Questions and Answers on Salvation

Catholic Family News ^ | first published in 1875 | Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R.

[Stubborn]

Father Michael Muller was one of the most widely read theologians of the 19th Century. He ranks as one of the greatest defenders of the dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” in modern times. Father Muller always submitted his works to two Redemptorist theologians and to his religious superiors before publication, thus we are sure of the doctrinal soundness of his teachings. This article, first published in 1875, is one of the finest treatments of the doctrinal truth that Our Lord founded one true Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Father Muller’s firm writings are desperately needed in our time when this doctrine is denied by those who are the most influential members of our Holy Church. We publish Father Muller’s excellent little Catechism as an antidote to the prevalent religious indifferentism — an indifferentism that is the direct result of what Blessed Pius IX denounced as “Liberal Catholicism”.

[kosta50]

Try reading the Bible sometime

I do all the time. There is a little more to the Church than just a bunch of believers gathered in one place.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

I get it - it wasn't your interpretation but the Roman Catholic Church's official position which you gave me word for word. (Out of interest, I would like to know what document you copied that from.) Your bottom line though is that an interpretation for anything (mine in this case) that differs from the Roman Catholic Church's must be incorrect because the Roman Catholic Church is infallible? So in 2 Peter 2:1, when 'false teachers' are referred to, what 'organization' do these teachers belong to?

[deaconjim]

Collective body of believers is made up of corrupt men.

God's design, not mine. It's amazing what God can do, isn't it?

Who exactly worships the Church as if it were a god?

Anyone who places their faith in the "Church" or any mortal official of that organization.

[pachomi33]

"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."
The Protestant doctrine of justification an incomplete exposition of the Biblical teaching on justification. NOWHERE in Holy Scripture is it stated, NOWHERE, that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer. Thom Oden, a Protestant theologian would agree as much. It does state faith is counted for rightousness( ROM.4). Christ's rightousness is specifically said to be the means of God giving us grace (see Rom.5:12-19), He is the Testator of the New Covenant securing the blessings. There are two righteousness mentioned in the NT. The righteousness of the Law which was acceptable in the OT dispensation (economia), the saints looked forward to the promise of resurrection (Heb.11) They had to walk in all the commandments of the Lord to be blameless (Lk.,1:5-6) The apostle Paul stated that under this arrangement he was blameless (Phil.3) But with the establishment of the New Covenant written upon the tables of the heart this righteousness was not adequate and could not give life. Therefore with the indwelling of the Spirit the righteousness of the law is FULFILLED in the believer (Rom.8:1-5)not by imputation but by faithful WALKING in the SPirit. Walking against the law of God brings then spiritual death (Rom.8:13) and then condemnation. WE will be presented holy and without blame IF WE CONTINUE IN THE FAITH (COl.1:19-22) The idea of a virtual righteousness is alien to scripture. At the root of all this we must remember that a relationship with God is inherently gracious. Even in the Garden Adam was saved by grace. The dichotomy of faith works grace Law does not exist. To put this more in Orthodox terms of theosis (becoming like God). Adam had a vocation by grace as the head of creation (a microcosm) to unite heaven and earth, and fill it with GOd's glory. He disobeyed- was faithless- and brought in the reign of death. With the Holy Spirit removed from human nature in HIs deifying work- Christ came to restore human nature destroy death trampling upon it, and destroy the devil. Here is a thought for you as a Protestant- Christ was justified by faith. The faith of Christ brought all of God's blessings. Now, Christ gives us the same vocation - HE was obedient unto death and God crowned Him with glory (Phil.2:5-12) We are to be obedient unto death and God gives us the crown of glory (Rev.2) He endured and was crowned we must endure to be crowned. For God to give glory- without us suffering is contary to His word (ROm.8:17)
If you wish we can look at the biblical passages of imputation and how there is a correspondance between the inner change- what God declares to be righteous IS righteous.
Any way this is a major theme of scripture. To be understood properly we must take the cathoilic view- not meaning ROman- kata holikos- according to the whole. If every scripture is looked at you will see that the Orthodox position is scriptural. Oh how rich scripture is and how God has preserved the right interpretation through the ages!
God bless you all so much this holiday we have sooo much to be thankful for. TIll we can have more time God bless

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

Actually Christ is not the church, He is the head of it according to Ephesians 5:23 'For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.' and again in Ephesians 1:22 'And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,' and one more in Colossians 1:18 'And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.'

The church is the body of believers. Sorry, but no - the church is not essential to salvation. Acts 4:12 'Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.'

[bornacatholic]

The Magisterium of the Church 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

[bornacatholic]

The Magisterium of the Church 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

[deaconjim]

I will return the question that was asked of me in an earlier post: Upon what do you base your conclusions?

[the invisib1e hand]

been there, done that. it's your loss, champ. adios

[kosta50]

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

The example of Isa 22:22 is somewhat of a stretch here, because it is taken somewhat out of context. This is what Isaiah says:

"I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat [throne] of honor for the house of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots -all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars." (Isa 22: 21-24)

Matthew 16:19 says

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18:8 says

"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Peter receives the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, but there is no specific mention of authority, which is given to all apostles, minus the keys. But what Isa 22 does say is that no one but Eliakim can open and shut. This is not the case with the Apostles -- they all can open and shut equally. Obviously Peter is not a prime minister or a monarch. It is obvious that the Apostles do not see him as such ("When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong..." [Gal 2:11]), nor do they ask for guidance from Peter, nor do they defer to him as their superior, nor do they ask for permission from him, etc. Neither is Peter listed as being first alone: "These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew..." (Mat 10:2)"And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles" (1 Cor 12:28) not Peter and the apostles, just apostles (Peter is not mentioned separately, so there is no reason to assume the others were Peter's "ministers").

In Luke (9:46-48) Jesus does not name Peter as the greatest among the disciples

"An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all--he is the greatest."

Peter cannot be the least among them, when he is most prominently mentioned in the NT. He is always first, on the list or when the Lord showe Himself, but the Lord breathed the Holy Spirit on all equally.

The fact that the apostles were arguing who is greatest among them indicates that none of the disciples thought Peter was the greatest simply because he was promised the keys. The authority to bind and loose on earth was given to all the Apostles equally. They acted in that manner and even when the question was posed before the Lord, He avoided naming Peter directly.

[Kolokotronis]

Uh, bro. Pachomi, that's an awful lot of Bible quotes! Actually I was thinking more along the lines of exploring how protestants understand the meaning of the Bible, what standards are used to measure what appear to be conclusions on doctrine arrived at after prayerful, personal study. In other words, what is the measuring stick of "sound doctrine". Deacon Jim speaks of prayerful study and reference to the writings of those whose theological opinion he values. I think we do it differently in several ways. At any rate, I perceive value in learning about what appear to be different approaches to Scriptural exegesis for us Orthodox and the Protestants. Methodology first, substance second. OK?

[kosta50]

God's design, not mine. It's amazing what God can do, isn't it?

Yes it is.

"And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues" (1 Cor 12:28)

Not just the gathering of the faithful; God appointed those who are to be in the Church. Apostles were given the authority to "bind and loose" on earth and they, in turn, gave that authority to their successors (bishops) in an unbroken lineage. "Churches" that don't have that lineage (Protestant, LDS, etc.) are not churches in the Biblical definition of the word.

[kosta50]

Hmmm 1 Cor 12:28 spells out who is in the Church besides the "believers" and Mat 18:18 determines that the authority was not given to the "Children of God" but only to the Apostles (and through them to bishops). The fact is, Protestants have no such biblically spelled out authoirty, which is why they have to come up with convoluted sentences.

[FormerLib]

"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.

Actually, it does. When Christ mentions the keys to Peter, he says that He will give them to him and what effect they will have. When this is actually delivered, it is delivered to all of the Apostles equally.

[deaconjim]

Upon what do you draw these conclusions?

[Stubborn]

Yes! ok, Now you understand what I'm saying!

I copied it from my Haydock Bible http://www.catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/11050.html . Its the only Bible I am aware of that interprets and defines probably over 95% of the entire Bible - put it this way, I cannot remember when I wanted to know how the Church interpreted a certain Scripture and could not find Her interpretation in this Bible. I'd bet its cheaper somewhere other than th elink I have, but I use this link because it gives a nice description. It truly is a treasure.

From the link: With this edition it is possible for all to hold those passages of Scripture with the mind of the Church. We can know what Our Lord wants us to know with certainty. No more opinions of so-called "experts" or faithless theologians.

Heres the interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be lying teachers among you, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

lying teachers among you, some of which were already come, and many more were to follow, who shall bring in sects** (heresies) leading to perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them, deying the divinity of Jesus Christ our Redeemer; such were the disciples of Simon, and many after them.

**sects of perdition; that is, heresies destructive of salvation.

[Stubborn]

Actually FormerLib, Tantumergo (Sacramentum :-) is correct, Lets look at Mat. 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.'

And I will give to thee the keys...This is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and perogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor as head of the Catholic Church.

And whatsoever thou shalt bind... All the apostles and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to the one vested with the supreme power.
*******************

It continues on to exhaustively cover the subject, but I think this suffices to show that Tantumergo was completely accurate.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

'With this edition it is possible for all to hold those passages of Scripture with the mind of the Church. We can know what Our Lord wants us to know with certainty. No more opinions of so-called "experts" or faithless theologians.'

Based on the above quote which you provided, are you saying that all the interpretations contained in the Haydock Bible are absolutely and infallibly correct? It would seem to be the case and if so, what is the basis for that conclusion? I guess I could go and do some quick research but perhaps you could give me a quick summary of how these Haydock Bible interpretations came into being (who/what/when/where) since I am learning something new here.

Thanks for providing the Haydock Bible interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 but unfortunately, it didn't answer the question that I posed which was:
'So in 2 Peter 2:1, when 'false teachers' are referred to, what 'organization' do these teachers belong to?'

[pachomi33]

Uh, bro. Pachomi, that's an awful lot of Bible quotes! Actually I was thinking more along the lines of exploring how protestants understand the meaning of the Bible, what standards are used to measure what appear to be conclusions on doctrine arrived at after prayerful, personal study. In other words, what is the measuring stick of "sound doctrine". Deacon Jim speaks of prayerful study and reference to the writings of those whose theological opinion he values. I think we do it differently in several ways. At any rate, I perceive value in learning about what appear to be different approaches to Scriptural exegesis for us Orthodox and the Protestants. Methodology first, substance second. OK?

Sorry misunderstood the intent of the original post.Permit me to explain the interpretation I was taught. Here is an excerpt from Basic Bible Interpretation, by Roy Zuck. I think DeaconJim would feel fairly comfortable with this view explaining evangelical exegesis. PLease correct me if I am wrong Deacon.
"the infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of scripture, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly" (excerpt from Westminister Cat. quoted in Zuck, p.40)
Turretin the Calvinist exegete stressed these five points:
1. scripture is to be interpreted like any other book
2. the interpreter must give attention to words and expressions in the scriptures
3. the objective of the exegete is to determine the purpose of the author in the context
4. the interpreter should use the natural light of reason
5. the opinions of sacred authors must be understood in terms of their own cultures (ibid)
I think this fairly accurately represents the Protestant position, and tells a little about the methodology of interpretation's hermeneutics.
The scripture then is the final authority and the meaning can be ascertained within the text. Perhaps DeaconJim could explicate further.
The Orthodox Church teaches that God has given us landmarks- guideposts to correct interpretation outside of the Biblical text to prevent us from heresy. The Holy Spirit conveys the correct interpretation through the apostle's successors (bishops), the presbyters and the consensus of the faithful (laity). The Holy Spirit clarifies the faith through ecumenically councils and sets boundaries (oros) called dogma. This snidely (conciliar) pattern is established early in the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts 15 the Church had to answer the dissension concerning circumcision. Was it necessary for salvation? The church met together and answered that it was not, stating "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things (and then lists them)"(Acts.15:28)
The next chapter tells us that +Paul went through the church delivering the dogmas for to keep which were established by the apostle and elders which were at Jerusalem" (Acts.16:4)
This synod had authority to all the churches- it's dogmas were proclaimed to them all. Henceforth it is understood circumcision is not necessary. Now the church has had 7 major heretical crises resulting in ecumenical synods.(I won't discuss the possibility laid by some of more than that being ecumenical now)The decisions (oros -or dogmas if one prefers) are binding. These dogmas provide the framework from which all Orthodox are bound to interpret scripture. The second guidepost is the fathers of the church. Here again we look for consensus. The Holy Spirit has given us "...teachers...for the perfecting of the saints." (Eph.4:11-16) Another major guidepost is the liturgy of the church. Liturgy predates or is as old as scripture. As the church prays so it believes. So for instance when interpreting a passage about the Eucharist a Baptist might say "do this in memory of me" means memorial- a simply zwinglian remembrance. The Orthodox would respond with the liturgy of saint James (the Lord's brother) where in the prayers the presbyter petitions the gifts to be truly His flesh and blood. All these guideposts keep us ortho (right) believing (dox) and worshipping right.
These are the major guideposts I guess you could say.
Just as an aside, I think a good comparison between Protestant hermeneutics and Orthodox is this: The Prot. view exalts individual conscience and understanding (which is important! mind you), to arrive at truth. The Orthodox uses the collective conscience of the church- the mind or phronema- of the church. We could say that theology is the mind of the church- all the faithful, who have the mind of Christ.
I know this is just a simple synopsis, and feeble explanation, but I hope it helps. I actually just had a course at the evangelical bible college on hermeneutics a few months ago - which made it interesting considering my persuasion now. Let me state I do highly appreciate deaconJim's honesty with scripture. The Protestant hermeneutic is not necessarily wrong so much as incomplete. I arrived at Orthodox y through the same searching he is using- it is God given. The scriptures if taken in all the proper context without prejudice (not saying necessarily someone who doesn't become Orth. is prejudiced!)will usually lead one to Orthodoxy.
I look at it this way. In every profession one accepts the decisions and findings of those before them. Thus if I were to be a doctor I would accept the answers (within reason) taught to me. There is a valid tradition- verified truth. God help the doctor who thinks he has to reinvent the medical wheel! The same is true for doctors of souls. Experience is the best teacher, and the Holy Spirit through the experience of the Fathers and the history of the Church has given us an accumulated awareness of correct interpretation- which we would be wise to accept. A child accepts what his parents teach him- when he is mature he too can perhaps explain better and understand better then his progenitors. This is the blessing of being a saint. May their memory be eternal in the memory (min of the Church!
God Bless you all this Thanksgiving and I apologize for the length of this post!

[Cvengr]

"NOWHERE in Holy Scripture is it stated, NOWHERE, that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer."

The above hasty statement is considerably weakened by Scripture, as in:

2 Cor 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin as a substitute for us so that we might become the righteousness of God through Him."