Talk:Anonymous Christian

Proposed merge

Well, usually when somebody proposes a merge, they start the discussion off with an explanation as to why they think it is necessary. I don't see that discussion here or elsewhere. So, I'll go ahead and start it here. I would oppose this merge. Theological Terms often have distinct nuiances. While I am not familiar with the term Virtuous pagan I am familiar with Anonymous Christian. Anonymous Christian appears to be a broader term, but is specific to the theology of Karl Rahner and the Catholic Church as it evolved out of Vatican II. Virtuous pagan has a slightly different meaning and is not quite the same. I think separate articles, that reference each other, is by far and away the best way to go. For example, here is a key difference, Virtuous pagan is about non-believers/non-Christians. Anonymous Christian includes Christians who are not Catholic. Another key difference is that the term pagan generally doesn't apply to the other major world religions, Anonymous Christian does. A third difference is the mechanism of salvation. Virtuous paganism places them in limbo until the return of Christ. Anonymous Christianity offers the possibility of salvation despite the persons never hearing or accepting the word "Christ." These are distinct theological concepts.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate this. The point is that the concept is the same in essence, and that both articles are very short. There would be no harm in combining them, and the content from "Anonymous Christian" would still be kept together in an "Anonymous Christian" section. I believe it would help put the information in context. Precisely your comparison of the two terms will only become possible in a merged article, or else it would have to be duplicated and occur in both. A merge suggestion does not imply that the two topics are identical, but simply that they would profit from being discussed in a single article. But it is not a big deal. --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an issue that I'm honestly going to get worked up on either way... but I just don't see it being merged. Basically, from a theological perspective, I would have a hard time putting "Anonymous Christian" as a sub-genre of Virtuous Pagan. Similarly, putting Virtuous Pagan as a category for Anonymous Christian would simply put be wrong. If one was a clear subset of the other, then I'd have no problem with the merge; as *I* see them as separate (yet similar) concepts, *I* see them as separate. Again, if others disagree and the consensus is otherwise, I'm not going to fight it... but, from a theological perspective, I think the two terms warrant separate articles.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Another reason why I oppose this merge is because it would be a synergism... if you do a google search for "Anonymous Christian" and "Virtuous Pagan" you find less than 40 hits. Almost every one of those 40 hits are wikipedia clones of the virtuous pagan page. In other words, despite their similarities, these two terms are not one's that are often used in conjunction with one another.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree with the merge. Though they may be thought to serve similar purposes or be employed for similar motivations, nonetheless these are distinctly different concepts. According to tradition, virtuous pagans are not in any way Christians nor are they already saved by the grace of Christ. To the contrary, they are consigned to either some level of hell, or limbo -- and must stay there either permanently or until Christ directly intervenes in a post-mortem experience. Anonymous Christians (acc. to Rahner) never go to hell or limbo at all and are already saved, in the here and now, by the grace of Christ. While I am not saying I personally endorse or deny either one of these doctrines, they certainly are different, and are not associated anywhere that I know of outside Wikipedia. To suggest they belong together would be a new academic thesis, a piece of original scholarship.---Tim Musgrove —Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Mere Christianity

In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis wrote, "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him." I rather think this passage is relevant, especially considering how influential Lewis's ideas have been. and should be quoted somewhere in the article. --BenMcLean (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anonymous Christian/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Good article. Somewhere in there it may be useful to reference or quote Romans 2:14-18 in which Paul himself suggests that for those to whom the law was not revealed their consciences become a law unto themselves, those very consciences which will accuse or excuse them on the last day. Several of the "References" links are broken. I'm not sure how to replace them, but someone may want to take a look at this. TheTsax (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anonymous Christian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184656/http://www.hartsem.edu/centers/markham_article1.htm to http://www.hartsem.edu/centers/markham_article1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)