No Salvation Outside the Church

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

[bdeaner]

However, how is “Protestants have your own traditions of interpreting the Bible. They just deny them, which is bad faith and false witness.” not personal. I’m a Protestant, so do I act in bad faith and false witness?

Allow me to qualify: If you admit to having hermeneutic presuppositions in your approach to Scripture, and you are a Protestant, then no, you do not act in bad faith nor are you a false witness. I believe there are such Protestants out there, so I apologize for the overgeneralization.

What I should have said is that sola Scriptura, as a doctrine, is a Protestant tradition that denies it is a tradition. The doctrine is a bad faith doctrine. That is more to the point and less inflammatory. I'm not attempting to fan flames.

I do respect your knowledge of scripture and your willingness to engage in rational arguments rather than a lot of the game-playing that goes on in these threads. As I have said before, I've learned alot from our discussions, and have a lot of respect for you.

And p.s. will get to some of your posts directed to me from earlier, but I have a lot of posts to respond to, so give me time. Thanks.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I figured another woman would appreciate that one. 8~)

[Marysecretary]

He strains at gnats...

[Marysecretary]

Amen, Iscool.

[Iscool]

And according to this Roman Catholic priest, 39 popes have been married. Wonder if they had a prenup? I bet those custody battles over ermine robes and red velvet shoes got pretty nasty.

And beyond those thirty nine, one has to wonder how many had girlfriends, boyfriends, illegitimate kids; how many became popes due to politics, how many were given the office because of family ties and how many bought the title...And it's a matter of history that those were common occurrences...

One of the lies they tell is that there is a complete line of apostolic succession right down to the current pope...

The fact is, many names were added (a few right after Peter) where there was no indication of anyone having the office of pope...

Some of these fictitious popes were added later in history to fill the gaps with no historical record of their existence...

[Celtman]

So why did this "true church" fragment so badly after the "reformation?"

Well, the fragmentation did not begin with the Reformation.  In Apostolic times,

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:12

Clearly, this is not the perfect will of God - but also clearly it is part of His permissive will.  Only one of the current fragments of Christianity claims (but does not possess) infallible perfection - the rest of us realize that our doctrine is not perfect, but that does not stop the pursuit of doctrinal purity as a goal.

Although the papists tried to exterminate them, there were Christians living outside papal domination from the first century until the Reformation.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

When the truth conflicts with the propaganda, print the propaganda.

[Mr Rogers]

“...sola Scriptura, as a doctrine, is a Protestant tradition that denies it is a tradition.”

Speaking as a Baptist, we generally consider sola Scriptura more of a reasonable conclusion, not a tradition. We don’t use it because others did, but because it seems reasonable, and to fit with scripture. Of course, Baptist Doctrine is like Military Intelligence...a bit of a contradiction in terms.

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (http://www.grbc.net/about_us/1689.php)

1.1 The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule [1] for saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. [2]

Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence give such clear testimony to the goodness, wisdom and power of God that they leave people without excuse, [3] yet they are not sufficient to give the knowledge of God and his will that is necessary for salvation. [4] Therefore it pleased the Lord to reveal himself at various times and in different ways, and to declare his will to his church. [5] To ensure the preservation and propagation of the truth, and to establish and support the church against human corruption, the malice of Satan, and the world, he committed his complete revelation to writing. The Holy Scriptures are therefore absolutely indispensable, [6] for God’s former ways of revealing his will to his people have now ceased. [7]

1. Or, standard

2. Isaiah 8:20 Luke 16:29 Ephesians 2:20 2 Timothy 3:15-17

3. Psalms 19:1-3 Romans 1:19-21,32 Romans 2:12a,14-15

4. Psalms 19:1-3 with Psalms 19:7-11 Romans 1:19-21 Romans 2:12a,14-15 with Romans 1:16-17 and Romans 3:21

5. Hebrews 1:1-2a

6. Proverbs 22:19-21 Luke 1:1-4 2 Peter 1:12-15 2 Peter 3:1 Deuteronomy 17:18ff Deuteronomy 31:9ff,19ff 1 Corinthians 15:1 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2,15 2 Thessalonians 3:17 Romans 1:8-15 Galatians 4:20 Galatians 6:11 1 Timothy 3:14ff Revelation 1:9,19 Revelation 2:1, etc. Romans 15:4 2 Peter 1:19-21

7. Hebrews 1:1-2a Acts 1:21-22 1 Corinthians 9:1 1 Corinthians 15:7-8 Ephesians 2:20

[cva66snipe]

From the Catechism: "Outside the Church there is no salvation"

So sayeth the church leaders. But nowhere in that said in The Holy Bible. That issue is serious enough that if is not mentioned as being so in the Bible then a person must question it vs what the Bible says. Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the light". Add to that John 3;16. Salvation is simple. So simple a child can accept its terms. It is a free gift of Grace through Jesus Christ to all who believe and ask to receive it. But it's not obtained by following the laws or opinions of a church oligarchy {for lack of a better word}. No ones church laws, opinions, or doctrines can do this. Not yours not mine not any ones.

Salvation can only come from and through Christ alone. It is His Baptism in His blood of our very souls that saves us. Remeber what John The Baptist said about Christ and how He would Baptize us? An act that takes place the very instant we receive Him as Lord and Savior. It is the most simple act written in The Bible and man by nature tries to make it far too complicated, conditional, and legalistic.

[Semper Mark]

Thank you for your reply.

The pardon of sins comes ONLY through the death of Christ and through his blood. Through His BLOOD!

This pardon may be received through Him, and Him alone.

Christ was and is GOD ALMIGHTY in the flesh. What mortal sinful man would God entrust to apply something as Holy as the blood of Christ to sinners for the remission of sins?

You and I, and the whole human race come into this world as depraved, condemned, lost sinners. How then does one reach the level of holiness to determain when and where to apply the blood of Christ?

There is but one remedy for the sins of man...the BLOOD OF CHRIST, and man has not the ability to apply it.

[Marysecretary]

I’m a Protestant and I like the Pope, just not the pedestal Catholics place him on.

[Marysecretary]

I DO believe it’s the only authority. Nice try.

[Celtman]

The World Wide Web is font of knowledge, and can be used easily to verify historical facts.

[Marysecretary]

Try just reading the words. Most of it is pretty simple and straightforward, not needing a lot of interpretation. Jesus says what He means and means what He says.

[Mr Rogers]

It is a matter of definition.

If the Church is:

26.1 The universal church (brought into being by the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called the invisible church. It consists of the complete number of the elect who have been, who are, or who shall be gathered into one under Christ its Head. The church is the bride, the body, the fullness of Christ who fills all in all.

—The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 26: The Church

Then, by definition, all who are saved are in the Church.

However, if by Church is meant an entity such as the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church, then “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is outside the Word of God.

I believe the point made in the article bdeaner posted is that, since the Catholic Church considers itself to be the universal church, at least since Vatian 2, it accepts that there are folks who reject the form of their church, but who are still inside the fold. From their perspective, this is true even if some of us don’t feel like we are part of the Catholic Church in that sense.

It also gets back to using the term Roman Catholic Church. It isn’t meant as an insult to Catholics, only that some of us do not consider the ‘Catholic Church’ to be catholic in the sense used in the Baptist statement.

[Iscool]

Regardless, the fact is that gentile converts were not circumcized, before being baptized into the Church. This was the main doctrinal point. The fact that Peter would not participate in fellowship/communion with the gentiles, is not a doctrine. It could be stated that Peter was being hypocritical [which later, St. Paul states c.f. Gal 2:13], or in fact, engaging an sinful and uncharitable behavior and Paul corrected him.

Nope...

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Gal 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Again, nope...Paul confirms in the very next verses it was a doctrinal issue...Obviously Peter was not only refusing to eat with Gentiles, he was siding with the Jews in that they must still be under the law...Definitely a doctrinal issue...

[bdeaner]

The World Wide Web is font of knowledge, and can be used easily to verify historical facts.

Really? Thanks Einstein. I will go read the whole World Wide Web and get right back to you...LOL.

Seriously, I'm led to conclude you have nothing but hot air to back up your statement.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

There is but one remedy for the sins of man...the BLOOD OF CHRIST, and man has not the ability to apply it.

Amen! (I like your tag, as pitiful as the truth of it is.)

[bdeaner]

Try just reading the words. Most of it is pretty simple and straightforward, not needing a lot of interpretation. Jesus says what He means and means what He says.

Well in that case, let's take a look at these simple and straightfoward words in this passage right here:

James 2:14-17
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.

Just reading the words here, it seems pretty simple and straightforward that works are necessary for salvation, and not just faith. Obviously, the simple and straightforward implication is that sola fide is a false doctrine.

Good, glad we took care of that! You're right. It's soooo easy to read Scripture without having any presuppositions whatsoever! Why hadn't I thought of that before? :)

God bless.

[Semper Mark]

Thanks Doc!