Can Non-Christians Be Saved?

By Kenneth J. Howell

OBJECTOR ONE: Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that there can be no salvation outside the Church? Does that mean that no people of other religions can be in heaven with God? What gives the Catholic Church the right to think it can judge whether non-Christians will be saved?

CATHOLIC: The Catholic dogma is indeed that outside the Church there is no salvation, but your interpretation of what this dogma means is flawed. The Church does not presume to know who will be in heaven with God. It makes no judgments in this matter whatsoever. The ancient phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus (literally, "outside the Church no salvation") has been a widely accepted principle since the earliest days of Christianity. Since the Church has no authority to deny long-established principles, it cannot simply throw out time-honored truths to suit the current fads of thinking.

OBJECTOR ONE: But if the Church makes no judgments of any person, that is inconsistent with the principle that outside the Church there is no salvation. That principle says quite clearly that anyone who is not Catholic will not be saved.

CATHOLIC: No, the principle says that the Church is the necessary instrument for people to find salvation. The Second Vatican Council affirmed that the Catholic Church is the "sole Church of Christ" that Christ established on the earth (Lumen Gentium 8). In the teaching and sacramental ministry of the Church, Jesus Christ is made known to the world for the salvation of the human race. No one would have access to Christ’s salvation if the Church were not in the world. In that sense the Church is necessary. But Christ’s salvation is not limited to the boundaries of formal membership in the Church. In other words, we know from Christ’s teaching in the Bible that the Church is necessary, but the Church holds out hope for those outside the Church that they too may be saved.

OBJECTOR TWO: I have to disagree with both of you. I believe Scripture makes it abundantly clear that there is no other name under heaven than Christ himself by which one can be saved. Acts 4:12 makes that clear. The Catholic Church’s dogma is confused. It places too much emphasis on the Church and not enough on Christ himself. But then the Second Vatican Council, if what you say is true, claims that the Church, rather than Christ, is necessary and at the same time says that people who don’t accept Christ can still be saved.

CATHOLIC: Acts 4:12 says that salvation is found in no one other than Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." This verse and many others make it abundantly clear that Christ is the only Savior of the world. That is precisely why the Church says that its existence in the world is necessary for salvation: because we would not know of Christ had it not been for the Church. In Acts 4:12, Peter is pointing to Christ as the Savior, but he does so as an authoritative witness to Christ, as his chosen apostle. The people to whom Peter was preaching would not know of Christ except through his witness as the leader of the Church. So we can say that the proclamation of Christ by the Church is necessary for salvation. Outside of Christ there is no salvation and, by implication, outside the Church there is no salvation.

OBJECTOR ONE: Wait a minute. If you agree with this Fundamentalist that belief in Christ is necessary for salvation, then you are judging non-Christians. You’re saying they cannot be saved.

OBJECTOR TWO: But if you say that non-Christians can be saved, then you’re denying the necessity of Christ coming into the world to save sinners. Your position is clear: People outside of Christ can be saved. But this is also clearly wrong. The Catholic position is really confused because it says that Christ and the Church are necessary for salvation while also saying that people outside of Christ and the Church can be saved.

CATHOLIC: It is not as confused as you imagine. Let’s make some important distinctions: The Church is necessary, as I have said, because no one will be saved apart from Christ. If the Church were suddenly taken out of the world, the knowledge of Christ would be lost. So I agree with our Fundamentalist friend here on the necessity of Christ and the Church for salvation, but he insists also that faith in Christ must be conscious and explicit for a person to be saved. Am I accurate in stating your position?

OBJECTOR TWO: Yes. The Bible says, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). I don’t know so much about belonging to the Church. If you mean the Roman Catholic Church, then the Church is definitely not necessary for salvation. If you mean the Church generically—that is, the body of Christ—then I might agree. But my point is that the Catholic Church can’t logically claim that Christ is necessary for salvation and also that non-Christians have the possibility of salvation.

CATHOLIC: We can claim both because we know from Scripture that Christ and the Church are necessary, but we also don’t know how many people without a conscious and explicit knowledge of Christ may still be united to him in a way known only to God.

OBJECTOR ONE: Let me see if I understand you. Christ and the Church are necessary but the Church also allows that there may be those outside the Church who are united to Christ without knowing that they are united to him. That position is not as harsh and condemning as I first thought but I still think that it comes down to the same thing. You insist on salvation only through Christ.

CATHOLIC: Guilty as charged. The Catholic Church insists on salvation only through Christ because it is the unchanging witness of Scripture and Christian Tradition. We cannot surrender the centrality of Christ or the Church without abandoning our faith and heritage. But you are also right when you say that there may be people who are united to Christ while not being aware of it. We don’t say that we know there are such people. We say that because we don’t know if those outside the Church are cut off from Christ.

OBJECTOR TWO: I agree on insisting on salvation only through Christ, but then you surrender that very belief when you allow the possibility that non-Christians may be united to Christ without faith.

CATHOLIC: We would be surrendering our belief in the necessity of Christ only if we agreed with you that the knowledge of Christ must be explicit and conscious. Since you believe that the only kind of knowledge of Christ that one can have is conscious, I see why you would say that we are surrendering our insistence on Christ and the Church.

OBJECTOR TWO: But where do you get the idea that people can be united with Christ without an explicit faith in him? Certainly not from the Bible.

CATHOLIC: The Bible speaks of a merciful God who wants all to come to repentance and to a knowledge of the truth (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). God has established the Church as the means by which all people can come to him. But the question naturally arises about those who never hear of Christ’s salvation through the ministry of the Church. Are they thereby excluded from salvation even though their ignorance is no fault of their own?

OBJECTOR TWO: All people are guilty before God and can make no special claim. Doesn’t the Bible say that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23)?

CATHOLIC: Yes, all human beings are born with original sin (except Mary, but that’s for another discussion), but Paul also said that "God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all" (Rom. 11:32). God’s ultimate purpose is not condemnation but salvation. This salvation normally comes through the ministry of the Church as people embrace Christ and the Church he founded. The question before us is this: What about those who are hindered from the normal means of hearing the gospel through the Church’s ministry? If an explicit and conscious knowledge were absolutely necessary, then children who die before they can understand the gospel would be lost. This also applies to people who are mentally disabled and don’t have the capacity to understand the gospel through ordinary use of language. Or again, what about those in world history who never had the chance to hear the gospel?

OBJECTOR TWO: I can’t say. I don’t know what God will do for such people. All we know is what is revealed in the Bible, namely, that faith in Christ is absolutely necessary.

CATHOLIC: We don’t know what God will do for those outside the Church, so it’s best not to presume to judge. We can only hope and pray that God will have mercy on them. That’s why I said that the Catholic Church’s position on this matter is not contradictory. On the one hand, we know that the usual and expected means of salvation is being united with Christ (cf. Rom. 6:1–5), but we also know from the Bible that "the Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love" (Ps. 103:8). We hope that those who, through no fault of their own, never know the gospel in a conscious way may be united to Christ in a way known only to God. We believe that God is sovereign and loving. He will judge people according to their knowledge. If they live in a way that accords with their best knowledge of God, we trust that he will be merciful to them.

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla

Wow this is like a episode of Batman vs the Joker!

but the joker is going to sleep for a while.
lol

I have never heard that. Such propaganda.

Note statement in bold above.

What this statement says is that the Church is locked into its own dogma so tight that it no longer has any authority.

Just because the phrase "outside the Church no salvation" has been a "widely accepted" principle since the earliest days of Christianity, does not mean that people of the modern world have to continue to accept this principle.

Widely accepted by whom? Who are these people? They existed long long ago. That was then, this is today.

That is like not making improvements on anything for the silly reasoning that "We have always done it this way..." or "Because it is our tradition.." Or because "Because it is written.."

"Since the Church has no authority to deny long-established principles, it cannot simply throw out time-honored truths to suit the current fads of thinking."

YES IT CAN. I decided that earth was round didn't it?

It said that you can now eat meat on Friday didn't it?

The Pope announced that it is okay to believe in aliens or extra terrestrials didn't he?

YES IT CAN.

Therefore this excuse is moot.


JB

You go girl!

You are right, but your reasoning is wrong.



The above statement is wrong for one glaring reason: scripture. The scripture teaches that salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone. That has nothing to do with any church or body of believers. If there were only one Christian on the face of the earth, he or she would be saved based on Jesus' work on the cross and not because he / she belonged to a particular church. In addition, "long-established principles" are trumped by Christian theology. According to Jesus and the apostles, salvation only comes through Jesus. That trumps any tradition, although in this case the tradition and scripture are in accordance.

Yes, that is the protestant take on it.

But I disagree that the Church or Jesus gives salvation.

"Salvation" comes only when a person is truly repentant of his crimes and mistakes and throws himself on the mercy of whatever his concept of God or justice is and he becomes a new person because he realizes that he has acted with no compassion or love of his fellow humans. It is the repentance, not the priest or guru or savior that redeems his soul.

JB

check your sources. it was not the pope it was the head of the observatory which belongs to the vatican.
so it's not the pope.
go back to the books, and tell me later.
unless this pope you are claiming belongs to a holographic universe.


true as far as the fundies preach.


as far as fundies "christian" theology


in every case because the Church's tradition basically are teachings based upon scripture.

all the long OP just means:

that it's true for a catholic that salvation comes from the Church since it's the original Church established by my Lord.
Now there are some individuals who don't know my Lord, and they are not at fault. Let's say an atheist. This person does not know my Lord because if this person would know my Lord he/she would have a different view of things.
However, it's not atheists fault to not know my Lord it's christians' fault (me included big time) because we have distorted my Lord's teaching in a manner which the normal reaction from an atheist is rejection and denial.
Nevertheless, this brothers and sisters who don't belong to the Church sometimes have better lives than most of those who claim to be "christians" in a pharisaic manner.
These individuals are fulfilling my Lord's commandment of loving everybody regardless of their condition, so by desire they belong to the body of Christ, and for doing so we hope they share Heaven with us.

Walker.. you wrote and I quote:


"....
These individuals are fulfilling my Lord's commandment of loving everybody regardless of their condition, so by desire they belong to the body of Christ, and for doing so we hope they share Heaven with us..."


Walker...loving everybody is good and wonderful......but loving everybody doesn't get one to heaven...

only believing and accepting Jesus as Saviour and Lord is the way to salvation....and the only way to heaven.....not by how much we love one another.

However....if we are saved, we WILL love one another.
Love is one of the fruits that follow salvation,and is usually evidence that one is saved.

Well actually...I think the insignuation is that once you accept Christ as your Savior you are saved whether you sin or not...once saved always saved. Not to put on carnal pressure or condemnation for those who honestly struggle with sin & temptations but....

We know this too...let every man be a liar... Jesus also said Go & sin no more. Deliberate sin is rebellion against God & His mercy & loving kindnesses.

You are right. I was just generalizing. I made the silly assumption that the Pope was in charge of press releases. Silly me.

"The Vatican's official newspaper has endorsed the possibility that the universe could contain intelligent life beyond Earth, while insisting that aliens would be "our brothers" and "children of God" as much as human beings are.

The Pope's astronomer, José Gabriel Funes, a Jesuit priest, told L'Osservatore Romano that there would be nothing surprising about the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrials."

It's what the scripture says, if you want to debate it, then show me some scripture.



Sola Scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to believe. Catholics must always be prepared to have their beliefs changed by the next Pope or vatican council.



Praying to saints: Non-scriptural
Salvation through baptism: Non-scriptural
Salvation through works: Non-scriptural
Holy Relics: Non-scriptural
Apostolic succession: Non-scriptural
All people are God's children: Non-scriptural
Mary was without sin: Non-scriptural
Mary died a virgin: Non-scriptural
Mary had no children: Non-scriptural
Mary Magdeline was a prostitute: Non-scriptural

correct dear.

Praying to saints: James 5:16, Luke 15:7, Revelation 5:8, Mathew 18:10, Revelations 5:8

Salvation through baptism: John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Colosians 2: 11-12, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 2: 39

Salvation through works: Galatians 5:6, 2 John 6, John 3:36, Mark 10:17, Mark 10: 19-21, 1 John 2: 3-5.

Apostolic succesion: Acts 15: 6-29, Acts 1:25, Titus 1:5

All people are children of God: Gen 1: 26-27


Holy Relics: 2 Kings 13:20-21, Mathew 9: 20-22, Acts 19: 11-12

Mary without sin: Genesis 3:15, Lukw 1:28, Luke 1:47

Mary died a virgin: Mathew 1:25, Luke 1:80 (the greek word for "until" does not imply anything happened after the fact)

Mary had no children: Mathew 6:3 (Jesus is THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary), John 19:26 (Jesus entrusted Mary to John, why not to one of his siblings as it was the Jew custom)

Mary Magdalen a prostitute: what does have to do? if she were or not, the image is that she was faithful to my Lord teachings, that is the message we need to learn from her..

However, if I preached a pharisaic God who casts out those who don't know Him because they are ignorants of His existance that does not show too much love.

Shotgunning...not interested. The couple verses I looked up didn't have anything to do with what you claim they do.



Not a single one of those scriptures says "Pray to dead people."

You disappoint me.

Let's look in depth at one of your claims...

To defend the claim of "holy" relics, you suggest I look at Mathew 9: 20-22

Matthew 9:20-22


Well, what does Jesus say? "your faith has healed you" It wasn't the cloak, it was her faith that God would heal her. And notice that she wasn't healed when she touched the cloak, she was healed after Jesus said "Take heart, daughter, your faith has healed you". She was healed after her hand moved away from the cloak.

Look my friend if you happen to believe that the universe was created in 6 days literally, it would be a lost of time debating with you.
I already lost a whole afternoon with you the other day, and I ended up insulting you, and I didn't even realize, so for the sake of my sanity and well-being I will let you believe whatever Jimmy Swaggart says on TV.