Is Christianity a religion of salvation?
Christianity is a salvation religion, and it offers to save us from is sin. According to the Christian story, God became incarnate in Jesus Christ, and then suffered and died on the cross, to save us from our sins. The premise upon which all this is grounded is, of course, that we humans are sinners — very serious sinners.
However, what if we are not sinners? Then it would follow that we don’t need salvation from sin. And if we are sinners but don’t feel that we are sinners, then we won’t feel the need of salvation. So Christianity will make no sense to us.
By and large we modern men and women do not feel that we are sinners, at least not in any serious sense. Oh, we admit that we are not perfect. Any one of us can draw up a list of our imperfections: we sometimes eat or drink a little too much; we often exercise too little; we don’t read enough good books; we commit little acts of impoliteness from time to time; and so on. But no really big sins — certainly no sins that are great enough for the Creator and Sustainer of the universe to become man and suffer and die in order to atone for our great wickedness.
We admit that some humans truly are very wicked — Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden, Charles Manson, and a few others. But they are very untypical of humanity. The rest of us, normal human beings, are utterly horrified by the crimes of Hitler and company. This is proof — isn’t it? — that we ourselves are not very wicked. So we don’t need salvation from sin. And we don’t need a religion that offers this salvation. No wonder Catholicism is in decline.
So how can Christianity build on religions that are wrong about salvation?
. . . if we say that Islam is wrong about everything we are saying that it is wrong to affirm that there is one God, the God of Abraham, holy, righteous, merciful and compassionate. We are saying it is false that the prophets of the Old Testament are prophets; that prayer, fasting and almsgiving are pious works blessed by God; that Jesus was a prophet; that Mary is to be honored and venerated. For Muslims say all these things and all these things are true, as far as they go. The Church, instead of making foolish denunciations of all things Muslim instead does what St. Thomas describes: She recognizes that grace builds on nature and so takes what is good and true in any culture (even one as depraved as our own culture of warlike abortion-loving polymorphous perversity and greed) and begins proclaiming the gospel there. So, as I say, the Church affirms what can be affirmed in common with any religious tradition. One need not pretend we agree on all things in order to agree on the things we agree about. But we should listen to CCC 841 and not denounce the Church or call (as some readers did) for banning the Catechism when she challenges our muddy thinking. Our task is to learn from Her.
Do non-Christians need to be saved?
It’s a joke, I tell him. My friends think it is you want to convert me.
He smiles again and replies: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us. Sometimes after a meeting I want to arrange another one because new ideas are born and I discover new needs. This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas. The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good.”Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?
“Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good.”Your Holiness, you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that’s one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope.
“And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.”Is the Church doing that?
“Yes, that is the purpose of our mission: to identify the material and immaterial needs of the people and try to meet them as we can. Do you know what agape is?”
Do people not notice the irony of Protestants feeling the need to convert to Roman Catholicism and then defending teaching that weakens the imperative to convert? Perhaps only Jason and the Callers‘ lessons in logic can lead us through this intellectual wicket.
Old Life 
Darryl,
The mistake here is your assumption that the Catholic teaching according to which all that is true and good in other traditions should be acknowledged and embraced somehow “weakens” the imperative to convert. That conclusion does not follow from that premise.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
That’s a good point, Bryan. What might put more of a damper on it is Papi pontificating;
“Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense.” It’s like a parlor game, “pick a card, any card”. Try harder do less
LikeLike
Bryan, but if I’m saved now as a Protestant, why convert? I’ve read Vatican II. I’ve watched evangelicals and Roman Catholics together without bishops correcting anyone for false ecumenism. I’ve seen what Pope Francis says about conversion.
The mistake is yours, my cap wearing interlocutor.
LikeLike
Bryan, does or does not the Bishop of Rome say your “proselytism is solemn nonsense”?
LikeLike
cw, the red light wasn’t on. Don’t read his lips, look for the ergonomics.
LikeLike
Is there a portable camp cathedra which he can ex from — or must he be at certain GPS coordinates in the Eternal City?
LikeLike
Bryan is to Catholicism what the guy who pulls the rule book out of his gym bag is to pickup basketball.
LikeLike
If we asked Greg Thornbury to read Called to Communion, the likely result would be him sending Bryan Cosmic Noogies.
LikeLike
I believe the most questionable thing the Pope says is that the world will be better if everyone follows his own idea of what is good. Really? The Nazis did exactly that. The good was what was truly Aryan. Evil was the Jews, et al, etc.
We Americans are inclined to believe that the good is the accumulation of stuff & experiences, sexual & otherwise.
Judges 17:6, etc. is considerably wiser, precisely in relation to the contemporary world, than is the
head of the Roman sect.
LikeLike
In that linked interview, Francis also said that the greatest problems in the world today are youth unemployment and loneliness in old age.
Really? That’s the best the infallible interpreter can do? Those things are bigger problems than the Sudan crisis, sectarian violence in Iraq, Islamic terrorism, famines and floods in various places.
Oh wait, he must not have been speaking ex cathedra.
Francis isn’t helping CTC’s cause. How long before they realize it?
LikeLike
I personally think the biggest problem in the world is me losing my sunglasses at the road race my kids ran in tonight. These things are relative, though.
LikeLike
Catholic school kids overheard by my daughter prior to the start of their race: “S**t. Coach is going to know our times.”
LikeLike
Methinks the cricket reference was key here, IMHO.
Fore.
LikeLike
The Lutheran Satire folks have Franky’s number:
LikeLike
It strikes me that the decline is twofold: (1) loss of a distinctive culture that embodies the church’s history and theology; and (2) the focus (as illustrated here) on Christianity as being primarily about providing a solution to the individual guilt of moralism.
In that sense, the RCC isn’t offering anything too different from what the evangelical megachurch down the street offers.
LikeLike
Darryl,
That’s a reasonable question, because from an intra-paradigmatic perspective, there would be no good answer to the question. Saved is saved. Seeing the answer therefore requires seeing things through a different paradigm, and therefore the question cannot be adequately answered in only a couple lines.
In the Catholic paradigm, a person is either in a state of grace, or not in a state of grace. So that’s the binary condition in the Catholic paradigm corresponding to the Reformed paradigm’s notion of a person being saved or unsaved. In addition, in both paradigms there is an understanding that salvation is not just a negative (i.e. from sin, from hell), but also a positive (i.e. union with God). That’s one piece of the common ground. But in the Catholic paradigm, this union with God is graduated and open-ended, because it is a participation in the divine nature, not merely a legal or covenantal status. It is possible to love God more, or love Him less, though still loving Him, and still in a state of grace. There is no upper limit here; in this present life there is always room for growing in our love for God. Not everyone in a state of grace loves God equally. This love for God (agape), by which we love God as Father, is not something that comes from ourselves, but from Christ, along with the grace He merited for us on the cross, through the ordinary means He has established in His Church, i.e. the sacraments. Therefore, we grow in this love, and in our union with God through the sacraments, and especially through the sacrament of the Eucharist. Because Protestant communions did not retain Holy Orders, they therefore do not have the Eucharist (see comment #311 in the “Keith Mathison’s Reply” post), and therefore do not have this divinely established means of growing in grace and love for Christ. So, seeing things through the Catholic paradigm, one answer to your question is “for the Eucharist.”
There are many other reasons as well, including receiving the fullness of the graces Christ has bestowed on His Church, including the graces available through the other sacraments (besides baptism and matrimony), embracing the fullness of the truth Christ entrusted to His Church (including the truth of the Tradition), entering into the unity Christ has established in His Church (and removal from a state of objective schism, and no longer being in oneself a scandal to the world through one’s state of schism), obedience to Christ, love for Christ and His Church, and full communion with Christ’s Church and all the saints triumphant.
This too requires seeing through a different paradigm. In the Protestant paradigm there is very little conceptual distinction drawn between evangelism and proselytism. But in the Catholic paradigm, this distinction is prominent and explicit; the Church explicitly distinguishes, and does not confuse, proselytism on the one hand, and evangelism and conversion on the other. The Church condemns the former, but affirms the latter as a command of Christ. (See the links in comment #30 of “Pope Francis’s Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium.”) All persons, all Catholics included (and myself included) are called to daily conversion. Pope Francis speaks often of the need for all of us to undergo daily conversion. So when he responds to people asking him if he wants to ‘convert’ them, he is (from the Catholic paradigm) understanding that they are (whether they themselves are aware of it or not) talking about proselytism, and he responds accordingly. He is not saying that he wants them to remain without baptism, or remain without Christ, or to remain in a state of schism, or wants them to remain without the Eucharist, etc.
In my experience, Catholic priests and bishops, whatever else their weaknesses and flaws, are keenly aware of the distinction between proselytism and evangelism, and are very cautious to avoid proselytism, as something contrary to the Gospel itself. Protestant pastors (and Protestantism in general) tend to be less aware of this distinction. Without that distinction, however, some Protestants mistakenly attribute a Catholic leader’s rejection of proselytism, and public decision not to proselytize, as if it is a rejection of evangelism and conversion. But that’s a misinterpretation of the situation, because of the paradigm difference.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, well isn’t that convenient. You define the terms and Rome comes out smelling like Laphroiag.
But not so fast Mr. a-historical guy.
If there are degrees of truth, then what happened to Rome’s switcheroo om Protestantism. Condemned at Trent and now they are saved? Calvin on the Index of Books and then voila — no index of books?
And for you to distinguish between proselytism and evangelism and so blithely forget about the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions. Psshaw.
LikeLike
Sweet — they worked this out with liberal prots and it’s thoroughly modern:
In
a statement in 1995, the Joint Working Group between the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches acknowledged that at one time the term had a positive meaning as a term for missionary activity, but in the context of the modern ecumenical movement, it takes on a negative connotation when Christians try to win adherents from other Christian communities.”
Click to access Fr-Walsh-Proselytism-and-Evangelization.pdf
LikeLike
And apparently even Italian journalists have a hard time with Popespeak, as in this train wreck:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28282050
LikeLike
And Francis was talking to an atheist, not an Orthodox Presbyterian, in the infamous “proselytism is solemn nonsense” interview. So NCR’s carrying of Vatican water holds none:
7) So what is “proselytization” in this new sense?
Basically, it’s trying to strong-arm people into the faith, putting undue pressure on them rather than allowing them to make a free choice for Christ.
An explanation of this usage is found in the 2007 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith titled Instruction on Some Aspects of Evangelization.
According to that document:
In this connection, it needs also to be recalled that if a non-Catholic Christian, for reasons of conscience and having been convinced of Catholic truth, asks to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church, this is to be respected as the work of the Holy Spirit and as an expression of freedom of conscience and of religion. In such a case, it would not be a question of proselytism in the negative sense that has been attributed to this term.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-just-say-that-evangelization-is-nonsense-8-things-to-know
LikeLike
CW, interesting coverage. It’s one thing for NCR to carry Vat II water, it’s a whole ‘nother form of entertainment, to watch Cross pick and choose as he half-genuflects to his papi all while running his papi’s statements through the CTC CIP mix-master. Bryan’s employment of the hermenuetic of continuity has all the moral integrity and sincerity of religious conscience as Baptist Clinton parsing the nature of his sexual interaction with Lewinsky.
LikeLike
Sean, I did earlier refrain from posting “Bryan, Wille called – – he wants his slickness back.”
LikeLike
Let me get this straight. Mr. Cross is over here neither proselyting nor evangelizing.
Good. We wuz wurried. The finer points were getting confusing, which we thinks is the point. Ignurance after all, is the mater devotionis.
But then what is he doing? Hmmm. Good question.
But maybe Mr. Answer Man can tell us. If only the sacraments commanded by Christ are sacraments, where does Christ command us to observe seven rather than two? (IOW the RPW flows out of the second mark of the church in the Prot paradigm for those who like to monger in the same.)
Likewise where does Christ in Scripture either instruct or command us to include Holy
RomanTradition in the inspired and infallible rule of faith?Which is to say, this is like arguing with the Mormon missionaries. Yeah, we know you think/say the Book of Mormon is inspired and your copy of the Bible includes it as on par with the New Testament, but what basis do you have in Scripture for that opinion.
Next up, is the Muslims telling us that the Christ prophesied of the Muhammad and the Koran in John 16:13.
Rome would be better off if she could just get Scripture out of the equation and then she would have a free hand to do as she pleased and Bryan could handwave and performatively assert nothing is incompatible with his material paradigm – as he already does, only this time with a clear conscience.
LikeLike
I’ve noticed that Bryan’s virtual trophy case is sensitive to the idea of NOT sheep stealing. Particularly not highlighting those cases which resulted in churches losing their pastors and or members under care and in pursuit of a singularly holy calling, and NOT celebrating such conversions. Yep. Proselytizing as sheep stealing and celebration of same has no place in Bryan’s CIP.
Bryan, I realize you’re largely surrounded by nominal teenage catholics with brains full of mush, and you already struggle with staying present, but try harder do less. And remember, for the sake of religious conscience, I expect that letter of dissent after the October synod, and don’t go hiding behind Burke again, there was a reason Francis relieved him of his post. I know you struggle with what you weren’t there to catch, but I’m always here for you. If you need help on distinguishing Burke from Kasper, just ask, I’ll tell you.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Nothing in my previous comment said anything about “degrees of truth,” or is contingent on the things you mention here.
I didn’t forget about them. Their occurrence is fully compatible with there being a real distinction between proselytism and evangelism.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, I think you should switch to signing off “in the mind of Bryan”.
LikeLike
Nothing is incompatible – whether performative or material – with the paradigms asserted via the vigorous handwaving in the combox from self appointed Roman apologists in training.
Because said paradigms are self adjusting/self leveling, i.e.
unremarkableunreformable, ineffable, irrefutable .Hey if it works for laser plumb bobs, why not ecclesiastical standards?
[Now that your operating system has downloaded this update, you should be good to go as long as you didn’t turn off your mind before it was finished. IOW you better check that. Inadvertancy happens.]
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 14, 2014 at 11:01 am | Permalink
Bryan, I think you should switch to signing off “in the mind of Bryan”.
You sure outargued him!
LikeLike
Meek and mild Calvin:
“Having ascertained Paul’s meaning, let us return to the Papists. First, by applying this eulogium to themselves, they act wickedly; because they deck themselves with borrowed feathers. For, granting that the Church were elevated above the third heaven, I maintain that it has nothing to do with them in any manner. Nay, I even turn the whole passage against them; for, if the Church “is the pillar of truth,” it follows that the Church is not with them, when the truth not only lies buried, but is shockingly torn, and thrown down, and trampled under foot. Is this either a riddle or a quibble? Paul does not wish that any society, in which the truth of God does not hold a lofty and conspicuous place, shall be acknowledged to be a Church; now there is nothing of all this in Popery, but only ruin and desolation; and, therefore, the true mark of a Church is not found in it. But the mistake arises from this, that they do not consider, what was of the greatest importance, that the truth of God is maintained by the pure preaching of the gospel; and that the support of it does not depend on the faculties or understandings of men, but rests on what is far higher, that is, if it does not depart from the simple word of God.” — Calvin on 1 Timothy 3:14–15 (via Heidelblog)
LikeLike