Free Will

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]groo wrote:

Well if you believe in determinism, the discipline is as determined as the action requiring it.

Sure but then this just makes it a meaningless argument as there is absolutely no difference in the way someone who believes in free will and someone who doesn’t would behave since its all determined.

I would say that I think libertarian free will is correct, but obviously there is no agreement on this with vastly more philosophers being somewhere on the compatabilist side of things.

More I was trying to say that it doesn’t mean anything like what the poster I quoted thinks it means its merely used as s philosophical idea for the establishment of moral responsibility. And that pretty much anyone who does agree with the idea there is moral responsibility is at least defacto subscribing to a belief in free will which certainly could be incorrect if the determinist and incompatibilist view is correct, but still thinking and acting if it is true nonetheless.[/quote]

I cut it down for the sake of space, I am not trying to omit information.

I am going to give a very digested version. The best we can do on for for the argument is that freewill cannot be ruled out. It is at least a possibility. The problem is there is only one thing capable of freewill and everything else is determined. Nothing in the physical universe can be affected by anything but its due course except those things that posses ‘will’. Right now, depending on whether or not you are an atheist or a theist that’s basically 2 things. People and God. More specifically, that which God grants will to and himself. Now if you are an atheist who believes in freewill than there is only the one thing, people. Most of the time atheists are determinists. Now for the atheist, the determinism isn’t a matter of a puppet master, but simply that each moments reality determines the next moment. Now if you are a theist and determinist, enter God as the puppet master and grand determiner. The last option is where I actually sit and that is the theist and freewill advocate. What that means is that given the choice between ‘A’ and ‘B’ no matter what we actually chose, we had equal opportunity to choose otherwise. Now even in the world of the freewill advocate there is not a whole hell of a lot we get to choose. We don’t get to pick how, where, what race, or creed, with what intelligence or talents, we are born with. But we do get to pick whether with in the context of our lives we are good or bad, self centered or generous, nice or a dick. We are met with situations where we can choose to help or not, tell the truth or lie, take the low road or high, etc.
We don’t have a lot of choices, but then again, we do have more than we probably think. You can either mope about the shit hand you were dealt or do something good with what little you have. That is freewill.

262

I disagree that those are the only options. Kane’s and other’s two stage models for example. Also there are scientific works out there that avoid metaphysics and argue for a two stage model much like libertarian free will.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11993 is a purely empirical look at it.

263

I did not forget about you from the other thread Groo. Waaaay too much to respond to and waaay too little time. I find you a bit intriguing and do think a dialog would be interesting.

264

[quote]groo wrote:
I disagree that those are the only options. Kane’s and other’s two stage models for example. Also there are scientific works out there that avoid metaphysics and argue for a two stage model much like libertarian free will.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11993 is a purely empirical look at it.[/quote]

Yeah, but they didn’t get anywhere…It’s wide open.

If those aren’t the only two options what is the third?

265

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

  1. Where does free will originate?

  2. How does one resolve the paradox of free will within a seemingly deterministic universe (if one is atheist), or its existence in a universe every subatomic particle of which has been created by an omniscient, omnipotent God?
    [/quote]

The reason I am bumping this thread is because I just realized something. I don’t know if I missed it so maybe I should go back through it again, but it seems like none of the atheists were willing to try and tackle either of the questions posed.

I’m going to skim through again so apologies in advance if I just forgot or miss it, but I think the thread turned into a solely Christian debate, and I’d like to hear how an atheist feel about the topic.

So, are we all just wet robots, responding to stimuli, or is there something more, some spark of specialness, that allows us to act independent of our origins?[/quote]

I think you can waste pages going in circles until there is an agreement on what constitutes “free will”. Until you have an agreement on the term, how can it be debated?

266

[quote]pat wrote:

All men can be justified and saved if they accept Christ’s sacrifice, give their lives to God and live in faith. It’s clear that not all men have, it seems that many today have no intention of doing so as well. It doesn’t mean it’s not available, it means, by their own will they reject God. Salvation is available to all men to either accept or reject.[/quote]

I’m curious how this applies to a brown person born in a Muslim country? It would no more occur to him/her, by heritage and other influences, to convert or otherwise accept Jesus as his/her savior than it would likely occur to you to convert to a religion not of your land or heritage.

Would you deny that a child raised in a Catholic household is likely to remain Catholic as an adult? And so forth for other religions or denominations?

267

There’s a lot more to it than this, but Catholic doctrine states that those not made aware of Christ (this would cover those raised to believe that “there is no God but Allah”) will be judged on their own merit. In fact, Catholics actually have it hard, as once we are no longer “ignorant,” we are responsible for following all of the rules, and a lot of them are not easy.

268

[quote]Cortes wrote:
There’s a lot more to it than this, but Catholic doctrine states that those not made aware of Christ (this would cover those raised to believe that “there is no God but Allah”) will be judged on their own merit. In fact, Catholics actually have it hard, as once we are no longer “ignorant,” we are responsible for following all of the rules, and a lot of them are not easy. [/quote]

You can be raised to believe “there is no God but Allah”, but still know of Christ. Are you saying they get a “get out of jail free card” of sorts?

And how would this be different for those of us that believe the “word” has been so corrupted by man, that it cannot be taken at face value? By the same logic that excuses those that have been raised to believe there is no God but Allah, wouldn’t the same logic extend to an agnostic?

What doctrine, scripture or dogma is your claim based upon (not saying it’s incorrect, it’s an earnest question)?

269

(I just reread my original post and realized it was poorly written. Sorry, to clarify, “not made aware of” would more properly be replaced with something resembling, “who were not granted the opportunity to know.”)

“Knowing” Christ is not the same as “knowing of” Christ. God is just, and it is obviously going to be a lot harder for someone raised on the West Bank or Saudi Arabia to come to the conclusion that he’d better accept Christ as his savior before he dies, than it would be for someone from Atlanta.

Again, the judgment is going to take mitigating factors into account, and the guy from Georgia who has full knowledge of this, believes it, and breaks the rules anyway is going to get a different, perhaps even harsher judgment than the half-retarded jr. high kid brainwashed to detonate a vest bomb filled with nails, ball bearings and rat-poison inside a bus full of women and children out shopping.

Here’s the doctrine in question, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[i]846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”[/i]

270

I don’t care what ANY church says, There is no such thing as someone whose ignorance leaves them justified without a self conscious reliance on Christ for salvation.
Romans 1:18-25 emphasis mine

[quote] 18-For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19-because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20-For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21-For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22-Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23-and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

  24-Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25-For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. [/quote] The "invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature" of the one true and living God are unavoidably revealed EVERYWHERE and in EVERYTHING, but especially IN EVERYONE as they bear His remaining sin broken image.

Romans 10:9-17 NASB (Caps into a quote from the O.T. as per the translation team)

[quote]9-that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10-for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11-For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12-For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13-for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

  14-How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15-How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written,"?HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"

  16-However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?" 17-So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. [/quote] I'm not exactly picking on the RCC for this as there are humanistic protestants who also promote this lie that God's justice is subject to our autonomous standard and hence He would not be just in damning those who through never hear the gospel, but do their best. God would have been fully just AND loving had He simply left every last person ever conceived to die and perish in their sin. The fact that He saves ANYBODY, especially in the manner that He does, is grace and mercy unthinkable.

It would be (very) roughly like if I raped and murdered someone’s child and the father comes into court and tells the judge "not only do I not want this man to pay for this crime, but I will take his execution, only it has to be brutally cruel and unusual, AND he moves into my house as a member of my family.

This invincible ignorance crap is one of the things I have the very least tolerance for. It is a satanic lie from the pit of hell spawned in the minds of insolent men who presume to dictate justice to the God of the universe. I don’t have time, but I could post a wall of biblical support for God’s godhood in the dispensation of justice. (System, Cortes. Systematic theology, drawn from the bible alone and in it’s entirety reveals all that elegant intellectual and spiritual beauty I was speaking of the other day. This is one it’s maybe unpleasant, but manifestly unavoidable components)

Yeah, yeah, yeah I know. Here comes some more biblical butchery that exalts man above God and thereby allegedly excuses King of kings from being Himself. My friend Cortes is not the object of my disdain here. Like I say. This pitiful business of dressing God up like judge Judy is not unique to Catholicism.

271

[quote]Cortes wrote:
(I just reread my original post and realized it was poorly written. Sorry, to clarify, “not made aware of” would more properly be replaced with something resembling, “who were not granted the opportunity to know.”)

“Knowing” Christ is not the same as “knowing of” Christ. God is just, and it is obviously going to be a lot harder for someone raised on the West Bank or Saudi Arabia to come to the conclusion that he’d better accept Christ as his savior before he dies, than it would be for someone from Atlanta.

Again, the judgment is going to take mitigating factors into account, and the guy from Georgia who has full knowledge of this, believes it, and breaks the rules anyway is going to get a different, perhaps even harsher judgment than the half-retarded jr. high kid brainwashed to detonate a vest bomb filled with nails, ball bearings and rat-poison inside a bus full of women and children out shopping.

Here’s the doctrine in question, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[i]846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”[/i]

OK, so this doctrine was created entirely by the Church and has no basis in scripture?

272

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t care what ANY church says, There is no such thing as someone whose ignorance leaves them justified without a self conscious reliance on Christ for salvation.
Romans 1:18-25 emphasis mine
[/quote] 18-For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19-because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20-For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21-For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22-Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23-and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

  24-Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25-For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. [/quote] The "invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature" of the one true and living God are unavoidably revealed EVERYWHERE and in EVERYTHING, but especially IN EVERYONE as they bear His remaining sin broken image.

Romans 10:9-17 NASB (Caps into a quote from the O.T. as per the translation team)

[quote]9-that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10-for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11-For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12-For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13-for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

  14-How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15-How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written,"?HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"

  16-However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?" 17-So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. [/quote] I'm not exactly picking on the RCC for this as there are humanistic protestants who also promote this lie that God's justice is subject to our autonomous standard and hence He would not be just in damning those who through never hear the gospel, but do their best. God would have been fully just AND loving had He simply left every last person ever conceived to die and perish in their sin. The fact that He saves ANYBODY, especially in the manner that He does, is grace and mercy unthinkable.

It would be (very) roughly like if I raped and murdered someone’s child and the father comes into court and tells the judge "not only do I not want this man to pay for this crime, but I will take his execution, only it has to be brutally cruel and unusual, AND he moves into my house as a member of my family.

This invincible ignorance crap is one of the things I have the very least tolerance for. It is a satanic lie from the pit of hell spawned in the minds of insolent men who presume to dictate justice to the God of the universe. I don’t have time, but I could post a wall of biblical support for God’s godhood in the dispensation of justice. (System, Cortes. Systematic theology, drawn from the bible alone and in it’s entirety reveals all that elegant intellectual and spiritual beauty I was speaking of the other day. This is one it’s maybe unpleasant, but manifestly unavoidable components)

Yeah, yeah, yeah I know. Here comes some more biblical butchery that exalts man above God and thereby allegedly excuses King of kings from being Himself. My friend Cortes is not the object of my disdain here. Like I say. This pitiful business of dressing God up like judge Judy is not unique to catholicism. [/quote]

I don’t see anything there about accepting “Christ” as my lord and savior.

273

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< OK, so this doctrine was created entirely by the Church and has no basis in scripture?[/quote]It was created by autonomous man in yet another of his attempts to help God out of a bind He’s not in except in said autonomous man’s arrogant imagination. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:I don’t see anything there about accepting “Christ” as my lord and savior.[/quote]I honestly don’t understand what you mean by this in this present context.

274

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< OK, so this doctrine was created entirely by the Church and has no basis in scripture?[/quote]It was created by autonomous man in yet another of his attempts to help God out of a bind He’s not in except in said autonomous man’s arrogant imagination. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:I don’t see anything there about accepting “Christ” as my lord and savior.[/quote]I honestly don’t understand what you mean by this in this present context.
[/quote]

Would you stop it with this autonomous man drum you been beating forever? Did you hear it in a sermon and then decide to parrot it wherever you go? What’s with it?

In your previous reply, I saw plenty talk of the Lord, but no talk of accepting “Jesus” as my Lord and savior.

275

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
(I just reread my original post and realized it was poorly written. Sorry, to clarify, “not made aware of” would more properly be replaced with something resembling, “who were not granted the opportunity to know.”)

“Knowing” Christ is not the same as “knowing of” Christ. God is just, and it is obviously going to be a lot harder for someone raised on the West Bank or Saudi Arabia to come to the conclusion that he’d better accept Christ as his savior before he dies, than it would be for someone from Atlanta.

Again, the judgment is going to take mitigating factors into account, and the guy from Georgia who has full knowledge of this, believes it, and breaks the rules anyway is going to get a different, perhaps even harsher judgment than the half-retarded jr. high kid brainwashed to detonate a vest bomb filled with nails, ball bearings and rat-poison inside a bus full of women and children out shopping.

Here’s the doctrine in question, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[i]846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”[/i]

OK, so this doctrine was created entirely by the Church and has no basis in scripture?[/quote]

There is absolutely basis in scripture. However, please keep in mind that the Catholic church does NOT subcribe to the doctrine of sola scriptura. Catholics base their doctrine upon a threefold foundation: Sacred scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.

Anyway here’s the scriptural evidence. It may be contested, but it certainly exists:

[i]Romans 2:12-16

English Standard Version (ESV)

Godâ??s Judgment and the Law

12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

John 9:39-41

English Standard Version (ESV)

39Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” 40Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” 41Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.

John 15:22 (English Standard Version)

English Standard Version (ESV)

22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.
[/i]

276

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Would you stop it with this autonomous man drum you been beating forever? Did you hear it in a sermon and then decide to parrot it wherever you go? What’s with it? >>>[/quote]Can’t do it. It IS the key foundational truth regarding the condition of every man, woman and child in all of history, including myself, save for Jesus of Nazerath alone. You will hear it from me again. Autonomous man was born in the garden of Eden. From earlier in this thread I wrote the following to Cortes again:

[i]The notion of AUTONOMOUS free will whereby finite dependent creatures are said to reach conclusions and execute decisions in independence from the governing will of the creator God originated in the garden of Eden. "Did God really say… and even if He did, God wants to keep you subservient to His tyrannical will.

He knows if you eat from that tree you’ll be like Him, able to discern reality for yourselves and He wants that privilege for Himself only. You don’t need God tellin you what to think and what to do and what to eat. Don’t you have free will? Can’t you make decisions for yourselves?". THAT was in essence the deception. The fruit was an incidental vehicle.

The moment Adam bought into the idea that he could operate any part of himself independent of the all governing will of God, it was over. Even though the whole episode itself was dependent on the all governing will of God which is the point. They already had all the freedom and liberty they were designed for in the fact that they were living in complete blissful fellowship and dependence upon God for absolutely everything. Their quest for freedom and independence brought them the opposite. Death and slavery to sin.

To this day people, even Christian people are grasping for the very thing the serpent deceived Eve with. Freedom from God’s all governing hand. The power of the blood and resurrection of Christ is for the exact purpose of re-freeing us to live in utter willful dependence on the only certainty possible which resides in the mind of our creator. This is accomplished by the indwelling presence of God Himself in the promise of the Holy Spirit. Instead, people claiming His name spend vast amounts of time energy proclaiming their own autonomy instead of HIS incomprehensible omnipotent providence over all that is.

Once again. If even one sub atomic particle (or sparrow falling to the ground) moves without Him? He is not the God who reveals Himself in the ancient Christian scriptures.[/i]

Myself or the quotes? I don’t understand. I’m sorry.

277

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
(I just reread my original post and realized it was poorly written. Sorry, to clarify, “not made aware of” would more properly be replaced with something resembling, “who were not granted the opportunity to know.”)

“Knowing” Christ is not the same as “knowing of” Christ. God is just, and it is obviously going to be a lot harder for someone raised on the West Bank or Saudi Arabia to come to the conclusion that he’d better accept Christ as his savior before he dies, than it would be for someone from Atlanta.

Again, the judgment is going to take mitigating factors into account, and the guy from Georgia who has full knowledge of this, believes it, and breaks the rules anyway is going to get a different, perhaps even harsher judgment than the half-retarded jr. high kid brainwashed to detonate a vest bomb filled with nails, ball bearings and rat-poison inside a bus full of women and children out shopping.

Here’s the doctrine in question, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[i]846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”[/i]

OK, so this doctrine was created entirely by the Church and has no basis in scripture?[/quote]

There is absolutely basis in scripture. However, please keep in mind that the Catholic church does NOT subcribe to the doctrine of sola scriptura. Catholics base their doctrine upon a threefold foundation: Sacred scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.

Anyway here’s the scriptural evidence. It may be contested, but it certainly exists:

[i]Romans 2:12-16

English Standard Version (ESV)

Godâ??s Judgment and the Law

12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

John 9:39-41

English Standard Version (ESV)

39Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” 40Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” 41Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.

John 15:22 (English Standard Version)

English Standard Version (ESV)

22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.
[/i]
[/quote]

Sounds to me like a good many agnostics have hope of being judged without “the law”.

278

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Would you stop it with this autonomous man drum you been beating forever? Did you hear it in a sermon and then decide to parrot it wherever you go? What’s with it? >>>[/quote]Can’t do it. It IS the key foundational truth regarding the condition of every man, woman and child in all of history, including myself, save for Jesus of Nazerath alone. You will hear it from me again. Autonomous man was born in the garden of Eden. From earlier in this thread I wrote the following to Cortes again:

[i]The notion of AUTONOMOUS free will whereby finite dependent creatures are said to reach conclusions and execute decisions in independence from the governing will of the creator God originated in the garden of Eden. "Did God really say… and even if He did, God wants to keep you subservient to His tyrannical will.

He knows if you eat from that tree you’ll be like Him, able to discern reality for yourselves and He wants that privilege for Himself only. You don’t need God tellin you what to think and what to do and what to eat. Don’t you have free will? Can’t you make decisions for yourselves?". THAT was in essence the deception. The fruit was an incidental vehicle.

The moment Adam bought into the idea that he could operate any part of himself independent of the all governing will of God, it was over. Even though the whole episode itself was dependent on the all governing will of God which is the point. They already had all the freedom and liberty they were designed for in the fact that they were living in complete blissful fellowship and dependence upon God for absolutely everything. Their quest for freedom and independence brought them the opposite. Death and slavery to sin.

To this day people, even Christian people are grasping for the very thing the serpent deceived Eve with. Freedom from God’s all governing hand. The power of the blood and resurrection of Christ is for the exact purpose of re-freeing us to live in utter willful dependence on the only certainty possible which resides in the mind of our creator. This is accomplished by the indwelling presence of God Himself in the promise of the Holy Spirit. Instead, people claiming His name spend vast amounts of time energy proclaiming their own autonomy instead of HIS incomprehensible omnipotent providence over all that is.

Once again. If even one sub atomic particle (or sparrow falling to the ground) moves without Him? He is not the God who reveals Himself in the ancient Christian scriptures.[/i]

Myself or the quotes? I don’t understand. I’m sorry.
[/quote]

I’m sorry. Did not read (except a few sentences). I’ve heard this song before. Nevermind.

279

That passage in Romans 2 was written precisely to demonstrate that EVERYBODY, whether formally under the covenamt of law or not, are equally culpable and damned until they call on the name of the Lord and are saved. A thing Paul says in the same letter that they cannot do without hearing of Him, and that this hearing cannot be done without a preacher. I have always been mystified by folks who try n use that passage to have God saving well meaning heathen. It’s like citing the U.S. Constitution in support of Marxism. Oh wait. People are doin that too.

It is true that there are degress of severity in damnation that are affected by one’s level of ignorance, but the idea that some “good” unbelievers who WOULD believe if given the opportunity (which Paul says in the third of Romans there is not even one), is a purely humanistic (yes, autonomous) invention of men who cannot be comfortable with God declring His own justice.

If I’m reading you correctly then you actually understand this better than many claiming to be His own.

280

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Sounds to me like a good many agnostics have hope of being judged without “the law”. [/quote]

Well, maybe, maybe not.

While this may sound a bit like a Get Out of Jail Free Card, it is anything but. For all Tirib’s disagreement above, I actually think the doctrine is closer to what he is saying than what you might be suggesting.I just don’t subscribe to the notion that someone who has literally never heard of the Bible, Christianity or Jesus Christ is going to Hell because he refused to accept Jesus Christ as his savior (possible simplification, but certainly what it sounds like).

Once you’ve heard of Christ and been exposed to the teachings of the Church, the bar for “ignorance” is set significantly higher. And as that could mean the very serious consequence of an eternity in Hell (which yes, I do believe), you’ll never see me condoning or excusing agnosticism. That does not mean, however, that I do not understand how any agnostic reaches his conclusion. Nor do I judge him or make any assumptions about the destination of his soul.