IceMobster wrote:If a person that has never heard about Christianity (what Thomas refers to as ignorantia invincibilis) stands trialed in front of God (ignore the Romans passage saying God's deeds can be seen everywhere and "anywhen" -- forgot which passage it is), will it be judged only on its deeds/works or? Because, if it gets judged by both faith and works, the person will probably end up in hell.
Furthermore, we could put into the same category some Asian whose religion makes more sense to him (simply because he was raised in it, his parents taught him into it). So, when missionaries come or he hears about Christianity from some other source, bias towards his own set of believes or way of thinking will probably outweight any words the missionary has to say.
So, that person knows of Christianity but refuses to believe its truths (or the Truth) it ends up in hell no matter his deeds, correct?
Actually, you can't ignore that passage (it's in Romans 1, by the way), because never hearing of Christ is not the same thing as being invincibly ignorant. For Thomas, you are culpable for the revelation you
have received. A person who is
truly ignorant and invincibly so would have no access to the revelation of God--say a person with significant mental defects.
To quote him directly on the matter:
- I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.
The problem with Asian religions is that they tend to be idolatrous in nature (whether they think that certain parts of earth, or the creation itself, actually are God(s) or else they worship images of parts of nature as representatives of God). As such, they necessarily deny what they are obligated to know and can, in fact, know about Him. In Paul's words, though the truth of His nature is plain to them, they suppress the truth. They, then, are not invincibly ignorant. Now, you can argue that the moral culpability of some is reduced, that some through the study of their own religion bear the weight of their own sin more than those who are forbidden such study. The sin of the latter would not be invincible and would certainly be of a different nature, but, again, you could argue that their bear a lesser guilt than the leaders whom they follow into darkness. But none of that absolves any of them of their guilt at all.
Just food for thought.
edit:
For follow up, so I don't think your problem with Christianity appropriately represents Christianity, insofar as you are operating from different assumptions and premises than our faith. You may do so, of course, but if your assumptions are wrong and that of Christianity is correct, then you've offered no argument against our position at all. And the general stance you seem to be arguing from--or at least your perception of the Christian position based on your assumed stance--is that human beings are in some ways analogous to consumers, whereby we are offered a suite of products, and if we pick the right one (by study or tradition or revelation or happenstance) we are rewarded with heaven but if we pick the wrong one (for whatever reason) we go to Hell.
But that's not an accurate representation at all. The Christian position starts with an assertion: all human beings sin. None of us have a heart inclined to God. Rather than seeking His will (or even His nature, for that matter), we are more interested in our own wills and seek to construct gods and religions that conform to, support, and promote our own agendas. But those agendas are evil. Yet it is not God who has created us to be evil. It's simply a historical point of fact that we so conduct ourselves. Now God calls
all people. Some of those people respond to the revelation He has given. Some don't. Some stifle that correction and insist on their own way, suppressing the truth. Some respond to part of the revelation but then, when God's voice bumps against some deeply held value, they suppress
that portion of truth. And so some incorporate more parts of God's voice into their religions or theological and spiritual and some incorporate less. In the end, the ones who are saved are those who respond to the call of God. Specifically, God's final revelation is His Son Jesus Christ. Those who trust in Him are saved. Those who reject Him have rejected God because they have rejected God's voice in preference for their own. As CS Lewis said, God is the kind of God to whom you either say, "Thy will be done," or He says to you, "thy will be done." The latter is a terrifying thought!
We take it on faith, then, that all people are granted sufficient revelation to be saved. I hear many stories, to use an extreme example, of Muslims having visions of Jesus by which they are converted. So the sad fact that most people are not speaks more to human weakness and general wickedness than it does to any supposed lack of justice on God's part.