The parable by Fr. Paul that attempts to explain the salvation of non-Christians shows how far he has strayed from orthodox Christianity. What are they teaching in the seminary these days?

It's always a good idea to check back with the Bible, the founding documents of Christianity, to make sure that we haven't forgotten the most basic tenets of Christianity.

One of those tenets is that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation. That is the strongest and most frequently repeated message of the New Testament:

And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)

I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:38)

Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 10:32-33)

Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God. But he that shall deny me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. (Luke 12:8-9)

He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 2:18)

He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 2:36)

He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.(John 5:23)

If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. (1 Corinthians 16:22)

Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. (John 6:54)

If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch and shall wither: and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire: and he burneth. (John 15:6)

He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life. (1 John 5:12)

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)

Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin. (John 8:24)

He that is of God heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God. (John 8:47)

But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. (John 10:26)

He that despiseth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him. The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (John 12:48)

Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. (1 John 2:22-23)

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18)

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved." So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once. (Acts 16:30-33)

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2-4)

In that same Salvation thread, Eugene Chavez explains that salvation for non-Christians is restricted to "Salvation only for perfect contrition; after an upright life, lived without KNOWLEDGE of Christ and his Gospel." But doesn't such teaching amount to salvation by works alone? If I live an upright life and have perfect contrition for my sins I can be saved. Is an upright life and perfect contrition even possible for a non-Christian? And where is the Biblical basis for such a belief? Especially considering that Christ says, "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 2:5) In other words, every person is born condemned. Thus we have the Church teaching of Original Sin and the dogma that one must be baptized to be able to enter heaven. Whether by "water baptism" or "believer's baptism," a fundamental teaching of Christianity is that one must be born again to be saved.

How and when is a non-Christian born-again? And what is he born again as? Christianity always taught that one is born again as a Christian. One goes from being an atheist, pagan, Hindu, Jew, Moslem or whatever to being a Christian.

But if we believe in salvation for non-Christians, then that means that one is born again as a non-Christian. So one goes from being a non-Christian to being, what, a different type of non-Christian?

In fact, to say that non-Christians can be saved is to say that one does not have to be born again at all. And this directly contradicts Christ.

All Christians agree that man has no right to heaven and that whoever is saved is saved by the Cross of Christ. Considering the horrific death that Jesus freely accepted for our sins, do we now consider it unfair that God require those who are saved to acknowledge the source of their salvation and the price that was paid for it?

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), March 02, 2005

Answers

has anyone of you red the bible completely? from the first book through the last

well here are some things of the OT:

To circumcise the male offspring (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3) (CCA47) See Brit Milah: Circumcision.

[why?...why should it be wrong not to do so...?]-sdqa

Not to intermarry with gentiles (Deut. 7:3) (CCN19). See Interfaith Marriages.

[oh...very nice...very nice...do you really think god is going to tell you who to marry and who not?...didn't he create all people?...why would he forbid then such a thing?...and why would a loving god,forbid LOVE between a jew and a gentile?...])sdqa

To be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28) (CCA43).

[and if i don't want to?...it's my thing...i don't want anyone to tell me how to organise my life...if i don't feel like having kids...how can someone force me then to have?...]-sdqa

That the woman suspected of adultery shall be dealt with as prescribed in the Torah (Num. 5:30) (affirmative).

[SUSPECTED????...omg...and about a man 'suspected' of adultery noone says a thing...very nice...and i wonder how it is prescribed to deal with such women...i can already imagine...]-sdqa

# That one who defames his wife's honor (by falsely accusing her of unchastity before marriage) must live with her all his lifetime (Deut. 22:19) (affirmative).

[why?...must live with her...if she rapes his children and kills his family he still must live with her...if he doesn't love her anymore...he must live with her...what a nice god...]-sdqa

That a widow whose husband died childless must not be married to anyone but her deceased husband's brother

[ever heard of love?...what if she doesn't love him?...still force her to marry him?...very nice...]-sdqa

# To marry the widow of a brother who has died childless (Deut. 25:5) (this is only in effect insofar as it requires the procedure of release below ) (CCA45).

[same comment as above]-sdqa

Not to travel on Shabbat outside the limits of one's place of residence (Ex. 16:29) (CCN7). See Shabbat.

[oh and why not?...what is wrong with that?...and what if i have to?]-sdqa

To keep the Canaanite slave forever (Lev. 25:46) (affirmative).

[oh so god allows us to have slaves?...but not to keep them forever...and he loves all people right?]-sdqa Not to wrong such a slave (Deut. 23:17) (negative).

[same comment as above]-sdqa

# That the Court shall pass sentence of death by decapitation with the sword (Ex. 21:20; Lev. 26:25) (affirmative).

# That the Court shall pass sentence of death by strangulation (Lev. 20:10) (affirmative).

# That the Court shall pass sentence of death by burning with fire (Lev. 20:14) (affirmative).

# That the Court shall pass sentence of death by stoning (Deut. 22:24) (affirmative).

[and these words come from a loving god?...do you really think that this comes from god? the one that loves us and forgives us?...come on people...be reasonable for once...is this correct?...why to kill someone? because he did something wrong...in the worst case killed someone else...but aren't you the same as him then?...there are other kinds of punishment and other kinds of things that could prevent him doeing such thing again...but why killing?...people can change...think about the thief on the cross next to jesus...do you even realise how precious a human life is...i'm sure that no single good father...not to speak of a complete good father would want his children been killed for their crimes]-sdqa

# Not to make a graven image; neither to make it oneself nor to have it made by others (Ex. 20:4) (CCN9). # Not to make any figures for ornament, even if they are not worshipped (Ex. 20:20) (CCN144). # Not to make idols even for others (Ex. 34:17; Lev. 19:4) (CCN10). # Not to use the ornament of any object of idolatrous worship (Deut. 7:25) (CCN17). # Not to make use of an idol or its accessory objects, offerings, or libations (Deut. 7:26) (CCN18). See Grape

[why?...what's the purpose of not doing so?...who do i harm if i do so?]-sdqa

Not to remove the entire beard, like the idolaters (Lev. 19:27) (CCN177).

[so we all have to look ugly and walk around with beards...what's the purpose of this?]-sdqa Not to tattoo the body like the idolaters (Lev. 19:28) (CCN163).

[and why not?...who do i harm if i do so?...just because i would look lik an idolater then?]-sdqa To slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city (Deut. 13:16-17) (affirmative).

[oh very nice...kill people...burn their city...just because they are idolatrous...and you want me to believe that these words come from god?]-sdqa

# Not to curse a ruler, that is, the King or the head of the College in the land of Israel (Ex. 22:27) (negative).

[and why not? if he is evil?]-sdqa

To appoint a king (Deut. 17:15) (affirmative).

[over my dead body,complete against the most fundamental things i stand for]-sdqa

Not to sell a beautiful woman, (taken captive in war) (Deut. 21:14) (negative).

[and if she's ugly you can sell her?...and this comes from god also right?...very nice...]-sdqa

well if all these things really come from god,then i think he really must hate the jews...

you suppose me to take all these things serious?...please...

you take a 2000 year old book as your source for what's good and bad?...well i don't

my morals aren't based on someone else's...i don't want anyone else telling me what to do,what's good and what not...look everything that causes direct harm to someone else is bad...i can do whatever i want unless i hurt someone else with it...my freedom reaches to their freedom...what i do to myself,is my own thing...ok sometimes not...like killing yourself while you have a sick wife and 5 children that noone can take care of...but if it involves only me in it...it's my thing

one other thing:the torah is complete against the nature of the human mind...god gave us freedom...why would he give us then sooo many rules that tell us exactly HOW to live our life...not what is good or bad...(ok some...but i'm talking about these things i posted above and many other things i didn't)

i think this question has already been answered 2000 years ago:

53 His disciples said to him, "is circumcision useful or not?"

He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect."-jesus,the gospel of thomas

now aren't all these things complete the opposite what jesus taught? he said he didn't come here to annul the laws but he directly opposed to these laws(the stoning of an adultress,circumcision,forgiving the thief on the cross...)THE OT AND THE NT JUST CANNOT POSSIBLY FIT TOGHETER

and where is it said in the OT that the messiah will be the son of god who will have to die for our sins to save us?

is the bible really god's word?

short answer...

NO

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 02, 2005.

Read all about the Passover, sdqa. The Lamb in Exodus is Jesus Christ pre-figured. (Ex 12, :21)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2005.

Bonzo

As I read your post, It made me happy that you are not God.

We are fortunate that individual human beings have no say with regard to the ultimate salvation of others.

Instead I guess we must have faith that God's mercy and justice is perfect. I'm thinking he will make the right decision when the day comes for each of us. I also think he can save who ever he wants, even if you think otherwise.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), March 02, 2005.

As I read your post, It made me happy that you are not God.

Let me tell you, Jim, if I were God man wouldn't need to be saved in the first place.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), March 02, 2005.

Bonzo,

I'm not sure what you mean; (no salvation) would you be sending them all to Hell? I'm sorry if I got that wrong. BB messages aren't always clear.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), March 02, 2005.

Or you wouldn't have made them in the first place?

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), March 02, 2005.

C'mon, Jim. You know what I mean. But to expand upon it, I would never have set up Adam and Eve like that. It was inevitable that they would listen to the serpent. Why? Because they were so innocent that they would believe anything that they were told.

They knew nothing about good and evil, right? So they knew nothing about truth and lies. If you were to tell them that God is good and the serpent is evil they wouldn't know what you were talking about. The only way they could know is if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But that was the one thing that they were forbidden to do.

So God set them up for the fall. I would never do that.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), March 02, 2005.

Me neither. But since we aren't God it makes little difference. Free will won out.

-- Jim (furst@flasfh.net), March 02, 2005.

By the way, I've only read you from time to time, bits and pieces, so I haven't really figured you out.

You started this thread sounding like a "holy roller." Maybe I over reacted. I'm a little put off by people who seem to find joy in predicting the damnation of others.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), March 02, 2005.

Free will is meaningless unless it's equally possible to disobey than it is to obey.

I totally disagree about Adam and Eve being "set-up". They were created in God's image without any genetic impurities. Adam named all of the animals and was to rule the world as his dominion had he obeyed. In other words, he was very intelligent and knew what he was told to do and told NOT to do. He could eat of countless trees in the garden that supplied ALL of their needs. They were only restricted to one, one that was there as a test. Sounds like more than a fair test to me.

Adam walked in the Garden with God, so he knew God intimately and heard God's voice audibly. So he knew God, yet he believed the serpent's lies and succombed to temptation. It wasn't a set-up by any stretch.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), March 02, 2005.

So he knew God, yet he believed the serpent's lies and succumbed to temptation.

Adam and Eve believed the serpent for the same reason they believed God. They believed whatever they were told. How could it be otherwise? Nobody had ever told them a lie before. They didn't even know what a lie was. They were so innocent they didn't even know that they were naked.

And where was God all this time? Surely He must have known that they were being tricked by the serpent. Why didn't He appear to give them one last admonition to not touch or eat from the tree of knowledge?

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), March 03, 2005.

Rhis is a standard false atheist argument. its not "The tree of Knowledge". its "The tree of the Knowelefge of Good and evil". major difference. many atheist try to say god didnt want us to have knwoledge and use htis as evidence, hwoever, the fact is that itsa not "The tree of Knoledge." its "The tree of the Knowledge of good and evil."

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 03, 2005.

Hi, Jim.

It's easy to see that the theories of Bonzo's Cousin (BC) are false. In a reply, she makes a grave error on a most fundamental matter, so I won't even bother to refute all the anti-Catholic ideas in her opening post.

Speaking of our first parents, BC says, "So God set them up for the fall. I would never do that."

It follows logically from BC's claim that one of the following must be true of the being we call "God":
Y. God made a mistake, or
Z. God is unjust, causing Adam and Eve to sin.

Now whether BC opts for Y or Z, she is saying that God has imperfections. In order for that to be true, the one we call "God" must himself be a very powerful, but fallen creature who was made by Someone else. Why? Because the very definition of "godness" precludes the possibility of making mistakes (Y) or being unjust (Z). The infinite Deity is perfect in every respect, incapable of error and incapable of sinning (being, among other things, all- just).

As Catholics, we know that the Being we call "God" is indeed that perfect Deity, that HE created everything and everyone, and that He cannot help but to have treated Adam and Eve justly.

-- (Helping@Jim.com), March 03, 2005.

Helping@Jim

i don't see how you're actually helping Jim.

a/ we accept God as our definition of Love and Justice and Perfection and so on.

b/ IE: we do not judge Him and find He gets top marks in each category.

the error is in trying to understand everything, because we then start implying that he MUST think as we would.

i will stick my neck out and say that St Thomas is on Bonzo's side on this one. that's my read of St Thomas, anyway. i could be wrong.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

Jim wrote:

By the way, I've only read you from time to time, bits and pieces, so I haven't really figured you out.

I don't want to deceive you or anyone else, so I'll say up front that I'm an atheist. I'll argue in favor of traditional Catholic teachings because I used to be Catholic. I'd still be Catholic had the Church not abandoned those teachings. It's not that I like those teachings. It's just that they were consistent throughout the centuries back to apostolic times, which I saw as evidence of divine guidance.

After Vatican II everything changed. Although I prefer the kinder, gentler teachings, they do seem to be very much a product of the times and appear to me to be irreconcilable with past "infallible" teachings. When I finally lost my faith in the Catholic Church I lost my faith, period.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), March 03, 2005.

I could amend a part of bonzo's post here and clarify some things about him. He may correct me if i'm wrong.

''I'd still be A LUKEWARM Catholic. Had the Church not abandoned those teachings --they appear to be abandoned to ME. But what do I know? I was just lukewarm; not very faithful. It's not that I like those teachings. It's just that they were consistent throughout the centuries back to apostolic times, which I saw as evidence of divine guidance.'' They have always been consistent, and remain so-- You see, I just lost my faith in ANY guidance.

Well-- we can see by the results how ready BC was to believe.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.