Reasonable Athiests are Christians.(St. Justin)

Joe1919

I was reading something lately about one of the original church fathers, St. Justin Martyr and it appears that he consider the 'logos' or the 'word' or 'reason' to be part of God. This idea is rather similar to John 1:1 'In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.'

This also led St. Justin to state that Those who live according to reason are Christians, even though they are thought to be atheists.
His reasoning is that to live according to reason is the same as living according to God.

Anyhow, I was wondering does this mean that Atheists (or non-Christians), who through no fault of their own, cannot believe in Christ, will be saved provided they live a reasonable life?


http://books.google.ie/books?id=JPUOp2Vf1swC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=Those+who+live+according+to+reason+are,+are+Christians,+even+though+they+are+thought+to+be+athiests%E2%80%99&source=bl&ots=cecYpYbeHo&sig=ugfzrvUYOrde1eOKSNz7c3iVti8&hl=en&ei=uv4oSrOUOeTMjAePwv3jCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPA88,M1

hiorta

Christians and others who adhere to a faith, are by definition 'unreasonable' in that they accept as factual something that is not proven.
A reasonable view of such matters would be that it is 'probable' and held in between.

JimiTime

hiorta wrote: »

Christians and others who adhere to a faith, are by my own definition 'unreasonable' in that, based on my limited understanding ,they accept as factual something that is not proven.

Fixed that for you.

philologos

hiorta: I don't see how I am unreasonable to believe what has convinced me is truth. If anyone wants to talk to me about other beliefs I will listen. However, I think it's ridiculous that if God exists that God would not have revealed Himself to mankind in a clear way as in the Old and New Testaments.

The notion that God is different for everyone might be a nice notion. It cannot possibly be true though. I am interested in the pursuit of truth, not in the pursuit of comfort and deception.

OP: Aquinas uses the word "reason" too. However they thought what was "reason" was living your life in accordance to the will of a divine creator. I can quote the exact section of the Summa Theologiae when I get home later. Atheism to them would defy reason.

Joe1919

Jakkass wrote: »

OP: Aquinas uses the word "reason" too. However they thought what was "reason" was living your life in accordance to the will of a divine creator. I can quote the exact section of the Summa Theologiae when I get home later. Atheism to them would defy reason.

My interest here is in the very early ( and eastern) church doctorine. St Justin lived about 1100 years before St Thomas of Aquinas and much gloss had been put on the Christian teachings by this time.
Its also interesting that our own great Irish scholar, Eriugena, believed that all men returned to God in the end. Could it be that the Christian churches were much more tolerant in the earlier stages or are these isolated cases?

kelly1

Joe1919 wrote: »

I was reading something lately about one of the original church fathers, St. Justin Martyr and it appears that he consider the 'logos' or the 'word' or 'reason' to be part of God. This idea is rather similar to John 1:1 'In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.'

This also led St. Justin to state that Those who live according to reason are Christians, even though they are thought to be atheists.

I don't get that last bit. How can an atheist be Christian?

Joe1919 wrote: »

His reasoning is that to live according to reason is the same as living according to God.

I don't accept that belief in God is irrational. In fact I think it's rational and sane. If think the rejection of God is actually insane.

Maybe Justin was taking original sin into account in that original sin diminishes our reason whereby we put self before God?

Joe1919 wrote: »

Anyhow, I was wondering does this mean that Atheists (or non-Christians), who through no fault of their own, cannot believe in Christ, will be saved provided they live a reasonable life?

I'm not sure God will accept the "cannot" plea. I believe that the only thing standing between us and God is sin.

And what is a "reasonable" life in your opinion and how does this involve loving God and neighbour?

hiorta

JimiTime wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Is tampering with another's post sinking to a new low in this discussion? Did you do this because you were unable to post a coherent reply?

JimiTime

hiorta wrote: »

Did you do this because you were unable to post a coherent reply?

No. I did it to reveal that your post was merely a statement of your specific opinion rather than the 'matter of fact' way that you presented it. I think it was very coherent.

thebouldwhacker

At the risk of somewhat getting back to the OP point... I mean no disrespect to anyone here, you guys really believe the bible is a true account of what life is about dont you?

You really believe in the end of the world and all souls being judged and welcomed into heven/ condemed to hell, all based on their faith? thus being 'saved' almost by accident cos they would believe if they could?

You get all this from a book, which isnt a book rather a collection of books which even if were handed down from god has been passed down by men century after century and changed a little in this translation, a little in tha account etc?

Joe1919

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't get that last bit. How can an atheist be Christian?

My version of this is that God is for St.Justin , the logos. He is the unknown intelligence thats behind the world. That possible why it is said that God is the Truth. (John 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life.)
Anyone who loves Truth or Science (logos=science= God?) also loves God.

The atheist in persuit of the Truth is no different than the Christian in persuit of God, they both persue the same Thing. ( God = Truth)

Its also the case that St. Justin was a big fan of Socrates and Heraclitus but neither of these were Christians (as they lived 400+ BC) hence St. Justin concluded that there must be a way to paradise for non Christians.

Schumacher1

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't accept that belief in God is irrational. In fact I think it's rational and sane. If think the rejection of God is actually insane.

Thats a great statement.

Why would basing the way of your life on a book written somewhere between 1,000BC and 400 AD, translated many times with no explanation or qualification of those who wrote it appeal to anyone.

It has no proof.
It believes god can talk through man.

If someone came up to you on the street and offered you the same you would think they were mad.

1 1/2 billion Muslims
1 billion christians
Couple million Jews

All these religons come from the same place.

If there was a God who was Omnipetent he wouldn't give a toss what we would get up to. Our Universe has billions of planets with billions of billions of life forms on them.

Belief in religon is holding us back.

thebouldwhacker

What about someone who lives their life within christian values but doesnt believe in god, nothing but atoms... no creator of anykind that would fit into any religion but seeks the truth through pure science?

Joe1919

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

At the risk of somewhat getting back to the OP point... I mean no disrespect to anyone here, you guys really believe the bible is a true account of what life is about dont you?

There are many historians and philosophers and psychologists who find anchient texts like the Bible fascinating because they give clues and indications about how people thought. And of course, the earlier English translations to some extent standardised the English language. The same can probable be said for other languages.To some extent, the Bible has shaped the whole of the Western Worlds consciousness. The Bible is always 'true' in at least this respect.

Schumacher1

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

What about someone who lives their life within christian values but doesnt believe in god, nothing but atoms... no creator of anykind that would fit into any religion but seeks the truth through pure science?

We are called Atheist's.

Schumacher1

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

At the risk of somewhat getting back to the OP point... I mean no disrespect to anyone here, you guys really believe the bible is a true account of what life is about dont you?

You really believe in the end of the world and all souls being judged and welcomed into heven/ condemed to hell, all based on their faith? thus being 'saved' almost by accident cos they would believe if they could?

You get all this from a book, which isnt a book rather a collection of books which even if were handed down from god has been passed down by men century after century and changed a little in this translation, a little in tha account etc?

This is a brilliant piece.

So simple that a child could understand it.

thebouldwhacker

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

What about someone who lives their life within christian values but doesnt believe in god, nothing but atoms... no creator of anykind that would fit into any religion but seeks the truth through pure science?

OP This is @ you, what if someone decides they do not believe, rejects the oppertunity but lives as above??

DublinWriter

Joe1919 wrote: »

Anyhow, I was wondering does this mean that Atheists (or non-Christians), who through no fault of their own, cannot believe in Christ, will be saved provided they live a reasonable life?

If you accept the Bible as literal truth, then you must accept Jesus' statement that 'I am the Way the Light and the Truth. Nobody can come to the Father, except through me'..

So, therefore, no.

Joe1919

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

OP This is @ you, what if someone decides they do not believe, rejects the oppertunity but lives as above??

All I'm saying is that St. Justin seems to be leaving leaving open the possibility that that 'someone' whose does not believe can go to paradise. Other thinkers, such as Eriugena, argue that ALL return to God in the end (although some make better returns than others).
Of course there has been different ideas about this from time to time. For example, around 1400s, a lot of sceptism crept in, influenced by Aristotles teachings , that there was no individual soul but only a group or common soul hence a papal bull was passed around the 1513 and it is really only since then that the immortality of the individual soul is compulsary belief for christians.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=jJnyxg3xxTEC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=immortality+soul+papal+bull&source=bl&ots=51Nbk6rZOh&sig=Ew-jcpnWx72SWJY7WsB3bThKMBY&hl=en&ei=zWYpSvyHFNW6jAetv7HrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

philologos

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

What about someone who lives their life within christian values but doesnt believe in god, nothing but atoms... no creator of anykind that would fit into any religion but seeks the truth through pure science?

Christian values are based on how we relate to God, and how we relate to our fellow man. One of the primary reasons we try to relate to our fellow man in a loving manner is because God has created all men in his image. It's why God told Cain that his brother, Abel's blood was crying to him from the ground (Genesis 4).

If you are to truly believe in Christianity, you need to accept that you have fallen, you are a sinner, and that you can come to new life by accepting Jesus Christ. More importantly after accepting Jesus Christ one is meant to be able to see change in how you live and how you act. You are meant to be transformed (Romans 12), and become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17)

As for "pure science". I don't know any person who actually believes in pure science. Atheists claim to, but they don't hold up very well to that notion. I personally do not consider Christianity to be irrational. I also like kelly1 think it would be an awful stretch of reason for me to become an atheist.

kelly1

Joe1919 wrote: »

My version of this is that God is for St.Justin , the logos. He is the unknown intelligence thats behind the world.

Jesus is the Word/Logos, not the entire Trinity. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God".

Joe1919 wrote: »

That possible why it is said that God is the Truth. (John 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life.)
Anyone who loves Truth or Science (logos=science= God?) also loves God.

No because God is more that just Truth. God is Truth but God is also Love and the source of all good, creation etc. Truth alone doesn't love, create etc.

Joe1919 wrote: »

The atheist in persuit of the Truth is no different than the Christian in persuit of God, they both persue the same Thing. ( God = Truth)

No, the atheist tries to understand the world around him without attributing anything to God. He effectively puts himself in the place of God.

Schumacher1 wrote: »

Thats a great statement.

Why would basing the way of your life on a book written somewhere between 1,000BC and 400 AD, translated many times with no explanation or qualification of those who wrote it appeal to anyone.

I was (barely) brought up Christian and in my teenage years/twenties I abandoned Christ(ianity) in an attempt to find God by other means. I found nothing satisfactory until I began to study Christianity for myself and I very quickly discovered that I actually had a very shallow understanding of Christianity. I can honestly say that what I found was like finding an amazing treasure chest (just like the guy in scripture who found the pearl of great value). The word of Jesus in the bible struck at the very core of my soul and I knew I had found the truth about God at last.

Schumacher1 wrote: »

1 billion christians

It actually over 2 billion, half of which are Catholics.

Schumacher1 wrote: »

If there was a God who was Omnipetent he wouldn't give a toss what we would get up to.

That's nothing more than an opinion. It certainly seemed to matter to God since He sent His only Son to die for our sins!

Schumacher1 wrote: »

Our Universe has billions of planets with billions of billions of life forms on them.

Again, you're guessing here.

Schumacher1 wrote: »

Belief in religon is holding us back.

It hasn't held me back! Mfa faith has made great positive changes to my life! Thanks be to God!

Overheal

Joe1919 wrote: »

This also led St. Justin to state that Those who live according to reason are Christians, even though they are thought to be atheists.
His reasoning is that to live according to reason is the same as living according to God.

Thats one of the most half-baked theories I've heard in a good while.

philologos

I think the OP has misunderstood the writer.

I think what Justin the Martyr was saying was living according to reason is the same as living according to God. As in if you do not live according to God you are not living according to reason.

As for Christians, I think you need to distinguish between Christians (as a whole) and Catholics (as a denomination) if you are talking about Papal Bulls. The Pope isn't of authority to me, he might give good advice, but to non-Catholics thats how we see him.

As for the immortality of the human soul, read 1 Corinthians 15. No pope had anything to do with it. They were merely confirming what the Bible had said.

Joe1919

Overheal wrote: »

Thats one of the most half-baked theories I've heard in a good while.

But St. Justin lived around 100-160 AD and hence was closer to the real origins of Christianity, before Christianity was combined with the political systems and hence I think his thought is purer than many those that came after him. He is an official Saint of the church (feastday 1 June) He was willing to acknowledge that non-Christian philosophers could be saved. I have enclosed a link to his writings and take note of the commentary 'This remarkable passage on the salvability and accountability of the heathen is noteworthy.'
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.xlvi.html
St Justin is the patron saint of Lecturers.
There is hope for us all yet! (as many lecturers are heathens)

philologos

Joe1919: He's not pure if he says that non-Christians can be saved. That goes against the teachings of Jesus Himself.

Joe1919

Jakkass wrote: »

Joe1919: He's not pure if he says that non-Christians can be saved. That goes against the teachings of Jesus Himself.

But St. Justin, because he lived relatively shortly after the incarnation was arguing that those who lived before Jesus and hence could not be called Christian would have to be saved. An example, of course, was Socrates, who was put to death about 400 years before Jesus in vaguely similar circumstances. Indeed, sceptics could argue that Jesus death has so many similaraties to Socrates death that it must be the case that Socrates is in heaven. But Socrates was a heathen.

Of course, it can be speculated that many of the earlier Saints were neo-Platonists and that Socrates death was as influencial as Jesus death in early christianity.
Indeed, much of the Christian thinking on the soul seems to be influenced by Plato and his Phaedo, the last days of Socrates.

philologos

Those who followed God before Jesus yes they were justified through their faith in Him. This refers to the Jews and others who had faith in God before Jesus arrived on earth. However those who reject Him were never going to be saved.

Joe1919

Jakkass wrote: »

Those who followed God before Jesus yes they were justified through their faith in Him. This refers to the Jews and others who had faith in God before Jesus arrived on earth. However those who reject Him were never going to be saved.

But it may be that the Atheist does not reject God but does not know God.

thebouldwhacker

So god, the father, son & holyspirit, who created everything & everyone, flawless by its very design as we are in the image of god, will be sent to eternal damnation because missionaries arent doing a good enough job of spreading the good word? sounds like someone needs to get to work!!

Sorry for being lighthearted but that is the reality of the argument!!

god, who loves everyone, knows how many hairs are on your head is willing to put your eternal soul, which he created in the first place, into eternal hell fire because no body told them about Jesus.

People born with severe disabilities who can not communicate, off to hell.
Children who die before they embrace jesus, off to hell
children who were brought up by their parents in a non christian way, off to hell
Old people who die with varying forms of demintia, off to hell
People who for whatever reason are angry at their church and due to the actions and influence of others lose their faith, off to hell
The list is endless, all children of god, all loved beyond words, all off to hell!

This is the wishes of jesus? this is christianity?

Joe1919

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Children who die before they embrace jesus, off to hell

I think you are right.

Certainly Saint Augustine held that unbaptised Children would suffer hell.
'This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (Of Sin and Merit I.21; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

My interest here is mainly historical and it appears that different views were held at different times.
If we take the most pessismistic view, taken into account the percentage christians etc its probably the case that far more people end up in hell than in heaven according to some christian teaching.
Indeed this is one of the arguments that Lucretius puts forward in support of atheism, the aetheist has no fear of the Gods .

thebouldwhacker

Joe1919 wrote: »

taken into account the percentage christians etc its probably the case that far more people end up in hell than in heaven according to some christian teaching.

Kinda smacks more of religious marketing than the wishes of an ever lasting all loving god. baptise and believe or you'll burn in hell, doesnt matter if you are a good person, you burn... but first you gotta pay to pray!

Morbert

To the OP: Christians believe Jesus is the son of God. Atheists do not believe this. So atheists are not Christians.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think what Justin the Martyr was saying was living according to reason is the same as living according to God. As in if you do not live according to God you are not living according to reason.

Atheists do not hold on to the assumption that reason is a part of God, so we predictably disagree.

Morbert

kelly1 wrote:

If think the rejection of God is actually insane.

I am assuming the first word in the above quote is "I" not "If". If that's not the case then I've misunderstood.

Anyway, why do you believe the rejection of God is actually insane? You presumably believe God exists. I don't. We both have our reasons. But why is my position an insane position?

hiorta

JimiTime wrote: »

No. I did it to reveal that your post was merely a statement of your specific opinion rather than the 'matter of fact' way that you presented it. I think it was very coherent.

Of course my posts are my opinions, formed by my own views and from my own experiences of Life. As I grow, I'd hope the opinions modify in light of this. Mental and Spiritual evolution, in fact.

Is that sufficient reason for you to tamper with my post?

I'd suggest that all other posts are opinions too, unless someone other than yourself has formed your own for you.

It's the way of the world.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

Atheists do not hold on to the assumption that reason is a part of God, so we predictably disagree.

It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree on whether reason is of God or not. It is whether or not the author actually intended it that way or not that is actually important and it is why the OP is mistaken.

hiorta

If the quote attribured to St. Justin is accurate (by the way who decides on whether someone is a 'saint' - God or Man?) then the reverse is also true - A Christian who lives by reason is an Atheist and not a Christian.

philologos

hiorta wrote: »

If the quote attribured to St. Justin is accurate (by the way who decides on whether someone is a 'saint' - God or Man?) then the reverse is also true - A Christian who lives by reason is an Atheist and not a Christian.

I agree with you on the saint part. During the time of Paul the Apostle, the entire Christian community were referred to as the "saints". As time went on being a saint meant that you were an esteemed Christian of some form. I don't think that is the proper use however.

The second part is just absurd though but then again I think the OP's interpretation of the quote is absurd also.

Joe1919

I will rephrase this question and it is an everyday question that some Christians may worry about. Suppose you are a Christian and you believe in heaven and hell. Now suppose you have somone you love, say your child , who is an athiest but is also a very good and reasonable person. What do you believe will happen to your Child when he/she dies. Does your child burn in hell?

Now, I am saying that some solace can be got if one interprets St. Justines first Apology, Chapter 46 in a certain way, i.e. That God is the Truth and the Word and reason itself and that although your child has rejected God, he has not rejected the Truth and the Word and therefore there is hope for your child.
I accept that St. Justin wrote this in the context of those who had come before Christianity but I can not see why the same arguments can not be extended to cover this situation today.
Anyhow, the text is genuine and here is another version. http://books.google.ie/books?id=7moMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=st+justin+martyr&lr=#PPA35,M1 (scroll back to previous page).

Translation vary accord to the Latin but this version states 'that those who lived according to reason are Christian, even though accounted Athiest.'

I am very happy with St. Justin and I think his writings can give hope to people who have concerns about the religious beliefs of their loved ones.

I also think that because St. Justin was a very early churh father, his writings are purer in terms of being closer to the original Christian faith.

PDN

Joe1919 wrote: »

I also think that because St. Justin was a very early churh father, his writings are purer in terms of being closer to the original Christian faith.

So would you agree that earlier Christian writings (eg Paul's eppistles or the Gospels) are more pure?

Joe1919

PDN wrote: »

So would you agree that earlier Christian writings (eg Paul's eppistles or the Gospels) are more pure?

I think I appreciate and understand what you are asking in terms of the bible itself being nearer to the source as such but the point that I am making is that there are differences in Christian interpretation, especially between Eastern Greek traditions and Western Roman (Latin). Indeed, was there not a divide or schism sometime later.
I do think the dates have relevance. St Justin lived around 100-160, St. Augustine around 500 or so, St Thomas around 1250.
However, I'm not putting forward an absolute argument as such, I just saying that opinion varies, even among the Saints and that it would seem that Christian views change at different times and at different places.
Irelands own particular version of Catholicism, in terms of pratice, for example, can be argued to have come into existence or to have changed since 1800-1850 and especially since ArchBishop Paul Cullen returned from Rome and cleaned up the Irish church and sacked a few bishops, according to many historians. Prior to this, the Irish had much more pagan pratices in terms of pattern days, holy well etc. Indeed Oscar Wildes father famously criticised Irish Catholicism for becoming more protestant. See for example http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eich_01/eich_01_00102.html

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree on whether reason is of God or not. It is whether or not the author actually intended it that way or not that is actually important and it is why the OP is mistaken.

Both the OP and Justin are mistaken. Reasonable atheists are not Christian, and atheists are not necessarily unreasonable. Both points are relevant to the topic.

Húrin

OP: Atheists, no matter how reasonable, are not Christians.

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

What about someone who lives their life within christian values but doesnt believe in god, nothing but atoms... no creator of anykind that would fit into any religion but seeks the truth through pure science?

Science and religion are not opposites. Nobody works by purely science, since science does not prescribe ethics to live by, nor does it provide Christian values. Yet most people seem to have ethical ideals that they "live up to" with varying degrees of success.

Joe1919 wrote: »

I will rephrase this question and it is an everyday question that some Christians may worry about. Suppose you are a Christian and you believe in heaven and hell. Now suppose you have somone you love, say your child , who is an athiest but is also a very good and reasonable person. What do you believe will happen to your Child when he/she dies. Does your child burn in hell?....


Translation vary accord to the Latin but this version states 'that those who lived according to reason are Christian, even though accounted Athiest.'

The past tense is very important here. Justin was speculating that those who did not get to hear the revelation of Christ still have hope of salvation on resurrection day. But those who have had the opportunity to hear of Christ, and have rejected him, will not be saved no matter how reasonable they seem.

Morbert wrote: »

I am assuming the first word in the above quote is "I" not "If". If that's not the case then I've misunderstood.

Anyway, why do you believe the rejection of God is actually insane? You presumably believe God exists. I don't. We both have our reasons. But why is my position an insane position?

I agree Morbert. It's ridiculous for Kelly1 to call people who disagree with him insane. I think that God does not intend for all people to be saved, so of course some will never believe in him.

Joe1919

Húrin wrote: »

OP: Atheists, no matter how reasonable, are not Christians.

The past tense is very important here. Justin was speculating that those who did not get to hear the revelation of Christ still have hope of salvation on resurrection day. But those who have had the opportunity to hear of Christ, and have rejected him, will not be saved no matter how reasonable they seem.

.

But what about people who are, say, born in the some remote part of the World and never really get an opportunity to hear about Christ. Will they be saved?

And who actually interperts these Saints anyhow. I'm reading a lot at the moment about Greek Orthodox Christians and thet have a different concept of Hell to Western (Latin) Christians. Is it not the case that 'Christians' as a group contain many different species of Christian within this group and interpert writing differently.

So I think the mother in my example could have faith in St. Justin and the mercy of God.

phelixoflaherty

In the beginning was the pun

Húrin

Joe1919 wrote: »

But what about people who are, say, born in the some remote part of the World and never really get an opportunity to hear about Christ. Will they be saved?

I don't think we can know from the Bible. Justin might have speculated that if they were reasonable then they might be saved.

And who actually interperts these Saints anyhow. I'm reading a lot at the moment about Greek Orthodox Christians and thet have a different concept of Hell to Western (Latin) Christians. Is it not the case that 'Christians' as a group contain many different species of Christian within this group and interpert writing differently.

So I think the mother in my example could have faith in St. Justin and the mercy of God.

Yes Christianity is diverse. I don't believe in hell at all.
But all Christians follow the teaching of Jesus as recorded in the four gospels. He taught that those who accept him will be saved and those who reject him will not be saved, no matter how much a human may wish it. If it is the law of God I don't see why a human's wish should matter.

Overheal

Jakkass wrote: »

Joe1919: He's not pure if he says that non-Christians can be saved. That goes against the teachings of Jesus Himself.

Then what are Evangelicals doing? Im going to assume St. Justin meant they can be saved via Conversion.

Joe1919

Overheal wrote: »

Then what are Evangelicals doing? Im going to assume St. Justin meant they can be saved via Conversion.

St. Justin argument seems to be in the context of ' were there Christians before Christ ?'. If you Google this, you will see its a valid and controversal question among Christians.
However, I would extend this question further. St. Justin was interesting in that he was a philosoper and many philosophers see God as the' Logos ' or 'Word', the intelligence and 'Truth' behind everything and pagan philosophers such as Aristotle (who was held in very high esteem by Aquinas) had a huge influence on Christianity.
The argument can be made that philosophic contemplation is of equal value to Christian meditation and any person who persue and lives by the Logos,( i.e. living a good life according to reason) is living a life of equal value to the Christian and is indeed a Christian from the spiritual point of view.

I accept that many Christian 'authorities' may have a problem with this but can we trust these authorities. Most established religion, after all, lay claim that their particular version of Christianity is right and the others are wrong.

But can there not be a 'personal' Christianity, my own organic version, that grows in my own heart, once its reasonable or according to the 'Logos'.

Indeed, is it not the case (according to Greek Orthodox) that the'Logos' is greater than Christ, that the spirit can only come from the Father. Christ is the 'Son of the Logos', the incarnated flesh of the 'Logos'.
(Filioque controversy ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque_clause

Finally, I am discussing this question, in a forum called 'Christianity' so I presume that most contributers see that there are different ideas of Christianity to the particular one that they hold. Is Christianity black and white?

philologos

Overheal wrote: »

Then what are Evangelicals doing? Im going to assume St. Justin meant they can be saved via Conversion.

Let me clarify:
If you remain a non-Christian until death, you cannot be saved. You have to be baptised into the saving death of Jesus Christ, and to be risen to new life with him through baptism (Romans 6). If you haven't done this, there cannot be any salvation.

Overheal

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me clarify:
If you remain a non-Christian until death, you cannot be saved. You have to be baptised into the saving death of Jesus Christ, and to be risen to new life with him through baptism (Romans 6). If you haven't done this, there cannot be any salvation.

Oh no, I get that concept, but is that what St. Justin is on about, or is he on about something completely different?

PDN

Overheal wrote: »

Oh no, I get that concept, but is that what St. Justin is on about, or is he on about something completely different?

No, I think the OP has misunderstood Justin somewhat. His teaching is recognised as being somewhat confused and even contradictory at times. He was a philosopher before his salvation and continued to wear his philosopher's gown to show that, in becoming a Christian, he had attained to true philosophical truth (so he would have agreed with George W Bush that Jesus was his favourite pghilosopher).

It is significant that Justin is remembered as Justin Martyr - in other words the Church recognised him primarily for getting himself killed rather than for his teachings.

His view on those who knew and rejected the facts of the Gospel is clear and unambiguous. In fact he even denied the right of people to be called Christians if they rejected the Jewish Scriptures and the future resurrection: "For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians."

What Justin was probably saying about the logos was that true philosophy borrowed all its best stuff from the Old Testament (I believe that, historically, he was wrong about this). Therefore philosophers who studied the philsophical concept of the logos were, without realising it, actualy honouring and venerating Christ.

Joe1919

Hi All.
Thanks for your replies so far. Some of your replies have been worth thinking about. I hope you dont think I'm being provactive in my questions. I think the question is significant.
Anyhow, I believe next year will be the 400 anniversity of the death of that great missioner, Matteo Ricci, SJ , who, I think, had to grapple with this problem, in his missionary work in China and this led him into controversity. Was he too tolerant to Confucion beliefs? If in his missionary preaching he says that 'you can only be saved by being Baptised, what about that persons ancestors and family who are not converting or are dead? Does this mean that they are lost?
Matteo Ricci had to deal with this on a pratical level and not just in theory and in an attempt to do this, tried to blend Confuciusism with Christianity.
http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-3/chapter_xi__the_attempt_of_matte.htm

Anyhow, I intent to look further in Ricci and would appreciate anyone who has any suggestions to make.

Seoid

Have you looked at Karl Rahner and his idea of Anonymous Christianity?

This seems to me to be similar and to build on Justin's ideas as the idea of Anonymous Christianity is that a person can be saved by and through Jesus although they may never have heard of him or of God.

He was a 20th Century Catholic theologian and very influential in the 2nd Vatican Council.