Questions and Answers on Salvation

Again, I mention this to you. The "church" as defined by God is the body of believers.

Also keep in mind the thief next to Jesus on the cross didn't have time for rituals ... Communion, Baptism, going to the church you describe or anything else and Jesus told him he'd be in paradise with Him.

Don't you get it yet? All these rituals are fine BUT it doesn't get you to heaven - IT IS BELIEF - He looks at your HEART.

"When Christ actually gives the Apostles the "keys" to bind and loose on Earth and Heaven, it is given to ALL of the Apostles equally."

This is not what the text of Matthew says. Christs gave the keys to Peter alone, using the word "you" in the singular. He gave the power of binding and loosing to all the apostles in Matt 18, but the "Keys" are not mentioned in this passage at all.

It would be meaningless to assert a collective or collegial ownership of the keys, as Christs's use of the term is an intertestamental citation of its use in Isaiah 22,22 where God bestows the keys on Israel's Prime Minister Eliakim son of Hilkiah. He was the "Vicar" of the King and was appointed by God to be a Pope to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the house of Judah.

His office was dynastic and his successors fulfilled the same function. Similarly the successors of Peter fulfil the same function in the New Jerusalem and New House of Judah.

Sure, all the other apostles are ministers in the government of the New Jerusalem, but he only gives the keys to, and appoints, one prime minister.

To claim that Christ gave the keys to ALL the apostles is to infer something that is just not in the text - cf. Matt 18,18 compared to Matt 16,19.

I've never said that. What I said was that you have only quoted non-Ecumenical councils and the dictates of popes to support your claim that there is no salvation outside of the ROMAN Catholic Church.

Well, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 was an eccumenical council. It really is not simply "my claim", it is a defined dogma. One that is forgotten, but that does not change anything.

What non-Ecumenical councils say in the West don't have now nor have they ever had applicability in the East, unless you people have come up with another innovation.

I've never really heard it put that way, but why not? Please do not mistake my ignorance of the Orthodox for sarcasm or insults. I have already stated that I am ignorant of a whole lot with regards to the whole "east vs west" thing.

I will look for it when I can, but if you or anyone could post a link(s) or something to some pre-V2 Papal documents regarding what the Church teaches in regards to the issue, I'd appreciate it. AFAIK, churches known popularly as "Orthodox," are in schism because they reject the authority of the Papacy instituted by Christ.

Surely you do not claim that the Pope of Rome or a non Ecumenical Council such as Vatican I has any authority over the Patriarchs, metropolitans or bishops or clergy of the Eastern Church, do you? That would violate any number of canons of the Ecumenical Councils. Canons IV, VI, VIII, XV & XVI of the First Council of Nicea, Canon II of the First Council of Constantinople, and Canon VIII of the Third Ecumenical Council, among others. The last mentioned canon is particularly telling

Ahh, I see you've posted some info I can look up - thanks, I will look up the canons you posted. (shoulda read all my pings before replying to the last one). Vatican Council I was also an eccumenical council. Heres a list of the eccumenical councils for you: http://www.piar.hu/councils/~index.htm

These were universal synods with abosolute power over the affairs of the Church, of which Rome was a part. If Rome changed this after the seven Ecumenical Councils, was that not innovation, by what right was it done and how come it took Rome so long to figure out that it had this power?

Just to clarify that while it is true that ecummenical councils are safeguarded from the possibility of error, it is also true that not every word or declaration that proceeds from eccumenical councils are always deemed infallible.

As far as the Pope or councils having authority over the eastern church goes, Vatican Council I, which defined the dogma of the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff did mention that "Bishops from the eastern Orthodox churches were also invited, but did not come." Which to me, who is not knowing, without delving into in any further at this time, says that the Church does indeed believe She has that authority over the Orthodox.

I could say 'and your point is exactly what?' because honestly, it would seem like you have read into the passages something that is not there

My point was to demonstrate the gulf between how a non-Catholic interprets Scripture and how the Church does. To clarify further, I have not read into the passages something that is not there - it was the Catholic Church's interpretation that you read, as I copied Her interpretation word for word. As such, from the Church's view point, it is you who read into the passages something that is not there. Am I communicating that properly? Sometimes, much is lost communicating in this format.

Again, I mention this to you. The "church" as defined by God is the body of believers.

Yes, this is a very vague and general definition and too inclusive, but I agree.

Also keep in mind the thief next to Jesus on the cross didn't have time for rituals ... Communion, Baptism, going to the church you describe or anything else and Jesus told him he'd be in paradise with Him.

Don't you get it yet? All these rituals are fine BUT it doesn't get you to heaven - IT IS BELIEF - He looks at your HEART.

I get, I have posted it at least a few times that I get it. While salvation is possible outside the Church, its not probable. Can it happen? Yes. The good thief repented and asked God face to face for forgiveness - and God forgave him. Then He established His Church so that EVERYONE could be saved.

"Vatican Council I was also an eccumenical council."

There's where the problem lies. The Orthodox Churches believe that there have been only seven Ecumenical Councils, that is to say of the One Church worldwide. Some Roman lists add an Eighth Ecumenical Council. The East doesn't. All the other councils, some held before the Seventh Ecumenical, (The Council of Elvira, for example) most afterwards, were local and dealt only with local issues. As you correctly point out, Rome and the East are in schism ( but still one Church, and any excommunications between Rome and Constantinople have been lifted) thus it would seem to me that Vatican I and Trent and the Lateran Council, among the additional 7 some Roman writers claim to be Ecumenical, could not, by definition, be Ecumenical. They certainly could be binding as to discipline matters on the Churches of the Latin West. The difference in canons dealing with discipline or practice and dogma is important to remember. Disciplinary canons are viewed as being creatures of the times and may be changed in practice. Dogmas, on the other had, may not, though they may be expanded upon or "redefined".

Your quote from ETWN on the Eastern bishops being invited to Vatican I interests me. There is no authority cited for the comment. Do you know where it came from? In any event, the absence of the Eastern Patriarchs would be enough to make the Council non Ecumenical.

You note that not all pronouncements of a Council are infallible. Actually, even Rome teaches that they are, once they are accepted by the whole Church. There have been instances when proclamations were not accepted and they are not deemed to be infallibly correct. This is one reason why the Council of Florence is not considered Ecumenical by the East nor are its teachings accepted.

I was "born again" in my late twenties and just as suspicious of the catholic Church as any evangelical is taught to be (either overtly or through absorption of the incessant and holier-than-thou anti-catholic innuendoes).

All I can say is that the catholic Church works.

I got a real laugh when I walked out of confession once and the priest said to me with a knowing smile, "you're a born again christian!"

"I've never really heard it put that way, but why not? Please do not mistake my ignorance of the Orthodox for sarcasm or insults. I have already stated that I am ignorant of a whole lot with regards to the whole "east vs west" thing."

No offense taken. Most Roman Catholics have little or no knowledge of the Orthodox Churches. Some even think we are some sort of Greek protestants (which, strangely enough do exist, but they're not us). For the first half of its earthly existance, the Church was One and undivided. In 1054, finally, the Pope of Rome, the Patriarch of the West, excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. The other three Patriarchs, of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem sided with Constantinople and there was a schism which persists to this day. Until that time, the West and the East all accepted the same dogmas as defined by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. There were differing disciplines (priestly celibacy for example) but the same dogma. That is why to this day we share the same sacraments and hold each other's to be valid. One problem which arises when some Roman Catholics talk about the relationship of the Church of Rome to the Eastern Churches is their belief that the Orthodox Churches are in fact some type of Protestants.

Understanding the "east vs. west" thing is vitally important to any discussion between RCs and Orthodox. Without that understanding, the discussion goes nowhere.

"AFAIK, churches known popularly as "Orthodox," are in schism because they reject the authority of the Papacy instituted by Christ."

The Orthodox Churches absolutely do not reject the Pope. In accordance with the Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Churches view the Pope as the First among Equals due the primacy of honor. Since 1054, however, we have held that the Popes have been in theological error and have separated themselves from their brother Patriarchs and bishops.

The Orthodox Churches absolutely do not reject the Pope. In accordance with the Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Churches view the Pope as the First among Equals due the primacy of honor. Since 1054, however, we have held that the Popes have been in theological error and have separated themselves from their brother Patriarchs and bishops.

A sincere thanks for stating this so clearly! I still have a lot of research to do in regards to this subject.

I would like to start a thread here on the freep and get educated with the matter, but I know there already was one not too long ago from the link you gave me before - except I lost it...if you get the chance, could you please post it for me again? - Once I read it, I'll probably have at least some thoughts to post and perhaps that might be a more opportune time to start the thread.

When you studied your Bible, upon what did you base whatever conclusions you came to in determining what the Bible is saying in order to use it as a measure against the Baptist Faith and Message?

I pray for guidance and understanding, and then study the Word. After making my conclusions, I then look at them to see if they are consistent with what I know to be true about God and His Word. I also compare what I learn from my study with the conclusions of others whom I have found to be knowledgeable.

Fair enough, but might it not be more important to determine if their doctrine were true rather than if you were comfortable with it? What I mean is, if a church were to teach something that made you comfortable, but was nevertheless untrue, would that still be ok? If not, how does one tell if the doctrine being advanced is true?

My first concern was to determine that the Baptist F&M was scripturally sound. My comfort level with it was entirely secondary to that. (By comfort level, I am refering to things that are more style than doctrine.) As I stated in earlier posts, if my church started teaching false doctrine, I would have to resist that teaching, and if necessary, leave that church. I use the method described above to determine if the doctrine is true.

"I would like to start a thread here on the freep and get educated with the matter, but I know there already was one not too long ago from the link you gave me before - except I lost it...if you get the chance, could you please post it for me again? - Once I read it, I'll probably have at least some thoughts to post and perhaps that might be a more opportune time to start the thread."

That thread ran on for over 300 posts. It was really a spectacular discussion. I have it on good authority that at least one Orthodox hierarch lurked throughout the whole thing. I'll try to find it and have pinged Kosta50, Tantumergo and Vicomte13 to see if one of them has it so one of us can send it to you, but on one condition.:) Get the more traditional Roman Catholics involved. I sincerely believe that much of the vitriol we Orthodox receive from traditional RCs on these threads comes from a basic misunderstanding of what the Orthodox Church is and what we believe. Have a great Thanksgiving! God Bless all of you and your families!

Well, the pagan in the far east was inclined to seek out God. Its the reason that God wrote His laws in our hearts as Jer. 31:31-34 dictates. If they did not adhere to God's commands, they ended up with Cain, in Hell.

Thanks again for your reply. I don't want to go on forever, but I just want to comment on the above.

You seem to be saying, that in the time of the old law, men could read the natural law written on their hearts by God, and at least believe in him, and serve him according to this natural law. In doing so, they could avoid ending up with Cain in hell, and therefore, be saved - without water baptism and outside the Church in the formal sense. Is the correct, or does this contradict the proclamations of the Church regarding EENS?

If this is correct, it is entirely logical to progress this forward past the day of Pentecost (the promulgation of the new law), through the ages when the pagans were not yet evangelised, and even to the present day. These may well be exceptions that God, and God alone can take care of, but one problem is that people put the exceptions in the place of the de fide teachings of the Church and use them instead.

I actually heard that the preparatory documents of Vatican II included the issue of the destination of unbaptised infants (from memory). Given what actually came out of the Council, it's probably providential that issue was dropped - the work of the Holy Spirit at the Council? :-)

The idea is that God gave us a Church after He left the earth as a means of salvation.

The doctrine of justification provides discernible guidance. The child of God is justified by virtue of the fact that God has declared him to be righteous. The righteousness which is the basis of His justifying decree is no less than absolute righteousness of God made available through Christ and is imputed to all who believe.

Thanks for the response. If you don't mind, I am pinging pachomi33 who is particularly knowledgable in matters of Protestant Biblical exigesis to have him join the discussion. However...today is Thanksgiving Day and I have some cooking to do and then off to a cousin's house for dinner so perhaps we can pick this up later. One question to think about in the meantime, however. I believe I am correct that Protestants accept the theological validity of the dogma of the Incarnation of Christ. In forming your opinion of that doctrine, what theologians would you have read in forming that opinion or in confirming (or not) your own interpretation of what the Bible says on this subject?

Have a Happy Thanksgiving and God Bless your family!

This is correct and in no way contradicts EENS, simply because the New Law is the fulfilment of the old, not a contradiction.

If this is correct, it is entirely logical to progress this forward past the day of Pentecost (the promulgation of the new law), through the ages when the pagans were not yet evangelised, and even to the present day. These may well be exceptions that God, and God alone can take care of, but one problem is that people put the exceptions in the place of the de fide teachings of the Church and use them instead.

Yes and no. "Yes" because God can make exceptions as He sees fit, and as you said, thats exactly what they would be - exceptions.

"No" because we must believe that the message of salvation reached "all nations" as commanded by Our Lord to to the Apostles (John 28:19), as well as, to name but a few, St. Paul's account as told in Acts 1:8 and Rom. 10:18 that at some point before the death of the last Apostle, St. John, the Faith had been brought to every part of the world.

This being the case, we know that at one time, everyone "heard the news" and as such were aware of the requirements necessary for salvation. Those who died as unbelieving pagans, without exception, went to hell, period.

We cannot say with certainty that there even were "pagans who were not yet evangelised", but we can, with all confidence, say as St. Paul narrates in Rom. 10:18 that "Yes", the whole world got the message.

Get the more traditional Roman Catholics involved. I sincerely believe that much of the vitriol we Orthodox receive from traditional RCs on these threads comes from a basic misunderstanding of what the Orthodox Church is and what we believe. Have a great Thanksgiving! God Bless all of you and your families!

Sounds like a good deal to me - I'll do what I can to get 'em all involved!

And a great Thanksgiving to you and everyone too! God Bless!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.