No Salvation Outside the Church

Catholic Answers ^ | 12/05 | Fr. Ray Ryland

[bdeaner]

Why does the Catholic Church teach that there is "no salvation outside the Church"? Doesn’t this contradict Scripture? God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). Peter proclaimed to the Sanhedrin, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Since God intends (plans, wills) that every human being should go to heaven, doesn’t the Church’s teaching greatly restrict the scope of God’s redemption? Does the Church mean—as Protestants and (I suspect) many Catholics believe—that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved?

That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church’s teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God’s mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978.

In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that "extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (outside the Church, no salvation) is "an infallible statement." But, it added, "this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it."

Note that word dogma. This teaching has been proclaimed by, among others, Pope Pelagius in 585, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214, Pope Innocent III in 1214, Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dominus Iesus.

Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.

Work Out Your Salvation

There are two distinct dimensions of Jesus Christ’s redemption. Objective redemption is what Jesus Christ has accomplished once for all in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension: the redemption of the whole universe. Yet the benefits of that redemption have to be applied unceasingly to Christ’s members throughout their lives. This is subjective redemption. If the benefits of Christ’s redemption are not applied to individuals, they have no share in his objective redemption. Redemption in an individual is an ongoing process. "Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling; for God is at work in you" (Phil. 2:12–13).

How does Jesus Christ work out his redemption in individuals? Through his mystical body. When I was a Protestant, I (like Protestants in general) believed that the phrase "mystical body of Christ" was essentially a metaphor. For Catholics, the phrase is literal truth.

Here’s why: To fulfill his Messianic mission, Jesus Christ took on a human body from his Mother. He lived a natural life in that body. He redeemed the world through that body and no other means. Since his Ascension and until the end of history, Jesus lives on earth in his supernatural body, the body of his members, his mystical body. Having used his physical body to redeem the world, Christ now uses his mystical body to dispense "the divine fruits of the Redemption" (Mystici Corporis 31).

The Church: His Body

What is this mystical body? The true Church of Jesus Christ, not some invisible reality composed of true believers, as the Reformers insisted. In the first public proclamation of the gospel by Peter at Pentecost, he did not invite his listeners to simply align themselves spiritually with other true believers. He summoned them into a society, the Church, which Christ had established. Only by answering that call could they be rescued from the "crooked generation" (Acts 2:40) to which they belonged and be saved.

Paul, at the time of his conversion, had never seen Jesus. Yet recall how Jesus identified himself with his Church when he spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus: "Why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4, emphasis added) and "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:5). Years later, writing to Timothy, Paul ruefully admitted that he had persecuted Jesus by persecuting his Church. He expressed gratitude for Christ appointing him an apostle, "though I formerly b.asphemed and persecuted and insulted him" (1 Tim. 1:13).

The Second Vatican Council says that the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church and the mystical body of Christ "form one complex reality that comes together from a human and a divine element" (Lumen Gentium 8). The Church is "the fullness of him [Christ] who fills all in all" (Eph. 1:23). Now that Jesus has accomplished objective redemption, the "plan of mystery hidden for ages in God" is "that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places" (Eph. 3:9–10).

According to John Paul II, in order to properly understand the Church’s teaching about its role in Christ’s scheme of salvation, two truths must be held together: "the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all humanity" and "the necessity of the Church for salvation" (Redemptoris Missio 18). John Paul taught us that the Church is "the seed, sign, and instrument" of God’s kingdom and referred several times to Vatican II’s designation of the Catholic Church as the "universal sacrament of salvation":

"The Church is the sacrament of salvation for all humankind, and her activity is not limited only to those who accept her message" (RM 20).

"Christ won the Church for himself at the price of his own blood and made the Church his co-worker in the salvation of the world. . . . He carries out his mission through her" (RM 9).

In an address to the plenary assembly of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (January 28, 2000), John Paul stated, "The Lord Jesus . . . established his Church as a saving reality: as his body, through which he himself accomplishes salvation in history." He then quoted Vatican II’s teaching that the Church is necessary for salvation.

In 2000 the CDF issued Dominus Iesus, a response to widespread attempts to dilute the Church’s teaching about our Lord and about itself. The English subtitle is itself significant: "On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church." It simply means that Jesus Christ and his Church are indivisible. He is universal Savior who always works through his Church:

The only Savior . . . constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: He himself is in the Church and the Church is in him. . . . Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord (DI 18).

Indeed, Christ and the Church "constitute a single ‘whole Christ’" (DI 16). In Christ, God has made known his will that "the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity" (DI 22). The Catholic Church, therefore, "has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being" (DI 20).

The key elements of revelation that together undergird extra ecclesiam, nulla salus are these: (1) Jesus Christ is the universal Savior. (2) He has constituted his Church as his mystical body on earth through which he dispenses salvation to the world. (3) He always works through it—though in countless instances outside its visible boundaries. Recall John Paul’s words about the Church quoted above: "Her activity is not limited only to those who accept its message."

Not of this Fold

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus does not mean that only faithful Roman Catholics can be saved. The Church has never taught that. So where does that leave non-Catholics and non-Christians?

Jesus told his followers, "I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). After his Resurrection, Jesus gave the threefold command to Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Tend my sheep. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:15–17). The word translated as "tend" (poimaine) means "to direct" or "to superintend"—in other words, "to govern." So although there are sheep that are not of Christ’s fold, it is through the Church that they are able to receive his salvation.

People who have never had an opportunity to hear of Christ and his Church—and those Christians whose minds have been closed to the truth of the Church by their conditioning—are not necessarily cut off from God’s mercy. Vatican II phrases the doctrine in these terms: 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 consciences—those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16).

Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery (Gaudium et Spes 22).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

Every man who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ and of his Church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (CCC 1260).

Obviously, it is not their ignorance that enables them to be saved. Ignorance excuses only lack of knowledge. That which opens the salvation of Christ to them is their conscious effort, under grace, to serve God as well as they can on the basis of the best information they have about him.

The Church speaks of "implicit desire" or "longing" that can exist in the hearts of those who seek God but are ignorant of the means of his grace. If a person longs for salvation but does not know the divinely established means of salvation, he is said to have an implicit desire for membership in the Church. Non-Catholic Christians know Christ, but they do not know his Church. In their desire to serve him, they implicitly desire to be members of his Church. Non-Christians can be saved, said John Paul, if they seek God with "a sincere heart." In that seeking they are "related" to Christ and to his body the Church (address to the CDF).

On the other hand, the Church has long made it clear that if a person rejects the Church with full knowledge and consent, he puts his soul in danger:

They cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it (cf. LG 14).

The Catholic Church is "the single and exclusive channel by which the truth and grace of Christ enter our world of space and time" (Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, 179). Those who do not know the Church, even those who fight against it, can receive these gifts if they honestly seek God and his truth. But, Adam says, "though it be not the Catholic Church itself that hands them the bread of truth and grace, yet it is Catholic bread that they eat." And when they eat of it, "without knowing it or willing it" they are "incorporated in the supernatural substance of the Church."

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR



Fr. Ray Ryland, a convert and former Episcopal priest, holds a Ph.D. in theology from Marquette University and is a contributing editor to This Rock. He writes from Steubenville, Ohio, where he lives with his wife, Ruth.

[kosta50]

The question is; how do you understand anything with logic???

You can know the words but not understand them unless they are in a logical, coherent order. Logic tells us that we don't have to believe that a circle has no corners. We know it doesn't, and we know why it doesn't. Logic relates things as they are in the real world. The world described in the Bible is not logical and is not the way our world is. That makes the Bible incomprehensible. It's equivalent to asking someone to believe, contrary to reason, that a circle has corners.

Logic is nothing more than a guess...Logic is for people who don't know the answer to the question...

I would call that a sweeping generalization. It is not a guess that the shortest distance between any two points is a straight line; it is not a guess that the sum of all angles in any triangle is known; it is not a guess that six pounds will outweigh three pounds, etc.

And what makes one person's logic superior to the person whose logic disagrees with his logic??? The answer of course is in the final equation...If the logic can prove itself in the end...

People do not disagree on logic. They disagree when logic is applied subjectively to explain, defend and claim perception, illusions and delusions as something factual. No one will disagree with the logic that touching a hot stove with a bare hand, or jumping off a 10th floor is injurious. Applying logic to subjective perceptions is like trying to eat your chicken broth with a fork. Wrong utensil! Logic tells us it won't work and to use a spoon.

Likewise, every time you try to explain real-world phenomena through the Bible it leads to senseless conclusions because a belief is not knowledge.

Logic however, does not apply to the scriptures...The only biblical logic is called wisdom...And the only Godly wisdom we get comes from God...According to God...

That's a very logical conclusion, I must admit, except then you jump to a conclusion that biblical wisdom is Godly and therefore from God! There goes the logic! How do you know that? Because someone wrote it? That simply doesn't follow.

That means that God wrote a lot of scripture that is meaningless and not applicable to anything...So where's the logic in that???

Where is the logic that God wrote the scripture?

But then we get to Romans, Galatians, Ephesians where it's is conclusive that works of any kind are forbidden for salvation...Of course you guys deny this to keep in line with your believing only what Jesus said...Regardless, the scriptures tell us that any kind of works are counted as a debt...

First, to you the words of Paul are equal or higher than what Jesus is quoted as saying. This is because Paul arrogates himself to the role of being a Christ's mouthpiece, teaching what Christ in life (in the Gospels) never taught.

Paul cleverly covers all the bases when he said that scripture is God-breathed (something no one else says in the Bible), even if he didn't (cleverly) define what constitutes scriptures.

These two claims of Paul are clever but they do not prove, logically, that what he says is true. He never knew Jesus personally and he knew that, in order for his words to carry any weight he had to have some kind of divine coverage. So, if he taught what appeared as divergent from what those who knew Jesus taught, he could always fall back on this arrogated authority, i.e. that Christ speaks through him.

So, the Church puts greater emphasis on the words of Christ then on the words of Paul, standing when the Gospels are read by a priest, and sitting when the Epistles are read by a lay person. Even if we assume that all scriptures are God-breathed, he didn't say they are of equal importance. Judaism, Paul's own Pharisaical Judaism, considers the Books of Moses higher than the rest of the Tanakh (Jewish Bible).

Who is Paul to overrule Jesus? In Chapter 25 of Matthew, Jesus is quoted as saying whom he will save and whom he will not, all based on works. The Paul comes along and says in effect "this is wrong; works are debt; only faith saves you." John tried to mend some of these two different schools of thought, having written his book at the end of the apostolic era, when Judaism and Christianity even officially parted ways, and when Christianity badly needed divine coverage now that they became a sect without one.  John knew that Paul's legacy carried weight and was important for the Church, just as he knew that Christ had to be a lot more divine than he is in either of the previous three Gospels or Paul's Epistles.

So I don't buy into man's logic that you claim is a gift from God...Not when your logic seems to be so, illogical

I would never claim that logic is a gift from God. And if I did, I would have no way of knowing that it is.  The only thing that's illogical is the Bible, with its talking donkeys, voices from heaven, pillars of fire, burning bushes that talk, talking serpents, a man living for three days in a  belly of a large fish, people being raised from the dead, etc. because these things simply don't happen, and never did because no one else by the biblical authors recorded them.  So, if you reject something because it is not logical, the Bible is a good start.

[Mr Rogers]

If you do not accept scripture as authoritative, fine. Become a Mormon, or a JW, or an atheist. That is your right. One cannot prove by logic that Scripture is Scripture.

Nor does Scripture try. Its authority is ASSUMED, not offered up for proof.

The Roman Catholic Church does not make Scripture authoritative. A council does not. At least one Christian church accepts only a 22 book canon for the NT.

You might want to read here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.viii.html

However, if you do not accept Scripture as authoritative, then it is hard to discuss this over the Internet - at least, not on this thread. After 2700 posts that give at least lip service to Scripture, it is a bit unfair to change the subject.

Yes, we are talking about faith and belief. Christianity is not illogical, but it is not logically deducible.

[Mr Rogers]

There isn’t a conflict between Jesus and Paul, nor does John teach a different Jesus than Matthew. ALL the Gospels teach the divinity of Jesus. However, since you deny the Bible, why do you care?

And in any case, it pretty well negates a conversation, since most Christians don’t believe Christianity is a logical construct - I wouldn’t believe it if it was - but REVEALED truth.

When I lived in Utah, I had a lot of conversations with Mormons. However, it wasn’t fruitful for us to discuss the Book of Mormon, since I didn’t accept it as truth.

[bdeaner]

The refusal of Catholic apologists to acknowledge Rome's integral role in subverting medical progress over a millenia is curious to me.

People claim a lot of things, but unless they can produce evidence, why should anyone believe them? The Catholic Church did not subvert medical progress, as I argued, and in fact was instrumental in producing modern medicine as we know it today.

William Tyndale doesn't really have anything to do with science or medicine. Seems to be a red herring argument to me. But since you mention Tyndale, distortions regarding his biography is also common in anti-Catholic propaganda. Tyndale was not condemned for translating the Bible into English, as you seem to imply. Translating the Bible was never considered a heresy in the Church. On the contrary, the objective history demonstrates that it has been the Catholic Church which for 2000 years has preserved and protected the Word fo God. It was is only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available. All Christians everywhere owe it a great debt for that.

So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English actually illegal? The answer is no, as Matthew Newsome describes:

The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.

It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff"). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

Which, as it turns out, is just what William Tyndale did. Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.

Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the "father of the English Bible." But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.

And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.

[kosta50]

One cannot prove by logic that Scripture is Scripture

Then one cannot prove it period.

Nor does Scripture try. Its authority is ASSUMED, not offered up for proof

This is probably the most fair and honest answer I have read yet! The scriputres certainty do not try, and I never suggested otherwise. The authority is made as an a priori assumption. Yet most will tell you that they know.

They speak of things scriptural as statements of fact and not of faith, when they should be referring to them as "I believe" or "we believe" they say "I know" or "this is...". If anything, they should preposition any biblical claim as I assume...

The Roman Catholic Church does not make Scripture authoritative

That is true, but it was the Catholic Church that put the canon together by consensus of men. The paradox is that all Protestants accept this canon of the Catholic Church yet dispute her authority!

At least one Christian church accepts only a 22 book canon for the NT

Whoever said that the Christian canon is closed lied. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church holds the Book of Enoch as part of the canon. The Greek Church considered Revelation as "questionable" up to the 9th century and then only accepted it pro-forma. That book is never read liturgically in eastern churches.

However, if you do not accept Scripture as authoritative, then it is hard to discuss this over the Internet - at least, not on this thread

I think you jumped into this discussion without learning more about its context. I have no interest in discussing the scriptures. The discussion started over factual claims based on scriptures. I simply followed up with "how do you know." You pretty much answered it: it's an assumption, not knowledge.

You'd think Christians of all people would have that much humility as a rule never to make statements of faith sound like statements of fact.

After 2700 posts that give at least lip service to Scripture, it is a bit unfair to change the subject.

I had no intention of changing the subject, just solicit an answer. When I see that someone is saying this is how it was because the Bible says so, I ask "how do you know?" That's not changing the subject.

Yes, we are talking about faith and belief. Christianity is not illogical, but it is not logically deducible

Then, I am sure, you'd agree that none should talk about if as if it was something logical, objective or factual. When I ask someone religious if demons cause disease they usually answer in the affirmative because "it's in the Bible." Yet they can't name one disease caused by demons! That says a lot about them.

[Iscool]

Some fair points, in my opinion...But I guess the entire thing has to be by faith...Jesus refers to the writings of the Moses, the Prophets, and then the Psalms as scripture...

Now this is not my writing but a 'cut and paste' since this fella says it better than I can...

Concerning Paul's own writings he said, “when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ” (Ephesians 3:3-4). He said that the things he wrote were "the Lord’s commandment” (I Corinthians 14:37). He said that by the scriptures the mystery of God’s revelation has been made known to all the nations (Romans 16:25-26).

What about Peter? Did he believe his writings would be preserved for the ages? He said that the very purpose for his writing was to provide others a way to know what he had taught, even after his death (II Peter 1:12-18).

Holy Scripture is the basis by which we determine spiritual truth. Luke commended the people in Berea because they were “examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Should we not be as diligent?

Paul said that Scripture is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (II Timothy 3:16-17).

You know ... Peter claimed that God has provided us with “... everything pertaining to life and godliness ...” (II Peter 1:3).

From the very few verses cited in this Bible Talk, it seems evident that “everything pertaining to life and godliness” is supplied through the Holy Scriptures.

We have seen that Scripture provides for us: 1) an orderly record of Jesus’ deeds sufficient to build a saving faith; 2) a record of all things Jesus taught; 3) a record of what the apostles taught; 4) the inspired word of the Holy Spirit; 5) the commandments of the Lord; 6) a way to acquire the same understanding of the mysteries of Christ that was held by Paul; 7) criterion for recognizing true doctrine; 8) access to joyful fellowship with the Lord and His people; 9) protection from sin; 10) blessings from God; 11) prophecy of things to come; and, 12) all that is needed to equip the man of God for every good work.

Scripture alone claims that all of these things are provided by Scripture alone. What else do we need beyond what Scripture provides to be well pleasing to God and to prepare for eternity?

At any rate, Paul makes the claim that he spent time with the Risen Lord and recorded it in the scriptures...Paul claims he was given a new revelation by Jesus, the Gospel of the Grace of God, and that by faith, without works, contrary to Matt. 25...And the adoption of the Gentiles into the Body of Christ...

Peter seems to acknowledge that Paul's writings are indeed scripture...I see no reason to doubt Paul's writings, his honesty in those writings or his Christ given authority...

[Mr Rogers]

“...it was the Catholic Church that put the canon together by consensus of men.”

Various churches, including the RCC, have ratified what their churches believe are scripture. Most have a 27 book canon for the NT. Some do not. Protestants generally deny the Apocrypha as Scripture. The RCC didn’t give an authoritative list of Scripture until the Council of Trent, in response to Reformation critics. I can’t think of any important doctrine founded on any disputed books.

“Then, I am sure, you’d agree that none should talk about if as if it was something logical, objective or factual.”

Actually, I don’t entirely agree. It is not contrary to logic, but it is not contained within logic. Call it logic+. And something can certainly be factual without being subject to logic, since no one possesses perfect logic. Certainly, if God exists, He exists in a way our logic won’t be able to comprehend. God may be a fact without being a conclusion.

However, I would certainly agree that Christianity is about revelation, not logic. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict people, not mine.

[Iscool]

And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.

True...Your religion never cared for any translation of the scriptures other than it's own version....That why so many Christians were murdered and their bibles burned in the Dark Ages...

And you make it sound like it was a good thing...There's little wonder at what your church would like to do to us if they could get away with it in this day and age...

[kosta50]

There isn’t a conflict between Jesus and Paul, nor does John teach a different Jesus than Matthew. ALL the Gospels teach the divinity of Jesus.

I beg to differ. With Paul it's a stretch. With the first three Gospels very doubtful. With John a certainty.

However, since you deny the Bible, why do you care?

I do not deny the Bible. Why are you jumping to conclusions? Please do not read my mind. The Bible is an objective reality. That doesn't mean what's in it is also objective reality, as some claim.

Curiosity is my main drive. When someone states something so matter-of-fact that is so different from the real world aorund us, I want to know why.

I wouldn’t believe it if it was - but REVEALED truth.

How do you know it's revealed (and by whom or what?) and how do you know it's truth?

[Iscool]

After reading your last post I'd like to affirm one thing...Faith is not wishful thinking...My faith is complete...The indwelling of the Holy Spirit within me is complete...I am sealed and the seal can not be broken...

I 'know' the scriptures are the words of God...I probably can't explain to you how I know to yur satisfaction, but then I don't have to explain to Mr. Rogers since he knows as well...

[bdeaner]

If you would have read the post, you would have seen that the statement of fact that Tyndale was arrested and sentenced to die by secular authorities.

But otherwise, the Church has always been militant in its efforts to preserve the integrity of Scripture. That's why Scripture has existed intact for more than 2000 years. Preservation of the Word has sometimes required violence. Someday military might may be required again to preserve the Scriptures. The Church will be there.

[kosta50]

The RCC didn’t give an authoritative list of Scripture until the Council of Trent, in response to Reformation critics

The Latin Church ratified the decision of the Third North African Council of Carthage at the end of the 4th century. Subsequently, various popes listed all the books in the canon. Deuterocanoncail OT books (referred to as apocryphal by Protestants) were used in the East. There was never any dispute about them until the Reformation.

The Council of Trent only reiterated the books of the canon used by the Church for 11 centuries. The east never officially declared the books. The use of these books became a matter of consensus (the North African Council was a local council and therefore non binding).

That doesn't explain why the Protestants accept the Christian canon (New Testament) put together by the Church if the church was in 'apostasy' and if her authority is rejected. Surely the Bible didn't fall form the sky like manna.

It is not contrary to logic, but it is not contained within logic. Call it logic+

No, it's not contrary to logic. I agree. Once you make illogical assumptions as the basis of religion, the rest proceeds logically. The problem is that the very foundation is an illogical a priori assumption. Hence the uncertainly is never removed. One never really knows. One has to believe it no matter how bizarre it may seem.

If we assume, illogically, that pink unicorns live on Jupiter, and we accept that assumption as unquestionable truth and fact (let' use a biblical example, it was revealed in a trance), then we can logically proceed to speak of the characteristics, size, and manner, etc. of these unicorns as if they really existed.

And something can certainly be factual without being subject to logic, since no one possesses perfect logic

But until it is logically understood, we do not know what it is!

Certainly, if God exists, He exists in a way our logic won’t be able to comprehend. God may be a fact without being a conclusion

Of course. But since he is "beyond everything" we can never know what God is. If we don't know what God is how can we recognize God? Hence my inquiry: how do you know...it's from God?

However, I would certainly agree that Christianity is about revelation, not logic. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict people, not mine.

How do you know it's the job of the Holy Spirit?

[kosta50]

Faith is not wishful thinking...My faith is complete...The indwelling of the Holy Spirit within me is complete...I am sealed and the seal can not be broken...

How does this differ from someone saying "I know that I am Napoleon Bonaparte, reincarnate?"

I 'know' the scriptures are the words of God

Do you know what God is?

How do you know scriptrues are the words of God? Because a man called Paul said they are (and he didn't even say what they are)?

[Iscool]

If you would have read the post, you would have seen that the statement of fact that Tyndale was arrested and sentenced to die by secular authorities.

I've read the accounts...The secular authorities you reference were all Roman Catholics...

[Iscool]

There was never any dispute about them until the Reformation.

That would be further east than Jerusalem...The folks who were entrusted with the Oracles of God did not allow them in their scriptures...

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

[bdeaner]

Why not post the words of God to prove your point???

It is dishonest to claim I did not reference Scripture when, in addition to the quote, I cited no less than a half-dozen passages of Scripture.

Does any one care what some author thinks???

This is a fallacious, ad hominem argument that attacks the messenger rather than addressing the substance of the message. Obviously, a lot of people care what the author thinks since his book, as I mentioned, was a long-time bestselling book! Not that it matters. Truth is not for sale, nor the result of a popularity contest. Could God make an infallible man??? Sure he could...

He can and He did -- St. Peter and His successors.

And God could have hypnotized all the Jews into accepting Him as their Messiah in which case, the church age would never have show up, BUT HE DIDN'T...

Fallacious, red herring argument that is irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

This character is implying that there is someone in your church who knows everything in the scriptures...

That's not at all what the author stated. Straw man argument. Another logical fallacy.

Many of the things in scripture haven't been revealed yet...

Again, a straw man. The Catholic Chuch does not claim to know all the possible true meanings of Scripture and its relevance for all time. That is not what "infallibility" means. Infallibility is limited in scope to certain doctrines that are proclaimed publically as infallible by the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

In revelation, God speaks his divine word; in inspiration, he projects it; and by the assistance of infallibility, he safeguards what was spoken and produced.

Peter's declaration before the Sanhedrin illustrates the various differences. "Of all the names in the world given to men," he said," this is the only one which we can be saved" (Acts 4:12). The salvation of the world by Jesus Christ is a matter of revelation; the instinct to protest against the injustice of the Jews and proclaim the name of Christ, we are told by St. Luke, was a divine inspiration, since Peter was "filled with the Holy Spirit," and in writing this episode, the author of the Acts was supernaturally inspired. But when Peter spoke as the Vicar of Christ to "rulers, elders, and scribes," he was divinely assisted by the gift of infallibility.

In any case, your response is filled with logical fallacies and does not address in any valid way the substance of the post.

[bdeaner]

The secular authorities you reference were all Roman Catholics...

King Henry VIII? Did you get your history lessons from a Cracker Jack box or what?

[Iscool]

King Henry VIII? Did you get your history lessons from a Cracker Jack box or what?

Did I say King Henry the VIII???

Everyone knows the history of Tyndale and also know why he was hunted and ultimately killed by the RCC...

The Catholics didn't want the scriptures to be readable in the hands of the average people and they bristled at the idea that Tyndal was using the Majority Texts to translate from...He exposed the Catholic church for what it was...

[Mr Rogers]

First, there continued to be discussion about which books were canon for a thousand years after Carthage, with various scholars (RCC) suggesting changes. And ALL of the canonical lists were ratifications, not determinations.

The Reformation continued with the NT canon, but set aside the disputed OT books that had never won full acceptance. I think most Protestants agree that the Catholic Church hadn’t drifted very far during the first 300 years, and were in a good position to know what the local churches had already believed for 250+ years. The Gospels and Paul’s Epistles were accepted as scripture almost as soon as they were penned.

There is a book you might be interested in - ‘A Severe Mercy’. Just checked - still in print after 20 years (http://www.amazon.com/Severe-Mercy-Sheldon-Vanauken/dp/0060688246/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248010573&sr=1-1) It starts with a man explaining his own path to Christianity at Oxford after WW2. Logic only carries you so far, after which there is a ‘leap of faith’ - but as someone pointed out to him, there was also a leap of faith to go backwards into unbelief.

Another book - I read much of it yesterday flying back from Indiana - is ‘Deep Survival’ (http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Survival-Who-Lives-Dies/dp/0393326152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248010657&sr=1-1). It discusses a variety of accidents from the viewpoint of recent knowledge about how humans make decisions. Humans are not logical, nor were our minds meant to be. Our minds are irrevocably linked to our bodies and emotions, and thought is another form of emotion...or maybe the other way around.

You have inherited certain forms of thought, just as Border Collies can be bred with an eye towards herding techniques. I just got back from visiting family I hadn’t seen in 40 years. My Dad died when I was 14 (and left for Vietnam when I was 12). Yet his family say my mannerisms and thought patterns are exactly like his.

If a Border Collie can inherit a long outrun (sweep out to gather sheep), or inherit how much force they will use in working sheep, then why do we act as though our thoughts are independent of us?

When you understand that ‘thought’ and ‘emotion’ are different expressions of the same process, a lot of human actions become clearer. When you understand that behaviors are genetically based, in many cases, then original sin becomes easier to understand.

Logic is as false a description of human thought as the physics of Aristotle were a false description of the world in which we live - although those physics were a good enough description to last for 1500 years! Logic is a tool for problem solving, but emotions and faith are also a critical part of how our brain works. My wife’s intuition is right as often as my logic, and why not? They are both the result of the same sort of thought processes inside our minds.

And I BELIEVE it is the job of the Holy Spirit. However, belief is also rooted in how our brains work to comprehend the world and make timely decisions. Someone who separates belief, emotion and thought doesn’t understand the processes by which our brains make it possible for us to function in the world.

[bdeaner]

Everyone knows the history of Tyndale and also know why he was hunted and ultimately killed by the RCC...

Well, you seem to think so. But your historical account does not line up to the facts. King Henry VIII denounced Tyndale. A secular court had him executed.

In 1530, Tyndale wrote The Practyse of Prelates, opposing Henry VIII's divorce on the grounds that it was unscriptural and was a plot by Cardinal Wolsey to get Henry entangled in the papal courts. This resulted in the king's wrath being directed at him: he asked the emperor Charles V to have Tyndale apprehended and returned to England, where he was then tried and executed.