Acts 4:12, Marian dogmas, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

[frangiuliano115]

FOR STEVE B

I can’t do that quote thing, but will one day sit here and learn.

Can’t take the time to do what you guys do but would like to say this to steve b:

Have you just read about your religion or have you also taught it?? Seriously.

It’s one thing to read and the translate what you’ve just read. It’s another thing to catechise a person, which I’ve done for years, and explain things in the proper way but in a way they can understand. They CANNOT understand the CCC, as is evident from these posts, different poeple come up with different answers - also based on presuppositions.

Now your use of the word “catholic”, you say:

They are NOT Catholic…yet. They will be Catholic when they officially enter the Church.

Well, the problem here is that David Filmer is using the word catholic correctly and you aren’t. Read his explanation in post no. 30.

They already are catholic; they will be Roman Catholic when they enter the chruch.

And if I follow your thought process correctly re everyone having to ACCEPT and BELIEVE catholic dogma, there would be very little church left!

Your idea that many don’t KNOW the dogma but the church covers them is soooo not logical. By this standard I should have never studied at all so I could know nothing. Please don’t quote to me To Whom Much Is Given Much Will Be Demaded. I don’t really have time for this. Before you say you are a Roman Catholic, you SHOULD know what it means.

BTW: In greek the word BELIEVE means intrinsically also to ACCEPT and to FOLLOW.

Just read KEP 1983’s post. That open up a nice new can of worms. Did I understand correctly? Is he saying that if new converts back then DIDN’T accept NOT to be circumcised they were not saved? I must have missed something… I thought you only had to believe in Jesus to be saved. I would even ask David Filmer to rethink his position on this. What if I’ve come to believe in the Lord’s salvation, but haven’e been baptized yet - am I lsot??

So, it could get pretty dar n complicated. By your definition I’M NOT catholic! (YOUR catholic). I mean, how do you FORCE me to accept a dogma I have a problem with? You’ll banish me from the church? None of the priests that know me have!

Have to stop.

God bless

 

[Sirach2]

In acts 15 we see the apostles declaring that all believers must accept a teaching about circumcision. It was binding on the entire church. It had nothing to do with “Jesus name.” Does that mean the apostles were wrong for making a binding teaching regarding genital skin on all believers?

For those who may be following this thread, you misquoted the teaching in Acts 15, making it appear that the apostles were binding the faithful to the Jewish practice of circumcision. Maybe it was the way you worded it, but did not intend to convey that meaning. Here’s the final decision of the Council:

Acts 15:10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Their decision abolished the requirement of the new converts to undergo circumcision, but addressed only these directives:
Acts 15:19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

 

[KEP1983]

For those who may be following this thread, you misquoted the teaching in Acts 15, making it appear that the apostles were binding the faithful to the Jewish practice of circumcision. Maybe it was the way you worded it, but did not intend to convey that meaning. Here’s the final decision of the Council:

Acts 15:10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Their decision abolished the requirement of the new converts to undergo circumcision, but addressed only these directives:
Acts 15:19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

I said it was a “teaching about circumcision.” That’s exactly what they did-- they gave the official teaching regarding circumcision.

Perhaps I didn’t word it well, but I didn’t say anything like “you must circumcise”…

 

[KEP1983]

Just read KEP 1983’s post. That open up a nice new can of worms. Did I understand correctly? Is he saying that if new converts back then DIDN’T accept NOT to be circumcised they were not saved? I must have missed something… I thought you only had to believe in Jesus to be saved.

Paul made it pretty clear that the Judaizers would be in danger of damnation. That’s what Acts 15 was about-- settling the judaizer controversy. Paul railed against those who preached circumcision for gentiles all through the NT.

I would even ask David Filmer to rethink his position on this. What if I’ve come to believe in the Lord’s salvation, but haven’e been baptized yet - am I lsot??

Baptism of desire…

So, it could get pretty dar n complicated. By your definition I’M NOT catholic! (YOUR catholic). I mean, how do you FORCE me to accept a dogma I have a problem with? You’ll banish me from the church? None of the priests that know me have!

Have to stop.

God bless

CCC 2088-2089

 

[KEP1983]

If you are Baptized and die without mortal sin you are assured salvation.

Exactly.

I think the problem here is that one side thinks that dogmas are optional, and all you need to do is believe in Jesus (isn’t that a dogma itself, btw?).

If you die in a state of grace, i.e. without mortal sin, you’ll be saved. You’re put in a state of grace through baptism, though God can work outside the physical waters of baptism and give the grace Himself (baptism of blood or baptism of desire).

The problem is that knowingly rejecting a dogma makes you a heretic, which is a grave sin. Struggling with believing a dogma but assenting to it is involuntary doubt, which isn’t a sin. That’s discussed in ccc 2088-2089.

Being unaware of a dogma makes you ignorant of it. If the lack of knowledge of the dogma wasn’t you’re fault then you’re invincibly ignorant. If your lack of knowledge WAS your fault then you’re vincibly ignorant. The first is not a grave sin while the latter is.

 

[thenobes]

As a protestant looking at the teachings of the RCC, I have this question that I haven’t really gotten an answer for, or at least one that makes sense to me, so I’d like to throw it out here and see if I can get my head wrapped around it. It’s a bit complicated, so hang in there with me. Three things are involved

1. Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”
2. The Marian Dogmas (this isn’t about the truth of them, or about Mary, but rather that they are a part of the formal settled dogma one must agree with to enter the RCC, so we can go ahead for this question and assume they are true)
3. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus; with is of course “outside of the church there is no salvation.”

Do these three things taken together not contradict on some level? Requiring someone to confess a belief in something directly about Mary seems to go against Acts 4:12 teamed with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. One can’t get into the RCC without confessing the Marian dogmas, hence would (from the RCC perspective) prevent salvation. Yet we are told that there is no other name, besides Jesus, by which we must be saved.

I’m sincerely asking; how is that not a contradiction of scripture?

Hi Kliska,
Hi I’m kind of late to your thread about the Marian doctrines, and how you think accepting them seems to contradict salvation through Christ’s name alone.
I just wanted to add the point that in the ancient world, one’s name included their character and who they are, also their authority.
So if Marian doctrines relate to the character of Christ, as well as his authority (delegated also to the church) then they support His name.
Thus these facts also save you, since they are part of His name.
peace
steve

 

[Kliska]

Hi Kliska,
Hi I’m kind of late to your thread about the Marian doctrines, and how you think accepting them seems to contradict salvation through Christ’s name alone.
I just wanted to add the point that in the ancient world, one’s name included their character and who they are, also their authority.
So if Marian doctrines relate to the character of Christ, as well as his authority (delegated also to the church) then they support His name.
Thus these facts also save you, since they are part of His name.
peace
steve

Hi steve, thank you for adding your thoughts!

I do understand that is RCC teaching, that the things dogmatically defined about Mary point to Christ. However, my protestant brain then wonders why it wouldn’t be more Christological centered to confess and believe those things about Jesus directly. So, for example, I too believe “Theotokos” is an acceptable name for Mary, so why can one not confess and believe that Jesus is indeed both fully human and fully divine, and have that cover the same Christological significance as a formal “Marian” dogma.

As you pointed out “name” is tied with the person as they are, and their character, or facts about them. That is actually one reason I wonder about adding in Marian Dogma, since they are directly about another person and her character, facts, etc… That dogma about another person’s name then must be confessed and believed in order to enter the RCC that then also teaches outside of that particular church, there is no salvation (barring invincible ignorance).

As one other question (and risking thread derailment); I can readily see the direct teaching on Jesus that most of the Marian dogmas have, what does her Assumption teach us about Jesus? In RCC thought, does it point to Him honoring His mother, so we see He fulfilled that commandment as well?

 

[KEP1983]

Hey Kliska, I wrote a short response on the last page. It looks like it got lost amongst the large responses. I think is short and shows where your logic went wrong. I’d like to hear your thoughts on it:

In acts 15 we see the apostles declaring that all believers must accept their teaching about circumcision no longer being necessary, thus refuting the judaizers. Paul makes it clear in galatians and elsewhere that the controversy over circumcision was even a salvation issue. The decision in Acts 15 was binding on the entire church. It had nothing to do with “Jesus name.” Does that mean the apostles were wrong for making a binding teaching regarding genital skin on all believers?

Of course not.

The phrase that we find salvation only in the name of jesus doesn’t mean the church can’t bind a teaching about anything other than jesus. It simply means that all salvation and grace comes from Him.

 

[Kliska]

Hey Kliska, I wrote a short response on the last page. It looks like it got lost amongst the large responses. I think is short and shows where your logic went wrong. I’d like to hear your thoughts on it:

In acts 15 we see the apostles declaring that all believers must accept their teaching about circumcision no longer being necessary, thus refuting the judaizers. Paul makes it clear in galatians and elsewhere that the controversy over circumcision was even a salvation issue. The decision in Acts 15 was binding on the entire church. It had nothing to do with “Jesus name.” Does that mean the apostles were wrong for making a binding teaching regarding genital skin on all believers?

Of course not.

The phrase that we find salvation only in the name of jesus doesn’t mean the church can’t bind a teaching about anything other than jesus. It simply means that all salvation and grace comes from Him.

Sorry, I don’t believe I saw it amid the other discussion.

The difference would be that discussing circumcision and accepting a teaching on circumcision doesn’t have to do with a specific person; their character, facts about that person or their name. That would not be against Acts 4:12.

 

[KEP1983]

Sorry, I don’t believe I saw it amid the other discussion.

The difference would be that discussing circumcision and accepting a teaching on circumcision doesn’t have to do with a specific person; their character, facts about that person or their name. That would not be against Acts 4:12.

Yeah, but according to you, salvation only deals with the name of jesus. Paul says that salvation also deals with genital skin.

If the church can make a dogma regarding my genital skin in 2015 then I think they can make a dogma over Jesus’ mother.

I think you’re getting hung up on the phrase “in the name of jesus alone.” It obviously means that salvation and grace come through Jesus name alone.

I mean, if I take your interpretation, does that mean that salvation being “only in the name of Jesus,” that therefore means salvation is not in the name of the Father and Holy Spirit? Can I just hold to Jesus name alone and deny the name of the Father and Holy Spirit? Of course not.

Obviously the phrase “in the name of Jesus” doesn’t mean what you’re thinking.

 

[frangiuliano115]

As I’ve replied to others, if you’re a Baptized Christian then you are already in the Church that saves us! Stay away from mortal sin and we will sing the praises of the Lord together in heaven.

The Catholic Church does not believe in a distinctly different protestant church. As long as you practice valid Christian Baptism you are PART of the Catholic Church (albeit imperfectly). You’re already in the Church that saves us! (but you could do it better if you convert.)

And, as I’ve replied to others, no Catholic is required to believe any dogma as a condition of becoming or remaining a Catholic. A Catholic may have doubts about any dogma and yet remain a faithful son or daughter of the Church. A Catholic may even doubt in God himself, which, obviously, means he categorically doubts each and every dogma of the Church. As long as he realizes his doubts are a flaw and makes an ongoing effort to correct them (and doesn’t try to promote them), he remains a faithful Catholic free from sin and may fully participate in the Sacraments.

I’ve misssed a lot and may not be able to recoop but I was just trying to explain what I thought Kliska was asking. And I do believe she said I understood.

However, re believing all dogma. Lucky for us we don’t really know ALL dogma. I work with the top 10 and that’s enough for me!

If we don’t believe one or are having problems with it, we ARE told to pray about it and to eventually come to accept it. I don’t know how you accept something you find many theological problems with, but we’ll keep trying –

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi steve, thank you for adding your thoughts!

I do understand that is RCC teaching, that the things dogmatically defined about Mary point to Christ. However, my protestant brain then wonders why it wouldn’t be more Christological centered to confess and believe those things about Jesus directly. So, for example, I too believe “Theotokos” is an acceptable name for Mary, so why can one not confess and believe that Jesus is indeed both fully human and fully divine, and have that cover the same Christological significance as a formal “Marian” dogma.

As you pointed out “name” is tied with the person as they are, and their character, or facts about them. That is actually one reason I wonder about adding in Marian Dogma, since they are directly about another person and her character, facts, etc… That dogma about another person’s name then must be confessed and believed in order to enter the RCC that then also teaches outside of that particular church, there is no salvation (barring invincible ignorance).

As one other question (and risking thread derailment); I can readily see the direct teaching on Jesus that most of the Marian dogmas have, what does her Assumption teach us about Jesus? In RCC thought, does it point to Him honoring His mother, so we see He fulfilled that commandment as well?

No. I never heard the assumption explained in the way you say.

It has more to do with her body not being subjected to decomposition because she was born without original sin and she also didn’t have the sin nature. Did you know that catholics believe that Mary experienced no pain during childbirth and retained her virginity. Is it any wonder that protestants have such a difficult time with this; as do many catholics.

So, it’s not Jesus honoring His mother, it’s more as though he had no sin nature and was assumed into heaven and she had no sin nature and was assumed into heaven.

I can’t explain it better than that w/o looking it up and it’s late here and I’d like to keep reading this thread.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

Paul made it pretty clear that the Judaizers would be in danger of damnation. That’s what Acts 15 was about-- settling the judaizer controversy. Paul railed against those who preached circumcision for gentiles all through the NT.

Baptism of desire…

CCC 2088-2089

Agree with baptism of desire but you cannot say that if you are not baptized but still believe you are damned. I don’t think you said that but were just responding.

Now re Paul and Acts 15. I’m trying to catch up on this thread so won’t get into it too much but it’s not that he was saying that if you did get circumsiced you would be damned. He was trying to explain that the new “christians” were not under the law and that it was their faith in Jesus that was saving them. The law kills but the spirit is life. Please reread.

In fact, if I know Paul, I’d go so far as to say that whether you did it or not didn’t even matter, as long as you were not doing it to “keep the law”. The Law of Moses, that is, the Mosaic covenant of which circumcision is the sign. Now they were under grace.

This is important to me because it perfectly illustrates the difference between the old covenant (mosaic) and the new covenant.

God bless you

 

[frangiuliano115]

Sorry, I don’t believe I saw it amid the other discussion.

The difference would be that discussing circumcision and accepting a teaching on circumcision doesn’t have to do with a specific person; their character, facts about that person or their name. That would not be against Acts 4:12.

I’d say it wasn’t even a teaching on circumcision. See my answer to Kep1983.

So, yes, I agree with you that the whole ‘name’ thing is irrelevant to your question.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yeah, but according to you, salvation only deals with the name of jesus. Paul says that salvation also deals with genital skin.

If the church can make a dogma regarding my genital skin in 2015 then I think they can make a dogma over Jesus’ mother.

I think you’re getting hung up on the phrase “in the name of jesus alone.” It obviously means that salvation and grace come through Jesus name alone.

I mean, if I take your interpretation, does that mean that salvation being “only in the name of Jesus,” that therefore means salvation is not in the name of the Father and Holy Spirit? Can I just hold to Jesus name alone and deny the name of the Father and Holy Spirit? Of course not.

Obviously the phrase “in the name of Jesus” doesn’t mean what you’re thinking.

Kliska is saying that if she has to sign a document to enter the roman catholoc church stating that she believes all marian dogma, and she can be saved only through the church, then she’s signing to the fact that she has to believe in the name of Mary to be saved.

It’s a simple deduction but I think there is a flaw here.

Kliska is getting a bit mixed up with the idea that outside the church there is no salvation.

Maybe this is the crux of the problem.

No. It’s too late and can’t think anymore.

Bon Nuit!

God bless
tomorrow…

 

[Kliska]

Yeah, but according to you, salvation only deals with the name of jesus. Paul says that salvation also deals with genital skin.

If the church can make a dogma regarding my genital skin in 2015 then I think they can make a dogma over Jesus’ mother.

I think you’re getting hung up on the phrase “in the name of jesus alone.” It obviously means that salvation and grace come through Jesus name alone.

I mean, if I take your interpretation, does that mean that salvation being “only in the name of Jesus,” that therefore means salvation is not in the name of the Father and Holy Spirit? Can I just hold to Jesus name alone and deny the name of the Father and Holy Spirit? Of course not.

Obviously the phrase “in the name of Jesus” doesn’t mean what you’re thinking.

We will have to disagree; confessing something about a person and their character, facts about them, etc… is indeed different than a teaching. Acts 4:12 is about who, or in this case Who, salvation is to be joined to, encapsulated in the phrase “no other name.”

 

[KEP1983]

We will have to disagree; confessing something about a person and their character, facts about them, etc… is indeed different than a teaching. Acts 4:12 is about who, or in this case Who, salvation is to be joined to, encapsulated in the phrase “no other name.”

Are the Father and Holy Spirit persons? If salvation is solely in confessing only the person of jesus, then does that mean salvation does not require confessing the Father or Holy Spirit?

Maybe the phrase “only in the name of” doesn’t mean what you want it to mean.

I asked this question last time and I see you avoided it. I’d be interested to hear how you’d respond.

 

[KEP1983]

We will have to disagree; confessing something about a person and their character, facts about them, etc… is indeed different than a teaching. Acts 4:12 is about who, or in this case Who, salvation is to be joined to, encapsulated in the phrase “no other name.”

So the only things you need for salvation according to the bible is 1) the person of jesus and 2) not cutting your genitals?

 

[frangiuliano115]

Are the Father and Holy Spirit persons? If salvation is solely in confessing only the person of jesus, then does that mean salvation does not require confessing the Father or Holy Spirit?

Maybe the phrase “only in the name of” doesn’t mean what you want it to mean.

I asked this question last time and I see you avoided it. I’d be interested to hear how you’d respond.

Jesus hung on the cross. Not the Father and not the H.S.
Jesus is our redeemer.

Now they are all parts of the one God, but some distinction must be made. They each have their own attributes and works.

Salvation, in the christian sense, means cofessing Jesus.

I think Klisda knows what she means re the name of Mary concept. I think she’s right. I think we catholics take the clarity out of salvation. I think protestants have a very clear idea of what one must do to be saved; we don’t.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hey Kliska, I wrote a short response on the last page. It looks like it got lost amongst the large responses. I think is short and shows where your logic went wrong. I’d like to hear your thoughts on it:

In acts 15 we see the apostles declaring that all believers must accept their teaching about circumcision no longer being necessary, thus refuting the judaizers. Paul makes it clear in galatians and elsewhere that the controversy over circumcision was even a salvation issue. The decision in Acts 15 was binding on the entire church. It had nothing to do with “Jesus name.” Does that mean the apostles were wrong for making a binding teaching regarding genital skin on all believers?

Of course not.

The phrase that we find salvation only in the name of jesus doesn’t mean the church can’t bind a teaching about anything other than jesus. It simply means that all salvation and grace comes from Him.

I made some statements re the above on post no. 53.

You don’t wish to explain a bit? I think your statement is incorrect and I think it’s important.

In any case, I hope other posters do not have your undersanding of Acts 15:1-11

God bless