Posted on 06/28/2008 3:25:43 PM PDT by NYer
Issue: What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (extra ecclesiam nulla salus)?
ResponsE: All salvation comes through Jesus Christ, the one Savior of the world (cf. Acts 4:12). His Holy Spirit dispenses those graces through His body, the Church. "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk. 10:16).
Quoting from various documents of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 776) explains:
As sacrament, the Church is Christ’s instrument. She is taken up by Him also as the instrument for the salvation of all, the universal sacrament of salvation, by which Christ is at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God’s love for men. The Church is the visible plan of God’s love for humanity, because God desires that the whole human race may become one People of God, form one Body of Christ, and be built up into one temple of the Holy Spirit. (see also nos. 846-848)
Discussion: There are two principal errors when it comes to the Church’s teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Some reject this teaching as both incorrect and arrogant. Others interpret this statement to condemn all those who are not visibly united to the Roman Catholic Church. To come to the proper understanding of this teaching, we must examine it within the context of divine Revelation and Church history. This examination will reveal that the phrase was not formulated to express who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, for only God will judge that. Rather, the phrase expresses an understanding of the Church in relation to her role in the salvation of the world.
Translation or Interpretation?
Many people translate the Latin phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus as "Outside the Church there is no salvation." This translation does not seem entirely faithful to the Latin meaning, and contributes to the misunderstanding of the phrase.
The Latin word "extra" is both an adverb and preposition. Depending on its use in a sentence, the word has different meanings. When used to describe spatial relations between objects, the word is translated as "beyond" or "outside of"(e.g., beyond the creek is a tree; or, James is outside of the room). When used to describe abstract relations between concepts or intangible things, the word is commonly translated "without" (e.g., Without a method, it is difficult to teach). Within the phrase in question, extra is a preposition describing the abstract relationship of the Church to salvation. Considering the Latin nuances of the word, a proper translation would be, "Without the Church there is no salvation." This translation more accurately reflects the doctrinal meaning of the phrase.
Scriptural Foundations
In the Gospel of Mark, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the Eleven and gave them the commission, "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk. 16:15-16).
In order to accept or reject the Gospel, each person must have it preached to him. If acceptance or rejection of the truth were based on private revelations given to each man, woman, and child, there would be no need for Christ to commission the Apostles to preach the Gospel. Jesus desired to reveal Himself through His body, the Church. While this passage condemns those who reject the truth, it does not condemn those who have not had the truth offered to them as Christ intends.
The New Testament clearly teaches that salvation is a gift offered by God in various ways to all men. Adam, Abel, and Enoch lived between the first sin and the covenant of Noah. They were bound by original sin. All are considered to be in heaven. Enoch did not even die, but was taken to God before death (Heb. 11:4-5). These men were neither baptized nor circumcised, but nonetheless saved.
When the gentile centurion came to Jesus in Capernaum and asked for the healing of his servant, Our Lord agreed to go to his home, but the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed" (Mt. 8:8). Jesus replied:
Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from East and West and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth (Mt. 8:10-13).
Jesus makes a clear distinction between those who are sons of the kingdom (that is, those who have knowledge of and accepted of the faith) and those who are not. He includes in the kingdom of heaven many of those who are not. Jesus graces us with His incarnation, and His presence is known through His Body, the Church. The Church carries on the work of Christ here on earth. Those to whom the Church has not preached the Good News will be judged by God in a manner known to God and tempered with His mercy. As St. Paul explains:
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my Gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus (Rom. 2:14-16).
Sacred Tradition
Many people who claim that God restricts salvation to baptized Catholics cite the Fathers of the Church to prove their assertions. While space does not allow an exhaustive analysis of the Fathers, there are several necessary points to keep in mind. First, the Fathers must be understood in the context of their writings, not in the context of the one quoting them. The majority of the Fathers who wrote on this topic were concerned about those who had once believed or had heard the truth, but now rejected it. Many of them believed the entire world had heard the Gospel. Their words were not directed at those who, by no fault of their own, did not know the Gospel of Christ.
The Fathers do affirm the inherent danger in deliberately rejecting the Church. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote at the turn of the second century, "Be not deceived, my brethren; if anyone follows a maker of schism, he does not inherit the kingdom of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3). In the third century, St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote, "whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress [a schismatic church] is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6, 1). In the fourth century, St. Jerome wrote, "Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation" (Commentary on Titus 3:10-11).
On the other hand, many of the Fathers did write about those who were invincibly ignorant of the Gospel. Of these, the Fathers accepted that salvation was open to them, even if in a mysterious way. The Fathers recognized that the natural law of justice and virtue is written on the hearts of all men. Those who respect this law respect the Lawgiver, though they do not know Him. As St. Justin Martyr wrote in the second century:
We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared Him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes (Jn. 1:9). Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them . . . those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason, whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid (First Apology 46).
In the third century, St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the Law did the Hebrews" (Miscellanies 1:5). Origen wrote, "[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; He was always concerned about that. Indeed, He always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the Wisdom of God descended into those souls which He found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God" (Against Celsus 4:7). In the fifth century, St. Augustine wrote: "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body . . . All who are within the heart are saved in the unity of the ark" (Baptism 5:28:39).
Magisterial Pronouncements
Throughout the history of the Church, the Magisterium has accepted and synthesized these teachings. Recognizing that God will judge our hearts according to the gifts we have received, invincible ignorance—that is, ignorance which cannot be overcome by ordinary means—tempers divine justice. Those who have knowledge of the truth are expected to accept it. Those who have not been given this gift will be judged according to the law written on their hearts. Two noteworthy examples of this position are found in Pope Boniface VIII’s bull Unam Sanctam (1302) and Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863).
Boniface VIII wrote concerning the nature of the Church and the supremacy of the Pope. He did not write concerning the damnation of those who have never heard the Gospel. After expressing the truth that there is only one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism and one Church, he explained that supreme authority of the Pope is both temporal and spiritual. He then ended by declaring: "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." This is not a statement demanding that everyone know the supremacy of the Pope to be saved, but rather is a truthful claim that the Pope authority from God as the legitimate successor of St. Peter, to whom Our Lord entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
Pius IX clearly expressed the full teaching a century ago. His writing distinguishes between those who are invincibly ignorant and those who have willfully separated themselves from the Catholic Church:
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches, and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, His supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Also well-known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved [without] 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, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior (no. 7).
Sacrament of Salvation
In an expression of the authentic Magisterium, the college of bishops further explained this doctrine in the context of Christocentric sacramental theology at Vatican II. Echoing the words of St. Paul, the Council described the Church as the Spouse and Body of Christ (Lumen Gentium, nos. 6-7). Jesus is one with His Spouse, the Church (cf. Eph. 5:32). The two form the one Body of Christ visible on earth. Christ is the Head, and He ministers through His body as the sacrament of salvation (Lumen Gentium, no. 9). To whom does He minister? Both His body and those apart from the body, that he might draw all men to Himself (ibid., no. 13). In this way, the Church dispenses to all men the graces of salvation won by Christ. Those who knowingly reject these graces are lost. Those who accept them are saved. Those who do not have the opportunity to accept the grace can be saved because of the presence of the Church in the world (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12-16). If they are saved, they are saved through the Church without their knowledge of that grace.
Vatican II declares:
[Many] of the most significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Him, belong by right to the one Church of Christ. . . . It follows that these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church (Decree on Ecumenism, no. 3).
Come Aboard!
This teaching of Christ and His Church is not meant to allow indifferentism or exclusivism. Baptism and unity with the Catholic Church provide the only assurance of salvation, but not the only means. "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments" (Catechism, no. 1257, original emphasis).
The will of God is for "all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). To fulfill His will, Jesus commissioned the Apostles to preach the Gospel and baptize those who would embrace it (Mk. 16:16). He gave us the Sacrament of Baptism and unity with the Church as the ordinary means of salvation. By Baptism we are made sharers in the life of Christ. When we participate in the fullness of life within the Church, we remain obedient children of God with the Church as our Mother. To provide assurance for the salvation of all men, we must fulfill the command of Christ to evangelize the world and bring all into His Body, the Church.
Because God is not bound by the sacraments, He makes the grace of salvation available to all in ways unknown to us. This is the basis for the Church’s teaching on "Baptism of desire" (cf. Catechism, nos. 1258-60, 1281). This occurs, for example, when one seeks Baptism but dies first, or when one dies without explicit knowledge of Christ, but would have embraced the truth had it been presented. Only God can judge their souls.
The Church is the ark through which men are saved. Noah and his family were the only men saved on the ark, but even animals who had no understanding of the matter were saved with them. As the ark saved all on it, even those who had no knowledge, so does the Church, as the universal sacrament of salvation, dispense the graces won by Christ and applies them to all men of every place and condition. In a way mysterious to us, this salvation is offered to all, and God, who judges the hearts of all, will determine their destiny.
Done and done.
>those to whom Scripture is entrusted are infallible, and must be obeyed.<
“Once again I must point out that seeing that you obviously have a totally flawed understanding of infallibility why would I even consider anything else that you say?”
How is that flawed?
“You just have to assent to it and obey. Get it? It is what we do before God, we say yes and we obey.”
I do get it (though this does not apply to all levels of RC teaching), and which confirms my prior statement.
“the Catholic Church not only claims that it is the ultimate earthly authority, it IS the ultimate earthly authority because it is led and protected by the Holy Spirit sent down at Pentacost.”
I obviously am familiar with that claim, and one of my responses was that “the Catholic doctrine of a perpetuated Petrine papacy [which is foundational to your claim] critically fails to possess the explicit and implicit substantiation that the Holy Spirit is faithful to provide for other major doctrines of like critical nature.”
“I had never heard the phrase either but this site was interesting. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a29.htm";
Thank you for providing a respectable Catholic source that confirms this is an accurate term. For all intents and purposes, what Rome is asserting is that those to whom the word of God comes have autocratic authority over it, and based upon her interpretation of Scripture, she has the sole authority to infallibly define what is Scripture and it’s meaning, as well as to effectively add to it by making church tradition of equal authority to it.
My brief response to this is that i fully agree that God established His enduring church (Mt. 16:18), and that it does have the powers from Christ the Scriptures ascribe to it (Mt. 18:18), and that He did establish ordination of Bishops/elders (same office) and deacons (Tts. 1:5-9; Heb. 6:2; Acts 6:2-6), but not a successor to Peter, and that the pastoral office functions as teachers and overseers to whom obedience is enjoined (1 Tim. 4; Heb. 13:17). And which is manifest in Bible believing churches,. And that God used holy men to penn His Scriptures (2 Pet. 2:21, 21). The differences are that the same class of revelation (the Scriptures) manifest that both those who give the word as well as it’s preservers are subject to it (Mk. 7:6-13), and that even the preaching of the very apostles had to be able to withstand Scriptural scrutiny by common men who were lovers of truth and the Scriptures, and who are commended by the Holy Spirit (Acts 17:11).
And that while there was an oral tradition, if it was wholly inspired then this would have been written down as was the Biblical manner (Ex. 17:14; Dt. 31:24; 1 Sa. 10:25; Jer. 30:2; 45:1; 51:60), and included as Scripture, which is the only class of revelation that is explicitly declared to be wholly inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). And the canon being closed, to make another stream of revelation equal to is essentially adding to the canon.
And while this does not mean we cannot not refer to history, or that God cannot speak to us today (which evangelicals believe), it means that such must be subject to the codified word of God, the Scriptures. And it here that the case for the foundational perpetuated Petrine papacy it wanting, as well as for doctrines such as the perpetual virginity of Mary (etc.).
“Thank you for providing a respectable Catholic source that confirms this is an accurate term.”
Actually, I did no such thing, I said I found it interesting, I scanned it but did not study it. It did seem like a respectable source but I also added that there was NO reference on the New Advent site whatsoever and that is a really respectable site with many Catholic references. So I will repeat there was NO reference to the phrase on the most respectable Catholic reference site.
I don’t have time right now but will respond to the rest of the post later.
“And that while there was an oral tradition, if it was wholly inspired then this would have been written down as was the Biblical manner”
Profoundly devastating to your own case. Christ lives. Christ spoke and interacted enough to fill volumes, yet it is not written down. You’re claiming Christ’s Life is only contained in the Bible. Your Christ is a dead Christ, mine lives. Through His Life, Tradition, the Bible, and His Church that he founded for us.
Protestantism has tradition right at its core. The canon of Scripture is itself a tradition nowhere established in the Bible. It’s a church tradition. Protestants are in the position of having its primary authority not being able to justify its own existence.
I have a few minutes.
More on the site I linked. It sounded just as I stated, interesting. It was written by a self-described Catholic, I know nothing of his credentials. As I said it was interesting, it is not some kind of Catholic phrase and Catholics don’t bandy it about. I had never heard the term until you posted it and I am often on Catholic sites. So if you are implying that I verified that it was an authentic Catholic phrase or teaching you are more than wrong.
I won’t answer your question about infallibility because there is an active thread on it and you can read it.
>I do get it (though this does not apply to all levels of RC teaching), and which confirms my prior statement.<
This does apply to all official Catholic teaching. It is all in the Catechism and yes, we must assent to all of it. It doesn’t apply to opinions from anyone, when in doubt, look it up in the Catechism.
>I obviously am familiar with that claim,...<
Please give me some examples and valid links. No pope in history has ever officially taught heresy.
What critically fails to possess and promulgate the Truth is Sola Scriptura, which is not Biblical. Everyman a pope obviously does not work. Catholics know the meaning of Scripture because Scripture was written through the Tradition of the Apostles. The Catholic Church didn’t get its Tradition from Scripture. The Scripture came through Tradition.
You think that you can make some kind of argument with your own personal interpretation of Scripture. I’m telling you that you cannot.
I used to be a Protestant, I’ve read my Bible since I was around 7 years old, I’ve read it twice cover to cover and many more times by chapter, book and verse. It was my Bible reading that led me to ask questions and it was the answers to those questions that led me to the Catholic Church.
I never thought that I’d check out the Catholic Church, I was just looking for the real deal and I found it. It took 46 years for me to come home to the Church that Jesus established and unless the “Gates of Hell”, do prevail and I find that Jesus was a liar after all, I will probably become apostate or Jewish because Jesus meant what He said or He wasn’t who He said.
I’ve read thousands of posts similar to yours and though most Protestants have good talking points their understanding is a mile wide and an inch deep.
If you would like to study the journey of a Catholic Convert, I’d suggest you read GK Chesterton. He will make you laugh but his writings are very profound and right on the money.
The Normans, after all, were Catholics themselves (as were everyone in Western Europe, excepting some remaining pagans in Scandinavia), The battle to which you refer was part of a 3 way contest for control of southern Italy between the locals, supported by the Pope, the Byzantine Empire (this was the occasion of the Great Schism with Orthodoxy), and conquering Normans, still half-barbarians.
All Christ did was indeed inspired of God, but what i am referring to was records of what He said and did, which if written wholly inspired, would be part of the revelation that the Holy Spirit states is wholly inspired. To hold that a written or oral tradition is equal to that is to essentially hold that that the canon is not closed. And to allow the teaching as God-inspired doctrines that are the unwarranted commandments of men.
“The canon of Scripture is itself a tradition..”
Indeed it is, though the inspired books are established as Scripture not due to ecclesiastical decree, but to their manifest enduring purity and power down thru history. And as i also stated, sola scriptura does not disallow history, or God “speaking” to us today, but such must be subject to the established (2 Tim. 3:16) word of God, the Scriptures, which what the Lord and His apostles often proved things by (in addition to powerful Divine attestation), and were themselves proved to be sound by.
I’ve had a few moments to think and I would hold Paul up to you as one who misinterpreted Scripture. He was a very brilliant and religious Jew. He knew the Scripture backward and forward and yet he didn’t recognize Jesus from his very own Scriptures because, like most Jews, he had his own opinion of what the Messiah was going to be. Most of the Jews thought Jesus was going to be a warrior or a king of this world but instead He was a man who taught love above all and then gave Himself up to the cross on Calvary like a thief or a murderer when He had never done any wrong.
It took an appearance by Jesus, himself, to awaken the soul of Paul and it could happen to you too.
I challenge you to pray to God to truly open your eyes, not unto your own understanding but unto God’s will.
“Indeed it is, though the inspired books are established as Scripture not due to ecclesiastical decree, but to their manifest enduring purity and power down thru history”
The Biblical Canon you hold dear was established by the authority of the Catholic Church. Most Protestant scholars even concede this. There are some parts that were taken out in the 1500’s by some who split from the Church in the Reformation period. Anything else is a rationalization - such as denial that Reformers used this Churches Canon until it didn’t meet there needs. They THEY independently changed the nature of the Bible with no authority.
Sure the Normans were nominally Christian / Catholic themselves, some were even pious.
But Pope Leo thought the power of God would allow him and an army of Italians to prevail militarily against the Normans. His army was convinced it was true as well, right up until the Norman charge and rout. So much for that theory. ;)
I tend to doubt that the Pope believed that, whatever he said to the troops to encourage them. In any case the belief is that 'the Gates of Hell' will not prevail against the Church, not that the temporal power of the Pope would prevail against that of other members of the Church.
God offers sanctuary for your soul, he promises no protection for the body, or even the “body” of the Church from corruption or assassination or conquest.
So how is the Norman state in Italy doing THESE days?
As well as the Norman state of England I would imagine! ;) They were never kicked out, they just slowly absorbed into the subjugated population.
“The Biblical Canon you hold dear was established by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Rome can decree what it will, but if the books were not manifest as inspired by their power and purity and supplementary conformity to each other then they would be obscure today, which is what the 7 extra books, relatively are. And which are excluded for good reasons, fallible Reformers initial acceptance notwithstanding: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_apocrypha_inspired_of_god and http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart1.html *
What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"
Christian, I Presume? (Salvation) [Ecumenical]
Rock Solid: The Salvation History of the Catholic Church [Ecumenical]
Getting in Touch With Reality (good character and behavior as a ticket to Heaven)
The Early Church Fathers on Salvation Outside the Church [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Extra ecclesiam - Outside the Church there is no salvation.
Is Faith Necessary for Salvation? (Part 2)
Good Will Equals Salvation? (Did the pope say non christians could be saved - part 1)
The Experience of the Salvation of Christ Today
“I have a few minutes.”
I understand; near constant attendance to this forum should not be expected.
“if you are implying that I verified that it was an authentic Catholic phrase or teaching you are more than wrong.”
It was never my argument that it was a phrase, but that it accurately describes Rome’s position.
“This [obedience] does apply to all official Catholic teaching.”
I was referring to the differences between the infallible Sacred Magisterium and the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium, and between sacred assent (precludes the possibility of faithful dissent) and ordinary assent (includes the possibility of limited faithful dissent in non-salvific areas). Here is Catholic explanation of such: http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/assent-dissent.htm.
Of course, as said before, there is no infallible list of all infallible doctrines, and much has not been infallibly defined, leaving much to fallible conclusions.
“Scripture came through Tradition.”
It is true that Scripture is the part of tradition that is known to be 100% inspired of God, and the canon serves to confirm that, while making tradition to be of equal authority with it defeats that distinction and essentially adds to the canon. But let me also state that sole Scriptura does not negate the use of tradition, but makes infallible Scripture the infallible rule of faith for the Church and ultimate authority.
“You think that you can make some kind of argument with your own personal interpretation of Scripture. I’m telling you that you cannot.”
I am telling you that any arguments must be able to demonstrably withstand Scriptural scrutiny by even the laity (Act 17:11), as the apostles could. What you have asserted elsewhere and implied is that implicit trust in Rome is required, and thus to search the scriptures is not really needed to know this for certain. The Pharisees had a like Roman presumption (Mk. 7:6-13), which leads to men teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
“Everyman a pope obviously does not work.”
And everyman under the Pope allowed such things as the Crusades and Inquisitions (and current widespread Catholic Bible illiteracy), under a church state that used the means of the Empire, but which carnal means of warfare and civil rule over those without are clearly disallowed for the church (Mt. 22:21; Rm. 13:1-6; 1 Cor. 5:12, 13; 1 Pt. 2:13, 14).
But Sola Scriptura is not making every man a pope, as the Pope operates as head of an autocratic magisterium
that in reality authorizes itself, as she claims sole authority to infallibly define what Scripture fully consists of (which took approx. 1500 years), as well as tradition, and to infallibly interpret both. In contrast, those under sola Scriptura must be able to demonstrate the Scriptural worthiness of a doctrine, relying upon an infallible source, not a supposed infallible man. And it is by such as “prove all things” by that which is proven, with consistent surrender to Christ, that the church has and will endure.
In addition, seeking to convince the laity (regarding the supremacy of Rome) based upon reasoning with them out of the scriptures (Act 17:2), the best you can hope for is a fallible conclusion. Yet the preaching of the Lord and His apostles appealed to human reasoning, with all it’s inherent risks, manifestly presupposing that lovers of truth would be convinced by the Scriptures (Mt. 22:29-46; Jn. 5:39; Acts 2:14-35; 7; 17:3, 11; 18:28; 28, etc.), as well as powerful supernatural attestation (Jn. 14:11; Rm. 15:19).
“I used to be a Protestant..”
That is rather broad, but when and how were you born again?
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.