Thursday, February 20, 2020

Bishop Barron's inclusivism

Ben Shapiro asks Bishop Robert Barron about salvation according to Catholicism. I don't recall Shapiro asking William Lane Craig or Ravi Zacharias this question, but it's possible I missed it. Shapiro may have asked John MacArthur, but I didn't watch that episode.

What’s the Catholic view on who gets into heaven and who doesn’t? I feel like I lead a pretty good life - a very religiously based life - in which I try to keep, not just the ten commandments, but a solid 603 other commandments as well. And I spend an awful lot of my time promulgating what I would consider to be Judeo-Christian virtues, particularly in Western societies. So, what’s the Catholic view of me? Am I basically screwed here?

No surprise Barron gives a terribly unbiblical response:

No. The Catholic view - go back to the Second Vatican Council - says it very clearly. I mean Christ is the privileged route to salvation. "God so loved the world he gave his only Son that we might find eternal life." So that’s the privileged route.

However, Vatican II clearly teaches that someone outside the explicit Christian faith can be saved. Now, they’re saved through the grace of Christ, indirectly received. So the grace is coming from Christ. But it might be received according to your conscience. So if you’re following your conscience sincerely - or in your case you’re following the commandments of the law sincerely - yeah, you can be saved.

Now, that doesn’t conduce to a complete relativism. We still would say the privileged route - the route that God has offered to humanity - is the route of his Son.

But, no, you can be saved. Even Vatican II says an atheist of good will can be saved, because in following his conscience, if he does - John Henry Newman said the conscience is "the aboriginal vicar of Christ in the soul" (it's a very interesting characterization) - it is, in fact, the voice of Christ if he is the Logos made flesh, right? He's the divine mind or reason made flesh. So when I'm following my conscience I'm following him, whether I know it explicitly or not. So even the atheist, Vatican II teaches, "of good will", can be saved.

Just a brief response for now:

1. Why bother becoming a Catholic if what Barron says is true. Heck, why bother becoming a theist if what Barron says is true.

2. Barron equivocates between "following one's conscience" and "following the commandments of the law". The two aren't necessarily the same. Especially if we're referring to the 613 commandments in rabbinic Judaism. It's not as if a non-Jew's conscience (however "intact" it may be) would necessarily tell him to follow kosher laws, observe Shabbat, and wear a tallit with tzitzit.

At best, I think, conscience might coincide with the Noahide laws, but even that's hardly a given. Does a pagan's conscience necessarily tell them not to worship an idol? Doesn't a good Buddhist (Mahayana) think he's doing right by his conscience in what he does for Buddha? Doesn't a good Muslim have a clear conscience when worshiping Allah? Yet post-Vatican II Catholicism even accepts that good people in other religions can be saved.

Or take the prohibition against murder. One could be a good communist who believes murder is wrong, but who doesn't consider killing the bourgeoisie "murder". One could be a modern American progressive Catholic who believes murder is wrong, but who doesn't think abortion is murder. That's not what their conscience tells them.

3. Perhaps Barron would reply these people have a seared conscience. A good conscience would have to align with biblical morality. But how far does that go? Wouldn't a Catholic in Barron's vein accept that worshiping a false god could somehow be done unto the true God? Similar to how Emeth in The Last Battle worshiped Tash. Yet biblical ethics would say that'd be a clear violation of the ten commandments.

4. I don't follow how Christ being the Word (Logos) made flesh means our conscience is "the voice of Christ". I don't doubt God could well speak to us through our conscience. I could even agree with Barron's conclusion that a good conscience is God's voice. However I don't see what this has to do with Christ being the Logos.

5. Of course, much turns on the phrase "of good will". What does that mean exactly? Who decides? I suspect much of this turns on Catholic natural law. All this would suggest severe faultlines in Catholic inclusivist soteriology, but I'd have to do a lengthier post about all this.

7 comments:

  1. --Wouldn't a Catholic in Barron's vein accept that worshiping a false god could somehow be done unto the true God? Similar to how Emeth in The Last Battle worshiped Tash.--

    I have always wondered about that part, but not yet taken the time to look it up. Does Aslan's quote about "Those who follow Tash but do good actually follow me / and vice versa" accurately reflect CS Lewis' view on the matter?
    --Wouldn't a Catholic in Barron's vein accept that worshiping a false god could somehow be done unto the true God? Similar to how Emeth in The Last Battle worshiped Tash.--

    I have always wondered about that part, but not yet taken the time to look it up. Does Aslan's quote about "Those who follow Tash but do good actually follow me / and vice versa" accurately reflect CS Lewis' view on the matter?

    I do know that the later scene in the book of the dwarves being in a prison of their own mind IS a metaphor for Lewis' quote of 'the gates of hell are locked from the inside'.
    I do know that the later scene in the book of the dwarves being in a prison of their own mind IS a metaphor for Lewis' quote of 'the gates of hell are locked from the inside'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Scott, thanks for your comment! I was originally going to reply here, but my reply got away from me, so I hope you don't mind that I turned it into a lengthier post:

      https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/02/noble-pagans.html

      Delete
  2. I'm not certain about this, but I also think the Roman Catholic position excludes from salvation ex-catholics who now worship in a Protestant tradition. Therefore, given the topic above, a person could deny the deity of Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice and still be saved by Jesus because of his clear conscience. But, a man who believes in Jesus Christ as God and Savior with a clear conscience, (I'm thinking of Luther's stance and famous declaration), cannot be saved. The views are inconsistent if I have rightly summarized them.

    I think traditionalists typically draw the line of culpability at sufficient knowledge. Does one have sufficient knowledge of who Jesus Christ is, and yet still reject Him, and by association the "church He founded?" If yes, they cannot be saved. That is a little more consistent, but that does not at all seem to be the position Bishop Barron is advancing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, NG! That's very interesting if true. As an ex-Catholic myself, I do recall I got into a heated debate with two Catholics at a Barnes & Noble. This included a Catholic seminarian who abruptly ended the debate with me by telling me I needed to "return to [my] baptism" (or words to that effect). It's as if they felt I was a traitor like Judas Iscariot.

      Delete
  3. Barron seems even more liberal than Vatican II (or at least the general approach of V2).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Steve Jackson! That could well be the case. To be fair, it's possible Barron has to toe the line to some degree because Francis is the pope, and because many other Catholic clergy are quite liberal. However, like you said, it's also quite possible Barron is truly more liberal or progressive at heart out of his own convictions.

      Delete
  4. If there is more than one way to heaven, then Jesus Christ must be a liar and Christianity also a false religion (John 14:6). Matters are that simple. Yet, Robert Barron unabashedly gives a false gospel presentation to Ben Shapiro. Disgusting!

    ReplyDelete