

Depending on what you think of eschatology, maybe the next failure is global so God has to start over with a Rapture, Tribulation, thousand year reign, a new Earth, etc. Or maybe we scale up and aliens get the Gospel next. Who knows, none of the previous covenant holders could have predicted the next iteration. We're just responsible for holding up our end.

I love the fractal analogy!
It really shows how God’s plan grows through history, from Adam to Israel to the whole world through Jesus. The way it scales up with each failure highlights His mercy. His love.

I’m not sure about a Rapture or aliens, since Catholic teaching focuses more on Christ’s return. But like you said, we can’t predict the next step.

 

[Señora Airi]

I have a sincere question to Christians, when God chose Israel's people for His covenant and then they did not fulfill said covenant, He later "extended" it to the rest of the world, the question is, why bother with a chosen people in the first place? why not be present to the whole world instead of a select region/people from the get go?

From what my spiritual father told me, the Israelites were chosen because "if God was able to make the most litigious peoples believe in Him, then all the other peoples would believe"

 

[Preacher ✝]

The Wisdom of Bl. Fulton Sheen

Day 172 - Patience is the great remedy against becoming panicky. To be able to use reason and good judgement when everyone else goes to pieces not only saves self, but also neighbor.

 

[GenderCop]

Jesus is the only way to salvation, and sin leaves us all in need of His grace. But the Church teaches that God’s mercy can reach those who, through no fault of their own, don’t know Christ, if they seek God sincerely and follow their conscience (CCC 847 ). Christ’s sacrifice saves them too, even if they don’t know His name, because God’s love covers all of history, since God is eternal.

CCC 847

there is this cool idea called the "anonymous Christian" which I learned from a class by those Renew people.
It came from a Jesuit, but don't hold it against him,lol.
His name was Karl Rahner.

I grew up hearing people say :"what about ppl who never even heard of Jesus, huh??? What about a billion Chinese???? " etc.
This argument used to drive me crazy.

Rahner was on the job:
Anonymous Christian

According to wikipedia, both liberals and conservatives have found something to dislike about the idea.

This concept explains why ppl like Gandhi could have such an excellent conscience and intrinsically understand good/evil but were not Christian.

I live in the Southern USA, where Protestants routinely claim to be "saved" and yet... the ones who are "genuine" and sincere in their faith are very obvious to me.

This idea helped me understand what I was seeing when I saw an exceptionally holy person who was not Catholic or even Christian.

 

[Derrick]

Jesus is the only way to salvation, and sin leaves us all in need of His grace. But the Church teaches that God’s mercy can reach those who, through no fault of their own, don’t know Christ, if they seek God sincerely and follow their conscience (CCC 847 ). Christ’s sacrifice saves them too, even if they don’t know His name, because God’s love covers all of history, since God is eternal.

CCC 847

That's fine, the Roman Catholic Church is free to take whatever position on the issue its wants, just as the Orthodox, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Lutherans do.

However what the Bible actually says is that anyone who sins, regardless of rather they know it's a sin or not, is guilty. (Leviticus 5:17). Jesus himself says, "No one" can come to the Father but through him, that is nobody is saved but through him (John 14:6). How do you go through him? You have to accept him into your heart (John 3:16)(Romans 10:9). Please not that these verses aren't talking about believing in some generic God or being a generally good person, they're about faith in him, his messianic status, and his resurrection, without knowing about these things you obviously can't accept him, therefor you can't be saved from your sins.

 

[GenderCop]

That's fine, the Roman Catholic Church is free to take whatever position on the issue its wants, just as the Orthodox, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Lutherans do.

However what the Bible actually says is that anyone who sins, regardless of rather they know it's a sin or not, is guilty. (Leviticus 5:7). Jesus himself says, "No one" can come to the Father but through him, that is nobody is saved but through him (John 14:6). How do you go through him? You have to accept him into your heart (John 3:16)(Romans 10:9). Please not that these verses aren't talking about believing in some generic God or being a generally good person, they're about faith in him, his messianic status, and his resurrection, without knowing about these things you obviously can't accept him, therefor you can't be saved from your sins.

The Roman Catholic church translated, codified, organized & edited the Bible, and therefore is the only authority on what it does and does not say.

Its like asking people from Madagascar, Bolivia or France to authoritatively opine on the Constitution. I mean, I'm sure some have opinions, but they are at a remove and in many ways it was not written for them and they have little direct understanding of the ideas if they are not bound by them, as Americans are. This is why arguments about "free speech" (etc) with non-Americans are sometimes so weird; the whole premise is basically foreign.

Likewise, the Bible interpreted by a variety of commitees of different denominations has does nothing but tear the church into pieces.

I don't see any good in letting a host of redneck preachers and greedheads like Joel Osteen (etc) decide what the Bible 'really' means.

 

[Frick Marisa]

That's fine, the Roman Catholic Church is free to take whatever position on the issue its wants, just as the Orthodox, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Lutherans do.

However what the Bible actually says is that anyone who sins, regardless of rather they know it's a sin or not, is guilty. (Leviticus 5:7). Jesus himself says, "No one" can come to the Father but through him, that is nobody is saved but through him (John 14:6). How do you go through him? You have to accept him into your heart (John 3:16)(Romans 10:9). Please not that these verses aren't talking about believing in some generic God or being a generally good person, they're about faith in him, his messianic status, and his resurrection, without knowing about these things you obviously can't accept him, therefor you can't be saved from your sins.

I agree 100% that Christ’s sacrifice is the sole means of salvation, and faith in Him is central for those who hear the Gospel. But I think taking these verses in a strictly literal sense, without the broader context of Scripture and God’s plan, can miss some of the depth of Christianity.

I think the Catholic approach to interpreting the Bible, which balances Scripture with Tradition and reason, does a better job of capturing the fullness of the faith.

Catholicism takes the Bible seriously but reads it as a whole, guided by Tradition (the teachings handed down from the apostles) and the Church’s authority, which Jesus gave to Peter and the apostles (Matthew 16:18-19). This helps avoid cherry-picking verses or ignoring context. For instance, John 3:16 and Romans 10:9 emphasize faith in Jesus, but they’re speaking to those who’ve heard the Gospel. For CCC 847, this isn’t a loophole, it’s rooted in God’s universal love (1 Timothy 2:4) and Christ’s sacrifice applying to all history, like when He brought salvation to the righteous before Him (CCC 633 ).

CCC 633
“Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, ‘hell’—Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into ‘Abraham’s bosom’. It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Saviour in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell. Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.”

A strictly literal reading can make God seem unfair, condemning people who never had a chance to know Jesus. But Catholicism sees God as both just and merciful, working through Christ to save even those who don’t know His name, as long as they respond to His grace. This comes from centuries of reflection by the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised would lead us into all truth (John 16:13). Other Christian traditions, like Baptists or Presbyterians, bring valuable insights, but their reliance on Scripture alone (sola scriptura) can lead to conflicting interpretations, since the Bible doesn’t interpret itself.

Catholicism’s use of Tradition and the Magisterium (the Church’s teaching authority) provides a consistent lens, ensuring we don’t reduce the faith to a few verses.

When you interpret the Bible on your own without Tradition, you become its sole authority, like readers inventing their own meaning for a book after the author’s “death,” but with no apostolic Tradition to anchor us, the Bible lacks the living voice of its inspired authors to guide our understanding.

EDIT: @GenderCop I do not know at all about Anonymous Christian, but I see that there is some critique of it from the Church in that wikipedia article, I'm going to check this and maybe come back to you! Ty for telling me about it!

 

[Derrick]

The Roman Catholic church translated, codified, organized & edited the Bible

Most of that is true (minus the codified part, which is a bit of a simplification)

Its like asking people from Madagascar, Bolivia or France to authoritatively opine on the Constitution. I mean, I'm sure some have opinions, but they are at a remove and in many ways it was not written for them and they have little direct understanding of the ideas if they are not bound by them, as Americans are. This is why arguments about "free speech" (etc) with non-Americans are sometimes so weird; the whole premise is basically foreign.

Likewise, the Bible interpreted by a variety of commitees of different denominations has does nothing but tear the church into pieces.

I don't see any good in letting a host of redneck preachers and greedheads like Joel Osteen (etc) decide what the Bible 'really' means.

The people who run the Catholic Church have much more education and training on this matter than me. There are a lot of Churchs which claim to be the "one true church"TM, be they Catholics/Orthodox/Jehovas Witnesses/Mormons/many Filipino protestant cults. And I've always said, the only one the ONLY one who has any sort of legitimate claim to that is the Roman Catholic Church, you know cause of the, "on this rock I will build my Church thing".

With all that said I think I was very careful in sighting the relevant verses for my argument. I assume for the purposes of this thread (since it's a place to discuss theology) everyone here is open to entertaining opposing views and open to discussion on issues. To quote Joseph Joubert, "It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it". Certainty if the Bible said: "Don't ever do X" and the Catholic Church said, "X is OK sometimes," you'd be open to entertaining the possibility they may be wrong.

Catholicism takes the Bible seriously but reads it as a whole, guided by Tradition (the teachings handed down from the apostles) and the Church’s authority, which Jesus gave to Peter and the apostles (Matthew 16:18-19). This helps avoid cherry-picking verses or ignoring context. For instance, John 3:16 and Romans 10:9 emphasize faith in Jesus, but they’re speaking to those who’ve heard the Gospel. For CCC 847, this isn’t a loophole, it’s rooted in God’s universal love (1 Timothy 2:4) and Christ’s sacrifice applying to all history, like when He brought salvation to the righteous before Him (CCC 633 ).

A strictly literal reading can make God seem unfair, condemning people who never had a chance to know Jesus. But Catholicism sees God as both just and merciful, working through Christ to save even those who don’t know His name, as long as they respond to His grace. This comes from centuries of reflection by the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised would lead us into all truth (John 16:13). Other Christian traditions, like Baptists or Presbyterians, bring valuable insights, but their reliance on Scripture alone (sola scriptura) can lead to conflicting interpretations, since the Bible doesn’t interpret itself.

I call you back to Leviticus 5:17, the Bible said theres no such thing as ignorance of Sin. A lack of knowledge might soften your punishment in the afterlife: "That servant who knows his master’s will but does not get ready or follow his instructions will be beaten with many blows. But the one who unknowingly does things worthy of punishment will be beaten with few blows. (Luke 12:47-48 ) but it won't excuse you completely (John 14:6).

Theres a reason Jesus asked us to make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19-20). Because all fall short of salvation through sin (Romans 3:23) it's very important that we strive to teach others about Christ so they can be saved. After all, if you could be saved by not knowing about Jesus we'd be doing a huge disservice teaching people about him and risking their damnation.

Again to requote John 14:6: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".- John 14:6. Christ's a man of his word. If he says no sinners get into Heaven without going through him I believe him.

 

[GenderCop]

Leviticus? So we're going back to the dawn of time, Stanley Kubrick and the monolith?

Deuteronomy says a bastard will not enter the kingdom of heaven unto the 10th generation of his descendents. Apparently, this is true regardless of how saintly the bastard is or what they believe.

So I guess there are exceptions; since you are a by-the-book sort, how do you account for this?

Remember the bastard Sabbath Lily in the Flannery O'Connor story "Wise Blood" who saw this verse as giving her a pass to sin as much as she wanted, since there was no hope for her anyway.

 

[Frick Marisa]

I call you back to Leviticus 5:7, the Bible said theres no such thing as ignorance of Sin. A lack of knowledge might soften your punishment in the afterlife: "That servant who knows his master’s will but does not get ready or follow his instructions will be beaten with many blows. But the one who unknowingly does things worthy of punishment will be beaten with few blows. (Luke 12:47-48 ) but it won't excuse you completely (John 14:6).

Theres a reason Jesus asked us to make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19-20). Because all fall short of salvation through sin (Romans 3:23) it's very important that we strive to teach others about Christ so they can be saved. After all, if you could be saved by not knowing about Jesus we'd be doing a huge disservice teaching people about him and risking their damnation.

Again to requote John 14:6: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".- John 14:6. Christ's a man of his word. If he says no sinners get into Heaven without going through him I believe him.

You’re right that Leviticus 5:17 says even unintentional sin brings guilt, and Luke 12:47-48 shows ignorance might lighten punishment but doesn’t erase it. But Scripture also hints God’s fair with those who don’t know Him fully, like Job, who wasn’t an Israelite but was righteous, or Gentiles in Romans 2:14-16 who follow their conscience and can be saved.

You said ignorance doesn’t excuse sin completely, but those "few blows" for someone who doesn’t know better suggest they’re not totally condemned! It’s like purgatory in Catholicism! Saved souls face some purification but still get to heaven (CCC 1031 ). Doesn’t that show God’s mercy can work through Christ (John 14:6) even for those who don’t know Him, like the Church says (CCC 847 )?

By taking verses alone, and literally, you creates contradictions in the Bible by removing context and nuance from them, this is why having a tradition and the Church to act as "the voice of the author" is necessary. It’s like reading a book without the author’s notes! Everyone ends up with a different take, like how churches split over what “saved” means. Catholic Tradition, passed down from the apostles, keeps us from turning the Bible into our own thing. It ties John 14:6 to God’s mercy in Romans 2 and 1 Timothy 2:4, where He wants everyone saved.
Preaching the Gospel doesn’t put people at risk, it gives them the full scoop on Jesus and the chance to know Him through stuff like the Eucharist. God judges based on what folks do with what they’re given (Luke 12:48 ). Evangelizing is our job because it’s the best way to bring people to Christ, not because it’s their only shot.

Evangelizing doesn’t put people at risk, it gives them a better shot at knowing and loving Jesus directly. It doesn't mean that people who don't know are automatically saved.

CCC 1260
"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."

Catholicism’s approach pushes us to spread the Gospel urgently while trusting God’s mercy for those we can’t reach.

Also, for CCC 848, about why it's important to Evangelize people.

CCC 848
"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.

EDIT: Trolled by again...

EDIT²: @GenderCop "Remember the bastard Sabbath Lily in the Flannery O'Connor story "Wise Blood" who saw this verse as giving her a pass to sin as much as she wanted, since there was no hope for her anyway."

So true! This is the danger of interpreting the verses on their own by yourself. God is merciful, and this is often forgotten.

 

[Derrick]

Leviticus? So we're going back to the dawn of time, Stanley Kubrick and the monolith?

Assuming the question was meant for me then yes, I think as Christians we should hold the whole Bible to be important, useful tools for teachings us. And I think, regardless of rather you're sola scriptura or prima scriptura you would also agree about this. That's not to say you'd think the Bible and teaching of the Catholic Church contradict or anything, just that I'm sure you agree the Bible is our authoritative work.

Deuteronomy says a bastard will not enter the kingdom of heaven unto the 10th generation of his descendents. Apparently, this is true regardless of how saintly the bastard is or what they believe.

So I guess there are exceptions; since you are a by-the-book sort, how do you account for this?

I believe, if my old testament knowledge serves me right, the term Deuteronomy used was "assemblies of the Lord" which had a much more corporal meaning, that a term for the governing body of Israel at the time (see Micah 2:5 where they talk about the assemblies of the Lord dividing land on Earth). A Jewish text, the Talmud, explains more about the Earthly rules of the assemblies of the Lord although I am not familiar enough with it to point you towards the relevant text.

One of the things you have to remember is, the Israelites didn't believe in Heaven like we do. Ancient Jews believed in Sheol, a place everyone and their Mamas went when they died regardless of rather or not they were righteous, Heaven was an afterthought. Indeed virtually nobody went there with very rare exceptions like Elijah who was literally taken alive there (see 2nd Kings for that story). As such it would seem odd for the Jews to be making rules about who goes to Heaven or not when they didn't believe hardly anybody could. Christ and his "Kingdom" was a new (as in new for Humans) institution he was creating (Luke 22:29).

Remember the bastard Sabbath Lily in the Flannery O'Connor story "Wise Blood" who saw this verse as giving her a pass to sin as much as she wanted, since there was no hope for her anyway.

I've never heard this story but it's unfortunate she misunderstood about this and felt damned. One of the great things about Christ is no matter how far you've gone you're almost never too far gone to be saved. After all Peter (who you may recall as Pope #1) denied Jesus three times only to be forgiven by the Post-Resurrected Jesus.

You’re right that Leviticus 5:17 says even unintentional sin brings guilt, and Luke 12:47-48 shows ignorance might lighten punishment but doesn’t erase it. But Scripture also hints God’s fair with those who don’t know Him fully, like Job, who wasn’t an Israelite but was righteous, or Gentiles in Romans 2:14-16 who follow their conscience and can be saved.

You said ignorance doesn’t excuse sin completely, but those "few blows" for someone who doesn’t know better suggest they’re not totally condemned!

I believe "beaten with few blows" is a pretty clear indication of some punishment (hence they're beaten) it just means some not getting it as bad as someone who did know. What that looks like I don't know since the Bible doesn't tell us, my best guess is there just kept somewhere exclusive and midly annoying, unable to enter the Kingdom since they failed to accept Christ but not really getting it 'sulfur levels', now that's just my speculation the Bible doesn't actually tell us so I don't want to guess.

By taking verses alone, and literally, you creates contradictions in the Bible by removing context and nuance from them, this is why having a tradition and the Church to act as "the voice of the author" is necessary. It’s like reading a book without the author’s notes! Everyone ends up with a different take, like how churches split over what “saved” means. Catholic Tradition, passed down from the apostles, keeps us from turning the Bible into our own thing. It ties John 14:6 to God’s mercy in Romans 2 and 1 Timothy 2:4, where He wants everyone saved.

I agree. On matters where the Bible is confusing or unclear or vague than certainty the words of Church Fathers can help give clarity. However if the Bible says, "Dont do X," I don't think we need to debate rather or not to do 'X', the Bible tells us loud and clear, you know? There are matters where it seems the Bible speaks clearly for all to see and if we can't take the words at their face value to mean what they say then why trust anything in the Bible. Likewise I have to take God at his word when he says nobody but through him (John 14:6).

Catholic Tradition, passed down from the apostles, keeps us from turning the Bible into our own thing. It ties John 14:6 to God’s mercy in Romans 2 and 1 Timothy 2:4, where He wants everyone saved.

You are right, God wants everyone to be saved, however in order to be saved you actually have to do something (accept Christ), thats why he came down and died for us, so we could be forgiven through him, assuming we accept him (Romans 10:9). If God just wanted everyone in regardless of rather not they had their sins forgiven through Christ then there would be no need for Hell, which he tells us some go to eternally (Revelation 20:10).




I must say I have enjoyed your friendly responses, you do a good job of politely defending the doctrines of your faith. I feel really bad trying to argue with you on it, like you're being nice and friendly and I'm being like, "Um, akshully your wrong!1!11!!"

 

[Mad_Dog]

Leviticus 5:7

I think you meant Leviticus 5:17, which is about unintentional sins in the Old Testament sacrificial system, not salvation. It says that sin, even without knowledge, incurs objective guilt, with the next verse noting a ram is required as a reparation offering. So, it’s about the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant’s fulfillment in Christ.

As for the salvation of those who don’t know Christ, we see in Romans 2:14–16, that Gentiles who follow their conscience are judged by God according to the law written on their hearts, and in Acts 17:25–28, Paul speaks of people seeking God in their own contexts. This is the basis for Lumen Gentium 16, btw, which is a major trending topic in apologetic circles right now.

Spoiler: Lumen Gentium 16

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God:

In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh (Romans 9:4–5). On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues (Romans 11:28–29). But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.

In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things (Acts 17:25–28 ), and as Savior wills that all men be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel (Lumen Gentium 17), and as a gift from Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.

But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1:21, 25). Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:16), the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

So, there's a distinction between objective redemption, which is Christ’s sacrifice on the cross as the universal means of salvation for all humanity, and subjective appropriation, where salvation is received by grace through faith that is either explicit (Romans 10:9, the normative path) or implicit. The invincibly ignorant are saved by Christ’s grace though implicit faith, because God’s grace operates in all people (John 1:9), and He wills for all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).

 

[Frick Marisa]

I must say I have enjoyed your friendly responses, you do a good job of politely defending the doctrines of your faith. I feel really bad trying to argue with you on it, like you're being nice and friendly and I'm being like, "Um, akshully your wrong!1!11!!"

Hey, I’ve really enjoyed this chat too!

Thanks for being so thoughtful and kind! No worries at all about the “um, akshully” vibe, you’ve been super respectful, I didn't get that vibe at all, and it’s been fun digging into Scripture together, it made me re-read some of the verses you shared, and check with the CCC for answers, especially with CCC 1260, because I think you made a great point/argument about how people should be evangelized even if ignorance gives them some leeway, and I didn't remember what the CCC said about it. Thank you for that. And I have to read more about it because I was also reading on CCC 1793, and there is something I must look into there, since I'm not fully getting it.

We’re totally on the same page about Jesus being the way, and the need to accept Him. I love how you pointed out Luke 12:47-48 showing lighter punishment for those who don’t know, and I agree with you about not wanting to guess what the lighter punishment could be.

Catholicism sees that as God’s mercy at work, like maybe through something like purgatory (CCC 1031), though I get your take that the Bible leaves it vague.
I think we differ a bit on how clear the Bible is alone. You’re right that “don’t do X” is straightforward, but verses like Romans 2:14-16 or 1 Timothy 2:4 suggest God’s mercy reaches further, and Tradition helps us tie that to John 14:6. But we both want to follow Christ and share His love, and that’s what counts. Thanks again for the great convo.

I'll leave for now and might come back to reply to more, especially because I want to check about Anonymous Christianity that our friend @GenderCop mentioned, but also because I want to play some Tetrio before it's too late and I miss Church tomorrow.

Have a great rest of the day, and sunday!

 

[Thomas Talus]

Are there any Protestant churches left that aren't cults/MLMs or leftwing anymore? Any insight would be helpful kiwibros.

There are plenty, but they tend to be individual churches rather than part of a group that you can look for as an identifier, so you're going to have to examine them one by one. Check their website for a statement of faith to look over as a good first pass, maybe look at where their pastor(s) went to school (Dallas is a good one, Harvard is better known as the "Harvard Theological Cemetary," etc.). Expository preaching is usually a good sign they are focused on the Bible rather than just whatever suits their fancy this week.

Presbyterian churches are the most resistant to ministers having complete run of the show because they are part of the eldership and so have a responsibility to their fellow elders, who are in turn elected by the congregation to represent them. But in practice many elders can end up leaving the day-to-day governance to church staff (esp. the minister), and so they aren't aware of potentially big issues until too late. Nevertheless, these churches are the one where, when you enter a good one, you can be most assured of the three that it will likely stay that way for a long time. The flipside is that once a Presbyterian denomination goes bad, there is rarely any point in staying because it is the hardest of the three to turn around.

My family went to a Presby church when I was a kid. The pastor there was a good one and genuine believer. Then he retired and the denomination sent one who wasn't too sure about this whole "Jesus" thing but loved to put on airs about how high-minded he was; he was like someone breathed life into a caricature that C.S. Lewis had done of a "modern" preacher. This was back in the 90s.

 

[Mad_Dog]

I was also reading on CCC 1793, and there is something I must look into there, since I'm not fully getting it.

Always check the cross-references CCC 1860

 

[Derrick]

I think you meant Leviticus 5:17,

You're right I'll go back and edit my comments to have the proper verse.

As for the salvation of those who don’t know Christ, we see in Romans 2:14–16, that Gentiles who follow their conscience are judged by God according to the law written on their hearts,

Paul indicates that some people who don't know the God of Abraham still have some internal desire to good do. Atheists will say this is an evolutionary desire to cooperative behavior (i.e. not stealing from each other creates group cohesion) Christians will say this comes from God.

While Paul may recognize the desire for righteousness some feel he does not claim non-Christian Gentiles are saved.

A chapter later in Romans he writes: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) and a couple verses earlier, "But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile".- Romans 3:21-22.

Basically Paul was simply condemning Racism expressed by some early Jewish Christians towards non-Jewish Gentiles, while all have fallen short (as he noted), all are capable of salvation through Christ. That doesn't mean sinful Gentiles will be saved through their general desire towards God. A couple verses before the one you noted Paul wrote, "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law".

Acts 17:25–28

That is one of my favorite scenes in the Bible, I like how Luke describes the people people at the Areopagus as doing absolutely nothing all day except discussing the latest esoteric theories (Acts 17:21), that always made me chuckle.

However I see nothing there to suggest Paul thought these people would be saved without believing in Christ. Paul does not that they have an alter to unknown Gods (i.e. Gods they haven't heard about yet), which he says, "well let me tell you about it", but his purpose was to educate them on Christ's death and resurrection. Had he thought they're general idea of some other vague God was enough to save them he wouldn't have spent says publicly proclaiming Jesus in their marketplaces, nor would he have gone up to the Areopagus. Paul thought salvation was given through Christ (Romans 10:9), while the Gospel of John had yet to be written I doubt he would have disagreed with the "No one comes to the father but through me" John depicts Jesus as saying.

and as Savior wills that all men be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).

The Savior does wish for all to be saved. However you actually need to do something to be saved, namely accept him (John 3:16), the existence of Hell, where people are said to suffer forever (Revelation 20:10) certainly indicates that some won't be saved. While he wants all to be saved, and very well could drop all the rules and just forgive all sins carte blanche, he still asks you to accept his Messianicship and sacrifice to be saved (Romans 10:9).

 

[Key the Metal Shitposter]

I have a sincere question to Christians, when God chose Israel's people for His covenant and then they did not fulfill said covenant, He later "extended" it to the rest of the world, the question is, why bother with a chosen people in the first place? why not be present to the whole world instead of a select region/people from the get go?

A lot of good answers so far, but something Id like to mention is that a big reason why Christ is so convincing is that if you go through the old testament Christ is fulfilling all of these prophecies that are layed out by thousands of years of hebrew worship. Its a big part of why people were so amazed by him in Judea, and wasnt widely written off as some rank magician. Without the hebrews there would be no prophecies for Christ to fulfill.