Sola Scriptura

The John Ankerberg Show ^ | Feb.11,2015 | James McCarthy;

[metmom]

Preach it, sister.

Even Peter says this....

Acts 4:11-12 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Catholicism is not mentioned once in the NT. Retroactively claiming that the word *church* by default means *Catholic church* is just wishful thinking on the part of Catholics and nothing more than a power grab by Catholicism, trying to justifying it using Scripture.

Why someone would want to replace following Christ Himself for a man or organization is beyond me.

That I may gain Christ.......

[MeganC]

Amen!!!!! Your words INSTANTLY had this hymn in my mind...

And can it be that I should gain
An int’rest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain?
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! how can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! how can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

2
’Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies!
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
To sound the depths of love Divine!
’Tis mercy all! let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more.
’Tis mercy all! let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more.

3
He left His Father’s throne above,
So free, so infinite His grace;
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race:
’Tis mercy all, immense and free;
For, O my God, it found out me.
’Tis mercy all, immense and free;
For, O my God, it found out me.

4
Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray,
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

5
No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine!
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness Divine,
Bold I approach the eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach the eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

[BlueDragon]

Thank you for the kindly reply, but no, I did not miss the point, and I have already heard the case as you lay it out to be, but do not accept that the RCC is something of a (or should we say THE?) singular, infallible representative of God.

To reject the Church is akin to rejecting the ambassador of the King;

If you mean the Roman Catholic Church as being "the Church" I would say you could not be more wrong. For none need accept all which comes from RCC channels, in order to find salvation through Christ, which thing (salvation unto man, available to sinners) is the message from the King, not that and a whole bunch of other added on imaginings and byzantine theological twists and turns of rhetorical descriptions (and requirements).

In end result, as that posturing of the RCC in claiming for themselves to be that that alleged (and only) messenger, it turns their own words and teaching as to be surpassing even Scripture itself, becoming as viva voce, a 'whatever we say'.

Compare that to what has transpired down through history, portions of which are well enough and unmistakably not the ways of God Himself, but instead are the ways of the world and of (fallen) men.

If I had to accept those to be all one and the same then I would have to accept that God would be not be worthy of love and respect, and was a capricious untrustworthy God, instead of Himself being immutable and without variableness or shadow of turning.

James 1:17 (Young's Literal Translation)

every good giving, and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the lights, with whom is no variation, or shadow of turning;

[metmom]

I love that hymn.

[paladinan]

Catholicism is not mentioned once in the NT.

Oh, honestly...! Neither is Protestantism, Lutheranism, "altar calls", "the sinner's prayer", "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior", and hosts of other things to which you probably wouldn't object. Are you seriously objecting to the fact that the word "Catholic" isn't in the NT?

Retroactively claiming that the word *church* by default means *Catholic church* is just wishful thinking on the part of Catholics and nothing more than a power grab by Catholicism, trying to justifying it using Scripture.

I understand that that's your opinion. Your task, now, is to prove it, and not simply assert it (which is ironic, given that you're using it to accuse the Catholic Church of the same thing).

All other Christian groups can be traced to an origin which comes *centuries* after the time of the Apostles... except for the Catholic Church. Since Christ assured us that He would establish a Church, and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it, we can assume that His Church has perdured through 2000 years, and that all other, more recent, "churches" are not the original one built by Christ. That's one key reason why I think the Catholic Church is the true Church.

Re: St. Peter's proclamation in Acts 4: where, in the Catechism, can you find any teaching which suggests that anyone is saved by a Name OTHER than that of Christ? EVERYTHING comes from Christ--the intercessory power of the Saints, the authority of the Blessed Virgin (as Queen-Mother of the King of Kings), the intervention of St. Michael the Archangel, the authority of the keys to the Kingdom given to St. Peter. When you say that Christ is our only Savior, you're quoting the Catechism, though you may not know it (or like it).

You really need to attack the Catholic Church AS the Catholic Church, and not as a hodge-podge of fairy-tale stories which you may've inherited from anti-Catholic tracts, preachers, friends, etc.; anything else is just a straw man.

[paladinan]

Thank you for the kindly reply, but no, I did not miss the point, and I have already heard the case as you lay it out to be, but do not accept that the RCC is something of a (or should we say THE?) singular, infallible representative of God.

That WASN'T the point. The point was that you were accusing Catholics of "deifying" the Church, which is nonsense... and I showed HOW that was nonsense. The fact that you don't accept the Catholic claims is one thing; misrepresenting those claims at the outset is something else. You need to recognize the claims for what they ARE, rather than chase after distortions or canards.

[metmom]

Oh, honestly...! Neither is Protestantism, Lutheranism, "altar calls", "the sinner's prayer", "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior", and hosts of other things to which you probably wouldn't object. Are you seriously objecting to the fact that the word "Catholic" isn't in the NT?

Exactly. Which is why no one denomination can claim to be the one true church.

The church isn't organizations of governing structures. It's PEOPLE. Believers make up the body of Christ no matter where they worship nor what denomination they affiliate with.

There are believers and unbelievers in EVERY denomination or church building. The only thing that varies is the ratio within the congregation.

When you say that Christ is our only Savior, you're quoting the Catechism, though you may not know it (or like it).

No. I'm quoting Scripture. The fact that the CCC lifts some things from Scripture and says it as well is really irrelevant.

Its not like the Catholic church thought it up first.

I understand that that's your opinion. Your task, now, is to prove it, and not simply assert it (which is ironic, given that you're using it to accuse the Catholic Church of the same thing).

Well, when they condemn to hell anyone who doesn't agree with their statement of faith, then it's a power grab. They're hanging people's eternal destiny over their heads as a bargaining chip to force submission to Rome.

I don't see that anywhere in Scripture. Jesus told us to simply believe and that those who are His would NEVER be lost.

I can provide the Scripture for that if you'd like.

Re: St. Peter's proclamation in Acts 4: where, in the Catechism, can you find any teaching which suggests that anyone is saved by a Name OTHER than that of Christ? EVERYTHING comes from Christ--the intercessory power of the Saints, the authority of the Blessed Virgin (as Queen-Mother of the King of Kings), the intervention of St. Michael the Archangel, the authority of the keys to the Kingdom given to St. Peter. When you say that Christ is our only Savior, you're quoting the Catechism, though you may not know it (or like it).

I'm aware of what the CCC teaches on those topics.

I find no Scriptural warrant for any of it.

So since it's a Catholic thing and not a Scripture thing, it is not binding on the born again believer, only binding on Catholics who choose to submit to Rome.

[metmom]

That WASN'T the point. The point was that you were accusing Catholics of "deifying" the Church, which is nonsense... and I showed HOW that was nonsense. The fact that you don't accept the Catholic claims is one thing; misrepresenting those claims at the outset is something else. You need to recognize the claims for what they ARE, rather than chase after distortions or canards.

Claiming that the church can speak infallibly, has the power to forgive or not sin, that salvation is through it alone.....

Yes, that is deifying it. It is attributing to it characteristics of God.

[BlueDragon]

The point was that you were accusing Catholics of "deifying" the Church, which is nonsense...

Nonsense? What is more the "nonsense" is the denial that some Catholics do indeed deify the RCC, if but remotely, second-hand, and that be all they know of the Lord, having themselves never fully encountered Him.

Roman Catholics are not alone in this lacking...nor is that lack endemic to all [Roman] Catholics.

You need to recognize the claims for what they ARE, rather than chase after distortions or canards.

And you need to recognize the claims made by Rome circle right back around, right OUT OF the rhetorical limitations which acknowledge the differences between God Himself, and the Church itself, to then again be making those too often, far too interchangeable. (you could also apply the not chasing after canards and distortions requirement to those Roman Catholics whom make sweeping judgmental statements to be applied indiscriminately to so-called "protestants" -- but I won't hold my breath that you will be even-handed in your overall approach and ensuant presentations and argument on this forum).

The statement "to reject the Church" (the RCC, that is) is to reject God Himself" is an example of the circular nature of the assertion(s).

We are not Him.

And He is not us

even though His Spirit can dwell within us, and even then Himself give unto His people, those whom know Him, and those who are still seeking Him -- their own times of visitation.

John 14

15 “If you love Me, keep^[d] My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

^[d]John 14:15 NU-Text reads you will keep.

That's one interesting footnote.

The older texts indicate you will, which sings out to me as being different than "you must" or "you must do these things to SHOW (God) how much you love Him"...but rather you will rather more naturally, as a matter of course...

Such is Love, no?

Do you know of the past centuries controversy in regards to the Filioque?

The controversy then did not assert that the Spirit 'proceeded' from the Church, or any particular ecclesiastical body or community within the (truly Universal) Church.

Nor was it ever taught in earliest times the Spirit would be funneled and/or channeled to the members and body only through those (to yet others) whom are in full agreement with whatever viva voce claimants later arise, claiming for themselves to be the unquestionable authority of a one-and-only Church those then saying what the teachings of Christ are...and that all must accept their premises, even when those conflict with what was more originally taught. Men are by and large untrustworthy, having proved themselves to be so again and again, both within and outside of "the church".

Let us listen to Christ instead.

For those who teach and do as He did, then those can be known as the [adopted] sons and daughters.

None other need apply? (but those whom are called out to repent, need do so, as best they can, for whatever it may be that does not conform to the image and likeness of the Son)

John 6

43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’^[e] Therefore everyone who has heard and learned ^[f] from the Father comes to Me.

[e] John 6:45 Isaiah 54:13

[f] John 6:45 M-Text reads hears and has learned.

[BlueDragon]

Thanks.

You put things succinctly. That's most often better.

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
Oh, honestly...! Neither is Protestantism, Lutheranism, "altar calls", "the sinner's prayer", "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior", and hosts of other things to which you probably wouldn't object. Are you seriously objecting to the fact that the word "Catholic" isn't in the NT?

[metmom]
Exactly. Which is why no one denomination can claim to be the one true church.

How on earth does *that* follow? All it proves is that the idea of "if it isn't in the Bible, there's no reason to believe it" doesn't work.

The church isn't organizations of governing structures. It's PEOPLE.

You're setting up a false dichotomy, based on your personal preferences (i.e. your distaste for hierarchies, at least in the context of religion); the Church is both/and. It has a structure, AND it's made of people; there's no reason to force an "either/or" choice.

Believers make up the body of Christ no matter where they worship nor what denomination they affiliate with.

On the one hand, I agree with you (in a sense); on the other hand, the Church cannot POSSIBLY be reduced to a loose collection of "all believers in Jesus", since those very members believe contradictory things... and logic itself demands that two contradictory things cannot both be true at the same time; at least one must be wrong, and it'd be irresponsible to bury our heads in the sand by ignoring those differences (especially when they deal with matters of salvation and damnation). If the Seventh Day Adventists are correct, then you and I are going to hell for worshipping on Sunday (isn't damnation important?)... so we'd better be pretty sure that they're NOT correct, yes? That can't happen if you take a sort of "Oh, we're all believers in Jesus, so we're all the Church!" approach.

There are believers and unbelievers in EVERY denomination or church building. The only thing that varies is the ratio within the congregation.

That's likely to be true... but that doesn't change the fact that certain things about God are true, certain beliefs are necessary, and certain things can damn us to eternal flames. It would behoove us to know what they are, and to be sure of our answer (and to be sure on a basis stronger than "I feel it, deep in my soul", or "Of course it's true... how stupid to suggest otherwise")!

[paladinan]
When you say that Christ is our only Savior, you're quoting the Catechism, though you may not know it (or like it).

[metmom]
No. I'm quoting Scripture. The fact that the CCC lifts some things from Scripture and says it as well is really irrelevant.

My point was that you have a mistaken notion of "only non-Catholics think that Jesus is their Savior", as if you have some sort of copyright on the idea. The Catholic Church had that fact, 500 years before Protestantism was a twinkle in the eyes of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.

Its not like the Catholic church thought it up first.

No, GOD though it up first; but the Catholic Church RECEIVED it first.

[paladinan]
I understand that that's your opinion. Your task, now, is to prove it, and not simply assert it (which is ironic, given that you're using it to accuse the Catholic Church of the same thing).

[metmom]
Well, when they condemn to hell anyone who doesn't agree with their statement of faith, then it's a power grab.

So... when you condemn people to hell for not agreeing with YOUR statement of faith (i.e. that someone needs to believe on Jesus to be saved), is that a power-grab? I don't think so; I think that you are merely passing on (and rightfully so) a truth which God originally revealed. That's not "power-grab"--that's simple obedience to what God asks of us. The same is true for the Catholic Church; She only hands on what She has been given by God. I understand that you don't believe this; but you have no basis, whatsoever, for assuming base and corrupt MOTIVES for the Church passing on what She does, any more than I would have any basis for assuming that you're (as a hypothetical) simply a scare-monger whose self-esteem is bolstered by "collecting scalps/converts". Do you see my point? Disagree with the Church if you must, but do not assign corrupt motives to Her if you can't pass the same standard!

They're hanging people's eternal destiny over their heads as a bargaining chip to force submission to Rome.

As opposed to earnestly warning people of what they need to do to avoid hell, because She loves them and doesn't want them damned? Why are you so ungenerous when the Church warns away from hell, but you give yourself (and those who agree with you) a free pass? This is bias on your part, pure and simple.

I don't see that anywhere in Scripture.

Does this mean that you're ready to prove "sola Scriptura"? Given that loads of people on this forum have accused me of constructing "straw men" whenever I suggest that you hold to an "if it's not in the Bible, don't believe it" idea, do you see why statements like this (of yours) give me that idea? SO WHAT if it isn't explicitly in your 66-book version of the Bible? What difference does that make? I really want to know your answer; this isn't a rhetorical question!

Jesus told us to simply believe and that those who are His would NEVER be lost.

Jesus said a good deal more than that. He said that those who do not care for "the least of these, My brethren" do not do so for Him, and they will be consigned to eternal flames; apparently, "believe" means quite a bit more than merely saying "Lord, Lord", or some mere intellectual consent to an idea. It means to OBEY. It means to LOVE Him. It means to do what He tells us (as Mother Mary instructs us to do). You've reduced the "Gospel message" to something so small the it will save NO ONE.

I can provide the Scripture for that if you'd like.

All right. Just be aware that I'll ask you to explain (from Scripture alone) how you know that your interpretation is correct... and I won't be satisfied with mere "pat" answers or platitudes or slogans or fallacies. Proofs.

[paladinan]

Re: St. Peter's proclamation in Acts 4: where, in the Catechism, can you find any teaching which suggests that anyone is saved by a Name OTHER than that of Christ? EVERYTHING comes from Christ--the intercessory power of the Saints, the authority of the Blessed Virgin (as Queen-Mother of the King of Kings), the intervention of St. Michael the Archangel, the authority of the keys to the Kingdom given to St. Peter. When you say that Christ is our only Savior, you're quoting the Catechism, though you may not know it (or like it).

[metmom]
I'm aware of what the CCC teaches on those topics.

Then how could you make such striking blunders as to suggest that the Catholic Church DOESN'T teach all of the above? Earlier, you wrote, after quoting Acts 4:11-12 and its (true) statement that the Name of Jesus is the only Name by which anyone is saved (as if you thought Catholics didn't believe that, and the Scripture would be some sort of rebuke/refutation of us): "Why someone would want to replace following Christ Himself for a man or organization is beyond me. Anyone who was aware of what the CCC teaches could NOT make those claims accurately, since the CCC refutes them soundly.

I find no Scriptural warrant for any of it.

On that point: when the next NCC comes along and accuses me of "constructing a strawman" when I say that some NCC's on this board use "sola Scriptura" as a "negative test" (i.e. if it isn't in Scripture, don't accept it), can I send them to you? :)

I assume you don't mean that you find "no Scriptural warrant" for the idea that everything comes from Christ! That *was* my main point, in that paragraph. Beyond that... see above, re: "Scriptural warrant"; only one who assumed that "it needs to be in Scripture for it to be believed" would worry about "Scriptural warrant". To move your case forward, you'll have to demonstrate (from Scripture alone, including a Scripture-alone proof for your interpretation, and a Scripture-alone proof that your Scripture is complete, among other things required by plain logic) the unequivocal truth of Scripture ALONE being the sole standard (or whatever verbiage you'd like to use) of revealed truth.

So since it's a Catholic thing and not a Scripture thing, it is not binding on the born again believer, only binding on Catholics who choose to submit to Rome.

Again: you draw an invalid dichotomy between "Catholic" and "Scripture"; you assume that "rejection of sola Scriptura" = "rejection of Scriptura" (or else you wouldn't dare say "not a Scripture thing" in regard to Catholic things), and that's simple nonsense.

[paladinan]

Claiming that the church can speak infallibly, has the power to forgive or not sin, that salvation is through it alone..... Yes, that is deifying it. It is attributing to it characteristics of God.

Oh, nonsense! God is fully capable of doing any or all of those things by any means that He chooses, yes? God can use Balaam's donkey to warn an erring man, and God can use a man to forgive sins. Read John 20:21-23:

Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Priests do not forgive by any power of their own; they forgive by authority delegated to them by Jesus, Himself. The Scripture is crystal-clear.

Re: infallibility, common sense suggests that there MUST be some provision--some visible, audible authority by which controversies over doctrine can be settled; as Fr. Daniel Lyons, author of "Christianity and Infallibility: Both, or Neither", once said (I paraphrase... the book is from decades ago): "To assume that our all-loving and all-powerful God did not leave some infallible interpreter of salvific truth is to assume that God is indifferent to the damnation of the majority of His children." If we humans are sinful and error-prone (and we are), and if the content of Divine revelation is a matter of eternal life or death (and it is), then there must be some provision for making sure that the core truths of the Faith are not corrupted or distorted or lost. And forgive me, but "sola Scriptura" doesn't cut it; aside from its many other problems, the "sola Scriptura" experiment has been run... and the results are cataclysmically bad. (On that note: you and I are apparently damned for worshiping on Sunday instead of Saturday. The Bible-only Seventh-Day Adventists say so. Just saying.)

And since Jesus established the Church (Matthew 16:18), and since He established it as the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), and since He told us to treat those who scorn it as we would heathens or publicans (Matthew 18:17), and since the Church is the Bride of Christ, Himself (Ephesians 5, etc.), it's at least reasonable to suppose that God not only CAN choose to save people through the agency of His Church, but that He DID choose thusly.

At any rate: your idea that Catholics are "deifying" the Church is simply off-base, and logically groundless.

[metmom]

How on earth does *that* follow? All it proves is that the idea of "if it isn't in the Bible, there's no reason to believe it" doesn't work.

Sure it works. I know that the *sinner's prayer* and altar calls etc are not in Scripture. I don't necessarily believe that one has to do those to be saved.

God made salvation SIMPLE. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. To as many as received Him He gave the right to become the sons of God.

The method is not specified because it's not the method that saves, which is why sacraments don't save.

On the one hand, I agree with you (in a sense); on the other hand, the Church cannot POSSIBLY be reduced to a loose collection of "all believers in Jesus", since those very members believe contradictory things...

So what? God looks on the heart. Not every believer is at the same place in their Christian walk or level of spiritual maturity.

The Catholic church has TAUGHT contradictory things over the centuries.

So sure, the church can be reduced to a loose collection of all believers in Jesus. The NT supports it.

My point was that you have a mistaken notion of "only non-Catholics think that Jesus is their Savior", as if you have some sort of copyright on the idea. The Catholic Church had that fact, 500 years before Protestantism was a twinkle in the eyes of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.

"only non-Catholics think that Jesus is their Savior"???

You put it in quotes as if I said those very words. Show me where I said that.

So... when you condemn people to hell for not agreeing with YOUR statement of faith (i.e. that someone needs to believe on Jesus to be saved), is that a power-grab?

It's not my decision. My pointing out what Scripture says is not me condemning anyone to hell. OTOH, the Catholic church claims to actually have the power to do so. Remember the claims that the RCC makes about it having the authority to bind and loose?

[CynicalBear]

>>"To assume that our all-loving and all-powerful God did not leave some infallible interpreter of salvific truth is to assume that God is indifferent to the damnation of the majority of His children."<<

And He did.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

The same spirit to all true believers.

Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

The Catholic Church can't take His place either.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

[metmom]

John 3:3-8 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

How can *HAS eternal life* not mean *has eternal life*?

The only way to not read it as it stands is to *interpret* it.

Besides, I'm not *interpreting* the Scripture, I'm explaining it. :)

When people came to Jesus, did He give them a theology exam? Did He demand that they jump through hoops to earn salvation?

Or did He say to them *Your faith has saved you. Go in peace*?

God wants relationship with His creation, not fear of damnation based performance. He made salvation simple enough for a child to grasp it and told us that unless we become like little children, we would never enter the kingdom of heaven. So how does that square with the RCC demanding works?

Many years ago I reached a point of desperation where I finally told God, *If you can straighten out this mess of a life of mine, you can have it. I'll do anything you want, even become a missionary and go to Africa cause I'd rather be happy doing what You want me to, then keep going the way I am.*

He took me up on that.

Some time later someone was telling me about accepting Christ into my heart and I didn't understand what he meant in the least, but something in my heart was stirred and inside I thought, *THAT'S IT!!! That's what I want.* Then I prayed *Jesus, I don't know what it means to ask You into my heart as an act of will, but I will you in.*

Not exactly a *sinner's prayer*, no altar call, it happened at work, but the change was immediate and dramatic. There is nothing else except the fact that I was born again,born spiritually, that could explain the complete change in focus of my entire life. In an instant. I didn't even have to try.

You know what? I really believe that God doesn't care nearly as much as all the crossed t's and dotted i's of having out theology nailed down, as He cares about a heart that is unreservedly following after Him.

It's HIS responsibility to straighten out people's whacked out theology and He will. He can be trusted to do that because He who began a good work in me will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

My salvation is in HIS hands and cannot possibly be safer.

Am I perfect? Hardly

Do I sin? Every day.

DO I have a long way to go? Seems like every step I take reveals more stuff that needs to be dealt with, that I'm taking two steps backwards for every step forwards.

It can become discouraging, but with Paul I forget what is behind and press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Is the intent of my heart to follow God and glorify Him in all I do? Absolutely.

All He wants is a surrendered life, not a perfect one.

[metmom]

If we humans are sinful and error-prone (and we are), and if the content of Divine revelation is a matter of eternal life or death (and it is), then there must be some provision for making sure that the core truths of the Faith are not corrupted or distorted or lost.

Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

God is perfectly capable of ensuring that any who want to come to Him will not only be able to do so but WILL do so.

If the Holy Spirit cannot be trusted to enlighten people, then the magisterium comprised of fallible men certainly can't.

[paladinan]

The Catholic church has TAUGHT contradictory things over the centuries.

Such as? (And I'll have to run; more, tomorrow.)

[metmom]

There is no salvation outside of the Catholic church.

V2 changed that.

Just because, here are the quotes and links.

Take your time. I have a shopping date with my daughter tomorrow (weather permitting - ugh) and will be gone all day.

Now I am old enough to remember pre Vatican 2 and know that the church did indeed teach that there was no salvation outside of it.

First off, the CCC still reiterates it but then adds this addendum....

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

And there there are several proclamations, some ex cathedra, which also state that and/ but now, that changed with V2 and your current pope who seems to think that even atheists can be saved.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." Satis Cognitum (# 9): June 29, 1896:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

Pius 9, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..”
-http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church)
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11;
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

Pius XII, Humani Generis (27,28): "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation...These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."

Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516,
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215) [considered infallible by some]

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1

The COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE under Pope John XXIII condemned the proposition of Wycliff that “It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches.” [inasmuch as it would deny the primacy of the supreme pontiff over the other individual churches.] — Session 8—4 May 1415;
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTANC.HTM

St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if we imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals [Greeks] says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” — St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38

St. Frances Xavier Cabrini: "Many Protestants have almost the same practices as we, only they do not submit to the Holy Father and attach themselves to the true Ark of Salvation. They do not want to become Catholics and unite themselves under the banner of truth wherein alone there is true salvation. Of what avail is it, children, if Protestants lead naturally pure, honest lives, yet lack the Holy Ghost? They may well say: 'We do no harm; we lead good lives'; but, if they do not enter the true fold of Christ, all their protestations are in vain." St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, "Travels", Chicago: 1944, pp. 84, 71.

St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke: "The Lord severed the Jewish people from His kingdom, and heretics and schismatics are also severed from the kingdom of God and from the Church. Our Lord makes it perfectly clear that every assembly of heretics and schismatics belongs not to God, but to the unclean spirit." — St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke", ch.7, 91-95; PL 15; SS, vol. II, p. 85, (quoted in The Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 4: "The Book of Christians", Chapter 2: "Those Who Reject Christ's Church are Anti-Christian").http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6480/catholics/apostolic4chp2.html

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: (Promulgated November 18, 1302) “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart `into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”— Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]

[paladinan]

I'll try to wrote a separate comment to reply to the "extra Ecclesia nulla salus" dogma (it may be a bit more lengthy)... but in the meantime, let me toss this out as an illustrative example:

"as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one'" (Romans 3:10, citing Psalm 14 and similar Scriptures)

compared to the following:

"Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God."
(Genesis 6:9)

"Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it."
(Matthew 13:17)

"The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous..."
(Matthew 13:49)

"Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee [...]?"
(Matthew 25:37)

"Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathe'a. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man,"
(Luke 23:50)

...and the HUNDREDS of references to God knowing, protecting and rewarding (etc.) the righteous (which would be nonsense, if there were none).

So... is that a contradiction? Logically, the statements "the number of righteous is 0" and "the number of righteous is not 0" are flatly contradictory; they cannot possibly be true at the same time, and there are no other options... so one must be right, and one must be wrong.

I'll tell you this, first: I do NOT consider this a contradiction, at all. But, that being said: how do YOU (as a sola Scriptura adherent) explain these contrary-sounding Scriptures, specifically? Let's explore this, as a preview to your comments about "extra Ecclesia nulla salus"... since that explanation depends on a good understanding of what "contradiction" and "changing dogma" mean.

[paladinan]

There is no salvation outside of the Catholic church. V2 changed that.

And again: no, it did not. It's still just as true today as it was when the Church was founded, roughly 2000 years ago.

When we tackle things such as papal infallibility, or about alleged "contradictions" within either Scripture of Catholic teaching (or whatever), we can't afford to be casual about details; the definitions of "changing essential dogma" and "contradiction" are very strict ones. No one can simply slap some contrary-sounding things together, declare a contradiction, and go off to celebrate their "conquest"; the high standard for proof must be met.

Take your time. I have a shopping date with my daughter tomorrow (weather permitting - ugh) and will be gone all day.

Have safe and pleasant travels! And absolutely... no rush, on your end, either! I really do need to catch up on work from "real life", here...

Now I am old enough to remember pre Vatican 2 and know that the church did indeed teach that there was no salvation outside of it.

I'm not surprised... since it's absolutely true. Some priests (and even some textbooks) may have mislaid some very necessary qualifiers, when teaching that dogma (possibly because they naively assumed that "everybody knows these"--or for some other reason), but the dogma is true dogma.

This is a very important point (i.e. the fact that the "qualifiers" were known from the earliest times, whether individual teachers/books thought to mention them, or not), so let me offer another illustration:

The Catholic Church teaches that Baptism is required for salvation (cf. John 3:5, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, etc.). Scripture was quite clear on that. But in the earliest days of the Church, many theologicans (including Fathers of the Church, such as St. Augustine) struggled with what this meant for, say, infants who died without Baptism, but who obviously did not have actual, personal sin on their souls. On the one hand, Scripture seemed to say that Baptism (which was seen to be exclusively "water Baptism, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19) was necessary for salvation, so unbaptized infants--by that argument--could not be saved. On the other hand, this seemed irreconcilable with what we know of God and His Mercy and His Justice, Who said, "Let the children come to Me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 19:14) It also didn't make sense of the outcome of those who had honestly never heard the Gospel at all (or who had never heard an unadulterated version, delivered by a credible witness), and who died outside of Christianity; nor did it make sense of the case of older children and adults who were too mentally impaired to have the capacity to sin (e.g. Trisomy 13, Down's Syndrome, etc.); nor did it make sense of the case where someone WANTED Baptism, but died before receiving it; nor did it make sense of the case where an unbaptized person willingly died for the Name of Christ. Ultimately, the Church discerned that--while the Sacrament of Baptism is the normal and expected way for people to be saved, and while God can usually be EXPECTED to abide by the ordinances He set up--God is not bound to stay within the Sacraments, and He (being sovereign) can bestow the same graces OUTSIDE the Sacraments, in cases of His choosing. Over time, theologicans came up with "key words" to describe these variations, in order to remember and talk about them more easily:

1) Baptism of water (the standard, expected way by which God's Sanctifying Grace is given to the soul)

2) "Baptism" of blood (when an unbaptized person dies a martyr for Christ, God grants them the same Grace that would have been given by the Sacrament)

3) "Baptism" of desire (when an unbaptized person dies before attaining to Baptism, but was intending to be baptized, or if he WOULD have sought Baptism if only he had known of the necessity).

In this case, someone might hastily (and incorrectly) say: "The Church has changed its teaching on the necessity of Baptism!" To that, I'd say, "Yes, and no. The core dogma of the necessity of Baptism is true, and has never changed; but the non-dogmatic teachings about how it can be expected to be applied *have* changed... just as the Church eventually discerned that circumcision and kosher laws were no longer necessary for salvation (cf. Acts 15, etc.), since they were fulfilled by Christ's perfect fulfillment of the Law (cf. Hebrews 8, etc.) and communicated to us principally through the Sacrament of Baptism (Colossians 2:11-12, 1 Peter 3:21, etc.). Jesus explicitly revoked the kosher laws, for example (Mark 7:19), but He specifically mandates us to baptize in the Name of the Blessed Trinity (Matthew 28:19)... so it's plain that the former is fulfilled and no longer binding, while the latter is still binding.

Long answer... but deep questions often require involved answers. Efforts to say, "But it's so very simple!" are usually frought with peril, since the (well-meaning) people who do so usually end up with a "reductionist Gospel" which is stripped both of power and of coherence.

To be continued...