John 3:16-18: Who Can Be Saved?
Donna Carr responded to my post on The Trinity with a set of questions, which I have altered only to form more distinct queries. She states,
"the homily after Holy Trinity Sunday Gospel did not clarify for me the following: 1.If a person knows that the man called JESUS walked this earth but they do not believe Him to be God incarnate, will God not accept them into His kingdom even if their works on earth were filled with love and compassion, etc.? 2. What happens to ''non-believers''? 3. What happens to children yet to mature? 4. What happens to people of non-Catholic/Christian faith? 5. What happens to people where missionaries have yet to go? 6. Are ''believers'' guaranteed a place in heaven just because they believe that ''God sent His only Son.....''?"
I cannot, of course, respond directly to the homily to which Donna refers, as I did not hear it, but I think it must have been based on the last portion of the Gospel reading, John 3:16-18:
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."
This question - are only Christians saved? Or, for some, are only Catholics saved? - has been at the heart of my personal journey to theology. As I said in response to Donna's post in the Comments section, though I do not know if my response has been posted yet, for me it is in many ways "the question". It has been a question of mine for so many years, since I was a teenager growing up in Vancouver, B.C.. The question was brought back to me even prior to Donna's post because I returned to Vancouver for my 30th High School Reunion this past weekend. Vancouver and its suburbs have always had large populations from India, China, and Japan, but they are even larger now. One of my best friends in High School, and still a good friend, is a Sikh. My next door neighbors were Japanese and participated in rituals that I would describe in retrospect as a combination of Shinto and Buddhist. I can recall when their grandfather died, a small shrine was set up, with his picture surrounded by burning incense. My good friend down the street was Hindu and I remember vividly the poster of the elephant god Ganesh on the wall of their entrance. There was every variety of religion and culture on display, including Islam, Judaism and all sorts of Christianities. What I noticed this weekend when informing long lost friends what I did was that not many claimed any sort of formal religious allegiance. The question that started me on my path to theology could also be stated negatively, as I asked myself many years ago: are all my friends who are Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist and anything, or nothing, else you might name going to Hell? I found this hard to fathom. I still do. So, this is my response.
I believe that Jesus is Lord, the Second person of the Trinity, True God and True Man, and if this is true then he is Lord of all humanity, regardless of who accepts this or not. From there, it gets complicated for me. What of those who have had an encounter with the Gospel, but have rejected it? As the Gospel of John states, "but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." It gets complicated because there are those who have had only a fleeting encounter with Christ or the Gospel, or who have been abused by someone in the Church, or condemned cruelly by those who claim to be Christians, and so turned away from Christ and the Church. How can they be condemned when they have, on at least some occasions, lived far better lives than Christians? The CCC says that "baptism is necessary for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament" (1257). It can be difficult to define, however, who has received true proclamation and whether all those who have heard of Christianity have had the ability "of asking for this sacrament." Baptism is the only means, though, which the Church knows that "assures entry into eternal beatitude" (CCC, 1257), but even those who are baptized can turn away from God's gift of life, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant Christians.
Note, however, that the CCC states that "the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude" (1257). This, to me, indicates that God indeed knows of numerous means and is not limited: God pours out mercy and forgiveness on whomever He wills. The CCC also states that "every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved" (1260). Those who have not had the Gospel preached to them, who have not known of Christianity, are not beyond salvation, as the Apostle Paul indicates in Romans 1:19-20 and 2:14-16.
As to children, the CCC says that they are entrusted to the mercy of God and that Jesus' beautiful openness to children allows "us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism" (1261). The Church used to speak of a limbo for children, where they went for eternity, but did not receive the beatific vision; you might notice that discussions of limbo, which always represented theological opinion, not doctrine, are noticeably absent from recent Church teachings.
Where does this put us? I am an optimist at heart, though perhaps not in the manner of Origen, who believed that all ultimately would be saved. I do not know that, but I do believe in God's abundant goodness and limitless love for humanity. I hope for the best for all those I know and love, for all humanity, and feel that my best witness is to be a Christian of substance. I know of many people who have turned from a potential meeting with Christ due to sins of the Church or of individual Christians. Given my own abundant sins, how many people have turned away from the Church because of me? I will never limit God's mercy for humanity, though, and pray that all might be saved, including myself.
This is the best I can do with what for me is the most difficult of questions. Who else wants to join the discussion?
John W. Martens
Comments
[Add Comment]
To me, it's simple: Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the father except through Him. *Through* him. Not ''through personal acceptance of Him.'' Jesus decides. Jesus is God. God is all powerful. But to suggest that a non-Catholic or non-Christian *cannot* come to the Father is to suggest that God is not, in fact, all powerful. It assumes a limit on Jesus' power to admit any person to eternal life. Unlike God, we are not omniscient, so we are incapable of making such an assumption.
So the answer is that it *could* be that, as a matter of course, only Catholics or only Christians gain ''admission,'' but it's beyond our capacity to know. (And therefore it ought to be beyond our capacity to preach). At the same time, it cannot be that it is *impossible* for entrance to be so exclusive.
# Posted By | 5/22/08 2:30 PM
While these questions are interesting in an intellectual way they are of little use. The asking brings two faults. First they are presumming it is our job to know the answer to what God sees and others feel. It may be for theologians to debate but only by those with enough insight to recognize it is God's job to sort it out, otherwise we are judging and it is dangerous. Judge not lest you be judged. We are not to pretend we are God, or know as God, this is playing Eden out all over again.
The second fault in the asking is often an attempt to abdicate what is clearly articulated by God as our responsibility. As Jesus said to those gathered with Him in Galilee after his resurrection, as they began to gumble and complain ''I'm totally in charge so get going and make disciples (of me) by (1)baptising others in their acceptance of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and by (2)teaching them to do what I instructed.(my translation from the original Greek with my small additions for clarity to meaning.) He was angry at the inward looking at the expense of what is clearly shown in the OT and NT as our responsibility. Trust God and help others to do the same through verbal communication and example actions.
# Posted By Mike | 5/22/08 3:14 PM
This is a very difficult question. It grows out of an appreciation that God's love for humanity is unfathomable, and yet we know that God's respect for human freedom and freely made choices is the other side of the coin of His love. I think Barth said that he wasn't a universalist but he hoped God was. We all hope that all humankind would avail themselves of the sacrifice made on Calvary, but we know, knowing human nature, that such is unlikely.
I believe it was C.S. Lewis who once said that at the end of time there will be two sets of people, those who say to Jesus Christ, ''Thy will be done,'' and those to whom Jesus Christ says, ''Thy will be done.''
No doubt it is God who saves, but no one will be saved against their wishes. Perhaps Avery Cardinal Dulles in his 2008 First Things (February 2008)article said it best. Let me quote an excerpt: ''Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted.'' [Source: First Things, http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article...
David Pendleton
# Posted By | 5/22/08 9:54 PM
Mike says that “while these questions are interesting in an intellectual way they are of little use.” I do not see these questions as a sort of intellectual exercise, but arising from an attempt to live out one’s faith and to understand the teaching of Jesus as found in the NT and as understood by the Church and the faithful. These questions arose in response to a previous post by someone seeking clarity regarding a Trinity Sunday homily. Asking these questions is not an attempt to abdicate responsibility, but to determine it. It is God’s job to judge, but we have also been given a commission, as a Church and as individual Christians, which Mike himself cites from Matthew 28:18-20. I do not think I presumed in any way to take over the task of judge.
I did like the way in which the anonymous poster put it: salvation is “through” Christ; Jesus decides. I agree. As the post goes on to say, “so the answer is that it *could* be that, as a matter of course, only Catholics or only Christians gain ''admission,'' but it's beyond our capacity to know. (And therefore it ought to be beyond our capacity to preach.)” If “therefore it ought to be beyond our capacity to preach” means it is beyond our capacity to preach Christian exclusivity as a matter of certitude, I agree; if it means, we ought not preach at all, I cannot agree with this. Yet, this is the reason why I think the issue is significant, in that it does have an impact on how we treat people of other faiths, how we evangelize, and how we respond to other religions. I might believe and hope that people of all faiths or no faiths might be saved, but if I believe that Christ is Lord, I ought to make this clear.
David Pendleton makes a key point that human freedom must be factored in to this equation; I liked both the C.S. Lewis and the Karl Barth quotations. Finally, I think the excerpt from Cardinal Dulles succinctly and beautifully sums up what I was, perhaps clumsily, aiming at.
# Posted By John W. Martens | 5/23/08 8:37 PM
Let's be as tolerant as Cardinal Dulles and an old British sergeant. An Englishman volunteering for the army in 1914 had his particulars taken by a sergeant:
Name....
Age....
Marital status....
Religion.... ''Hmm. Atheist eh! We don't get many of them. Still we all worship the same God.''
# Posted By George Purnell | 5/25/08 5:22 PM
Dear John, Thank you again for your response to my question about John 3:16 and thank you also to the others that replied.
I was not in any way suggesting we pass judgement on anyone.
My concern comes from being at Mass and hearing a gospel and not having the homilist even come close to explaining it's meaning, signficance, importance, etc, etc. Too many Catholics are walking away from Mass content with knowing they fulfilled their Sunday obligation. We sit as a community of beleivers who really do not understand our religion. (And I use the word religion not the word faith) Faith is, I believe, a very personal relationship a person has with God. Religion is what we have accepted through mostly family tradition ( except those who freely become Catholics) As we mature in faith many times we begin to question with the hope of better understanding our religion especially when it comes down to defending it. This I think is our greatest responsiblility! On one can rattle my faith in God but sometimes I wonder how solid is my Catholic religion.
Our children, our non-Catholic friends are asking questions.
Where will the answers come from? I thank Cardinal Dulles for his insights also. Wouldn't it be nice if we could hear more of this during a homily and walk away with confidence. I am just an ordinary parishioner so the thinking may not be sophisticated
but never the less the thinking does happen. Maybe we all need to be like the "Good Shepherd: and take care of tending to our sheep. Thank you John and fellow posters. Peace be with you, Donna
ps. I have another important question and hope to find the answer in your writing.
# Posted By DONNA CARR | 6/2/08 6:03 PM
[Add Comment]