Do Protestants believe Protestants of other denominations are saved?

[Vincent1560]

Catherine S.:

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church.The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing.The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.

Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

I perfectly agree that the Catholic Church is the oldest (the Greek Orthodox would also share this distinction I believe) and links back to the early churches and I greatly admire many of the early and later Catholic theologians and consider Catholics to be fellow workers in Christ. However the Catholic Church has changed both in doctrine and in authority structure from the early churches.

In terms of authority Peter was definetley an authority over the early churches, but it is not clear that his authority was superior to other apostles and it almost certainly was not as great as that of the present pope. Indeed papal supremecy in which the bishop of Rome was given the title Vicar of Christ and made above the other patriarchs did not occur until 435 AD. And even then the popes almost always still accepted the emperor as having the ultimate authority as vice-gerant of God. (which is why I date the rise of Constantine as the beggining of significant departure from the early churches.) If you look throughout the New Testament Peter is referred to as an apostle, but not as pope, Vicar of Christ, His Holiness etc. In fact when he is referred to it is as either “Cephas” or “Peter.” Furthermore he is also demonstrated not to be infallible. “Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blame; for before certain men came from James he would eat with the gentiles; but when they came he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.” Galatians 2:11 Granted this may not be esablishing doctrine, but it is reinforcing bad doctrine by reinforcing the msiconception that gentiles who did not follow the purity laws were unclean. Firthermore, Paul’s respone does not show the deference one would use if Peter was thought to be the Holy Father, His Holiness etc. When Chist was with Peter and said “upon this rock I will build my church” I agree he was probably talking about Peter. And I believe this promise was fulfilled since it was Peter who broke down the barriers between Jews and gentiles and enabled both to become a united body under Christ Jesus, thus forming the church which is the body of all believers.

As for doctrine. One of the major themes throughout Acts and the epistles is not to place unnecessary burdens upon the faithful. In terms of marriage and celibacy, Paul taught that celibacy was a gift given to very few since even bishops were to be “men of one wife” Even Peter had a wife if I am not mistaken, and I believe that the Catholic Churches later development of requiring celibacy of the clergy is contrary to the law of freedom established in the New Testament and runs contrary to the principle of “my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” And we can see the effect today of that decision with the shortage of Catholic priests. Celibacy is a great gift, but it is just that, A GIFT, not something that can be legislated unto people. I have other similar issues with Catholic doctrine, but the bottom line is that will the Catholic Church may have its roots in the early churches, it is not in agreement with them on many things.

 

[Mickey]

Vincent1560:

(which is why I date the rise of Constantine as the beggining of significant departure from the early churches.)

**OH NO! **
Not the Constantinian apostacy conspiracy again!
How many times must we bear this fantasy. I am left to wonder who is teaching our protestant brothers and sisters this fiction.
Lord have mercy!

 

[scylla]

If I were you Vincent, I would look into the Constantine corruption idea which is commonly attributed to the Catholic Church.

This is a common attack on the Catholic Church which doesn’t hold up historically and can be cleared up just by looking at history. Many people spout this off without any proof, I can say that Mohammed was secretly employed by the Vatican to create Islam, but it doesn’t hold up historically.

Feel free to read early Christian writings, I invite you to search for truth. If this theory is correct it will be evident, if not you will then find out what others have found by looking at history.

Pope, just means papa which is an affectionate way of saying father in the Catholic Church. Since we are the family of God we have fathers brothers sisters and mothers whom we address as such in the Church. So of course we wouldn’t call him “Pope” since this is just a way of saying father which came up later. Just like the english language came up later so I wouldn’t call a rock “rock” but rather Kepha.

Just as scripture needed to be defined as scripture to assemble the Bible, things had to be defined and understood. That is why we don’t have the word Trinity in the Bible either, it needed to be defined later.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Vincent1560]

**OH NO! **
Not the Constantinian apostacy conspiracy again!
How many times must we bear this fantasy. I am left to wonder who is teaching our protestant brothers and sisters this fiction.
Lord have mercy!

As to where I got my information; I am majoring in history at UCLA and am specializing in ancient Rome and early Christian History. I am acutally doing my senior seminar on Paul right now and am doing my research paper on Paul’s conception of faith and works. As for Constantine, I did not call it an apostacy. I do not think that Catholics gave up their faith and went pagan (I realise some prtestants believe this) I am saying that while Constantine did legitimize Christianity within the empire, his propensity to identify Christ with his concept of Sol Invictus, and his meddling in church affairs lead to the politicalization of the church and eventually resulted in deviations from the first century churches. Throughout this time I do believe that God through his grace allowed the central tenents of Christianity to remain intact within the Catholic Church, and I consider Catholics to be fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but with some misconceptions. We both share the same hope in Jesus Christ, and thus Satan has not prevailed against the church (which I believe based on the scriptures to be the body of believers essentially and an institution secondarily)

God Bless

 

[Mickey]

Vincent1560:

I am saying that while Constantine did legitimize Christianity within the empire, his propensity to identify Christ with his concept of Sol Invictus, and his meddling in church affairs lead to the politicalization of the church and eventually resulted in deviations from the first century churches.

My apologies. I did not mean to come off as harsh, but I’ve heard the apostacy theory many times.

That being said, I still strongly disagree with you. I study Church history, although that was not my major in college. I suppose it depends on the university that you attend and the light in which Constantine is portrayed. He and his mother Helen are Saints in the Catholic Church. He undertook a long-sighted program of Christianization for the whole of the Roman Empire.

**St. Constantine (the Great)
(d. 337)

---

**The son of **St. Helen, who became emperor when his father Constantine Chlorus died in 306 after having defeated his rival Maxentius at the battle of the Milvian bridge. After having seen a vision of a cross in the sky, St. Constantine became Christian, but was not baptized until his deathbed.

St. Constantine was very much involved in the church’s affairs, and presided in councils, had churches built and made legislations based on Christian beliefs and morals. In the East he his often called the “13th apostle”.

 

[Mickey]

Vincent1560:

his propensity to identify Christ with his concept of Sol Invictus…

By the second half of the third century, the cults of the classical gods were on the wane and paganism sought an infusion of new life from the Oriental cults. Thus Emperor Aurelian officially established worship of a Roman version of a sun god, under the name of Sol Invictus, as the principal cult of the empire on December 25, 274, after his victory over Zenobia, queen of Palmyra. He built a huge temple for Sol Invictus on the Campus Martius in Rome and made December 25 a national holiday.[Edwin Yamauchi cautions against too close an identification between Mithras and Sol Invictus: “The close identification of Mithras with the sun is seen in his titular, *Deo Soli Invicto Mithrae, and its variations. . . . While Mithras was closely identified with Sol Invictus, it was the latter that was formally recognized and not the former. Mithras never appears on imperial coins. The sole public example of imperial devotion to Mithras is the dedication by Diocletian at Carnuntum in 307. Mithraism was a competitor of Christianity. . . . But Mithraism was not as potent a rival as the cult of Sol Invictus” (Persia and the Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990], 519). While Mithraism may have taken a back seat to Sol Invictus, still it grew to such an extent that, by the time of Constantine’s conversion, there were fifty Mithraic temples in Rome alone(Desmond O’Grady,Caesar, Christ, & Constantine: A History of the Early Church in Rome[Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 1991], 20.)]. But Providence had different plans for the empire

. After Constantine’s battle for the Milvian Bridge on October 28, 312, which delivered Rome into his hands, and the Edict of Toleration in February 313, the pagans witnessed the previously “divine” emperor kneeling before the true “Lord and God.” Christ was now ascendent, having vanquished Sol Invictus in the battle for supremacy in the empire. As expressed in a fourth-century work, De solistitiis et aequinoctiis, concerning Christ’s “Unconquerable Birth”: “Who is as unconquered as our Lord, who overcame and conquered death?” And although the cult lingered on (Augustine would later speak of the crying and shouting of the pagans on December 25), Sol Invictus was doomed to fade into permanent eclipse. Not even Julian “the Apostate,” Constantine’s nephew who came to the throne in 361, was able to re-impose paganism on the Empire, try though he did.

Unlike the battle for the Milvian Bridge, the battle for religious supremacy was not to be won overnight, especially in the rural areas where paganism was most entrenched. In the first half of the fourth century the worship of the Sol Invictus was the last great pagan cult the Church had to conquer, and it did so in part with the establishment of Christmas, which proclaimed that “when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4). At the head of the Deposition Martyrum of the so-called Roman Chronograph of 354 (the Philocalian Calendar) there is listed the *natus Christus in Betleem Judaeae *(“the birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea”) as being celebrated on December 25. The Deposition was originally composed in 336, so Christmas dates back at least that far.

Catholic Answers

 

[Contarini]

It’s quite possible to have some concerns about the pernicious effects on the Church of acceptance by the Empire without embracing an “apostasy theory.” I have very mixed feelings about Constantine myself.

Of course, many Protestants blithely attribute to Constantine anything they don’t like about Catholicism. But unquestionably there was a lot of significant development in the fourth century, and someone who sees some of those developments as questionable can legitimately ask if maybe there was some corruption as the result of acceptance by the Empire.

Believing as I do that the Roman Empire was the Beast of Revelation (or at least one expression thereof), and that its spirit continues to this day, I can’t help but be nervous about any linkage between Church and Empire, however many the benefits the Church has gained from such an alliance.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

Contarini:

But unquestionably there was a lot of significant development in the fourth century, and someone who sees some of those developments as questionable can legitimately ask if maybe there was some corruption as the result of acceptance by the Empire.

I suppose they would have to prove that the “Evil” Empire somehow changed Church doctrine. But then that would mean that the gates of hades prevailed wouldn’t it?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Vincent, you are obviously well-read and intelligent. In an effort to help you be better informed, let me clear a few things up for you.

In terms of authority Peter was definetley an authority over the early churches, but it is not clear that his authority was superior to other apostles and it almost certainly was not as great as that of the present pope. Indeed papal supremecy in which the bishop of Rome was given the title Vicar of Christ and made above the other patriarchs did not occur until 435 AD.

Peter was the greatest among equals and that is clear to Catholics via Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17 and the fact that Christ referred to Peter directly I believe 7 times more than he spoke directly to all other Apostles combined. This relationship between Peter and the other Apostles is true regarding the relationship between the Pope and the Bishops (i.e. the Magisterium, Synods, and Eucumenical Councils).

And even then the popes almost always still accepted the emperor as having the ultimate authority as vice-gerant of God. (which is why I date the rise of Constantine as the beggining of significant departure from the early churches.)

I have no idea what this means. Prior to Constantine, the Popes lived in fear of the emperor as Christianity was against the law and they were slaughtered virtually at will.

If you look throughout the New Testament Peter is referred to as an apostle, but not as pope, Vicar of Christ, His Holiness etc. In fact when he is referred to it is as either “Cephas” or “Peter.”

You are totally correct here. However, since the Bible was about events and teachings and not administrative mechanisms, it is irrelevant.

Furthermore he is also demonstrated not to be infallible. “Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blame; for before certain men came from James he would eat with the gentiles; but when they came he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.”

I could go on long discussion of infallibility. This reference supports the Church’s teaching on infallibility. Any Bishop, including the Pope, can and does make mistakes. In this instance, Peter acted not in concert with Christ’s teaching and the Magisterium. However, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is infallible.

As for doctrine. One of the major themes throughout Acts and the epistles is not to place unnecessary burdens upon the faithful. In terms of marriage and celibacy, Paul taught that celibacy was a gift given to very few since even bishops were to be “men of one wife” Even Peter had a wife if I am not mistaken, and I believe that the Catholic Churches later development of requiring celibacy of the clergy is contrary to the law of freedom established in the New Testament and runs contrary to the principle of “my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” And we can see the effect today of that decision with the shortage of Catholic priests. Celibacy is a great gift, but it is just that, A GIFT, not something that can be legislated unto people.

Celebacy is not an absolute. Teh Church ordains former married Anglican priests to the priesthood. However, it is fully within the authority given the Church by Christ to determine the general requirements for the Priesthood whether it be a vow of celibacy or that they have other attributes such as faith in God if they believe that such an attribute enhances the general well-being of the Church and its ability to perform its mission of spreading the Gospel.

 

[Catherine_S]

**OH NO! **
Not the Constantinian apostacy conspiracy again!
How many times must we bear this fantasy. I am left to wonder who is teaching our protestant brothers and sisters this fiction.
Lord have mercy!

** No Kidding ! It is due to a lack of Church History !**

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

If you look throughout the New Testament Peter is referred to as an apostle, but not as pope, Vicar of Christ, His Holiness etc. In fact when he is referred to it is as either “Cephas” or “Peter.” Actually, he was called Simon. Cephas or Peter (Rock) was the new title Jesus gave him, so Peter did enjoy a special title even from Jesus. “Pope” is derived from papa, the Latin for Father. And if the Father is not Holy, he certainly doesn’r deserve to be a successor of Peter, who was holy.