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.

[bdeaner]

No question in my mind, soteriology is the trickiest business when doing comparative theology between Catholicism and various forms of Protestant theology. The differences between the the two views are very typically straw man arguments of the other from both sides, and so a careful, responsible ecumenical discussion of soteriology requires at least an attempt to look at both sides objectively. The differences are subtle, yet have wide-reaching implications.

Justification, according to Catholicism, is a true eradication of sin, a supernatural infusion of grace, and a renewal of the inner man. The Catholic Church holds that 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.

A man who makes a profession of faith in Christ but doesn't produce any evidence of the inner workings of the Holy Spirit in his life is probably not born again. We shall know them by their fruits.

This is consistent with Catholic soteriology. There are inner changes in the person, so that sanctification is a process of being made actually holy, not merely legally declared so. This process begins at baptism, is facilitated by means of prayer, acts of charity and the aid of sacraments, and is consummated upon entrance to heaven and union with God.

Not of works, lest any man should boast.” That's rather clear, isn't it?

It is clear, but again the soteriological differences between Protestant and Catholicism rests on differences that reside beyond a basic common ground. Catholics and Protestants generally agree that we are saved by grace alone. The quesiton is not a matter of choosing between grace and works. Rather, the question is a matter of choosing between grace and faith alone or faith AND works. We agree on grace; we disagree on the role of works in justification and sanctification.

Grace is defined in Catholicism as the gratuitous benevolence shown by God toward the human race, and it is an absolutely unmerited, free gift of God, made possible through our Redeemer Jesus Christ and his atoning death on the Cross for us. When, therefore, Catholics speak of merit on the part of man, it must be understood in a secondary, derivative sense.

St. Augustine wrote, "The Lord made Himself a debtor not by receiving something, but by promising something. One does not say to Him "Pay for what You received," but, "Pay what You promised."

Likewise, the Second Council of Orange in 529 AD declared, "Whatever good works we do are deserving of reward, not through any merit anterior to grace; their performance, rather, is due to a prior gift of grace to which we have no claim."

Matthew 5:20 does NOT refute “Faith Alone” salvation. Man has no righteousness and can never attain righteousness. We are doomed! Would you dare stand before a Holy God, who is a consuming fire, in your own righteousness?

Of course not -- but again this is not the key difference between Catholicism and Protestantism on the issue of soteriology, and is something upon which we essentially agree. Catholicism holds that a person cannot save himself by his own self-originated works. On this particular matter there is no difference whatsoever between Catholic and Protestant. The doctrine of "works-salvation," often wrongly attributed to Catholicism, is a heresy known as Pelagianism, which was in fact roundly condemned by St. Augustine (354-430), the above-mentioned Council in 529, and the Council of Trent (Canon I on Justification, January 13, 1547). When applied to Catholic soteriology, it is actually a straw man.

Christ alone has remedied the righteousness problem.

Unquestionably. Again, on this point, Catholics and Protestants have common ground.

Christ died for the sins that were on our account, the sin debt that we owed to a Holy God. When we trust Him by faith, His righteousness is imputed to us.

I read this as an endorsement of a view of justification in which there is an external, or forensic justification where righteousness is merely declared, or imputed by God to the sinner, who remains outwardly unchanged, at least in the beginning--which seems to imply the doctrine of total depravity. Maybe you can clarify your position here a bit more.

I think the key point here, for Catholics, is that man always retains at least a small measure of free will to choose God and the good. This enables him--by the necessary assistance of God's enabling and proceeding grace at every turn--to cooperate with god as He sanctifies and saves. In Catholic theology, whoever rejects God and goes to hell does so of his own volition and free choice, whereas in Calvinist Protestant "Reformational" doctrine, God predestines people to hell from eternity without (ultimately) their own choice being a factor at all--a doctrine known as double predestination.

Could you clarify your position on these key issues? Thanks!

[bdeaner]

The difference is Jesus Christ is not the Body any more than the church is the Head...Jesus Christ is the Head...

That's not what the Bible says. The Bible says that, as Christians, we become Christ's body. That is why Christ asks Paul, "Why do you persecute me?" To persecute a Christian is to persecute Christ Himself. Christ tells us that whatever we do to the least of our brothers, we do to Him. We ARE His Body as Christians who are "born again." And He is BOTH the Body AND the Head.

Born again believers are the Body/the church...

Yes. This is Catholic teaching as well. We likely disagree on what it means to be "born again." For Catholics, baptism is the sacramental process by which we are "born again." Later, at the sacrament of Confirmation, we give intellectual assent to the grace we already received at Baptism. If we are adults at conversion, we get both at the same time on the same day. Baptists usually put the two together -- confirmation and baptism all rolled into one -- as do the Catholics with an adult convert. The major difference here is only the issue of infant baptism and whether it is legitimate or not.

Personally I can't understand why Baptists would consent to the idea that children who die before being "born again" are condemned to Hell. For Catholics, our children are believed to go to Heaven with us, even if they did not receive confirmation, because they receive Baptism as an infant.

[Semper Mark]

Thank you for the reply bdeaner.

You raise some key issues that may require a long reply so I ask for you kind patients.

But I will address one issue rather quickly though.
I'm not necessarily a Calvinist. And what I mean by that is I do not agree with all of the Calvinist doctrine that I've read. But, as far as the predestination and election teachings of Calvin are concerned, yes, those teachings are Biblical. I could be hung by my Independent Baptist brethren for making that claim.

The short answer to that is, is that there is a door that says Who soever will, and those that enter are the elect.

More later.

[bdeaner]

I believe he interacts with us in the following ways (by no means exhaustive):

1. Personally, by direct revelation (that tugging in everyone’s heart that they are missing something)

2. By miracles

3. By the Bible (I have met people who were saved by those Gideon Bibles placed in hotels)

4. By evangelism of Christians

5. By attendance in church

There are a LARGE variety of ways Christ interacts with us; the church is but one. My biggest issue is with the author’s claim that the church is the only way. That is simply not scriptural.

Here is where the rubber meets the road: You seem to be defining "church" as basically church services -- things that go on in a building among clergy. HOWEVER, in Vatican II, the Catholic Church defined "Church" MUCH more broadly to (it seems to me) include all the things you mention above. The CHURCH, per Vatican II, is WHATEVER Christ does to operate instrumentally and materially on earth following His Ascension, with the help of the Holy Spirit, the "Advocate" which He sent to guide us. These operations are not restricted to things happening in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. But they do operate within the "Catholic Church" writ large -- which is defined essentially as all grace operating in the Universal Church, wherever that may be. This grace historically originates in the "Catholic Church" prior to the Reformation--the only channel of grace in the world before the Reformation--, and continues both in the Catholic and Protestant activities of Christians, as long as they are of the Lord, rather than corrupted by heresy and misdirected by the Father of Lies.

That seems pretty fair to me!

Now, where Protestants will bristle is that the Catholic Church continues to claim Papal infallibility. This remains the bedrock of the claimed "pillar and foundation of Truth" given to us by our Lord to preserve and teach His truths in a way that we could rely upon consistently. NOT by looking to the behavior of people of the Catholic Church, but by paying attention to the Sacred Scripture and Tradition, within the confines of infallible teachings, in order to discern the Lord's revealed Truth. Peter'ssuccessor continues to be held as a shepherd to look to in order to ultimately guide all flock. So, for example, where there are potentially multiple interpretations of the Bible that cannot be resolved by Biblical exegesis, the See of Peter is the place to look to clarify the received Truth. Protestants of course will disagree, based on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and so it is here, within this issue of Sola Scriptura, that the debate ultimately resides. And, frankly, this is the weak link for Protestantism, I believe, for reasons I have already cited.

[Semper Mark]

Did I say “you kind patients” grin, I intended to say I ask for your kind patience.

I'm not going to dump a lot of scripture on you, I'll ask that you search the Bible yourself for these truths.

When Adam fell he didn't just stumble, he fell completely out of the will of God, out of fellowship with God, and out of communion with God. Thus, the relationship between God and man was totally destroyed by sin. The Bible is clear, God cannot even look upon sin.

Man under the headship of Adam is now at enmity with God and under His judgment, condemnation, and wrath. Search from the Old Testament to the New Testament and you'll see this in plain sight. The Bible clearly shows man that he is sin from head to toe, and it describes us as sinners by nature and sinners by choice and totally corrupt. But thank God, in spite of this He still loves us and gave His Son to die for us. Christ loved us and gave Himself for us.

Justification (salvation) does not bring total eradication of sin, John and Paul both speak to this in their epistles.
Salvation makes us free to not sin, but not free from sin.
John, speaking to Christians, says that a man who says that he has no sin, or sin nature, is a liar and there is no truth in him. We are empowered by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to help us resist the flesh, our carnal nature.
When we walk in the flesh rather than in the Spirit, we will always the proclivity for sin.

On the matter of righteousness. As you asked: It is simply a matter of God declaring one righteous, or imputing His righteousness to a man. “Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness.” The evidence of the change isn't outward, or outside, but an inner change through the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

Even in his total depravity, God does leave man to his free will to choose, He's given us a who soever will salvation.
This is leading to the subject of predestination and election. Do the Scriptures teach predestination and election? Paul did in his epistles, Rom. 8:29-30, Eph. 1:5 and Eph 1:11. Who are the elect of God? The who soever will’s.

[Mr Rogers]

“Justification, according to Catholicism, is a true eradication of sin, a supernatural infusion of grace, and a renewal of the inner man.”

I have no idea how that differs from Protestant teaching on being born again. The old man dies, what is raised is a new creation. NEW. My body may be 51, but I’m 38...

“The Catholic Church holds that true faith in Jesus Christ is not saving faith unless it bears fruit in good works, without which spiritual growth is impossible.”

Protestants do not teach that intellectual assent will save you - after all, the demons have that much ‘faith’. But that isn’t the same as saying works complete the salvation.

If a cat was born again as a dog, it would behave as a dog, not a cat. A poor analogy, but someone born again as a son of God, or a slave who becomes a free man, or a rebel who surrenders to the King - they WILL behave differently.

A crude analogy, but here goes: When I adopted a son & daughter in the Philippines, they did not become my children because they acted like Americans and knew all my relatives. They spoke no English, and had to be taught to use forks, stand in lines, wear underwear...but they didn’t become my kids by speaking English, but by adoption. Had they died in a car crash 3 months later, they would have died as my kids. It was adoption that made them my children. The rest followed with time. And when their behavior is bad, they do not stop being my kids.

“There are inner changes in the person, so that sanctification is a process of being made actually holy, not merely legally declared so. This process begins at baptism, is facilitated by means of prayer, acts of charity and the aid of sacraments, and is consummated upon entrance to heaven and union with God.”

That is why we distinguish between justification (which is written about in the past tense) and sanctification (an ongoing process, done by God). We believe it starts at the new birth (and for Baptists, baptism follows). We believe God disciplines us, but doesn’t punish us - see any good dog training manual for the difference.

Where we seem to differ is that at death, we will be united with God. We do NOT go to Purgatory, for temporal punishment, whatever that is. Our ministry may be judged by fire, but we do not. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

Of course, we don’t believe in penances, either. If my wife says, “I forgive you, go sleep on the couch”, I don’t believe her forgiveness!

“Rather, the question is a matter of choosing between grace and faith alone or faith AND works.”

I would phrase it a bit differently. Based on Catholic teaching I’ve read here about Purgatory & penances and indulgences, I would say the Protestants believe works PROVE the faith, while Catholics believe the works have merit that gains them favor with God. Catholics seem to have a plus/minus accounting system. Thus, you can transfer merit gained by previous saints from the storehouse of merit.

---

“The Catholic doctrine of the Communion of Saints teaches that this work of cleansing or sanctification does not have to be done entirely by the person directly concerned, since all Christians, living and dead, are united as a single body that has Christ as head. The holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus through the communion of saints, recourse not only to the merits of the saints in heaven but above all to those of Christ himself lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.

In view of the power of binding or loosing granted by Christ, the Church considers that it may administer to those under its jurisdiction the benefits of these merits in consideration of prayer or other pious works undertaken by the faithful. This the Church does for individual Christians, not simply to aid them, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.

There is a common misconception that indulgences forgive sins; however, they only relieve the punishment due because of the sins. A person is still required to have their sins absolved by a priest to receive salvation.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

---

This is where we differ. Protestants do NOT believe in punishment for sins that have been forgiven, nor do we accept a plus/minus accounting system that allows us to transfer funds (merit) from one person to another. We reject utterly the idea that our good works generate bonus points with God, and that those bonus points can erase deficits we owe God.

“I read this as an endorsement of a view of justification in which there is an external, or forensic justification where righteousness is merely declared, or imputed by God to the sinner, who remains outwardly unchanged, at least in the beginning—which seems to imply the doctrine of total depravity.”

Justification occurs at the new birth. But Protestants seem far LESS inclined to think of external justification than Catholics. We have no plus/minus system, certainly not one that allows a church official to move merit from one person to another. Salvation isn’t a bank account.

I think CTrent1564 hit on the main difference, which you have allude to here: are we sick, or are we dead?

“I think the key point here, for Catholics, is that man always retains at least a small measure of free will to choose God and the good. This enables him—by the necessary assistance of God’s enabling and proceeding grace at every turn—to cooperate with god as He sanctifies and saves.”

---

16.4 Those who in their obedience [to God] attain the greatest height possible in this life, are still far from being able to perform works of supererogation (that is, to do more than God requires) since they fall short of much which, as their duty, they are required to do. [1]

1. 1 Kings 8:46 2 Chronicles 6:36 Psalms 130:3 Psalms 143:2 Proverbs 20:9 Ecclesiastes 7:20 Romans 3:9,23 Romans 7:14-15 Galatians 5:17 1 John 1:6-10 Luke 17:10

16.5 We cannot, even by our best works, merit pardon of sin or eternal life from the hand of God, for those works are out of all proportion to the glory to come. [1] Moreover, because of the infinite distance that is between us and God, our works can neither benefit God nor satisfy the debt of our former sins. When we have done all we can, we have only done our duty, and are still unprofitable servants. [2] Besides, if our works are good they originate from the Spirit, [3] and whatever we do is defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that it cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment. [4]

1. Romans 8:18
2. Job 22:3 Job 35:7 Luke 17:10 Romans 4:3 Romans 11:3
3. Galatians 5:22-23
4. 1 Kings 8:46 2 Chronicles 6:36 Psalms 130:3 Psalms 143:2 Proverbs 20:9 Ecclesiastes 7:20 Romans 3:9,23 Romans 7:14-15 Galatians 5:17 1 John 1:6-10

16.6 Yet, although believers are accepted as individual people through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Christ. [1] It is not as though in this life they were entirely blameless and beyond censure in God’s sight, [2] but that he looks upon them in his Son, and is pleased to accept and reward what is sincere, even though it is accompanied by many weaknesses and imperfections. [3]

1. Exodus 28:38 Ephesians 1:6-7 1 Peter 2:5
2. 1 Kings 8:46 2 Chronicles 6:36 Psalms 130:3 Psalms 143:2 Proverbs 20:9 Ecclesiastes 7:20 Romans 3:9,23 Romans 7:14-15 Galatians 5:17 1 John 1:6-10
3. Hebrews 6:10 Matthew 25:21,23

16.7 As for works done by the unregenerate, even though in essence they may be things which God commands, and may be beneficial both to themselves and others, [1] yet they remain sinful works because they do not proceed from a heart purified by faith, [2] nor are they done in a right manner according to the Word, [3] nor is their purpose the glory of God. [4] Therefore such works cannot please God nor make a person acceptable to receive grace from God. [5] Yet the neglect of such works is even more sinful and displeasing to God. [6]

1. 1 Kings 21:27-29 2 Kings 10:30-31 Romans 2:14 Philippians 1:15-18
2. Genesis 4:5 with Hebrews 11:4-6 1 Timothy 1:5 Romans 14:23 Galatians 5:6
3. 1 Corinthians 13:3 Isaiah 1:12
4. Matthew 6:2,5-6 1 Corinthians 10:31
5. Romans 9:16 Titus 1:15 Titus 3:5
6. 1 Kings 21:27-29 2 Kings 10:30-31 Psalms 14:4 Psalms 36:3

---

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?

5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God “will give to each person according to what he has done.” 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

[bdeaner]

I have no idea how that differs from Protestant teaching on being born again. The old man dies, what is raised is a new creation. NEW. My body may be 51, but I’m 38...

I'll address the rest of your post later -- it's the 4th of July and we have guests coming over.

But, for now, I just want to clarify that YES: the point I was making is that, on these matters, the Catholic and Protestant approach to soteriology are on COMMON GROUND. I was exploring the common ground first -- a common ground that is often missed by both Catholics AND Protestants due to straw man arguments -- before getting at differences. If we can start with a common ground, which we do have, then it will be easier and more productive to discuss differences. More later.

[Iscool]

Personally I can't understand why Baptists would consent to the idea that children who die before being "born again" are condemned to Hell. For Catholics, our children are believed to go to Heaven with us, even if they did not receive confirmation, because they receive Baptism as an infant.

Who are you trying to mislead here??? Non Catholics know that babies don't go to hell, or limbo...

HaHa...Getting a baby wet, even against his/her will will not put a baby in heaven...Baptism is useless til one repents...Babies don't repent...

[CTrent1564]

Mr. Rogers:

No she is of Polish ancestry and I am of Sicilian ancestry, so lets say the Polish won the battle last night!!!, LOL

Regards

[CTrent1564]

Good morning to both of you, I was going to write a response to Mr. Rogers post last night but bdeaner has written one that I would have been proud to write myself, and done it in a fair and charitable manner.

Anyway, I think bdeaner has accurately explaned the points we have in common, with respect to Justification [and there are many], and where we part ways on the questions of Justification and Sanctification.

pax et bonum

[Mr Rogers]

Understood. We don’t have guests coming over, but I’m sitting here trying to avoid a ton of yard work. Maybe several tons, all sitting and waiting for me, my shovel, and my wheelbarrow.

And I’d best get to it, since another area we probably agree on is “Happy wife, happy life”.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Not just papal infallibility, but also the concept of sin. There is sin - just sin. Not venal, not mortal, just sin. ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - it does not say WHAT kind of sin, just sin. That is all that’s needed to separate you.

And from this arises the issues with purgatory which I believe is not Scriptural. I know the Catechism well, and have talked many times with extremely learned brothers (real brothers, like the Christian Brothers of Ireland) and priests of the Catholic Church; ultimately it comes down to the Catholic traditions and interpretation of Scripture.

Which rests on tradition and the infallibility of the pope. Again, remove that, and quite a bit of the dogma of the Catholic church is no longer supported, because it assumed that the pope was correct in what he said. Look at the number of times papal writings are referred to within the Catechism.

The concept of sola scriptura is Scriptural; 2 Tim 3:15-17. No one here as addressed the extremely plain and clear statements of those verses. All that is needed is the teachings and writings that were around when Timothy was around. NOTHING more is needed, it is God-breathed, it is complete as-is.

You can learn more by reading expositions on Scripture, but the Scripture itself is complete - the Scripture claims as much in 2 Tim 3:15!

So fundamentally, there are several problems:

1. The fallibility of the Pope. ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. This includes the Pope! He is fallible, as we all are. Only one man ever walked this Earth who was infallible, and his name is Jesus Christ.

2. Purgatory. Sin is sin. There is no “shades” of sin; all separate us from God. And when we die, we will be judged by God. Grace is what saves us; how we used that grace will determine the amount of our reward in Heaven, not how many rosaries were said or how many candles were lit for me after I die. A man is judged by what he does, not what those around him do (the former is scriptural; the latter is not).

3. Sola scriptura. The Scripture itself claims authority. It’s all you need. If you accept the writings of Paul, you accept the Bible, then you HAVE to accept this, otherwise you are denying what Paul wrote in 2 Tim 3.

4. Communion. I can see how some can read the Last Supper and think “oh, Jesus changed things so it is a physical - not purely spiritual act”. I personally believe that we are called to re-enact the Lord’s Supper as a means of spiritually communing with God; not physical consumption of his body. I will afford you your belief, because you can make that interpretation. I am not afforded my belief, though, because your pope said so. But if he is fallible, well, there goes that position.

5. The “critical” nature of the sacraments. We do not need to be baptized, or take communion, or last rites, or confess to another man, or any “sacrament” of the church to be saved. Period. Jesus said again and again that all we need to do is believe in Him and we are saved. That is Scriptural, no interpretation needed.

6. Insistence on being Catholic. Even in this thread, with another participant who was close in theology to Catholicism, the Catholic/Orthodox people were telling him “come over to us”. Why? There was no justification other than “our traditions are older”.

Denying that Protestants are in full communion with God, and have a theology that is traceable for 2000 years is simply offensive; you - nor your church - has the authority from God to judge the faith and salvation of another man. Might as well just call us atheists. There are pretty words, but notice it’s always “Catholic Church”, not “catholic Church”.

7+: there are many, many more, from confession, to last rites, to praying to saints, to the veneration of Mary, and many more. Yes, I know the Catholic church’s official position and teachings on these, but I also know the Catholic church’s effective/”rubber meets the road” positions and teachings as well. And I know the Scripture, which does not support most of these. They are supported by papal edict with a few verses for support. If the pope is fallible then again, it breaks down.

Fundamentally, it all stems from a single point: papal infallibility. Most of the tradition and the catechism comes from papal writings and pronouncements. If the pope is fallible, then much of the tradition and dogma of the Catholic Church is suddenly thrown into question. So rather than critically evaluate just how a man can be infallible (even Peter - the claimed first pope - was fallible!), the claim is made because it was always made and is backed up by the authority of the men making the claim about themselves.

Luther, 400 years ago, protested the excess and evil within the church - rightly so! Much of what he condemned was hapening at the direction of the pope. And rather than accept the concern of a brother and sit down and dialogue (as we are called to do with each other, in Acts) the church tossed him out and persecuted for a hundred years - by the sword - those who stood and said “yes, brothers in Christ, you have gone astray, let US together return to the teachings of the Scripture”. The actions of the church - the “infallible” pope included - showed that it was not paying attention to the Scripture, but more to its dogma. This is a prime characteristic of many cults - the cult of personality. In this case, it is often not just a man, but a position/role. NO MAN or his statements are above the Word of God. If the two conflict, then the man is wrong. Period.

You cannot buy your way into Heaven, yet that is exactly what was offered for hundreds of years by the Catholic church. And those popes were infallible? Bollocks!

We will never agree on this; papal authority is not absolute, nor is it infallible. Consider just the changes introduced with Vatican II - does that mean the church was in error before Vatican II? Or did God just change the rules with the new convocation? There is a 1700 year history of these kinds of changes - often significant in theology or dogma - yet they are all explained away as “the pope is always right”. Never mind that for hundreds of years they said one thing, and then they say another.

I suggest you take Petronski’s statement earlier - “I will not evangelize to Christians” to heart and focus on others. Better to win pre-Christians to a fallible church and incomplete theology - whether that is my Free Methodist, the Baptist of many here, or Catholicism - than leave them to die unsaved.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I was making is that, on these matters, the Catholic and Protestant approach to soteriology are on COMMON GROUND.

It's the CHRISTIAN approach, not "Catholic and Protestant". We are Christians. Your dogma and rites are Catholic; my dogma and rites are Free Methodist. I am a Christian, however.

Of course, in that other thread, I was also told that I worshiped a church founded 300 years ago by a man named Charles Wesley, and that it wasn't the Church that Christ established - go figure...

[Petronski]

Getting a baby wet, even against his/her will will not put a baby in heaven...

So says you.

Big deal.

Babies don't repent...

Their godparents repent on their behalf.

Non Catholics know that babies don't go to hell, or limbo...

But you just said they cannot repent. They have souls, they cannot repent, where do they go?

You're denying original sin?

[Mr Rogers]

“Their godparents repent on their behalf.”

Interesting idea. I think I’ll repent on behalf of ALL the unsaved in the world!

Wow! I never knew evangelism was so easy...

I don’t know what happens to a baby who dies. I do know God is just and merciful, but I don’t understand all things. It may be that there is clear guidance in scripture, and I just haven’t learned it.

However, I can state from experience that a two year old has most of the bad characteristics of sin - anger, jealousy, hatred, lying...

[driftdiver]

“HaHa...Getting a baby wet, even against his/her will will not put a baby in heaven...Baptism is useless til one repents...Babies don’t repent.”

Babies don’t need to repent, they are subject to their parents until they come of age. In biblical terms thats between 10-13 years of age. I agree getting a baby wet doesn’t mean the baby is saved. It is a statement by the parents that they intend to raise the child in biblical terms. A dedication so to speak.

[Petronski]

...I can state from experience that a two year old has most of the bad characteristics of sin...

But do they have a culpable understanding of their own guilt (mens rea)?

[Marysecretary]

Thank you. You’ve done a truly magnificent job. I never think to look at these things through Jewish eyes. Abraham’s Bosom, something I would have used, contained the spirits of the faithful ones in the OT, before Jesus’ time had come. It wasn’t hell as we’ve been taught. They were released from there when Jesus went down to get them out of there. You said it all so much better than I. (envy, envy)

[Marysecretary]

Why in heaven’s name would you want to go to purgatory? Is it not better for you to KNOW and to have the assurance that you are saved right here on earth? This is all so silly. Jesus has paid the price for your sins, past, present, and future. Why can’t Catholics see that? You do not have to wait until the grave to find out if you are going to hell or heaven. There IS no purgatory.

[MarkBsnr]

***You have some novel ideas, sir. Can you back them up with Scripture?
I can back up everything I say with scripture but what’s the point...You don’t believe scripture...***

Really? I thought that I was the one posting verse after verse, and chapter after chapter. I do not have the luxury of sitting in my LaZBoy armchair on Sunday mornings during the service of the Church of Iscool (population 1) and pontificating without proofs.

***The scripture just told you the rich man was in Hell***

The earlier translation (as opposed to whatever version you have in hand) tells me that the rich man was in the place of souls; not the Christian Hell nor the Christian Heaven.

***Because your common sense or your magisterium tells you there is no compassion in Hell...Well, God just told you otherwise...***

I just posted a whole Scriptural reference. You may mean that Iscool just told me otherwise; Scripture is clear.