No Salvation Outside the Church

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

[Semper Mark]

“You are not reading me right “pumpkin”

Well, I said “bumpkin”, but if you can hold out until the morrow, then I’ll give you the best reply that I can give.

[Semper Mark]

“How do you know that? How do you know what God can or can't do?”

I can answer this, and then it's off to bed for me.

God has limited salvation to be through Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone.

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.”

John 14:6

[kosta50]

God has limited salvation to be through Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” John 14:6

Assuming you know for sure that's what God did and that's what Jesus said...

[kosta50]

Well, I said “bumpkin

My typo. Sorry.

[D-fendr]

no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.

By Me, through Me.. But how does even this limit God?

Could the hindu come to the Father through Christ, by Christ, without knowing His name? Is God reducible to a name?

What does through Christ really mean?

[kosta50]

Markos33 God has limited salvation to be through Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” John 14:6

D-fendr By Me, through Me.. But how does even this limit God? Could the hindu [sic] come to the Father through Christ, by Christ, without knowing His name? Is God reducible to a name? What does through Christ really mean?

I think you are correct D-fendr. God, as we think of him, would not be limited to physical and other laws of nature. In fact the Bible quotes God as saying " The Greek word dia does mean "through" but in different contexts, such as physical place, time, means of, and sense of. The term itself is translated in the Bible in any of these.

Thus it can mean with, in, through, by means of, by reason of, on account of, because of, therefore, etc. In context of the rest of the verse, the word di must be interpreted in terms of the way, truth and life, which Christ represents metaphorically.

The way (hodos = a path, a road, but also metaphorically conduct, behavior, thinking, feeling deciding), the truth (aletheia = truth in a variety of contexts, including notions of God through reason, subjectively, objectively, religious and moral, etc.), and life (zoe = life, everyone's living force, fullness of life, ethically, morally, etc).

Obviously this is too vague to pin it down to one meaning, especially literalistic interpretation as is common among Protestants because we know that Christ was never thought of as being the literal, physical road we walk on!

Nothing in the verse says that God cannot save a non-Christian or that a non-Christian cannot walk the metaphorical way of Christ, or "know" the metaphorical truth of God.

It simply says that those who follow Christ metaphorically in these aspects will come to the Father. It does not say that God has no other means of saving anyone else on his own will and for his own reasons.

John 14:6 is a classic Judaic works-based salvation formula the Protestants reject. It pins our conduct, what people do, how they think and how they live, where they go (metaphorically speaking) to their salvation; their conduct determines if they fulfill God's requirements for it.

It says nothing of believing as the only prerequisite. There are scores of those who believe but don't walk, act and live the way of Christ. (the end of Mat 25 makes that very clear)

What Jesus is saying in John 14:6 is simply "do/think/live this way and you will be saved." No faith required here, and no limits placed on God's will to save whomever he wills to save for his own reasons.

[bdeaner]

Either Catholics accept others as being saved without acknowledging the papacy, or they don't. The answer will support or deny the original article.

This is a false dichotomy. The Catholic Church can and does accept that others outside of the Catholic Church can be saved, AND the Catholic Church holds that the papacy is provided with a unique charism of infallibility with regard to teachings on theological matters. These are not mutually exclusive positions.

The key is to understand the meaning of the term "Church" in Vatican II. The "Church" includes ALL of the instrumental means of salvation operating in the world through Christ and the Holy Spirit, no matter where that may be occurring. Protestants who have rejected the Catholic Church are still part of the Church, as long as they follow Christ and Scripture, but Protestants are not in FULL communion with the Church. By refusing to learn from the infallibility teachings of the Magesterium, Protestants are nevertheless at great risk of falling into theological and therefore moral error, and do not have the fullness of the Truth, including participation in all of the sacraments that assist the Christian in the process of sanctification. So, certainly a Protestant can be saved, but the road is more difficult and treacherous without FULL communion with the Catholic Church. This is the teaching of Vatican II, and it has a spirit of inclusiveness without rejecting the infallibility of the Magesterium, and without falling into contradiction. The teaching is coherent with Scripture, Tradition, and logic; the reasoning is not fallacious or contradictory when understood appropriately.

[bdeaner]

Now we know you are being hypocritical because your religion takes and distorts many of 'insignificant' Paul's scripture and twists them to fit your religion's agenda and claim them solely for your religion...

Paul's epistles are considered by the Catholic Church to be inspired by God, and in fact were canonized originally by the Church long before the Reformation. This past liturgical year was named in honor of St. Paul by Pope Benedict XVI. His teachings are indispensable for Church doctrine. At the same time, as I think any sensible Protestant would agree, Paul's letters must be read in the context of the Scriptures as a whole -- and Catholics would add, also in light of history and tradition. The Gospels have a certain priority with regard to interpretation of Scripture, because they reveal Christ's teachings, and when Paul's letters are understood through the Gospels, they reveal a Truth that cannot be had by reading Paul's letter's without reference to the Gospels.

The Church does not distort Paul's letters. If you believe it does, then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate any such distortion. I would argue, on the contrary, that many Protestants distort Paul's letters, to the extent that they are not read properly within their scriptural and historical context.

[Petronski]

The Catholic Church does not differ with St. Paul.

She does, however, differ with Iscool’s own personal interpretation of Scripture.

[bdeaner]

Mark 6: Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village. 7Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits.

8These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. 10Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. 11And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them."

Are you suggesting by your citing of Mark's Gospel that all Christians should wear only sandals, eat no bread, carry no bag, and take no money with them whenever they Evangelize? That would be silly, since these instructions were specific to the time, place and persons to whom it was directed and not for all times, places and Christians, as is clear when understanding the passage in context.

What kind of staff do you carry? And when did you stop driving a car?

[WVKayaker]

Times change. God doesn't. You obviously believe/think otherwise.

Jesus was speaking to those twelve who were sent. He told them more than once that they were to depend on God. You represent your pope as Christ's earthly representative (vicar, father, et al) following in Peter's alleged progeny. Your Pope travels with a bullet proof $million Mercedes, and dresses like a king. What gospel is he preaching?

Your church is wealthy, in spite of Christ's repeated warnings about keeping earthly treasures. Your brethren on this thread boast of the riches. I am

Paul already addressed your questions... you just can't believe he is correct.

1 Corinthians 4: 26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

Much of what I hear from you guys is just more boasting about your church. Jesus body is the church. He is wherever His Spirit is. But don't take my word for it. I know the one who spoke it!

John 16: 12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

[bdeaner]

Times change. God doesn't. You obviously believe/think otherwise.

You dodged my questions about taking the scriptures you cited out of context, and then changed the topic, going on with a red herring argument that amounts to little more than ranting about the Catholic Church that is lacking in any validity or substance. I didn't even bring up the Catholic Church in my last post, but you don't seem to want to stick to the issue.

I criticized your interpretation of Scripture based on Scripture alone, on your own terms of sola Scriptura, which I have done consistently on this thread. I don't expect Protestants to listen to anything else. But you can't seem to address the issue when directly confronted about the apparent discrepancy between the fact that you are doing ministry on a computer and claiming at the same time that a legitimate Christian should evangalize with nothing but a staff and sandals. How hypocritical is that?!?!?

I will ask you again. When did you give up your car? What kind of staff do you carry? When did you stop carrying a wallet with money? When will you be selling your computer? Or is it that you hold up expectations for the Catholic Church that you yourself are unwilling to live? I am lead to believe the latter is the case, in which case your argument amounts to nothing but hot air.

[WVKayaker]

But you can't seem to address the issue when directly confronted about the apparent discrepancy between the fact that you are doing ministry on a computer and claiming at the same time that a legitimate Christian should evangalize with nothing but a staff and sandals. How hypocritical is that?!?!?

It's not hypocritical at all. It is incongruous that you should appeal to such a low point that you stoop to that equation. I dodged nothing. If you wish to equate me to your Pope, then whatever?

I don't havge a staff. I follow Paul's advice...

Ehesian 6: 10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.

[bdeaner]

Matthew 23: 8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.

So what do you call the person who stands up in front of a classroom in a school? What do you call the person who impregnated your mother when you were conceived?

Anyone can quote Scripture out of context, but it's another thing to understand what it means within the Scriptures as a whole as it has been understood since the time of the early Christians.

[bdeaner]

It's not hypocritical at all.

Hypocrisy is when anyone accuses others of failing to live up to expectations that he is unable or unwilling to live up to himself.

The New Testament does not demand of us that we wear only in sandals on our feet, carry no money, and walk with a staff. Your referencce Scripture to imply that the Pope lacks authority because he does not wear sandals and is driven in a Mercedes. It's a bogus argument, for the obvious reason that you yourself obviously do not and cannot live up to your unusual reading of the Scripture you referenced out of context.

That the Pope does not walk around as describes in that one citation from Mark -- actually he does have a staff -- is irrelevant and a red herring argument against Papal authority.

As for your reference to Ephesians, that's good that you wear the full Armor of God. So do I. But do you really have the faith to believe in the full implications of the Scriptures which you claim are your sole authority? We'll have to see about that. I pray that you do.

[WVKayaker]

...as it has been understood since the time of the early Christians.

Do you speak Greek?

[bdeaner]

Jesus never told us to build anything...

Oh really? The Scriptures say otherwise.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Mark 14:58
"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' "

Ephesians 2:19-22
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

[MarkBsnr]

***I’ll once again explain what the post you speak of meant.
We have tried the Gospels, meaning we have read them, we know them, and we believe them. And most of all, we believe in the One that they speak of.***

A couple of questions: How do you ‘know’ them? And how have you arrived at that knowledge?

***If we are to GROW spiritually in grace and truth then we must read the whole word of God. And that includes the Epistles, and not only the Epistles of Paul, but ALL of them. ***

I see. So if you had only four books of the Bible to take with you on a desert island, you’d take four Pauline epistles and not the Gospels?

***The Epistles explain what took place on the Cross of Christ.***

The Gospels and Acts don’t?

***And they explain to us the free gift of grace extended to us by God because of Christ’s death on the Cross. They explain to us what the Gospels were about.***

I’m curious here. Are you saying that one needs the Epistles to explain the Gospels? You called Paul’s Epistles the meat and the Gospels the milk of newborns. Don’t you have them reversed? I don’t think that your posts are consistent.

***And if don’t realize that, then let me recommend more Bible study.***

Putting the Epistles higher ranked than the Gospels doesn’t recommend it to me for Markos style Bible study. Jesus ranks above all - He is God, after all. Paul merely comments on it to his flock in his duties as bishop.

***“Your statements put Paul above God.”

Paul spoke God breathed truth.***

Explain what you mean here. One of the posters here claimed that Paul spent 3 years with Christ in Heaven before he went on his mission of preaching.

***Paul was an instrument.***

Explain what you mean here. Are you saying that Paul was frogmarched?

***How can a tool be above it’s Master?***

It can’t. I really would like to know what it is that you are saying here. Definitions are really important when discussing concepts like this.

[MarkBsnr]

***Impressive. In other words, because Paul says so in the Bible? And how do you know what’s in the Bible is true? Wait, let me guess—because Paul says so, right? And how do you know what Paul says is true? Wait, I get it—because it’s in the Bible! Right!?
The only “start” I see from your array of verses here is a beginning of circular reasoning...

Some guys named Matthew, Mark and John claim they wrote down what Jesus had to say...Why is it you believe them but not Paul???***

I believe that there was a Luke in there too. The difference is that Paul is a man speaking of himself. The four Gospel authors report what Jesus (and the Apostles) did and said according the the witnesses that they were able to find. There is internal agreement of much of their writings.

***You ask for evidence...I give it to you and you say how do I know the bible is true...***

You claim that you know the Bible is true, whereas, in reality, one can only believe that the Bible is true.

[MarkBsnr]

***But, God, in His wisdom gave us this Spirit for a reason.***

Multiple Spirits with multiple messages for multiple individuals. Nope, that is not in my Bible.

***I am so glad that we have a merciful God, a true Father. I am so grateful we have His human life, suffering, and death as a substitution for us, though we are the ones found GUILTY. I thank Him daily thaat through His resurrection, God empowers us with His Holy Spirit. Without the indwelling Sprit, we are indeed lost.***

Many people are lost even with the Holy Spirit since they will not listen to Him, but rather pursue their own theologies and whims and hubris. The saying is that the floor of hell is paved with bishops’ skulls. Prideful individuals, regardless of how well catechized, can still fall. Origen did.

***But, His promises don’t depend on us, or membership in good standing, of ANY so-called organized church. WE are the church, and ONLY in Him, will we have power...***

If you do not follow the Church of Jesus Christ, you are to be treated as if you are a tax collector.