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.

[Mr Rogers]

The problem with your theory on Galatians is this: "I said to Peter in front of them all, "How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

Not just pulled back from eating, which would be hypocrisy, but "you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs".

I've previously posted on Matthew 16...well have to agree to disagree, since I find the Catholic position to be reasonable ONLY if you assume papal infallibility first.

I would be interested on your thoughts on Matthew 18:15-20

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 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. Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

[Mr Rogers]

“What is Baptist Christianity anyway? Do you guys even know? Is it Calvinist or Arminianist? What is the nature of Law and Gospel? Should women be ordained? What about the place of homosexuality in the Baptist churches? How about eschatology and a theology of the end times?”

At a minimum, you needn’t worry about many Baptist churches ordaining women, or supporting homosexual behavior...

Is it Calvinist or Arminianist? Beats me. I don’t know much about either. But the standard in a Baptist Church would be, whose views concur with scripture? We believe you should search for the truth in scripture, and you will individually be responsible for how you build on the foundation. If I build poorly, calling on Calvin won’t prevent my work from being consumed by fire.

Lots of folks debate end times, but I don’t think we are supposed to know too much about it, other that God wins.

[NoDRodee]

Jesus adds those who are saved to His Church.
We don't become part of a Church and then saved, we are saved then added to His church.

So then if he only adds those who are saved to his church, one could reason that only those who belong to His (the) Church are save.

There is only One Church and it aint Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Methodist, Mormon, Peter's, Paul, Apostles.
It's Jesus’ Church.

[bronxville]

The problem with your theory on Galatians is this: “I said to Peter in front of them all, “How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
Not just pulled back from eating, which would be hypocrisy, but “you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs”.”

Because Peter was the leader. I’m assuming you’re disputing that Peter was the leader.Why? It’s very clear in Holy Scripture AND the deposit of the faith.

“I’ve previously posted on Matthew 16...well have to agree to disagree, since I find the Catholic position to be reasonable ONLY if you assume papal infallibility first.

I would be interested on your thoughts on Matthew 18:15-20”

Could you direct me to your ‘interpretation’ on Mat. 16? Have you already posted on Mat 18:15-20? If so could you post the # on both? Thanks. :) This is a long and interesting thread but time doesn’t permit me to more than scan them therefore I’d probably miss your posts. You should have them on “ping”.

[bronxville]

Quick prayer request: “American Soldier Feared Captured in Afghanistan”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124653079297385075.html

I heard about this on my car radio and said a prayer for him then. I’m just about to leave to light a candle for a friend and will light one for this very brave soldier. I’ll also say a decade of the Rosary for him. Thank you for letting us know.

God bless,

bronxville

[bdeaner]

During those years, we see in Acts and the Epistles NO hierarchical structure, with Peter as the leading authority. In fact, Paul refers to Peter (and James & John) as “those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential” and “who seemed to be pillars”.

From this I deduce that from the beginning of the Church, there were many who gave extra weight to the teachings of James, Peter & John. After all, they couldn’t seem to be pillars without folks who believed they were in fact pillars. ____________________________________________________________

I want to address your points here in some more detail than previously. So I will go ahead and do that.

I did a little research on Matthew 16:18, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

What I've found is that, first, the Catholic interpretation of this passage, that the "rock" is Peter and not his faith or Jesus, is found supported among the Church Fathers, as early as Terullian in 230. Also, the pronoun "you" is singular, and the majory of Biblical experts agree that this is the case, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Morever, there are many Protestant scholars who agree that Christ is referring to peter as "rock"--e.g., Alford, Broadus, Keil, Kittel, etc.--and this interpretation can be found in well respected evangelical commentators, such as Peake's and New Bible Commentary. Several of these scholars have chalked up the Peter/'rock' controversy to Protestant overreaction to Catholic claims to papal authority.

In his Word Studies in the New Testament from 1887, Marvin Vincent--a Protestant scholar of Greek--had this to say:

The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself....The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundationarchitect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Chirst a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones...

Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions but on confessors--living men...

The references to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the earlyc church...

See Acts 1:15, 2:14,37; 3:2; 4.8; 5:15, 29; 9:34,40; 1-:25-26; Galatians 1:18. END OF QUOTE. Cited in Dave Armstrong's book, "A Biblical Defense of Catholicism."

Now, if we move on to Matthew 16:19, we can find very interesting parallels to other Scripture, which are quite revealing of the significance of the passage for validating the Catholic interpretation of Peter's authority. Let's take a look at this passages together with two others:

Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven...

Isaiah 22:20-22
In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,...and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Revelations 3:7 [Christ describing Himself]
the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

If we look at the symbolic import of the "key" in Hebrew culture and scripture, it has the meaning of administrative authority, and this authority is granted to Peter by Christ.

In Matthew 16:19, we see that Peter is also given the power to bind and loose. These are technical terms in Hebrew which have to do with forbidding and permitting, or in other cases, condemning and acquitting -- a power that is also given to the Apostles in Matt. 17:17-18. The power granted here is one of formulating Christian doctrine and requiring allegiance to it, as well as the power to condemn heresies, as is again supported in a number of Protestant texts, including Allen C. Myers' Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, among others.

Marvin Vincent (again) writes:

"No other terms are in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of binding and loosing. They represented the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferred...in their reality, to his apostles; the first, here, to Peter, as their representative, the second, after his resurrection, to teh church (John 20:23)..."

In addition, Peter's authority can be witnessed in John 21:15-17, where Christ asks Peter three times to feed his sheep. Looking to Revelations 7:17, we can better understanding that the role of shepherd is to be one who guides and leads.

We can also look to Luke 22:31-32:
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

A variety of scholars have argued that this passage established the infallibility of Peter's authority.

In Galatians 2:9,11-14, we find St. Paul's rebuke of St. Peter, which you cited in the post I am responding to. So, now we can take a look at that.

Galatians 2:9,11-14
And when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship...But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

You have suggested that this passage implies a denial of Peter's supremacy. Actually, it implies just the opposite! He tells us that the example of St. Peter COMPELLED the Gentiles to live as the Jews. St. Paul's example had not the same compelling power.

Looking at Matt. 18:15, we can see that fraternal correction can sometimes mean that an inferior corrects someone of superiority, if in the defense of truth and justice. This has happened often in Church history. The Pope has been rebuked by the likes of St. Bernard, St. Thomas of Canterbury, and St. Catherine of Siena, among many others, and all of these saints acknowledged the authority of the Pope.

Moreover, the rebuke of St. Peter is not after all a rebuke of his doctrine. It is a rebuke of his conduct! In Acts 15:10, he set forth a doctrine at the Council of Jerusalem that he contradicts in his behavior at Antioch because he is afraid of offending the Jewish converts. St. Paul reminds him to obey his own doctrine! In fact, this is a wonderful illustration of how the infallibility of Papal doctrine does not insure the impeccability of the Pope's behavior! As a human, he is a sinner. He is only protected from error by the Holy Spirit when in the role of teaching doctrine. His behavior, however, may subsequently fail to live up to that very doctrine! Peter's behavior is especially problematic because it implies support for the errant Judaizers that Paul criticizes in his letter.

[Marysecretary]

You take a sentence out of context and really build on it. Not unusual for you.

[Marysecretary]

I know of no Elim cult. You twist scriptures to suit your agenda, as always.

[bdeaner]

Jesus adds those who are saved to His Church.

Could you answer how what you have stated in your post is different than what the Catholic Church itself teaches? If you read the posted article we are discussing here, and also key parts of Vatican II, the Catholic Church is saying essentially what you have said here. There is ONE Church, not many denominations, and where Truth is represented in any of Christian activity in the world, that is the Church. The Catholic Church would simply add that, by Apostolic succession, the See of Peter has authority and protection for theological error and when Christians separate themselves from these doctrines they risk falling into heresy and moral error which MIGHT eventually result in eternal damnation or perhaps unnecessary temporal punishment (natural consequences that result from moral error).

[bdeaner]

Notice what these Churches are called, Maronite Catholic Church, Byzantine Catholic Church, etc, and all of them are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and thus they are fully Catholic but yet not Latin/Roman Rite Catholics.

http://www.byzcath.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=287&Itemid=93

Here are 2 additional links that explains the different Eastern Catholic Churches and how they are fully Catholic, yet retain Liturgical and devotional traditions different from what is associated with Catholicism in the United States, which primarily is Roman/Latin Rite.

http://maryourmother.net/Eastern.html

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/rites.htm

Very informative links! Thanks!

[bdeaner]

Correct, that of Jesus. All else is a creation of man.

Congratulations! You just articulated Catholic doctrine.

[bdeaner]

And of course I’m not in full communion with the Church. That being your Catholic (or Roman Catholic) Church. Why deal with a handicapped middle man and not the Man himself?

Because that's what Jesus told us to do. I follow Him.

"When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, he chose for his cornerstone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward--in a word, a man. And upon this rock he has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historical Christian truth, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link."
-- G.K. Chesterton

Luke 22:31-32
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

[bdeaner]

Through personal study, group study, prayer, and worship with learned and Godly people. My salvation and communication to Christ does not require mediation through those people.

What if your personal study, group study, prayer and worship LED you eventually to understand the truth of Catholic doctrine, including the infallibility of the Pope. Are you open to that possibility, if that is where the Holy Spirit leads you?

[driftdiver]

“Are you open to that possibility, if that is where the Holy Spirit leads you?”

I’m open to whatever the Holy Spirit leads me to do, or at least I try to be.

Its my belief that I’ve been led away from the Catholic Church for the reasons I’ve already posted.

[driftdiver]

“Because that’s what Jesus told us to do. “

He told us to go thru a middle man? I don’t believe that. Look to his examples.

[bdeaner]

Christ doesn't need any help to forgive sins.

Of course not. The Lord didn't need to create the universe or man, but He did it anyway. Same thing with confession. He asks us to do it.

In John 20:21-23, Christ says "Peace be to you. As the Father has sent Me I also send you. When He had said this He breathed on them; and He said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

In 2 Corinthians 5:18 St. Paul speaks of the Ministry of Reconciliation: "It is all God's work. It was God Who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the work of handing on this reconciliation." Where is that Ministry of Reconciliation in Protestantism?

[bdeaner]

He told us to go thru a middle man?

I wouldn't put it like that, but in a certain sense, yes. When a person is acting as a part of the Body of Christ, He is animated by the Holy Spirit to enact in persona Christi whatever God wills. Our job is to give our egos over to Him, and allow Him to take over. That is how we take up our own cross in order to follow Him. We get ourselves out of the way. So, in a certain sense, spiritually, when I am dealing with another person who is operating in persona Christi, I am not dealing with another person: that person becomes, in effect, Christ Himself operating in the world through His Body the Church. That is what I take from St. Paul, and that is consistent with Catholic teaching.

Matthew 25:40
'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

[bdeaner]

I realize many are born into it but what of the rest??? Actually we know the answer...These are folks who honestly think they can be good enough to get to heaven on their own...They have not been brought to the place where they have figured out that only God is righteous...And only God CAN be righteous...That His righteousness was given to us as a gift because no matter what we do, we will never measure up...

This statement is clueless. No wonder you think Catholics are nuts. You make them into your own boogyman straw man and attack your own creation. Your statement doesn't come close to resembling what the Catholic Church stands for.

[Semper Mark]

“The Lord didn't need to the universe or man, but He did it anyway.”

And our participation wasn't required in that either, was it?

Man has a problem...P-R-I-D-E. We have trouble admitting to ourselves that an omnipotent, omniscient, Holy God, just doesn't need the help of little man.

John 20:21-23: Christ did not give to the Apostles what was peculiar to Himself, He alone has the power to forgive sins.

“Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them” happens when we proclaim the Gospel of the grace of God.
That's greatest privilege we have today. Christ enjoined the Apostles in His name to preach the Gospel.

2 Corinthians 5:19 - “To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”

The “word of reconciliation” is the Gospel my friend.

And in verse 21 - “For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be an offering for our sins, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.” Sounds like God just cut the middle man out, doesn't it?

I don't know where the “Ministry of Reconciliation” is in
“Protestantism”, but in Christianity it's in the Gospel.

Some folks have real trouble with the Gospel because it makes their religion null and void.
The Gospel makes men free, it doesn't lead them into bondage.

[bdeaner]

Good works are the evidence of true faith in Jesus Christ, not a requirement for it.

True faith in Jesus Christ is not saving faith unless it bears fruit in good works, without which spiritual growth is impossible. In this way, good works are necessary for salvation, and sanctification is not separated from justification. Rather, the two are intrinsically intertwined.

Matthew 5:20
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

This passage refutes "Faith alone" soteriology. Christ teaches us that we must not only believe in Him, but also keep all of the Commandments of His Father -- a high standard.