|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Universalist Pontiff?
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I was intrigued yesterday to see this article from Huffington Post entitled "Pope Francis says atheists who do good are redeemed not just Catholics". Now I don't think the headline has glossed what he's said correctly, though I would be interested to see a full text of his sermon. However, the text quoted does seem to have affirmed the salvation of all through the blood of Christ: quote:
The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.
I don't think this needs to be read in a universalist way although that is how it comes across to me at first glance. In many ways it's not hugely far away from Charles Wesley who writes: quote:
The world he suffered to redeem;
For all he has the atonement made;
For those that will not come to him
The ransom of his life was paid.
I'd be interested in others' views on what the Pope said and any further information on the context. I don't think he was saying anything beyond the fairly standard teaching that salvation through Christ is a possibility for all people. I think it may well be frequently cited as if he were though.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Meta-comment: it is interesting that this is the first mention of this on the ship. On other (mainly atheistically and agnostically inclined) media that I come across it has been a received and/or misunderstood with an enormous level of enthusiasm and interest. The HuffPo article linked is a good example.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Meta-comment: it is interesting that this is the first mention of this on the ship. On other (mainly atheistically and agnostically inclined) media that I come across it has been a received and/or misunderstood with an enormous level of enthusiasm and interest. The HuffPo article linked is a good example.
That would be because most people here have at least a basic knowledge of the Catholic Church and what she teaches, and as such recognise clumsy decontextualisation of off the cuff remarks when they see them.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I don't see the Pope as making a statement about salvation. He is simply reiterating something that Catholic theology has always taught, that all human beings are imbued with a sense of right and wrong (natural law). So of course an atheist can be moral and do good things, because the natural inclination to do good is imparted by God to all human beings.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
BulldogSacristan
Shipmate
# 11239
|
Posted
Wouldn't a Calvinist, however, say that Christ did not, in fact, die for all? He only died for the Elect?
Posts: 197 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics can have eternal life if they seek what is good and right in all things (ie, if they seek God even if they do not know they are doing so) and if circumstances make that they never have the chance to have Catholic teaching explained to them clearly without influences in their lives that might distort how they receive this teaching. If a non-Catholic does come to a clear understanding of the Church's teaching and then rejects it, then they are in the same boat as Catholics who turn away from the faith (ie, not headed for eternal life). But, the Church adds, it is not the Church's place to say which of the dead are in He'll and which are not, and "salvation is limited to the Sacraments, but God is not limited by the Sacraments."
Just because a homily at daily Mass has a few words here or there that seem to contradict that teaching does not mean that the Pope disagrees with that teaching. He is engaged in a very deliberate campaign to improve the Church's image and tha means highlighting aspects of the Churh's teachings that seem inclusive and optimistic and downplaying the more controversial aspects (while not denying them ordaining to enforce them when required). I am not saying that I agre with the Pope's strategy or even with the teaching I explained above (I am leaning a bit more towards apocastasis at the moment), but that is how the whole thing appears to me.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Wouldn't a Calvinist, however, say that Christ did not, in fact, die for all? He only died for the Elect?
How many true Calvinists are there around these days? Arminianism seems to have won the day in Protestantism.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I would tend to focus on this part of the article, and quotation from the sermon:
quote:
Pope Francis
“They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”
He is specifically *not* being doctrinal or legalistic here. He's preaching in a learned, accepting, and tolerant way. Of course there's a universalist aspect to what he posted. We are truly all one within Christ, and it's fully possible to emphasize that while adhering to a crisp identity as RC. The things that are opposite brought together is precisely what we need much more of. Such a pastoral message is what our floundering, post-modern, post-Christian world needs. Behaving like Christians is what he's encouraging.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The Pope's statement is clearly a pastoral one primarily, and not meant as a theological explication. It, of course, involves theology, but isn't by any means a complete pronouncement of doctrine or even of a proposed theological POV. I'm encouraged by Francis' statement, but I think it is apt to be misunderstood by many, and unfortunately I also expect that it will incite the ire and scorn of a particular segment of protestantism (perhaps unavoidable when salvation is attributed to anything apart from grace received by faith, but a fuller or more thought-out explication might have avoided the bile that Pope Francis will likely get over this from certain protestant quarters).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Meta-comment: it is interesting that this is the first mention of this on the ship.
I saw this yesterday, and knew it would make it to the Ship--because I was going to put it here if no one else did it first. I didn't have time to do it yesterday, so I thank seasick for putting it up before I had to.
I would agree that the headline is completely overstated, but I'm not certain "move along, nothing to see" is quite the right response either. I'd really like to know a little more about what he said and how a native speaker of the language in which he said it would hear it (I haven't heard for certain, but I doubt it was said in English, which means we are already hearing it through a translator).
At any rate, this pontiff seem much more willing to reach out and engage non-Catholics than the last pope. I happen to think that is a good thing for someone whom millions consider The Vicar of Christ (I'm not one of those millions, but still...).
He is a Jesuit. Jesuits are extremely well-educated, and I doubt these were unintentional, unfortunate phrases spouted off the cuff. I think he meant what he said, and I think he will stand by it. I'm just not completely certain what he meant by it.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Same old, same old, as far as the responses go.
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
but a fuller or more thought-out explication might have avoided the bile that Pope Francis will likely get over this from certain protestant quarters).
Protestants?! I'd wager many a traditionalist Catholic clenched so quickly they are picking splinters out of their trousers.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
Francis was talking in the context of redemption, not strictly salvation. All mankind is redeemed through Christ's death and resurrection, not all will be saved. He expressed himself badly but there really is nothing to see here.
[ 23. May 2013, 17:59: Message edited by: CL ]
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
He expressed himself badly...
I'm not willing to believe this...yet. I'd be more inclined to believe he'd been translated badly. I've no doubt more is being read into it in some quarters than he intended, but that doesn't mean there is 'nothing to see'.
It seems fair to suggest he does not mind ruffling a few of the traditionalist's feathers. I'm not yet willing to make a final judgment as to what he was trying to say here, but any explanation will carry a lot more weight if it is coming from him or someone close to him. So far, all the explanations--such as they are--have been from much lower sources.
It's going to be a fascinating pontificate to watch.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Jesuits are very well educated but they are also known for being imrovisational at Mass and for making doctrine bend over backwards to make it seem accessible to the modern world. They are very obedient to the Pope but use tha obedience as a license to get away with all sorts of other things. As a radical liberal heretic I think the are a great gift to the Church but I also know that they can be quite eccentric and reading their true thoughts and intentions is often quite hard. With all priests it hard to get in their head but Jesuits are so smart, so trained, and so...confident? that it is a particular challenge. The previous pastor of my RC Church, quite a liberal fellow, once joked, "Why are you attending and giving money to that Jesuit Church? You should come to our parish. Those Jesuits aren't to be trusted."
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
...and yet, the Cardinals have made one a Pope. One wonders if they are surprised with how it is turning out, or if they elected him because they knew it would be a bit of a shake-up.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Francis is EASY to love. WHAT a guy.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I do get the feeling part of Pope Francis' shenanigans are his own beliefs and personality and a very large part is a carefully managed PR campaign. Granted, the Benedict XVI papacy never really got public relations, but the endeared him greatly to me. If I were Pope, I would want to go Bulworth all the time.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I was intrigued yesterday to see this article from Huffington Post entitled "Pope Francis says atheists who do good are redeemed not just Catholics".
He's saying "doing good" is the point.
Jesus taught "doing good" and furthermore, Jesus exemplified, simplified and clarified what "doing good" consists of.
In His Father's Law Code, what was pointed out was effects and outcomes of NOT DOING GOOD.
So, Jesus flipped it over and showed that DOING MERCY IS BETTER THAN DOING SELF-SERVICE, which the Law simply had not clarified. It was a cookbook approach.
Jesus' approach was more along the lines of operating by the principle of Justice: what you want to happen or promote is a win/win situation where everybody gets something they can use out of an experience. That's definitely not a cookbook approach.
But as things occurred, Christianity threw the Law in the Trash and declared that civil behavior was no longer even a goal; they threw the baby out with the bathwater.
So now we have Christians who slave without a sabbath; live without simple effective sanitation and hygiene; never see their debts forgiven; witness to corporate cruelty and exploitation in silence as if they didn't know it was wrong.
We have forgotten God's Laws ENTIRELY--not just the first Ten.
So Universalism can be applied because the Jacobian-Davidic Covenant of YHVH, the Kingdom of God itself and its CIVIC PRACTICE, doesn't really matter anymore.
But at least this Universalist Pontiff is saying something very apt: the answer to today's suffering is in behavior, and not in ideology(ies).
Em ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Francis was talking in the context of redemption, not strictly salvation. All mankind is redeemed through Christ's death and resurrection, not all will be saved.
How can a person be redeemed but not saved? Serious question. I have understood the words as synonyms.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Keeps the club private?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Francis was talking in the context of redemption, not strictly salvation. All mankind is redeemed through Christ's death and resurrection, not all will be saved.
How can a person be redeemed but not saved? Serious question. I have understood the words as synonyms.
Redemption is corporate, salvation is personal.
Ancient Israel corporately entered the Promised Land, but only Joshua and Caleb of their generation actually made it in.
The redemption of humanity was accomplished in Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, that doesn't mean that every single human being is saved.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sheep get into the fold, goats get roasted. Some sheep are really wolves, who get treated like goats. Some sheep get your goat because they are really goatlike. Some goats are sheep but really don't know it. And the sheep are not very good at spotting either goats or wolves, either inside or outside the pen. And as for those goats, well they may be a law unto themselves, but they're not all just into head-butting sheep. They can be really nice to their kids and nasty to Big Bad Trolls. None of us like those Big Bad Trolls.
Just an aspect of normal Christian theology I should say.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
It is getting really tiresome that the Vatican does not report the full text of these short sermons of the pope. Either they should report them in their entirety, or report nothing. The further reduction to soundbite format by an unknown third party (some hack in the Vatican's news agency probably) does not help at all.
It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Pope Francis believes in some form of Rahner's "anonymous Christian" and/or van Balthasar's "need to hope that hell is empty". Both are (in my opinion) highly questionable theologies that certainly have gained great currency since Vatican II. And Rahner, after all, was also a Jesuit...
However, we cannot really judge this from the snippets provided to us. Maybe we could not even judge this if we had the full text. We really need to wait for Pope Francis to act in a more significant teaching manner (his short sermons are certainly to be taken seriously, but do not really have the weight of the ordinary magisterium, as an encyclical would).
I would enjoy it if he then chose to teach on the devil, since he seems to have a refreshingly "literal" perspective on Lucifer's activity. But I'm betting Pope Francis will first teach on the poor, and I expect that while then he will be very challenging indeed, that challenge will not be focused on traditional quarters...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
One man's 'tiresome' is another man's breath of fresh air.
Yeah, me need more on Satan and Hell. I mean, look at what it's done for Evangelicalism.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Grace is good, Martin. Can't have too much of that. In so far as we may try to be obedient channels of God's Grace, it does seem best that we splash it around, rather than dole out meagre dollops with a small spoon. That comes across as mean. I think we should do "generous", like the Macedonians in 2 Cor 8:1-8. And in my understanding, that isn't just limited to money. It's the heart of kindness.
A generous orthodoxy may not always be a Traditional Orthodoxy, but on that issue I'm for being Traditionally heterodox.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Is it correct that Catholic theology distinguishes redemption from salvation, (as someone said earlier, corporate and individual), whereas many Protestants do not? I've noticed on some forums, people arguing about this statement by the Pope, on the grounds that they are the same; so I guess they are rejecting Catholic theology.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is it correct that Catholic theology distinguishes redemption from salvation, (as someone said earlier, corporate and individual), whereas many Protestants do not?
I've always thought that 'redemption' and 'salvation' mean roughly the same thing, at least in terms of what people usually mean by the latter.
The Greek word we translate 'salvation' (sozo, isn't it?) apparently has a wider meaning than simply being on the correct side of the sheep / goats division. But we usually use 'salvation' in this narrower sense, and that's pretty much identical to what 'redemption' means, is it not? 'Redemption' - paying the price to set someone free from slavery, yes?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Wouldn't a Calvinist, however, say that Christ did not, in fact, die for all? He only died for the Elect?
Strictly speaking yes, although there is a theological position which is closer to classical Lutheranism which could be described as Unlimited Limited Atonement. Essentially, this position holds that Christ died for anyone who will believe, but recognises the reality that many do not and will not in fact believe. Atonement, therefore, is effectual to those who believe, but can be preached as effectual to those who do not yet believe if it is accompanied by the call to faith. The atonement of Christ becomes effectual for the individual at the point of belief and hence is limited to those who have faith. The atonement is unlimited in potential scope, but limited in actual effect.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is it correct that Catholic theology distinguishes redemption from salvation, (as someone said earlier, corporate and individual), whereas many Protestants do not?
I've always thought that 'redemption' and 'salvation' mean roughly the same thing, at least in terms of what people usually mean by the latter.
The Greek word we translate 'salvation' (sozo, isn't it?) apparently has a wider meaning than simply being on the correct side of the sheep / goats division. But we usually use 'salvation' in this narrower sense, and that's pretty much identical to what 'redemption' means, is it not? 'Redemption' - paying the price to set someone free from slavery, yes?
Well, that just sounds very Protestant to me! My point is that Catholic theology distinguishes them, therefore the Pope is not saying anything new. But maybe I am wrong about this.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
One man's 'tiresome' is another man's breath of fresh air.
You consider it to be a "breath of fresh air" that some journalist of the Vatican news agency turns the pope's sermons into sound bites for the press, with no source for the original available?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Yeah, me need more on Satan and Hell. I mean, look at what it's done for Evangelicalism.
I don't know (and do not particularly care) what this has done for Evangelicalism. I do know that the existence of Satan and hell has been downplayed far too much in Catholicism.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is it correct that Catholic theology distinguishes redemption from salvation, (as someone said earlier, corporate and individual), whereas many Protestants do not? I've noticed on some forums, people arguing about this statement by the Pope, on the grounds that they are the same; so I guess they are rejecting Catholic theology.
There is an ambiguity in the word "redemption", as it can be either the act of redeeming (Christ) or the state of being redeemed (us). There's a further ambiguity insofar as redemption here comes as an offer that requires acceptance, hence the state of being redeemed can be potential or actual for us. The actual state of being redeemed will result in eternal salvation, so those are effectively "the same" for us. But that does not mean that one can consider "redemption" and "salvation" as simple synonyms.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I agree with IngoB re redemption and salvation meanings; just looked at a Greek-English NT dictionary and a few usages; together, these seem to me to confirm his clear view.
[ 24. May 2013, 11:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hmmm. The Heilsgeschichte would blur that distinction. Jesus is salvation is redemption.
Not to be overstated of course! We need more damnation apparently. Hmmm, proseltyes being twice the sons of hell comes to mind. I wonder why?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I could just make the comment that, whether you like him or loathe him, the old Pope (Benedict XVI) would never have left people in confusion like this - he was always very clear about what he said and meant.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Now that IS confusing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Wouldn't a Calvinist, however, say that Christ did not, in fact, die for all? He only died for the Elect?
How many true Calvinists are there around these days? Arminianism seems to have won the day in Protestantism.
Thankfully yes. 'The elect' is a horrid notion beloved by certain personality types - including Hitler, in a slightly different way,
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
...Thankfully yes. 'The elect' is a horrid notion beloved by certain personality types - including Hitler, in a slightly different way,
In a VERY different way, I'd say - in all fairness to Calvinists. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
All mankind is redeemed through Christ's death and resurrection, not all will be saved.
This is something you have no way of knowing as you aren't God. But Pope Francis said nothing amiss. Christ died for all, but whether all attain to that salvation is something we can never know.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Pope Francis believes in some form of Rahner's "anonymous Christian" and/or van Balthasar's "need to hope that hell is empty". Both are (in my opinion) highly questionable theologies that certainly have gained great currency since Vatican II.
I couldn't disagree more! There's nothing questionable about hoping that hell is empty, only in claiming to know it is. Thank God for this aspect of post Vatican II theology.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Wouldn't a Calvinist, however, say that Christ did not, in fact, die for all? He only died for the Elect?
How many true Calvinists are there around these days? Arminianism seems to have won the day in Protestantism.
Thankfully yes. 'The elect' is a horrid notion beloved by certain personality types - including Hitler, in a slightly different way,
Jesus didn't have a problem with the notion of the elect (cf. Matt 24), so it seems a bit off to suggest acceptance of the notion as evidence of a "certain personality type". And even more strange to offer Hitler as a working example of that type! Doesn't make sense to me.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus didn't have a problem with the notion of the elect (cf. Matt 24), so it seems a bit off to suggest acceptance of the notion as evidence of a "certain personality type". And even more strange to offer Hitler as a working example of that type! Doesn't make sense to me.
Couldn't disagree more.
Re: Jesus and the elect, while the phrase "gathering the elect" does occur in Matt. 24, Jesus is using the term in a very different way then Calvinism uses it. The context sounds a lot more Arminian than Calvinist, with the emphasis on being faithful and persevering to the end.
re: Hitler, it is clear that a warped concept of "election" was central to his version of "German Christianity" that allowed him to manipulate religious concepts for his own purposes. It is a very warped version, of course, and one might rightly argue that any theological concept/theme can be manipulated for evil purposes by a clever sociopath. But the fact that "election" is key to Hitler's agenda is pretty clear.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus didn't have a problem with the notion of the elect (cf. Matt 24), so it seems a bit off to suggest acceptance of the notion as evidence of a "certain personality type". And even more strange to offer Hitler as a working example of that type! Doesn't make sense to me.
Couldn't disagree more.
Re: Jesus and the elect, while the phrase "gathering the elect" does occur in Matt. 24, Jesus is using the term in a very different way then Calvinism uses it. The context sounds a lot more Arminian than Calvinist, with the emphasis on being faithful and persevering to the end.
Well, that would certainly fit with the "P" of TULIP, which isn't Arminian in the slightest. But I guess it depends on whether you believe that he's unloving enough to sit back and watch his children struggle and ultimately fail when he has all the power and grace necessary to see us through to the end.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Once you make that argument, don't you have to be a universalist? Can God let anyone continue to lack salvation when he has the power and grace to see them through as you put it? It seems to me that to assert limited atonement in that kind of way gets you very near to the old Arminian jibe that "Calvinism makes God the author of sin."
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Jesuits are very well educated but they are also known for being imrovisational at Mass and for making doctrine bend over backwards to make it seem accessible to the modern world. They are very obedient to the Pope but use tha obedience as a license to get away with all sorts of other things. As a radical liberal heretic I think the are a great gift to the Church but I also know that they can be quite eccentric and reading their true thoughts and intentions is often quite hard. With all priests it hard to get in their head but Jesuits are so smart, so trained, and so...confident? that it is a particular challenge. The previous pastor of my RC Church, quite a liberal fellow, once joked, "Why are you attending and giving money to that Jesuit Church? You should come to our parish. Those Jesuits aren't to be trusted."
As they say, there are three things God doesn't know. What a Jesuit thinks, how many nuns there are in Rome and where the Franciscans get all their money.
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
I didn't hear the Pope saying anything that the New Testament hasn't already said --- cf. Romans 2:7-11.
Paul certainly indicates an at-least-somewhat universalist view of salvation here.
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
This article clearly shows that Pope Francis is only saying here something that originates in the NT, is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church , and has been included in numerous important church documents. That is that Christ died for all, so therefore all are saved, at least in potential, even if some aren't saved in practice.
"The Church prays that no one should be lost" (CCC1058) so it's wrong to call the hope that hell is empty "dubious theology" because there is no difference between praying that no one should be lost, and praying that hell is empty. There are some Christians who seem to almost gloat over the idea that many, usually people who disagree with them, should be in eternal hell. They would do better to save their judgements for themselves, lest such gloating is their own damnation.
I would stick my neck out that bit further, and say that I believe that every knee shall bow and every tounge confess(Phil 2.10-11), and that God gives sufficient grace to all to enable their salvation. But I don't proclaim that this is so, that would be heresy. I simly pray, every day, along with the Church, that no one should be lost. I feel confident that Pope Francis feels that very deeply.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
"The Church prays that no one should be lost" (CCC1058) so it's wrong to call the hope that hell is empty "dubious theology" because there is no difference between praying that no one should be lost, and praying that hell is empty. There are some Christians who seem to almost gloat over the idea that many, usually people who disagree with them, should be in eternal hell. They would do better to save their judgements for themselves, lest such gloating is their own damnation.
I can hope (and pray) that no one should be sick. For each and every person you can point to, I may sincerely hope that they also should not be sick. It still does not follow that I must hope that nobody is sick, in the sense that every single living person is healthy now and henceforth. I know a lot of things about this world and about people, and one thing that follows from this knowledge is that somebody is bound to be sick among a large enough group of people. And it is neither reasonable nor necessary to hope for the impossible. There is hence no contradiction between hoping for every person to be healthy individually and not hoping that all people are healthy globally, because of the knowledge that some sickness is unavoidable.
Likewise, I believe that both bible and tradition are unequivocally clear that some people will be doomed to hell. So it is neither reasonable nor necessary to hope that hell is empty, because this is impossible by Divine revelation. Theology pretending otherwise is dubious. That does not mean however that I cannot hope for every person you can point to that they may be saved. There is no contradiction between a comprehensive individual hope and the rejection of a global hope, because of the revelation that some damnation is unavoidable.
You can hold these matters as you wish. But you should be aware that you cannot conclude from the statement "hell is not empty" to the assumption that the person in question wishes for any individual to go to hell.
Furthermore, even just considering the hope for individual salvation, matters are not that simple. For example, I may hope sincerely that no individual goes to prison. That does not however preclude that I hope that a rapist be caught and thrown into prison. My hope that no individual should go to prison is actually an expression of my hope that no individual should commit a serious crime worthy of prison. If I had met the rapist prior to the rape, I could have viably said to him "I hope you never go to prison." If I then see him after the rape I could say "I've called the police, I hope they catch you and throw you into prison," and yet I would not have contradicted myself. Because my original hope was an expression of a deeper hope, it was conditional on the person remaining free of crime.
Now, salvation according to Christ is conditional on repenting and following Him. When we say that we hope that somebody will be saved we actually express this hope that he shall repent of his sins and follow Christ. (To what extent this needs to be explicit is a different question, this is not a statement that all Hindus are doomed or any such thing.) Where this is not the case, we are certainly under no requirement to hope that this person shall be saved as they are. We are merely under the requirement to hope that they shall change their ways, repent and follow Christ. If that hope is there, at least potentially, then it can be licit to hope that somebody does go to hell as they are. That can be a matter of justice, just like hoping that a criminal be caught and thrown into prisons is a matter of justice. The rape victim shouting at the rapist "I hope you burn in hell" is hence not necessarily being "un-Christian", as long as there is some place in her for accepting that sincere repentance on the side of the rapist may still gain him heaven and that this would be better.
Finally, one should make some allowance for human weakness. In particular, I would say that victims should be afforded some "gloating". It is all nice and well for the armchair Christian moralist to construct appropriate norms of behaviour, but if your parents and siblings were "ethnically cleansed", if your child was tortured, raped and murdered, if your career was ended by rumours and false accusations, if your house was burned to the ground - then you may not express yourself in such "fully appropriate" ways about the salvation prospects of the perpetrators.
Oh, and you should read more psalms.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Once you make that argument, don't you have to be a universalist?
That, or acknowledge the doctrine of particular redemption. quote:
Can God let anyone continue to lack salvation when he has the power and grace to see them through as you put it?
God has no particular obligation, nor has he promised, to save anyone but those who trust in Christ. quote:
It seems to me that to assert limited atonement in that kind of way gets you very near to the old Arminian jibe that "Calvinism makes God the author of sin."
Following that logic, the Wright Brothers should be blamed for air disasters.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
God has no particular obligation, nor has he promised, to save anyone but those who trust in Christ.
But according to you Calvinists, he decides in advance who will trust in Christ and who will not. Therefore according to your soteriology, if any are lost it is because God decided (before the world was made) not to save them.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
God has no particular obligation, nor has he promised, to save anyone but those who trust in Christ.
But according to you Calvinists, he decides in advance who will trust in Christ and who will not. Therefore according to your soteriology, if any are lost it is because God decided (before the world was made) not to save them.
Yes.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick
...the text quoted does seem to have affirmed the salvation of all through the blood of Christ:
quote:
The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.
I don't think this needs to be read in a universalist way although that is how it comes across to me at first glance.
I certainly believe that it is true that "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics.." (or even just Christians). This is the logical implication* of the penal substitutionary / legal understanding of the atonement, which I certainly accept as part of the meaning of the work of Christ on the cross. If Christ paid the penalty for the sins of all, then from a legal point of view all are saved. Therefore I am a "legal universalist".
But while I am a "legal universalist", I also believe in a real hell, to which some people will, tragically, go. So, in another sense, I am not a universalist. Is this a contradiction? Not at all. The legal aspect is only one part of salvation. It doesn't follow that everyone whose sins are forgiven, will actually appreciate that fact! It doesn't follow that the everlasting experience of the absolute love of God will be a pleasurable experience for all people. For some people the presence and life of God will be hell - hence Hebrews 12:29: "Our God is a consuming fire." (God does not create the consuming fire of judgement. He IS that fire.)
I have made this point before quite a number of times here on the Ship, and a frequent response is that no one would reject the love of God; everyone would embrace it willingly and joyously. I strongly disagree with that view. The love of God has a moral content, which utterly obliterates conceit and arrogance. Someone who is, at heart, proud and self-obsessed (by the grace of God go I!), and whose entire agenda in life is to control, dominate and oppress others would find such love a living hell. The entire dynamic of this love completely jars with the dynamic of pride and self-exaltation. "No one shall glory in my presence" are nightmarish words to those who derive their entire raison d'être from desiring to exercise power over others.
Therefore, it doesn't matter how much Jesus has paid the price for the sins of every member of the human race, that love still has to be willingly embraced. So it is not a question of agonisingly poring over "the small print" to work out whether God will save an atheist. The atheist is already 'saved' legally, because Jesus paid the price for his / her sin. The question is: does that atheist say a wholehearted 'yes' to the love of God? The onus is on the atheist, not on God.
The idea that God could condemn someone simply on account of the organisation of information in that person's mind at the point at which the physical body ceases to function, is utterly absurd, in my view. God's looks at a person's heart, and it is perfectly possible that someone may profess to be an atheist, but actually may live in such a way as to suggest that s/he does believe that there is an objective reality of love, which does require a moral response - even though that person, when challenged, may 'explain' that love in purely biological terms. Only God knows whether that response is a true response of the heart to Him, despite the outward denials.
* (There is another logical implication of PSA: limited atonement. It is superficially logical, but the presupposition behind it is not. This would require God deliberately creating some people who, on account of entering a fallen world, and thereby being infected with so called "original sin", could not escape everlasting damnation. This is tantamount to God creating some people for no other reason than to damn them. Infralapsarianism is just supralapsarianism dressed up in language which makes predestination appear less harsh, but it actually amounts to the same thing. This, of course, impugns God's justice. The whole point of PSA is that it upholds and affirms God's justice. The necessity of it reveals a God who respects legality, and therefore is willing to suffer rather than act arbitrarily. This is contrary to the presupposition behind limited atonement. Therefore limited atonement is illogical.)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
