Myth Busters: Catholicism Teaches Universalism

Getting Catholicism Wrong
Since 1995

This post is part Myth Busters and part reply to this article by the gents at CARM. In fact, for SEO purposes, I shall supply the title of that post:

Is the Catholic Catechism's view on the Muslim god wrong?

First, let me just say that the title of CARM's article misses the boat all together. In no place does the Catholic Church teach that the Muslim view of God, per se, is accurate. Further, the strategic use of "god" (lower-case "g") is disingenuous. When we speak of a metaphysical reality where there is only one "God", any other "God" would be "god". In a metaphysical reality where there are multiple "gods", then we should use "god" -- since there is no unique "God". This technique subtly attempts to do centrifuge on the metaphysical similarities between all mono-theistic religions. A real sham, I say! Secondly, what the Church affirms is that Muslims do have some very important parts right. So, while the Christian view is that Christ gives us the perfect and complete view of God; nevertheless, just because one perspective is perfect and complete does not render another view -- especially within the same metaphysical paradigm -- bereft of any value at all.

I have written in other places about Universalism in general (go here, here, here, and here). For this purpose, I will only focus on Islam, and will do so in relationship to a question I received recently:

I have been studying the Catholic faith and the catechism 841 question on your blog has  stumped me. Would you read the below and respond (the article by CARM)? I couldn't find a Catholic response that addresses the fact that Muslims deny that Jesus, son of Mary, is God.

The simple answer:

Can you tell the difference? God can.

There are two types of "Muslims". There are those that actively deny Christ, and there are those that do not. Question(s): Do all 1.6 billlion Muslims knowingly deny Christ? Should we assign every Muslim, just because they were born into that religion, to hell? Answer: I think not. Let us together look at the relevant portion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (841):

The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Does the "plan of salvation" include those, as St. Paul says in Romans 2:

"For 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. They 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 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges both secrets of men by Christ Jesus."

I think so. So, the Church is trying to acknowledge what is redeemable in the people of other religions. Not the religions, per se. Since the Church is the shepherd of all of humanity ("What you bind on earth"), she must be careful in how she deals with each and every child of God who is made in His image and likeness. You do not treat God's children in a cavalier way; acting as if you can throw away whole portions of humanity without a second thought. Nevertheless, notice the proceeding context:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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. 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. "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."

Church of the Holy Sepulchre

The key phrase is "no fault of their own". That is where God comes in. He is the ultimate judge of matters eternal. That is why the Church canonizes saints but she does not canonize the damned.

Now turning to the CARM article, let's look together at what our friend has to say (with my comments afterward):

"If the Catholic Church is stating in paragraph above, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that there are those within the Muslim community who may find salvation by becoming Christians and not remaining Muslims, then I would agree.  But, it does not appear to be saying this. (It is implied when taken into context with the preceding section "There is no salvation outside of the Church". "The Church" meaning His Body, and therefore in order for Muslims to be saved they must be incorporated into Christ. There is no other Way of salvation)

What is disturbing is the statement that "together with us they [Muslims] adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."  So, Catholics and Muslims both "adore the one, merciful God."  Quite frankly, it would seem that the Roman Catholic church has a faulty understanding of the God of Islam."

It is not a matter of the "Roman Catholic church" having a "faulty understanding of the God of Islam". It is about The Church acknowledging what is true in their (Muslims (people)-- not Islam per se -- which is a religion) imperfect and faulty understanding of God. Let me say that again. There is a difference between Muslims and Islam. One is a people, the other is a religion. St. Paul affirmed that the Athenians had found some truth in their "altar to an unknown God" (Acts 17:23). Simply because they did not have the complete picture, the total Revelation, found only in Christ, it does not follow that they had NO truth. Of course that is not the case -- even for the polytheists in Greece! Same goes with Muslims. The Church is not saying that Muslims have a similar theology of the "one God", but that many Muslims do acknowledge: (1) one God, (2) His mercy and (3) His judgement. That in no way implies our theology is the same on even these three points, but that on these three points we do share a commonality -- which can be a bridge to evangelism and also an opening for God to work in their hearts.

Slick goes on to say:

"Islam acknowledges that it serves the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  But in so doing it is stating that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were Muslims!  Furthermore, Islam denies that God is a Trinity."

Again, his analysis is beside the point. The Church's position is not to imply that they have the right theology, but rather -- like the Athenians (you know those people in the Bible) -- they have found some truth in their imperfect, distorted image of God. Just because I imperfectly know my wife, doesn't mean I'm ignorant of her completely. Slick then triumphantly asks:

"Since the Trinity is the true biblical doctrine of God, how can the Muslims who deny the Trinity "adore the one, merciful God?"

Oddly, Fundamentalists don't think Jews
 are worshiping a "false God"

The same way the Jews did (and do) who did not know the Revelation of the Holy Trinity. They were not worshiping a different God in the Old Testament, they just have an incomplete picture of Him. The point of all of this, and the point that is sorely lost on Slick and others, is that only God can judge the human heart. The Church must affirm this very important mystery, a mystery that does not stagnate her missional efforts but rather compels her to evangelize. Why? Because the mystery of salvation, the mystery of God's mercy to mankind, stirs us with joy to share the message. Simply because it is possible for some to be saved through implicit faith does not mean that many or most will be.

Thus, as Catholics we must evangelize because of the goodness of God. It is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance. It is His kindness and long-suffering that softens the sinner's heart. Yet knowing that it is the human heart that we are talking about, it is impossible for us -- the Church -- to cross the sacred boundary of that tender place where only the still, small voice can gently say:

"Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (Revelation 3:20)

Will you?

UPDATE: One should note that my inclusion of Romans 2:14-16 in no way implies that there is some kind of salvation a part from Christ. The Law, first and foremost, accuses of wrong -- either given in revelation or through natural law written on our hearts (in this way it is the "schoolmaster"). However, it is precisely because God can judge the heart, and we cannot, that we cannot simply assign large groups of people to help for whom we cannot see their heart. God gives sufficient grace to all. Only he knows if they respond to that grace or resist it. If they resist it, they damn themselves.


I'm including this update because someone was concerned that my rendering of Romans 2:14-16 would lead souls to hell. The problem with that idea is that if you are conscious enough to even consider the ramifications of this passage, you are likely outside its scope. 

Coming Soon! A New CARM Ecumenical Series

In the spirit of ecumenical joy, I will be starting a series of posts in response to articles published at the "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry" (CARM) website. Let me start off by saying one good thing about CARM: they have many decent articles on topics other than Catholicism. (There. I did it. I did my intellectual duty to say something nice. Back to the regularly scheduled blog-post.) Many Catholics believe that Protestants think of them as their brother or sister in Christ, and, in fact, many do. However, this is not always the case. In the section on "Roman Catholicism", CARM founder Matt Slick explains why he included a section on the Roman Catholic Church (with comments in blue):

It is necessary to write a page on Roman Catholicism because there are significant differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrines (and various Protestant sect's doctrine is insignificantly different?). Protestants accuse the Catholics of being unscriptural and the Catholics state that the Protestants do not have the true faith carried through the centuries by the Catholic Church. On which ever side you fall, the real issue is whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is representing true Christianity.

If you are a Roman Catholic, please understand that this site is not meant to offend you in any way (let me define offensive as a poor attempt to understand the position you are arguing against -- let's see if this holds). This site is dedicated to examining the truth, all truth, and comparing it to the Bible. No matter who it is or what group is proclaiming truth, we know that the Bible is the Word of God (I will test that theory, specifically regarding the "Bible" as canon) and that no truth from God will contradict it. I urge you to examine what is here on this site and see if what is being taught here is true. If you do, you will be doing exactly what the Bible commands: to examine all things (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15; Acts 17:11; Jude 3). Since the Catholic Church holds the Bible to be the word of God, I am putting Catholic doctrine to the biblical test.

If you are a Protestant, you will probably (unless you believe to the historic doctrine of baptism regeneration) feel more comfortable browsing these pages since they will, essentially, confront Roman Catholic teachings. It is apparent that the Roman Church has added much to the scope of Christian doctrine that is not revealed in scripture ("apparent" only begs the question, but let's proceed). This is an issue that needs to be addressed. It is vital.

In reference to the Catholic reliance upon (gasp) "Tradition", Mr. Slick goes on to say:

Matt Slick

Apparently, it is Tradition that is the source of doctrines which are clearly not taught in the Bible, but which the Catholic Church still says are implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition. Some of them are as follows: The Mass, Penance, Veneration of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Priesthood, the Confessional, the Rosary, Venial and Mortal Sins, and statues in the Church.

What is interesting about his list is:

1. All the elements of the The Mass come explicitly from Scripture (e.g., consecration, altar, Scripture reading, sign of peace, etc.), setting aside a few phrases and gestures that harken back to both Christian and Jewish traditions. See also The Mass in Scripture.

2. Penance. Boy this is awkward. "No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish." Luke 13:3

3. Veneration of Mary- "Every generation will call me blessed." This is a complicated issue, but to say that veneration is "clearly not taught in the Bible" is a hermeneutic decision not the result of a clear-as-day proof-text. If a distinction between veneration and worship can be made -- and there is, then there is nothing in Scripture even approaching a disapprobation of venerating Mary.

4. Setting aside the rest of the list for time's sake, the great irony is that the phrase "implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition" could be replaced with "implicit within its text and elucidated through evangelical-Protestant tradition" as an explanation and/or apology for Mr. Slick's particular doctrinal commitments. Especially considering that he denies baptismal regeneration. In other words, no man is a tradition-less island unto himself.

At this point, I am starting to gather that CARM is not inviting me to write a guest article. Anyways, remember they are a "research" ministry. In an attempt, I guess, to bring fellow Protestants into the illuminati of the inner circle of Roman Catholic theology, Mr. Slick kindly offer his reader a "terminology section". Since the term "Tradition" plays so heavy right out of the gate in his contention with Roman Catholic doctrine, I was interested to find out how he defines that term.

Tradition - handing down through the centuries from mouth to mouth of the teachings of Jesus. It began with the apostles and continues unbroken to the present bishopric of the Catholic Church.

Nice try.

For starters, Tradition is not exclusively oral. In fact, most of the Traditions of the Church can be found in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Tradition does include the teachings of Christ as handed off to the Apostles. These teachings and way of life and worship are preserved in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church. They are not only preserved but grow -- being active, living and dynamic -- in Christ's Church through the work of the Holy Spirit.

In the spirit of outreach (I gather), and just below the "copy and paste" section on the Catechism whereby Mr. Slick enjoys an out-of-context-extravaganza, there is a section that is a kind of "Coming Out Network International". In this case, and unlike the Coming Home Network, the "outers" are former priests. Many of the original Protestants were former priests, thus, there is nothing really sensational about a few priests defecting. However, what is amazing, according to Mr. Slick, with regards to their stories is:

"As you can see, even Roman Catholic Priests can discover the truth found in God's word and escape the error of the Roman Catholic system of works righteousness.  To God be the glory." (source)

Not so fast...

In an effort to improve the Google meta-associations between Mr. Slick's articles and the truth, I will be periodically writing posts in response to published CARM articles. Let this post serve notice, and may my personal conversion story bare witness, that even a Protestant can discover the "ground and pillar of truth" and escape the error(s) of Protestantism. (Hint: 1 Timothy 3:15) 


Glory be to God. 

Click Here To Subscribe to Almost Not Catholic