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

[frangiuliano115]

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

What facts also save you?

Can we have some clarity as to what it is that saves?

Kliska must be having a good time. Someone back there said that if we’re baptized and die without mortal sin we’re saved and that belief in Jesus is not necessary. I can’t even respong to this - the concept is so alien to catholicism.

Wesrock correctly (I think he’s always correct!) says that Mary is not our salvation. I came off a 34 page thread with people on there saying that devotion to her is necessary to be saved.

Where does all this confusion come from??? Are we allowed to make up our own rules and regulations??

Wesrock (post no.4) and also Todd977 are missing the point Kliska is making. If she has to sign a pc of paper stating that she wants to enter the RCC and that pc of paper has Marian dogma on it, then MARY IS ANOTHER NAME under which salvation comes since the church saves and she has to sign this paper.

She’s saying that this is a conflict. She must be an attorney! She’s being very specific about what she signs, about what she believes.

To enter the RCC you must believe all dogma, or at least be almost at belief level. THIS is the problem. Isn’t believing in Jesus enough?

I’m either not understanding her concept or we can’t seem to hone in on it and I also think it’s pretty important.

I must say though: How do people come up with these thoughts!!! Too intelligent –

God bless

 

[KEP1983]

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

Why do you keep trolling me on my discussion of Acts 15? You keep saying that I said gentiles need to be circumcised. I never said such a thing. Go up and read post 48. I made it abundantly clear that the apostles taught the gentiles didn’t need to get circumcised. I’ll give an exact paste here:

"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. "

No longer necessary. How much more clear do you want?

 

[KEP1983]

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

So salvation is found only in the name of jesus, but not in the name of the Father or holy spirit? Gotchya.

I’m almost certain that’s a defined heresy.

The problem here is that the OP is clearly misunderstanding the phrase “only in the name of.” This is so obvious that I don’t know how other people are missing it…

 

[frangiuliano115]

Why do you keep trolling me on my discussion of Acts 15? You keep saying that I said gentiles need to be circumcised. I never said such a thing. Go up and read post 48. I made it abundantly clear that the apostles taught the gentiles didn’t need to get circumcised. I’ll give an exact paste here:

"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. "

No longer necessary. How much more clear do you want?

Hello KEP1983

I’m sorry your upset.

You’re getting me mixed up with a different poster. I know my bible well and I know that you are correct in saying that Paul said gentiles DID NOT NEED to get circumcised.

I was referring rather to your statement below:

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

What I’m saying is that your premise is not correct. Paul did not say that SALVATION deals with genital skin. And I had asked you to reread and see if you could come up with the concept that he was saying that, actually it could be either way if you take his idea to its logical conclusion. Paul did NOT believe in the law.

Also, maybe YOUR not getting Kliska’s point! Re the name thing, I mean. She’s correct.

Oh. And regarding salvation being in the name of Jesus. Did you ever hear anyone in the church say:

We find salvation in God, the Father.
The Holy Ghost saves us.

NO. Because it won’t ever be said because it’s JESUS, the Son and 2nd person of the Holy Trinity that saves us.

Now, if you want to get very technical and say that all 3 are always present, we might agree on some basis. But if we’re speaking of the NAME BY WHICH WE ARE SAVED, then it has to be the name of Jesus.

God bless

 

[Kliska]

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.

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

You come pretty close to being insulting in your replies, and I didn’t avoid answer your questions. You aren’t understanding the meaning or interplay of what I’m asking, and I apologize if that is my fault, there are only so many ways I can explain the issue, I apologize for being confusing, I can’t answer your questions when they don’t connect to what I’m asking.

My question does not revolve around a teaching, it doesn’t revolve around some strange disconnected threads of thought, thrown together randomly. It revolves around the direct connection between salvation and the person of Jesus Christ, and ties to the teaching of the Bible and the RCC. There is only one God. Three Persons, One God. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Person of the Trinity whose name we must absolutely profess, confess, believe in, etc… in order to be saved. He has done the saving, is doing the saving, and will do the saving in the future.

Each Person of the Trinity has a role, and Jesus’ role is The Way. It is through Him that we enter relationship with God (and He is God). You cannot take Jesus out of the equation and be saved. You can eat meat or not and be saved. You can be circumcised or not and be saved. To be saved you MUST enter through Jesus. The teaching of the RCC itself as it revolves around the Body of Christ can be explained that way; you have to be joined to the Body of Christ in order to be saved, because that IS placing you in Christ, and “under His name.” The issue with Acts 4 comes in, not with random teachings, but with dogmas that are clearly labeled “Marian.” Once dogmatically defined, they add a human name (character, facts, etc…) that is indirectly tied now to salvation, because the teaching is that to enter into the Body of Christ, you now must believe and confess about another human dogmatically and publicly, along with the teaching that outside that particular church, there is no salvation.

 

[KEP1983]

Hello KEP1983

I’m sorry your upset.

You’re getting me mixed up with a different poster. I know my bible well and I know that you are correct in saying that Paul said gentiles DID NOT NEED to get circumcised.

I was referring rather to your statement below:

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

I had already stated that the argument was over whether or not it was necessary to have circumcision. I also referred to the judaizers. You’re reading something into my words that I never said. I didn’t say that you need to cut your genitals to be saved (as you first suggested). I also didn’t say that if you cut your genitals you’d be damned. I had already referred to the judaizers. The last phrase I stated was a quick summary of what I said earlier. Kliska wants to say all we need for salvation is the name of Jesus and Jesus alone, whereas Paul says we need to both accept Jesus and the binding dogma of Acts 15. So that’s no longer Jesus alone, is it?

The problem is that Kliska is reading “only in the name of” wrongly. This is so obvious.

Paul did NOT believe in the law.

Which is why I said acts 15 refuted the judaizers…

Also, maybe YOUR not getting Kliska’s point! Re the name thing, I mean. She’s correct.

No, she’s obviously wrong. According to her own logic, one does not need to confess the person of the Father or Holy Spirit, but only the person of Jesus.

Oh. And regarding salvation being in the name of Jesus. Did you ever hear anyone in the church say:

We find salvation in God, the Father.
The Holy Ghost saves us.

Uh, yes. You deny that the Father and Holy Spirit as persons are necessary for salvation? I mean, Jesus could have been crucified a billion times, and if it wasn’t for the holy spirit indwelling you, you’d still be damned.

NO. Because it won’t ever be said because it’s JESUS, the Son and 2nd person of the Holy Trinity that saves us.

Jesus bought the merit. The holy spirit applies those merits to us.

If the holy spirit doesn’t apply those merits, you’ll be damned.

So can one confess only the person/name of jesus and not the person of the Holy spirit? No.

Clearly the phrase “only in the name of jesus” means that Jesus was the only one who paid for our sins. It says nothing about the church being unable to make dogmas over other teachings (like the judaizers) or about other persons or names (like the Father or holy spirit)

Now, if you want to get very technical and say that all 3 are always present, we might agree on some basis. But if we’re speaking of the NAME BY WHICH WE ARE SAVED, then it has to be the name of Jesus.

God bless

They’re not just present, they play 3 distinct roles, all of which are necessary for salvation. One cannot confess only the name of jesus and not confess the name of the holy spirit or father.

According to Kliska’s logic you should be able to. The problem is that she’s reading the phrase “only in the name of” wrong. Again, it refers to jesus being the only one to purchase the merits of salvation for us. It has nothing to do with the church being unable to give binding dogmas about other teachings or other persons.

 

[KEP1983]

You stated it again clearly. I understand. You only need jesus to be saved. The others have a role but it’s jesus alone that saves.

If the church makes a dogma about other names then that means that there are other names under which we must be saved. I get it. I understood from the beginning.

By you logic the church should be unable to make binding dogmas about the names of the Father or holy spirit. Salvation would then be tied to confessing the names of 2 other persons, and not just the name of jesus.

 

[frangiuliano115]

You come pretty close to being insulting in your replies, and I didn’t avoid answer your questions. You aren’t understanding the meaning or interplay of what I’m asking, and I apologize if that is my fault, there are only so many ways I can explain the issue, I apologize for being confusing, I can’t answer your questions when they don’t connect to what I’m asking.

My question does not revolve around a teaching, it doesn’t revolve around some strange disconnected threads of thought, thrown together randomly. It revolves around the direct connection between salvation and the person of Jesus Christ, and ties to the teaching of the Bible and the RCC. There is only one God. Three Persons, One God. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Person of the Trinity whose name we must absolutely profess, confess, believe in, etc… in order to be saved. He has done the saving, is doing the saving, and will do the saving in the future.

Each Person of the Trinity has a role, and Jesus’ role is The Way. It is through Him that we enter relationship with God (and He is God). You cannot take Jesus out of the equation and be saved. You can eat meat or not and be saved. You can be circumcised or not and be saved. To be saved you MUST enter through Jesus. The teaching of the RCC itself as it revolves around the Body of Christ can be explained that way; you have to be joined to the Body of Christ in order to be saved, because that IS placing you in Christ, and “under His name.” The issue with Acts 4 comes in, not with random teachings, but with dogmas that are clearly labeled “Marian.” Once dogmatically defined, they add a human name (character, facts, etc…) that is indirectly tied now to salvation, because the teaching is that to enter into the Body of Christ, you now must believe and confess about another human dogmatically and publicly, along with the teaching that outside that particular church, there is no salvation.

Your above reply to KEP1983 makes everything very clear and it cannot be any clearer. I guess you either understand it or you don’t.

At this point, for my benefit since I THINK I understand you, I’d want to ask why it’s important to you. Just curious. If you don’t answer, it’s fine - I’ll still be tagging along.

God bless
Fran

 

[KEP1983]

Im going to try to get at your understanding of the phrase of confessing “only the name (or person) of jesus to be saved.” Let me ask directly:

Does the church have the ability to give binding dogmas regarding the names or persons of the Father or holy spirit?

If yes, does this not mean that there are now 3 names or persons under which we must confess to be saved?

 

[frangiuliano115]

Im going to try to get at your understanding of the phrase of confessing “only the name (or person) of jesus to be saved.” Let me ask directly:

Does the church have the ability to give binding dogmas regarding the names or persons of the Father or holy spirit?

If yes, does this not mean that there are now 3 names or persons under which we must confess to be saved?

Are you asking me or Kliska. Kliska is not catholic so I don’t think she could answer; OR maybe she could!

God bless

 

[Kliska]

Im going to try to get at your understanding of the phrase of confessing “only the name (or person) of jesus to be saved.” Let me ask directly:

Does the church have the ability to give binding dogmas regarding the names or persons of the Father or holy spirit?

If yes, does this not mean that there are now 3 names or persons under which we must confess to be saved?

What does the verse I’m referring to say?

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

 

[KEP1983]

You come pretty close to being insulting in your replies, and I didn’t avoid answer your questions. You aren’t understanding the meaning or interplay of what I’m asking, and I apologize if that is my fault, there are only so many ways I can explain the issue, I apologize for being confusing, I can’t answer your questions when they don’t connect…

I understand your question. You seem to not understand that I’m going after your presupposition. If your understanding of the phrase “only in the name of jesus” is wrong then your argument falls apart.

Likewise, according to your own logic, the church should be unable to make binding dogmas tied to salvation about other names, like the Father or holy spirit.

The issue with Acts 4 comes in, not with random teachings, but with dogmas that are clearly labeled “Marian.” Once dogmatically defined, they add a human name (character, facts, etc…) that is indirectly tied now to salvation, because the teaching is that to enter into the Body of Christ

(I see your now changing it from “name” to “human name.” Acts 4 doesn’t say “human name.”)

If you want to say we can’t have a binding teaching regarding anything dealing with anyone other than Jesus, (i.e. Marian) you still have a problem. The dogma in Acts 15 still deals with another human person-- namely the MOSAIC covenant.

, you now must believe and confess about another human dogmatically and publicly, along with the teaching that outside that particular church, there is no salvation.

You still have to prove that Acts 4:12 means that one cannot make a binding teaching about any other name than jesus, rather than the obvious meaning of the verse, which simply states that Jesus is the one who paid for our salvation.

 

[KEP1983]

What does the verse I’m referring to say?

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

Are the names of the Father and Holy Spirit not under heaven given among men?

Obviously, otherwise you wouldn’t know their names.

And you continue to ignore the first part of the verse “Neither is there salvation in any other”

This obviously means what I’ve been stating over and over. The phrase simply means that Jesus is the source of our salvation, he’s the one who merited salvation for us. The verse says nothing about the church being unable to give binding teachings about anything other than jesus.

 

[Kliska]

Are the names of the Father and Holy Spirit not under heaven given among men?

Obviously, otherwise you wouldn’t know their names.

You should perhaps look at other translations and commentaries. They are not given “among men” because they are not men. Jesus is indeed fully man and fully God. The Father and the Spirit are not on the same level as a human. It’s the same reason we see John say, “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.” Does that mean The Father hasn’t ascended into heaven, nor descended from Heaven? How about the Spirit?

If you can’t see that categorical difference, then there’s no use discussing this.

Grace and peace,
K

 

[KEP1983]

You should perhaps look at other translations and commentaries. They are not given “among men” because they are not men. Jesus is indeed fully man and fully God. The Father and the Spirit are not on the same level as a human. It’s the same reason we see John say, “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.” Does that mean The Father hasn’t ascended into heaven, nor descended from Heaven? How about the Spirit?

If you can’t see that categorical difference, then there’s no use discussing this.

Grace and peace,
K

You changed it to say “human names.” The verse doesn’t say that.

You continue to ignore the main underlying objection. I’ve asked 4 times and you’ve avoided it every time:

"And you continue to ignore the first part of the verse “Neither is there salvation in any other”

This obviously means what I’ve been stating over and over. The phrase simply means that Jesus is the source of our salvation, he’s the one who merited salvation for us. The verse says nothing about the church being unable to give binding teachings about anything other than jesus."

If your understanding of salvation IN Jesus and being in “no other name” is wrong then your entire argument falls apart. You have yet to prove that the phrase means what you think it means.

 

[frangiuliano115]

You changed it to say “human names.” The verse doesn’t say that.

You continue to ignore the main underlying objection. I’ve asked 4 times and you’ve avoided it every time:

"And you continue to ignore the first part of the verse “Neither is there salvation in any other”

This obviously means what I’ve been stating over and over. The phrase simply means that Jesus is the source of our salvation, he’s the one who merited salvation for us. The verse says nothing about the church being unable to give binding teachings about anything other than jesus."

If your understanding of salvation IN Jesus and being in “no other name” is wrong then your entire argument falls apart. You have yet to prove that the phrase means what you think it means.

KEP1983

There’s a major misunderstanding here and we can’t seem to get to the root of it. You said back there that I was trolling you (a new word for me; I’m not in the U.S. but I got the jist of it) re Acts 15, which is very interesting because you’re the one who keeps bringing it up.

So you say that Acts 15 is dogma. Please refer me to the statement by the church that this is dogma - a list or something. I’ve never heard of Acts 15 being delcared dogma by the catholic church. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Also, you keep saying yourself that there is salvation in no other name and then ask if the church has the right to make binding dogma.

The church has the right to make any binding dogma it wants to and can prove somehow either briblically or Traditionally. BUT, if it makes dogma outside of those peramiters, we’d have to seriously question if it’s the H.S. speaking through the church.

If the magesterium decided tomorrow to state as dogma that:

“Our salvation comes from Jesus and believing that Mary ascended into heaven, body, soul and spirit.”

What would you do? Basically, this is what Kliska is trying to get at. Would you just accept it? Would you have a problem with it? Would you deny it and leave the church?

I think your answer would clear up something that is being misunderstood.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

Originally Posted by thenobes View Post
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

---

What facts also save you?

Can we have some clarity as to what it is that saves?

Kliska must be having a good time. Someone back there said that if we’re baptized and die without mortal sin we’re saved and that belief in Jesus is not necessary. I can’t even respong to this - the concept is so alien to catholicism.

Wesrock correctly (I think he’s always correct!) says that Mary is not our salvation. I came off a 34 page thread with people on there saying that devotion to her is necessary to be saved.

Where does all this confusion come from??? Are we allowed to make up our own rules and regulations??

Wesrock (post no.4) and also Todd977 are missing the point Kliska is making. If she has to sign a pc of paper stating that she wants to enter the RCC and that pc of paper has Marian dogma on it, then MARY IS ANOTHER NAME under which salvation comes since the church saves and she has to sign this paper.

She’s saying that this is a conflict. She must be an attorney! She’s being very specific about what she signs, about what she believes.

To enter the RCC you must believe all dogma, or at least be almost at belief level. THIS is the problem. Isn’t believing in Jesus enough?

I’m either not understanding her concept or we can’t seem to hone in on it and I also think it’s pretty important.

I must say though: How do people come up with these thoughts!!! Too intelligent –

God bless

---

---

Walk till you Run
and don’t look back
for HERE
I AM

Above is your post and my reply to you. I was looking forward to your reply because I think it is really important and might have helped with this whole thread.

God Bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

So salvation is found only in the name of jesus, but not in the name of the Father or holy spirit? Gotchya.

I’m almost certain that’s a defined heresy.

The problem here is that the OP is clearly misunderstanding the phrase “only in the name of.” This is so obvious that I don’t know how other people are missing it…

Okay. I was willing to let this go to get on with the discussion here, but at this point I’d have to ask you to direct me to the directive stating that believing only in the name of Jesus and not the FAther and Holy Spirit for salvation is a heresy.

I mean, I’m really intersted.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

FOR KEP1983Kliska wants to say all we need for salvation is the name of Jesus and Jesus alone, whereas Paul says we need to both accept Jesus and the binding dogma of Acts 15. So that’s no longer Jesus alone, is it?/B

You’re speaking again of the binding dogma of Acts 15. I really would like to know what it is.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

I had already stated that the argument was over whether or not it was necessary to have circumcision. I also referred to the judaizers. You’re reading something into my words that I never said. I didn’t say that you need to cut your genitals to be saved (as you first suggested). I also didn’t say that if you cut your genitals you’d be damned. I had already referred to the judaizers. The last phrase I stated was a quick summary of what I said earlier. Kliska wants to say all we need for salvation is the name of Jesus and Jesus alone, whereas Paul says we need to both accept Jesus and the binding dogma of Acts 15. So that’s no longer Jesus alone, is it?

Paul says no such thing. Also, please state the dogma you are referring to that comes from Acts 15.

The problem is that Kliska is reading “only in the name of” wrongly. This is so obvious.

We are saved only in the name of Jesus. NOT in any other name. If you don’t agree, please explain why and please don’t refer to Acts 15 anymore in this regard. I’d still like to know what the dogma there is.

Which is why I said acts 15 refuted the judaizers…

You’re right about this.

No, she’s obviously wrong. According to her own logic, one does not need to confess the person of the Father or Holy Spirit, but only the person of Jesus.

She’s right unless you could prove otherwise. WHERE does it say you have to confess the name of the Father and/or the Holy Spirit??

Uh, yes. You deny that the Father and Holy Spirit as persons are necessary for salvation? I mean, Jesus could have been crucified a billion times, and if it wasn’t for the holy spirit indwelling you, you’d still be damned.

Were the apostles damned before pentecost??

Jesus bought the merit. The holy spirit applies those merits to us.

If the holy spirit doesn’t apply those merits, you’ll be damned.

So can one confess only the person/name of jesus and not the person of the Holy spirit? No.

Clearly the phrase “only in the name of jesus” means that Jesus was the only one who paid for our sins. It says nothing about the church being unable to make dogmas over other teachings (like the judaizers) or about other persons or names (like the Father or holy spirit)

Already replied to the above.

They’re not just present, they play 3 distinct roles, all of which are necessary for salvation. One cannot confess only the name of jesus and not confess the name of the holy spirit or father.

According to Kliska’s logic you should be able to. The problem is that she’s reading the phrase “only in the name of” wrong. Again, it refers to jesus being the only one to purchase the merits of salvation for us. It has nothing to do with the church being unable to give binding dogmas about other teachings or other persons.

WAIT. Are you saying that all 3 persons of the Trinity are necessary for salvation or are you saying that all 3 names save us? There is a big difference which you yourself must admit to if you apparently know that each of the 3 persons has a distinct role.

God bless