Eternity…
Where does the bizarre notion come from that because a person in this life hasn’t affirmed particular propositional statements about Jesus (that he was the Son of God, that he rose from the dead…) or about the Church, that somehow Hell awaits?
While finding such a notion bizarre, and foreign to the words of Jesus on the subject of eternity, I want to remind readers that I am not belittling the existence of doctrinal orthodoxy, or the importance of it, or even the need for evangelism.
Instead of repeating arguments made here many times, let me appeal to the discussion in Hell, and to the posts Who is a Christian, and Still Before Christ, to name just a couple. If you don’t care to look there, simply answer the question asked in the opening sentence, which lasts the entire paragraph.
K.
Perhaps this is because of the teachings of Jesus regarding the importance of acknowledging Him (Mark 8:38/Luke 9:26) and that this understanding was shared by the early church (Acts 4:12, Romans 10:9) that such an emphasis is placed on assent to certain propositions. Judging by your comments on those other posts you linked to this one, you’d probably be appeased by an understanding that truly understanding and accepting these propositions will inevitably result in the actions Jesus commands throughout the Gospel. Still, I would maintain that the actions flow from belief, and thus maintain the primacy of belief over action. This is the only way I have been able to resolve “saved by grace through faith, not by works” with Jesus’ teachings about the actions that come with living out the Kingdom of God.
Comment by Theophilus — February 20, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
Pretty sure it came from the Holy Spirit… it was designed to up church attendance. By the way Kelly, I got to meet the Lesbian equivalent of Cameron the other day. She sounded like him, stood like him, it was quite funny! Very good lecturer as well. She used to teach in Princeton Seminary.
Comment by David Malcolm — February 20, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
At least part of the problem is limiting faith to intellectual assent. Faith means more than that and includes trust in Jesus and fidelity to Jesus. IMV, trust in Jesus is the core around which other aspects of faith center.
James Alison has likened the Christian experience to a dance to which we have been invited. The invitation was gratuitous, purely a gift, not based on any deserving. Sadly, some of us spend more time worrying about the wrong sort of people getting into the party than we do in simply enjoying it.
Finally, the way Kelly has posed the question, i.e., in terms of whether a person will be condemned to hell, is, IMV, missing the point. The Christian life is not about securing a place in heaven, but about living in a new relationship with God who has become known to us as the saving victim, as the crucified and risen Lord. Yes, that new relationship does mean that death is conquered and that eternal life is ours, but, as the Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta puts it, eternity begins at the baptismal font and goes on forever.
Comment by Daniel Weir — February 21, 2008 @ 8:11 am
There’s good reason to believe that true belief is even more important to salvation than good deeds, because belief moves the heart (the mind and will), while acts move the body, and salvation is accomplished by moving the heart, not the body. But the Church doesn’t teach that Hell awaits the person who hasn’t affirmed particular doctrinal statements about Jesus.
Comment by Richard — February 21, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Richard, I never stated that the Church taught that hell awaits those who haven’t affirmed particular doctrinal statements. I simply said the notion exists (what I didn’t say is that it is more common among Evangelicals) and that it is bizarre. I also mentioned that it seems foreign to the words of Jesus. I don’t dispute what you mentioned about the heart and body, I would simply state that God moves the heart in many different ways, and for us to limit that moving and suppose it is simply expressed through some sort of doctrinal allegiance, well that’s infantile.
Theophilus, you specifically answer my question, and I thank you for it, but I profoundly disagree, and think the point is being missed. The first verses you provide, speak of one being ashamed of Jesus, and consequently Jesus being ashamed of such a person on Judgment Day. Well, shame implies some sort of knowledge, so these verses do not speak to those who (perhaps a majority) have an awareness which t allows them to express shame in Jesus. The others verses do not speak to the vast majority of people, who again choose not to assent to particular propositions. These verses simply speak to the benefit of assent, a benefit I have not denied (paragraph 2 in the opening post), but the benefit of such assent is not limited to the minority who offer such assent.
You state action flows from belief but what I am saying, and if you read the sermon given by the priest in A Burnt-Out Case, is that good, whether the giver of it is aware of not, is motivated by Jesus. And so those actions flow from the same source that Christian’s actions have flowed from, but they have come without assent to particular propositions.
Finally Dan, I agree that limiting faith to intellectual assent is a problem. Similarly problematic, which was the thrust of my post, is limiting salvation to only those who offer such assent.
Were you perhaps saying that those who hold to the belief I have expressed in such a question, namely that those who believe that salvation is tied to, and dependent upon particular assent to statements about Jesus and the Church, are missing the point?
I thought I was brief and clear (3 posts in a row now…) but in case I wasn’t let me repeat: Where does the bizarre idea come from that salvation is tied to, and dependent upon, a person’s assent to particular statements about Jesus or the Church?
K.
Comment by K. — February 21, 2008 @ 11:49 am
Jesus was a Jew, and the fullfillment of the OT. The OT taught the notion of Hades, the dwelling of the dead. Jesus did introduce ‘Gehenna’ with its “wailing and nashing of teeth”.
Comment by Chris — February 21, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
“Gehenna” was introduced to Judaism in the apocalyptic literature of the inter-testamental period. Not by Jesus.
Comment by Tristan — February 21, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
Ok, this time I’m posting before reading the comments.
I guess this is interpetational because I think the Catechism covers this topic quite well.
The heart to entrance into Heaven rest in the Ten Commandments. INTERPETATION: We have been given a great gift in the message of Christ. We have a road map. First we have Sacred Tradition which stems straight from the Apostles circled around Christ. Second we have Sacred Scripture. Not only so we have human accounts of the God-man but we also have the inspired Word of God telling us why He came. Third we have The Communion of Saints whos deeds testify to “The Way” as Acts calls our way of Life. Its all there for us to learn and better ourselves, purifiy ourselves even before our purity is judged.
Still there are a lot of people in the world and the cycle of life must continue while the Word is spread. But God is still in ALL things seen and unseen. Those we know and those we dont. Some of the people will by their nature alone or even by transendance will follow The Ten Commandments as they are called - without the benifits we have in the Church.
My understanding of doctrine tells me that people who have not been introduced to Christ, and I might even add people who are improperly introduced to Christ, but still follow The Ten Commandments even if they dont know they do, will still enter the Kindom…. Eventually.
But thats another topic.
Comment by Philo Buff — February 21, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
Dare I say Pastors passing the plate around?
I hope you guys have a sense of humor. Another of Gods gifts to us.
Comment by Philo Buff — February 21, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
I would think that it would be presumptous to claim, as though infallibly, that a soul of a person would be damed to hell simply becuase they did not recite ‘the jesus prayer’. there are many factors that play into a person accepting or rejecting Jesus as their savour. Christ is a God of compassion and he alone knows what is in the hearts of men. It would be nice if all became Christian upon hearing the Gospel but it doesnt happen that way. People have pre-existing dispositions when it comes to religions - especially foreign ones. I am not saying that there is more then on way to God. There is not. It is through Christ and His Church and as christians we do have to work to evangelize the world. Despite the fact that this is truth it would be incorrect to say that God cannot reveal himself to the dying, possiby even to the dead through purgation. We must pray, especially during Lent, for all souls so that Christ will admit an ever-growing number into his kingdom.
Comment by Sean — February 21, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
Chris, Hades and Gehenna have nothing to do with this discussion, in so far as we are not discussing their existence, but rather we are trying to discover precisely how the strange notion came about that those who reject statements about Jesus or the Church are somehow damned.
Philo (can I use your real name for goodness sakes?) attempts to answer, and while he is good enough to make allowances for certain peoples, he falls into the trap of believing that somehow it is what one affirms that determines salvation. He offers us a ‘we have been given a road map…we have been given Tradition…’ all of which is very nice and good, but doesn’t address the central question which was: Why do we suppose that those who go on their life without knowledge of such tradition or such a road map, are somehow damned? However, he does eventually get on to that idea of anonymously following God, so perhaps he’s not too far from the mark.
Finally Sean offers the need for evangelism (a need I did not deny in paragraph 2), and while he makes allowance for God revealing himself to those dying, or possibly those in Purgatory, his allowances I believe reflects a mistaken understanding of Redemption (i.e. one that it is tied to belief), for in that absence of belief, he makes allowances for exceptional cases and supposes that in one’s final moments or in Purgatory one become doctrinally orthodox. Well perhaps, but to suppose “that extraordinary, miraculous means are applied to countless millions of people so as to become in practice the rule, the normal way for salvation” is in my view rather unnecessary, especially in light of our need to tie our concepts of redemption to Jesus’, who, when he was speaking on the matter never tied it to doctrinal correctness.
K.
Comment by K. — February 22, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
I think it may be the pulpit coming into real life. What I mean is that we can all picture the preacher standing at the Ambo and using passionate and heart felt words to inspire us to lead a life in union with Christ.
The Priesthood in CAtholic Tradition is like a diamond. Persona Christ? The emphasis has to be ‘persona.’ It is in the person of Christ that shows many facets of a Priest. Which one can ‘be’ the person of Christ? None, they are men and can only be ‘in’ the person of Christ. I am getting all metephysiscal here but the power of words shows how a Priest can only be a side of Christ and not the full Spirituality of Christ.
This is not nocking them; its recognizing the Truth. The point is that while enpassioned for the salvation of souls, they will use little snippets of Scripture to puncuate a point. It is a skill I was taught just like every other Priest and priest canidate for at least thirty years in my area.
There is a danger to this practice and the reason I tend not to throw Scripture around. Scritpure, right fully so, is the most pwoerful prose know to man. You can take a chapter from the Gosple of Saint John and if you look closely you can pick out single and multiple groups of sentances where the meaning of the sentance no longer applies to the topic of the chapter.
In their zeal at the pulpit, some preachers could erronously add this line or that line to prove a point and when the parishioner goes home and looks at the passage it has been… ‘colored’ by the preachers use.
I think that might be an explanation of why people think that those who do not know Christ will suffer in Hell. It is just an error that has developed COMPLETELY unintentionally. The use at one and only one point has left an imprint on the whole.
I will say that there is a difference to not affirming Christ and rejecting him. Not affirming mean, in my book, that you have not known Christ, consiceously. He is a part of your life but you dont know it so there is nothing to affirm. Rejection imlies a certain amount of familiarity with what you reject. That is the sadness of that situation. Its like walking up to your Mom and Dad and saying I know who you are but I dont want you.
The affirmation side is like having these two guardian angles who are always there for you. You recieve the benefits but do not know were they come from.
Comment by Philo Buff — February 23, 2008 @ 10:00 am
I have never posted here before, and I have given my reply to this elsewhere, but I might as well repeat and enlarge upon it here. The absurd proposition comes from the sinful human heart that would like to make ourselves the center of our salvation. Affirmation of propositional statements is the stuff of philosophy or politics or the usual human-devised religions (typical example, “If you repeat such and so words, then you are one of us”). In other words, it should be no surprise that those who call themselves “Christian,” but who have not been given the gift of faith would fall back on the best that the sinful human heart can do. Such, by the way, was true of the Gnostics of old and is true of the most numerous sect of modern Gnostics, those whose prophet lives in Utah and is true of the rapidly growing “name it and claim it” movement.
If I may look to the next logical question, I would suggest that it is, “Why can’t natural humans see that an affirmational statement isn’t even close?” Why can’t we see on our own that Christ is the alpha and the omega, and that it is full faith in him, which means full reliance upon him, that is salvific? Such insight is not possible for us because we are incapable of righteousness, a right relationship with God, meaning the recognition that God is God and I am not. That this is true is clearly declared for both Jew and gentile in Romans 1:19 - 3:20 and Ephesians 2:1-3. However, then come the great adversatives of Romans 3:21 (”But now the righteousness of God”) and Ephesians 2:4 (”But God”). God, himself, and through the Christ is the sole cause of both grace and the faith through which grace acts. We bring nothing to the table but our sins.
Satan knows the truth of these propositional statements about Jesus, but Satan knows it does not save him.
In Christ,
lou
Comment by lou Heron — February 23, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
Lou, I start out agreeing with you, but then you reduce salvation to one proposition (that faith in Christ, and reliance in him is salvific) and when you do that you make the same mistake you accuse others of making in paragraph 1: placing ourselves at the center of salvation, that if we somehow trust in the right person we are saved.
Now Paul wouldn’t disagree with you, in the sense that he too affirmed that those who place their faith and reliance in Jesus will be saved) however this only speaks to a small portion of humankind, and surely salvation extends beyond such a portion, not because there are plenty of different ways of attaining salvation, but because God, who is the center of salvation, works in many different ways, and in doing so allows for individuals to act anonymously as followers of Christ.
K.
Comment by K. — February 23, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
K., I urge you to consider that you are treating an hypothesis, the “anonymous Christian,” as if it were axiomatic. It is, however, a proposition put forth by your denomination and finding its authority in another hypothesis, the magisterium, itself an assumption depending from a long and unanchored chain of “apostolic succession” of office.
If the anonymous Christian proposition were true, then so would be the corollaries you state based upon it, and the Apostle would stand in need of instruction from the magisterium. If he had been so uninformed about this, then the canon is no canon, and where would we be then?
In Christ,
lou
Comment by lou Heron — February 24, 2008 @ 5:21 am
Lou,
The only way the apostle would be in need of instruction in this matter, would be if he were to choose to abandon the words of Jesus and suppose that salvation is exclusively dependant on an intentional faith and reliance in Jesus.
You wouldn’t accuse Paul of that would you?
K.
Comment by K. — February 24, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
James Alison has, in one of his books, a wonderful image of a party to which we have been invited not because of any worthiness on our part, but simply as a gift. The sadness, howver, is that many of us spend far more time worrying that the “wrong kind of people” will get into the party than we spend enjoying the party.
As a Christian,who happens to be a priest in the Episcopal Church, I believe that I am at the party because Jesus invited me and I want to share that invitation with others. I don’t have a clue about whether others might have received different sorts of invitations and I am prepared to discover all sorts of unexpected guests at the party - Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics and atheists. I’m not the man at the door checking invitations, nor would I want to be - I don’t want to miss any of the fun.
Comment by Daniel Weir — February 24, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
K., you said, “The only way the apostle would be in need of instruction in this matter, would be if he were to chose to abandon the words of Jesus and suppose that salvation is exclusively dependant on a faith and reliance in Jesus. You wouldn’t accuse Paul of that would you?”
I hope you don’t mind me saying that you are begging the question. Either Paul was telling the truth or he was not. Either it is impossible for us to live well enough to save ourselves or it is not. Either our salvation is by grace acting through faith or it is not. Either Jesus was telling the truth when he said that the only way to the Father was through him or he was not. Here are some quotes from Jesus. As is true with all proof-texts, they must be read in the context of their immediate surroundings and of the Bible as a whole, for it is all one revelation. I would appreciate any comments you might wish to make specifically directed to the previous quotes from Paul and to these from Jesus.
Luke 5:20:”When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” ”
Luke 23:40-43: “But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” ”
John 3:14-18 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. 18 He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 6:28-29: “Therefore they said to Him, ‘What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.’”
In Christ,
lou
Comment by lou Heron — February 24, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Here’s how you are missing the point Lou: Nobody is suggesting that Paul is lying, nor is anyone here denying the words of Jesus. Jesus says that he is responsible for our salvation, yes, but you make the mistake of supposing that that means the same thing as therefore only those who express a direct reliance on him will be saved. Matthew 25 contradicts you.
Thank you for the Bible verses. I’ve read the Bible too.
K.
Comment by K. — February 24, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
I suppose we should just leave it at that, for we have reached an impasse, and this is your blog. You choose not to address the words of Jesus and Paul telling us that we are saved by, and only by, grace through faith. I choose to pay attention to those and to Matthew 25, which like James tells us that living faith has its consequences. It is my belief that one cannot dissect out verses or pericopes to stand alone so as to prove one’s point, but must read in context and must read the part by the whole, not the whole by the part. I can wish we could have had a meaningful discussion, but why should we expect to do better than the hierarchs do? “None is righteous. No, not one!”
In Christ,
lou
Comment by lou Heron — February 24, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Here is where you miss the point. Nobody is denying either the words of Jesus or the words of Paul regarding the centrality of Grace when it comes to salvation, and the part Jesus plays in this.
What is being said is that the ‘faith’ you believe to be essential, can be manifested in different ways, and according to Matthew 25, can be manifested in our actions to those around us, because whether we act believing that our actions are motivated by God, and directed towards him, the simple truth is that even those unaware, in doing good, do good to Jesus, and show an anonymous acceptance of him. Matthew 25 shows that at Judgment Day, the fullness of our relationship with God, whether or not we thought we had one, will be discovered.
K.
Comment by K. — February 25, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
This bizarre notion comes from fundamentalists, whom we find in different religions. Religious fundamentalism is what gives insecure people the illusion of security.
Comment by Andreas Saint-Prix — February 29, 2008 @ 10:42 am
Hey Sean, absolutely right on! You have a wonderful way of wording things! Kate
Comment by Kate — March 2, 2008 @ 5:06 pm