Hi All,

I am doing a mini-Thesis for my BTh(hons)degree. It is on interfaith dialogue, and I am having some trouble understanding the relationship between dialogue and proclamation.

I get that they are both important, but on the practical level, how do we do both.

Are we dialoging with the hope of proclaming with the hope of conversion?

Or has the church changed it's position on the need for conversion since vatican 2.

I mean, if salvation is available outside of the catholic church and outside of the larger Christian body, then why would we want or need others to become Christian?

Is it just a matter of moving into a better and fuller revelation and experience of relationship with God. That would be better, but not neccassarily vital for salvation?

I mean, if salvation is available outside of the catholic church and outside of the larger Christian body, then why would we want or need others to become Christian?

Is it just a matter of moving into a better and fuller revelation and experience of relationship with God. That would be better, but not neccassarily vital for salvation?

Yes to the last paragraph, for sure. And just to clarify . . . the Catholic Church in its teaching that people from other religions can be saved isn't denying that it is Jesus who saves them, only that they don't necessarily need to be a professing member of a Christian Church for him to do so. IOW, Jesus' salvific work extends beyond Christendom, and many there are who relate to him via a kind of "implicit faith," which the Church finds sufficient for salvation for those who lack opportunities to develop a more "explicit faith" relationship with him (which is definitely the better way).

Try using this board's search link for "implicit faith" to find other discussions we've had on this topic. Maybe some of those will be clarifying as well.

Will do Phil,

maybe you could help me with one question that I do have about this.

Does this "implicit faith" come into jeopardy when the Gospel is preached and rejected by those of other faiths?

I mean, it is one thing to not profess Christ and still have a salvific "implicit faith", but to perhaps have had some sort of implicit faith and then to outright reject the Gospel when preached, it seems this would be a rejection of the Father as described by Jesus.

Jacques, have you heard people�s testimony of Christ from non-Christ based religions? These people have usually never heard about Christ or have heard a distorted version of Christ. These are the kind of people who have �implicit faith�. I believe this people who have implicit faith don�t reject gospel they gradually come to explicit faith. Christ surely lead them to his body (Church). A testimony of sister Gulshan Esther is a good example http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...19?v=glance&n=283155

But do you think this is always the case Grace,

If a person has "implicit faith" and the are given a more complete revelation of Christ, will they always accept it.

On the subject of dialogue and proclamation, at what stage should dialogue turn into proclamation or are the two mixed together in a way that is not seperable. I am just struggling with whether my dialogue with a buddhist or hindu should desire an open acceptance of Christ. Because surely we want this for all people, surely implicit faith, while it may be salvific, isnt' all that Jesus has for a person.

quote:

Originally posted by Jacques:
[qb]

Does this "implicit faith" come into jeopardy when the Gospel is preached and rejected by those of other faiths?

I mean, it is one thing to not profess Christ and still have a salvific "implicit faith", but to perhaps have had some sort of implicit faith and then to outright reject the Gospel when preached, it seems this would be a rejection of the Father as described by Jesus. [/qb]

Jacques, the assumption behind the implicit faith/baptism of desire teaching is that a person would come to explicit faith and baptism if they were to hear the Gospel in a manner they could receive (e.g., good preaching and teaching . . . not forced down their throat). If one were to reject the Gospel, then, I think we could say that implicit faith wasn't really there in the first place. I know that's a question-begging answer, but it's how the teaching has been nuanced.

Thanks Phil,

That helps a lot.

Phil,

I found a previous post where you guys were discussing implicit faith, and you made the statement that implicit faith would still exist in a person who has rejected explicit faith for whatever reason and yet continues to live out the love of God? (Those were not your exact words, but something to that effect).

Hmmm. I don't know what exactly I said there, Jacques, but the rejection of an opportunity for explicit faith would invalidate the existence of implicit faith. Of course, that opportunity needs to be credible, and only God can really judge if that's the case. Maybe that's what I had in mind; I don't know what quote you're referring to.

Ok, thanks again Phil