On Romans 2 and the Vastly Misunderstood "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church" Issue

Exeter Cathedral (England)

[ source ]

This is my reply to a Protestant who is inquiring about Catholicism. His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

Nevertheless.......everything was going well until my wife reached the portion in the book which talks about non-Christian, non-Roman Catholics who have never heard the message of the Gospel and the Church. . . . My wife and I want to believe what is in even this small catechism - but we struggle with an apparent contradiction. If the church formally states that there is no salvation outside the church, how can it then state that salvation is available even for an atheist who is following his/her conscience?

It's not a contradiction, but rather, a matter of understanding the fine distinctions and points of the thing.

I was discussing it with my wife and it seems that neither Acts 10 or Romans 2 is speaking of those who came to faith outside of the church or Jesus Christ.

I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion. As I read Romans 2, it seems to me that it is a general statement. "Gentiles" pretty much covers all who were not Jews. Nowhere in the passage do I see that Paul refers to these "Gentiles" necessarily being Christians. They certainly aren't Jews, because they are "without the law" (2:12,14, etc.). Nor is the Church mentioned in the entire chapter (unless I missed it). So I'm curious: how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is about Christians?

Protestant commentaries back me up on this. For example, The Eerdmans Bible Commentary states:

Paul has alternately in view both a Jewish religionist and a pagan moralist . . . (p. 1018)

Likewise, the famous Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown Commentary, referring to verses 13-15:

. . . even as respects the heathen, who are strangers to the law in its positive and written form -- since they show how deeply it is engraven on their moral nature, which witnesses within them for righteousness and against iniquity, accusing or condemning them according as they violate or obey its stern dictates . . . (p. 1144)

Baptist A.T. Robertson, in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, agrees:

v. 12. The heathen who sin are lost, because they do not keep the law which they have, not because they do not have the Mosaic Law or Christianity. . . .

v, 14. The Gentiles who are without the Mosaic Law, but not without some knowledge of God in conscience and when they do right "they are a law to themselves" . . .

Now, it is true that some commentators apply their predisposition in theology to the passage and interpret it accordingly: some claiming that it is impossible to be saved without literally hearing about Christ and the gospel. But your premise that it is referring to those in the Church or who have heard of Jesus, is contradicted, apparently by most commentators, who hold that it is referring to pagans or heathen.

You also seem to be accepting a fallacy, and not distinguishing between the following two propositions:

1) Whoever is saved must necessarily literally hear (and accept) the gospel of Jesus; otherwise he or she is damned.

2) Whoever is saved is saved by the gospel of Jesus and His death on the cross, whether or not he or she literally hears the gospel of Jesus.

These two are vastly different. Perhaps you accept #1 and deny #2, or have confused the two. Catholics deny the necessity of #1 and assert #2, based on a consideration of the relevant biblical data and particularly the information in Romans 2. Calvinists and many Baptists and other Protestants with similar theology assert #1 and deny #2. Arminian Protestants would tend to agree with Catholics, and accept #2. I had the exact same opinion on this as an evangelical, as I have today as a Catholic.

Now, if you think God is such a Being that He would either predestine millions to hell with no choice of their own, or predestine all the multiple millions who have never heard of Jesus or the gospel simply because of that fact, then there is little I can say. I don't think the Bible reveals such a merciless, arbitrary God. I think that the Bible teaches that those who follow their conscience according to what they know, can be saved, even if they have never heard of Jesus or Christianity.

The second thing to note is similar to the choice above:

X) Whoever is saved is saved by the gospel of Jesus and His death on the cross, and must, additionally, formally be a member of the Catholic Church; otherwise he or she is damned.

Y) Whoever is saved is saved by the gospel of Jesus and His death on the cross, and also by means of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, whether or not he or she literally hears the gospel of Jesus or about the Catholic faith, or becomes a formal member of the Catholic Church.

Again, you may think that the notion of "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" reduces to the scenario of X, but it doesn't; it means Y. The confusion results from not grasping the following distinction:

A) Whoever is directly affected by a particular cause must be personally aware of it.

B) Whoever is directly affected by a particular cause can be so influenced whether or not he or she is aware of that cause.

This applies to both the 1 vs. 2 and X vs. Y scenarios above. Clearly, I think, it is a general truth that we need not be aware of all causes to be affected by them. For example, our house could catch on fire while we were asleep, but rains came and put the fire out. So we were saved by the rain without being aware of it. We didn't have to be conscious of the rain to still be saved by it.

Likewise, one can be saved by the blood of Jesus without being aware of it and without ever hearing the gospel. Jesus made salvation possible. Everyone who is saved is so, because of what Jesus did. God gives every man a conscience and a knowledge of natural theology. All men truly know that there is a God (Romans 1 and 2). What they do with this innate, God-given knowledge will determine if they are saved or not. But Jesus is the cause of the salvation. So is the Catholic Church, as no one is saved without being saved through the Catholic Church, whether they know that or not. They don't have to know it in order for that to be the case.

That's what we teach, and that is why these considerations do not involve any contradiction at all. God judges men according to the lights they have received, and how they respond to those: according to their works. I documented no less than 50 biblical passages that assert exactly that. And many of these could easily be interpreted in a very general sense: applying to all mankind, just as Romans 2 does.

For much more on this question, see:

Brief Overview of the Vexed "No Salvation Outside the Church" Issue

Dialogue on "Salvation Outside the Church" and Alleged Catholic Magisterial Contradictions (Particularly in the Middle Ages; With Emphasis on St. Thomas Aquinas's Views)

Dialogue: Does "Salvation Outside the Church" Disprove Catholic Claims (By Internal Contradiction)?

The Catholic Church's View of Non-Catholic Christians (Karl Adam)

On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church (+ Discussion) (Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.)

Also - if we have to accept the catechism in faith in order to be accepted as Roman Catholics in good standing - then sadly I think we have hit a stumbling block. I believe even the large catechism mentions "no salvation outside" and then moves into saying even a good Jew, good Muslim, or good atheist can be saved. I'm sorry Dave - but the contradiction seems so clear to us.

Not if you study the issue more deeply and learn about the proper distinctions that must be, and have been made. There is no contradiction here at all.

Maybe the Pope should have said "Salvation is most fully available through the Roman Catholic Church" - then our hearts and minds would be at rest - But - he didn't say that.

It's a somewhat complex issue, which is why you have to study it a lot more before concluding that it is a self-contradiction in Catholic teaching.

See also the related paper:

The Interpretation and Exegesis of Romans 2-4 (Justification and Works of the Law) (Includes Very Extensive Patristic Commentary and Definitional Citations from three Protestant Bible Dictionaries)

* * * * *

then my next question would be how does the RCC come up with this theology, teaching, etc.? I know you cited Romans 2 and I believe you cited Acts 10 - might there also be some traditional church teaching to add to what has already been cited biblically. I have to say I didn't understand your reply re: Romans 2 - even with the commentaries that were cited.

Romans 2 is the clearest biblical teaching that I am aware of, on this particular aspect of someone being saved who didn't hear the Jewish or Christian message of faith. Other indications are mentioned in the papers I inked to (like I said, it gets complicated; sorry. It can only be simplified so much). St. Thomas Aquinas makes elaborate arguments about implicit faith, invincible ignorance, and so forth. Many of the Fathers allude to the possibility of salvation without hearing the gospel or Jewish proclamation of faith in God.

You'd have to tell me what it is you didn't understand about my argument. What I showed was that Romans 2 is referring to heathen or pagans, and Paul says it is possible for them to be saved. I think it is quite plausible to interpret this as their being saved without ever hearing the gospel or about the Church. If that is so, then this position is established from an explicit example in Scripture.

Calvinist beliefs have to be opposed on other grounds. I do that, too, but let's not get into that at the moment. We have enough on our plate.

I should add, too (lest someone think that I am neglecting this), that if a person truly knows that Catholic teaching is the truth (only God knows all these particulars), and rejects it with a full consent of the will, then they will be damned and cannot be saved.

In most cases, it appears to me that non-Catholics do not yet fully understand Catholic teaching, and God would take that into account. They are judged by what they truly know, and how they have acted upon that knowledge.