Replies

Catechism, 846, 14:6

And exactly why do you [apparently] think that these two claims are incompatible?

Folks, you both seem to be asking about the same question or raising the same point - I've included you both in my reply. Hope you don't mind.

I imagine I'll go on too long and the differences will remain, BUT - by saying that you have to be a member of the Catholic church in order to get to heaven is placing a barrier between the believer and the Lord that is not there. Christ isn't the church. The church didn't die on the cross for our sins. The redemption is in Christ Jesus.

Also understand, I am one of those who sees the Bible as the sole rule of faith. So, whoever wants to add the part about being a part of the church or going to hell needs to be really careful. adiaireton8 said in an earlier reply something to the effect that, "Of course God, being omniscient, can do what He wants." What a gracious allowance. I'm thinking we disagree on that one.

I'm also thinking that our definitions of church are going to be different. As I see in the Bible, church (from the Greek ekklesia) means an assembly - with the same meaning you might think of when you hear about a high school assembly - you're either physically present, there or not there. Ekklesia is the only word that was ever translated into "church" or "churches" in the KJV. In that sense, it's impossible to have a visible assembly of all the believers at the same time until, of course, Jesus returns. Until that time, we have only local churches. There is no precedent for the Bishop of Rome to exert authority over the other churches. Even if Peter was the first Pope (and I don't think he was) there is no example of him directing the church at Antioch or of setting leadership up for any of the other New Testament churches. For another example, notice in Relation that the seven churches (plural) in the early chapters each receive their own letters, and they are from John - not Peter; but I digress.

Now, in John 14 Jesus is speaking to the disciples at the last supper. In one of His last, pre-crucifixion opportunities to teach them, He tries to prepare them for His His departure. Then we read John 14:6. I'm thinking that the disciples who took the Lord's Supper that evening were the first church. John 14:6 and Catechism 846 are not the same because Jesus is instructing His church that they need to believe in Him, even though they are already "the" church. Make sense?

Another reason is because I know (and you too, probably) people can believe in Jesus Christ all by themselves - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). This can happen without ever assembling with other believers. Such would be an impoverished spiritual life and not in accordance to what believers ought to be doing, but it would be possible. The thief on the cross never had the opportunity to belong to a (the) church and serve Him. But he did have the opportunity to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. He was never baptised either. For such belief he was promised to be in paradise within hours.

Another Gnostic. Building your entire theology of salvation on the thief on the cross. If you had studied the writings of the Church Fathers, you would see that your way of thinking is completely alien to them. They strongly rejected Gnosticism as a heresy. When Peter says, "baptism now saves you", you don't know what to do with this. On Pentecost when Peter says, "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins", you don't know what to do with this, since in your view, we are saved by faith alone, and baptism *definitely* does not do anything to forgive our sins. When Ananias tells Saul to "Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins", this makes no sense to you, and so you turn it into a metaphor, since the notion of God working through matter is so repulsive to you. When John says, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit", you don't know what to do with this. When Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you", you don't know what to make of this; it makes you want to throw up. All this earthy stuff makes you uncomfortable, sick; it is distasteful and disgusting, talking of water and blood and flesh saving us. Of course it makes you uncomfortable; you are a Gnostic. You can't make sense of the passage, "There is no rest day or night ... for anyone who receives the mark of his name." How can receiving a mark damn a person, since as long as they have faith in Christ, they are saved? It does not make any sense to you that Mark adds baptism as a condition to being saved. (Mark 16:16) You don't know what to make of "we were all baptized into one body", since in your view we were all made into one body by faith alone. Baptism is some worthless symbolic thing that is completely unnecessary and superfluous in your theology. There is no need for it. Faith alone is necessary. Oh, perhaps there is some pedagogical value in baptism, since it reminds us of Christ's death, or how our sins have been washed away. But baptism itself doesn't actually *save* us, heaven forbid! Matter doesn't save us; salvation is wholly spiritual, and hence only spiritual things save us, i.e. faith alone. We don't need a Church. We don't need the sacraments. We just need to believe. That's Gnosticism. All these passages don't make any sense to you.

You have the thief on the cross, and that trumps everything else so suit your Gnosic fancies. Go study the Fathers, and I guarantee you that you will see how much of Gnostic you presently are. (I was in your shoes at one time too, and I'm telling you this only because I wish someone had been straight with me. It would have saved me a lot of trouble.)

-A8