[Athos]

I said, "Christ is the sole source of salvation." You claimed that, "This claim has been rejected by mainstream Christianity beginning with the Catholic Church in the 12th century." Well, Aquinas plainly does not support that position

Aquinas wrote volumes (Summa Theologicae) and it is necessary to consider his mature writings. Your quote is an earlier Aquinas superceded by his belief as I have provided. I stand by his belief that, through no fault of their own, and by "seeking the good and avoiding evil", God would provide for these souls. It is a modern viewpoint and one of the reasons Thomas is still so read almost a thousand years later.

Neither did citing the 1959 Vatican 2.

You have the wrong year for the Council. It was 1962-1965, not 1959. But that's beside the point.

From Vatican II - Those who do not know Christ, but seek to do good, according to the dictates of their conscience
"those too may achieve eternal salvation" - could it be any clearer?
and,
"...in a manner known only to God, every man is offered the possibility of [salvation]".

You have stated your dislike for the Catholic Church as most fundamentalists do, but don't let that lead you to misrepresenting what is very clear about that Church. Doesn't help your case.

But your position, to be clear, is that unbelievers do not go to hell?

Not exactly. Unbelievers, because they are unbelievers, do not go to hell for that reason. I believe your position is that unbelievers DO go to hell for their unbelief.

Can we deduce from your position that belief is basically unnecessary?

I believe, in a manner known only to God, that he provides for all souls who seek the good, avoid evil, and act according to the dictates of their conscience.

I deduce from your position that you do NOT believe that. Am I correct?

[jlisenbe]

His statement in the quote I provided is clear and unequivocal. In your quote, the key component is here: "for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way."

And what is necessary for salvation? The name of Jesus.

This is the remainder of your Aquinas quote, part of which you left out. " For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. (Acts 10)."

That addition makes a lot of difference. Those "seeking good and shunning evil" do not have what they need until "God would reveal to him..those things which are necessary to be believed." And so there is that word. BELIEF. So it would certainly seem that unbelief would be fatal to that arrangement. Note also of God sending "some preacher of the Faith.." Now it is no accident that "the Faith" is capitalized and preceded by the definite article "the". He is not referring to any faith, but to the faith of the gospel, and that being a very particular faith. So there you have faith and belief in your statement. How does that demonstrate that unbelievers are in no danger of hell?

Now as to your question, "I deduce from your position that you do NOT believe that. Am I correct?" I can certainly agree with Aquinas's position as stated above, that God will reveal to those people what is needed for salvation, just as He has done in the stories coming from the Middle East (internal inspiration). It all fits quite well into the description of Aquinas.

Not exactly. Unbelievers, because they are unbelievers, do not go to hell for that reason. I believe your position is that unbelievers DO go to hell for their unbelief.

So why do people go to hell?

BTW, I do not believe people go to hell because of unbelief.

It is quite nice to be engaged in a well reasoned, non-vitriolic discussion.

[jlisenbe]

Hell: WHO goes there? WHAT is it? WHEN do they go there? WHY do they go there?

Is everlasting the same as forever and without end?

I gave you what Jesus said. I can't do any better than that.

And yeah, what about this part as pertains to our southern border: 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

That's a legit point. Last time I checked, we are feeding those people, clothing those people, and giving them med care and a safe place to stay temporarily. They are as invited in as anyone else, but there is a legal process for them to follow.

But I will warn you ahead of time. We have talked that to death already, so I will not go there in this thread. Let's stay on the current discussion.

A good question for you is this: Do you believe what Jesus said?

[Wondergirl]

A good question for you is this: Do you believe what Jesus said?

What Jesus actually said or what you say Jesus said?

[jlisenbe]

What Jesus actually said or what you say Jesus said?

You asked me for my opinion and I instead gave you the Matthew 25 passage, so I don't know where you get the "what you say Jesus said" comment from. I simply gave you the passage from Matthew 25, so you can feel free to comment on His words.

[Wondergirl]

You asked me for my opinion and I instead gave you the Matthew 25 passage, so I don't know where you get the "what you say Jesus said" comment from. I simply gave you the passage from Matthew 25, so you can feel free to comment on His words.

From what version?

[jlisenbe]

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

[Wondergirl]

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Why do you continue to hit me with this and wonder what I believe? I'm a preacher's kid, for years a Lutheran grade school teacher, a Sunday school teacher, and an adult Bible class teacher, a psychotherapist who is always ready to bring into the discussion Jesus' two greatest commandments. Enough already!

[jlisenbe]

Why do you continue to hit me with this and wonder what I believe? I'm a preacher's kid, for years a Lutheran grade school teacher, a Sunday school teacher, and an adult Bible class teacher, a psychotherapist who is always ready to bring into the discussion Jesus' two greatest commandments.

OK with me. I thought the question was legitimate enough. Maybe not.

[talaniman]

Was Matthew quoting Christ first hand or second hand? I'm no scholar, just want clarification.

[jlisenbe]

Was Matthew quoting Christ first hand or second hand? I'm no scholar, just want clarification.

I have no claim to being a scholar either, but I would think that being a disciple, he would have been a first hand witness.

[Athos]

Was Matthew quoting Christ first hand or second hand? I'm no scholar, just want clarification.

Jl's reply was a little misleading. He may not be aware of some facts about the Gospel of Matthew.

The work is attributed to Matthew but there's no evidence he actually wrote it. It was customary to identify a work as being written by a disciple.

The earliest compete manuscript of Matthew is from the 3rd century - several generations after the events described and time enough to edit/modify the work to conform to the then current ideas about Christ. There are small fragments of Matthew earlier than the 3rd century.

[Athos]

His statement in the quote I provided is clear and unequivocal. In your quote, the key component is here: "for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way."

Augustine/Plato starts off the Middle Ages and Aquinas/Aristotle is the culmination. Aquinas wrote tons of words and I stand by my interpretation of what he wrote. Like the Bible, there is so much there that the tendency to cherry-pick is never far away. For that reason, I suggest we drop Aquinas as getting too far from the topic at hand.

just as He has done in the stories coming from the Middle East (internal inspiration).

If you're referring to your claim of visions of Jesus leading Muslims to convert to Christianity, and your "documentation" is a self-made video on Youtube, and the video claims a Muslim had a DREAM that you think is a VISION of Jesus, it's hard to describe just how utterly absurd your claim of a vision is. It's SO ridiculous I will give you the opportunity to withdraw the claim.

So why do people go to hell?

I don't know but it sure ain't because they never heard of Jesus.

BTW, I do not believe people go to hell because of unbelief.

That's what you've been saying all along. Do you wish to change your position or restate it?

[paraclete]

What I don't get is we are willing to take one set of ancient words which are nothing more than opinion and suggest this is more authorative than the Bible.

[jlisenbe]

I don't know

Perhaps you should find out.

That's what you've been saying all along. Do you wish to change your position or restate it?

I have not said that. That's what you claim I have said. People perish because they have broken God's laws and are guilty before Him. It is by faith in the finished work of Christ that we are rescued from judgement and given free access to God. People are condemned for sin, but saved by faith.

Augustine/Plato starts off the Middle Ages and Aquinas/Aristotle is the culmination. Aquinas wrote tons of words and I stand by my interpretation of what he wrote. Like the Bible, there is so much there that the tendency to cherry-pick is never far away. For that reason, I suggest we drop Aquinas as getting too far from the topic at hand.

You are the one who brought up Aquinas. As to your quote, this is the question he was responding to, and it's interesting since it so clearly resembles one of the chief objections to the gospel to be heard even in our day. " Objection: It seems that it is not necessary to believe explicitly. For nothing should be accepted, from the acceptance of which something inappropriate would follow. But if we accept that it is necessary to salvation that something be believed explicitly, something inappropriate would follow. For someone might have been reared in the woods, or among wolves; and such a one cannot know explicitly anything of faith, so that thus there would be a man who would necessarily be damned-which is inappropriate; hence it does not seem to be necessary to believe in anything explicitly."

His reply is very clear. If a man seeks after God by doing that which is right, then God will reveal to him, either by internal revelation or the sending of a preacher, that which is necessary for belief, which is what he referred to as "the Faith". So I don't see how your conclusion was warranted, nor do I understand how a person can claim that belief in the gospel is unnecessary on the basis of that passage.

Aristotle lived 1500 years prior to Aquinas, so I'm not sure how the two of them concluded the middle ages. At any rate, I'm surprised you mention Plato. The earliest complete manuscript of the works of Plato is dated about 1300 years after his life. You think three centuries, which is true only if you insist on a complete manuscript, is extreme for Matthew. What do you do with 1300 years? Would it not be foolish to believe, by your standard, that we genuinely have the words of Plato after that much time went by?

[jlisenbe]

The work is attributed to Matthew but there's no evidence he actually wrote it.

The early church fathers attributed the book to Matthew. Irenaeus, for instance, wrote that “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Not only does that attribute the work to Matthew, but places the date of writing to earlier than 70 A.D. The evidence is actually quite substantial.

[talaniman]

Fascinating stuff for sure given the avenues of communications ancient man did a heckuva a job moving from the local event to the global stage through history on the tails of trade and conquest, and just walking around to other humans. Reading, writing and telling a good story is still held in high esteem as such learned men often have a following and that's always been true across many tribes and civilizations. While it's truly believable that many have a spiritual experience or awakening that compels spiritual behavior in the forms of spiritual sharing it's often confused by the very human flaws of compulsion or in layman terms the basics of survival.

In this we have the steep competition for the hearts and minds of men to follow whatever line of thoughts builds the army they seek for that survival, and GROWTH, even within their own tribes as most of the major religions and minor ones have so many off shoots under the same banner that one could almost see them as different and separate competing religions.

Heck JL, all you have to do is go down the road a bit and find a different doctrine, custom, or tradition from the one you just left. Some are vastly different, some more nuanced, but it's all about God isn't it?

[jlisenbe]

Heck JL, all you have to do is go down the road a bit and find a different doctrine, custom, or tradition from the one you just left. Some are vastly different, some more nuanced, but it's all about God isn't it?

You're asking me, so here's my answer. It's all about gods, but only one can be about God. Choose wisely. The essentials of the Christian faith are so wildly different from other religions that they cannot be reconciled.

[Wondergirl]

You're asking me, so here's my answer. It's all about gods, but only one can be about God. Choose wisely. The essentials of the Christian faith are so wildly different from other religions that they cannot be reconciled.

Thus, the Muslim god or even the Mormon god is not the Christian god? What about the Southern Baptist god and the Lutheran god and the Catholic god?

[Athos]

I have not said that. That's what you claim I have said.

WHOA-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A!!!! Let me get this straight. In plain language --- you do NOT believe that unbeleivers go to hell for eternal punishment. Is that correct? Why did it take you so many months to finally say that? If, in fact, that is your position now, I congratulate you.

People perish because they have broken God's laws and are guilty before Him

No, whether people break God's laws or they don't, ALL people perish, even saints and holy people.

It is by faith in the finished work of Christ that we are rescued from judgement and given free access to God. People are condemned for sin, but saved by faith.

That is your religious belief, it is not the belief of many millions of other people.

The early church fathers attributed the book to Matthew. Irenaeus, for instance, wrote that “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Not only does that attribute the work to Matthew, but places the date of writing to earlier than 70 A.D. The evidence is actually quite substantial.

That does not change the FACT that the earliest manuscript is from the 3rd century, time enough to edit/embellish the Gospel to be in tune with the understanding of Christ at that time.