Is a church membership needed for salvation?

[jmcrae]

Perhaps you understood incorrectly, tevans.
This is not the Catholic Church’s teaching that you are saved “only” if you belong to the RCC.

The teaching “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is not be understood as you are saved “only” if you belong to the RCC.

Incidentally, the Catholic Church is not Roman. The Latin Rite is only one of 22 rites in union with the Pope.

Exactly - and one can be saved in any one of them.

Also, everyone who is sincerely seeking God, and not rejecting His Church (even though they have never heard of it, or don’t understand anything about it) can be saved, assuming they have no mortal sin after Baptism, or else have made a Perfect Contrition.

 

[jmcrae]

Really? Then perhaps you can provide some scripture where it states one can be saved, “only” if they belong to the RCC.

1 Timothy 3:15 - the Catholic Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth.

Matthew 5:25, says to “Agree with your adversary quickly…”, do you “fulfill” that verse?

As best I can - what makes you think I don’t?

That is interesting that you would make such an assertion, how do you explain Romans 10:3?

“For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.”

And again in Romans 10:16,

"But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?”

“They” is not “you.” He is talking to the Roman Church about someone else.

Therefore, are you sure that you wish to maintain that “St Paul was writing to Catholic Church members”? I do not know about you, but to me, that appears to be very condemning of the members of the CC.

Where they needed correction, he was not afraid to correct them. But if he is speaking to them about someone else, then it has nothing to do with them, right?

What is your definition of “church” and “membership”?

The Church is the community of believers established by Christ, over whom He appointed the Apostles as overseers and Bishops, and over whom He established Peter as the “chief shepherd” or Pope. (John 21:15-19)

We become members of the Church by being baptized. (Matthew 28:19)

 

[tevans9129]

To answer your question; Yes, church membership is required for salvation.

Being that I do not think it is, can you prove it with scripture?

I would like to challenge you to go to church.

Thank you for the challenge, I have been going to church regularly since the late eighties, I have attended neighborhood Bible studies as well as church Bible studies, I read and study the Bible every day with few exceptions, I enjoy discussing, debating/arguing with those of different views than my own as I use it as an incentive to do more study. I have read the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, all of the NT and most of the OT numerous times.

May I ask you, how often do you, not only read, but also study, what scripture says, or, like many, do you gain your understanding only from what the church says?

I would encourage you to go to a Catholic Mass specifically.

That would only be necessary, if, one believes the CC is the only way to learn about God. There are many “churches” that teach from the word of God and what He expects of those who follow Him. IMO, no matter which “church” one attends, their teachings should be judged by the scriptures.

Out of curiosity, what does your church teach concerning the “gospel”, what does it consist of?

Open yourself to what is going on and do what everybody else does regarding sitting, standing, or kneeling. Listen to what is being said and hear what the Lord is saying to you.

How would you react if I suggested to you that you go to say, a Methodist church and listen to what is being said?

In order to be saved you need to be Baptized.

I understand the CC makes that assertion, where do the scriptures? In the NKJV, there are 42 verses that refer to “salvation”, not one states, suggests or implies that baptism is required for salvation.

Please notice in Acts 2:47 the phrase,

“and the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved”.

Does it say anything about belonging to a church or being baptized as a requirement for salvation? I do not think so; the Lord “added to the church” those that were being saved." Nothing there about the church saving anyone, is there?

Do I believe that we should be baptized, definitely, but out of obedience to the Lord and as a symbol of our old self being buried and our new self being raised with Jesus, a public testimony that we are followers of Christ, not because it saves us, only the Lord and the Holy Spirit can do that, IMO.

This is called a Sacrament which is offered by the Church through an ordained minister such as a Priest, Bishop, or Deacon. You will need to enroll in a preparation class which usually last nine months attending a weekly class. You will meet ministers and parishoners who will guide you. Catholics are never alone. The Church or the body of Christ is built of people, not just a fancy building but a community of faith. Jesus never sent the Apostles alone, they alway went in groups of two.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but did I not read in the rules of the forums that proselytizing is forbidden, or, does that only apply to Protestants?

No, I am not offended by your intentions, I believe that my beliefs are sound enough that I do not worry about someone changing them by their words and if, they can do it with scripture, then it is my gain. I would have no problem attending a Catholic service, would you attend a Protestant one?

Thanks for sharing.

Bear

 

[jmcrae]

Out of curiosity, what does your church teach concerning the “gospel”, what does it consist of?

That Jesus Christ is the True Lamb of God who was the Passover Sacrifice for our sins on the Cross; that He rose again from the dead to open the gates of Heaven to Mary and with her the whole human race, and that how we partake of our Passover Supper is by means of the Eucharist, which is the True Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

How would you react if I suggested to you that you go to say, a Methodist church and listen to what is being said?

What are the chances that the Methodist Church is that which was established by Jesus Christ with the Apostles as its original leaders?

Considering that it didn’t begin to exist until some time in the 1700s, I would have to say, next to zero. Name a Protestant Church that has been in continuous existence since 30 AD, and then we’ll talk.

Does it say anything about belonging to a church or being baptized as a requirement for salvation? I do not think so; the Lord “added to the church” those that were being saved." Nothing there about the church saving anyone, is there?

Everything that is required, is for our salvation - or do you think you can be disobedient, and still be saved?

Do I believe that we should be baptized, definitely, but out of obedience to the Lord

To obey the Lord, is to be saved - the disobedient cannot be saved.

 

[tevans9129]

To the OP:

Yes, Church membership is required.

The question was, “Is a church membership needed for salvation”?

You say that it is and I disagree, can you prove, with unadulterated scripture, that being a member of the church is required, before, one can be saved,?

Jesus established the Church (upon this Rock I shall establish my Church; Matt 16:18) not because He was lost for something to do one afternoon, but because He wanted us to be members of it.

I do not recall saying that I am against church membership, I have been a member for roughly 20 years, baptized, partake of communion and attend regularly. I believe that it is something that people who propose to follow Christ should do. I would highly recommend that non-believers attend church and, read the scriptures.

We know by looking at history that the Bishop of Rome is the earthly head of the Church that Christ established - no other church even comes close.

I think that is debatable as the following excerpt from The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I., suggests.

The actual order of the first three so-called bishops of Rome is a greatly disputed matter. The oldest tradition is that given by Irenaeus (Adv. Hoer. III. 3. 3) and followed here by Eusebius, according to which the order was Linus, Anencletus, Clement. Hippolytus gives a different order, in which he is followed by many Fathers; and in addition to these two chief arrangements all possible combinations of the three names, and all sorts of theories to account for the difficulties and to reconcile the discrepancies in the earlier lists, have been proposed. In the second chapter of the so-called Epistle of Clement to James (a part of the Pseudo-Clementine Literature prefixed to the Homilies) it is said that Clement was ordained by Peter, and Salmon thinks that this caused Hippolytus to change the order, putting Clement first.

Jesus wants you to be a member of His Church; therefore, in order to please Him, you should join up.

Thank you, I am a member of His Church, the body of Christ, which consists of those that believe in and follows Him.

1 Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Bear

 

[baabybluezz]

Wow…thanks already learning

 

[campeador]

Too bad ‘The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series’ didn’t include the writings of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a bishop of the 3rd century. In his Letter LXXII, Ad Jubajanum de haereticis baptizandis, we read: “Salus extra ecclesiam non est” or in english: “there is no salvation out of the Church”. (newadvent.org/fathers/050672.htm, section 21)

 

[jmcrae]

I think that is debatable as the following excerpt from The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I., suggests.

The actual order of the first three so-called bishops of Rome is a greatly disputed matter. The oldest tradition is that given by Irenaeus (Adv. Hoer. III. 3. 3) and followed here by Eusebius, according to which the order was Linus, Anencletus, Clement. Hippolytus gives a different order, in which he is followed by many Fathers; and in addition to these two chief arrangements all possible combinations of the three names, and all sorts of theories to account for the difficulties and to reconcile the discrepancies in the earlier lists, have been proposed. In the second chapter of the so-called Epistle of Clement to James (a part of the Pseudo-Clementine Literature prefixed to the Homilies) it is said that Clement was ordained by Peter, and Salmon thinks that this caused Hippolytus to change the order, putting Clement first.

The only part that is debatable is the order of the 2, 3, and 4th Popes - not that there were Popes. The confusion is, was Linus the second Pope, or was Clement the second Pope?

There is no doubt at all that there was, in fact, a second Pope, and a third Pope, and a fourth Pope, and in some order, they were, Linus, Anacletus, and Clement.

Thank you, I am a member of His Church, the body of Christ, which consists of those that believe in and follows Him.

So, we agree that this is really important, right?

1 Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Exactly. And, if the arm gets into a dispute with the leg, and both dispute with the rest of the body, and they each depart from the Body to set up their own ecclesial communities (say, Lutheranism and Calvinism), are these self-amputated limbs still part of the body, or have they become dead to the body? Does the Head still control body parts that have become amputated, or has communication become lost?

 

[tevans9129]

My dear friend in Christ;

Your stated position seems to contradict itself. You calim to be a “bible believer” but articulate a position that opposes what the Bible actually says and teaches.

Thanks for sharing your views, do I “oppose what the Bible actually says and teaches”, or, do I oppose your interpretation of what the Bible teaches?

In that Only One Faith in the ENTIRE WORLD was ans IS Founded by Jesus Christ Himself [it’s in the bible],

I agree with that, I have never claimed otherwise.

and that the ENTIRE BIBLE BOTH the OT and NT express God’s desire for only One Church;

OK, if that is what the Bible actually says, would you please quote OT scripture that makes such a statement?

One faith [set of beliefs], based on One New over-riding Covenant; their are a MULTITUDE of VALID reasons for you and everyone else to be part of it. That is in FACT God’s Desire; God’s WIll and God’s plan for salvation.

I will not argue with that, as you have worded it.

Phil.2: 2 “complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.”

Yep, great verse.

Eph. 4:1-7 “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH]

Now here is where “interpretation” begins to assert itself, some questions.

How do you define “church” and what are you basing your answer on?

Who makes up the “body” of Christ and what is required to belong?

Since you imply that I am not faithful to what scripture “actually says”, would you please quote the verse(s) that support your answer?

When did it become necessary to belong to the church to gain salvation?

When were the apostles saved, before or after the church, as spoken of in Acts, was established?

and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, [Meaning only One set of beliefs] one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift."

I agree completely.

Eph. 2:18-22 “ for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God [SINGULAR], built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

Once again, I agree totally with these verses and I appreciate you quoting them.

Now, may I direct your attention to, “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets”. Do you notice that “apostles and prophets” are plural; does it say any thing about being built upon Peter?

Who is the “cornerstone” in which the structure is joined together? Is it not Jesus, why did it not say Peter as so many have adamantly asserted?

Does it not also say that it “grows into a holy temple in the Lord”? It does not say that it grows into the Catholic church, nor any “named” church.

John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

“One flock”, the Lord’s sheep, all that belong to Him, “one shepherd”, the Lord is The Shepherd of His flock. I do not see what point that you are attempting to make with this verse, but I agree with what the verse “actually says” completely.

If you’d like more information, PLEASE contacy me. In charity and truth I’ll help you out.

God Bless you!

Pat

Thank you Pat for the offer and I very much appreciate your sincere desire to explain your views.

I have limited time to devote to this forum but am trying to extend the courtesy of responding to each one that have commented on my original question. One thing that I may add, as you can see, there are many sharing their views that are substantially different from the ones I hold. I have no problem with that, however, if anyone wishes to convince me that my views are wrong and, engage in a discussion, they must be willing to answer my questions and provide scriptural proof for those answers, if requested. If my questions are not answered, I probably will not respond to that person a second time. I do not mean this to be rude, only that I am not interested in being “preached” to if the person cannot prove their preaching by answering questions and providing scripture supporting it. Then it is my view against their view and IMO, one is as good, or as bad, as the other and has proven nothing.

God bless.

Bear

 

[tevans9129]

Hebrews 10
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is ; but exhorting one another : and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

You don’t need a Bible verse to figure that out though and you know it. Christ is the example and he went to Temple…we go to Church. Get over it, you’ll be fine.

Apparently, you missed the phrase in v24, “let us consider one another to provoke unto love”. Your statement did not exactly express “love” to me.

Question, did you read the question and if so, where was there anything in it about going to church?

In my teens, I had all kinds of high sounding theological excuses for not going to Church and many, maybe even all were correct in the strictest sense, but none of them was the real reason, they were just excuses. I know it’s not just me because too many other kids were all doing the same thing. Most out grow that excuse making tendency and come to terms with the truth which for 99% of the people is “Waaahhh…but I don’t WANNA go and you can’t make me!!”

Just what would you say that has to do with me, or, my question?

Read something into your own behavior, it’s real obvious you just don’t want to go, you don’t feel right about it, and you want to have a debate/argument about it. That much is obvious because you knew you were never going to get a bunch of Catholics to say it’s okay not to go to church.

First, you lecture me on a question that you obviously did not read, or, cannot comprehend what you do read. You make accusations that you do not have a clue as to what you are saying. Just for your education so you cannot plead ignorance next time.

I am a church member, was baptized, receive communion and have been going to church regularly since the late eighties, I have attended neighborhood Bible studies as well as church Bible studies, I read and study the Bible every day with few exceptions, I enjoy discussing, debating/arguing with those of different views from my own as I use it as an incentive to do more study. I have read the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, all of the NT and most of the OT numerous times."

There are legitimate reasons for not going to church from time to time. There are also folk who are on a search for any reason they can find for not going to church. And you know which category you’re in.

Halleluiah, you finally said something that is accurate, congratulations.

BTW, you be polite and respectful toward me and I promise to reciprocate.

Bear

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Being that I do not think it is, can you prove it with scripture?

We have, you’re just too puffed up in your own pride to see it. As I have said before, the Bible presupposes the Church. Every gospel and eptistle written was directed to the Church ALREADY IN EXISTENCE.

Thank you for the challenge, I have been going to church regularly since the late eighties, I have attended neighborhood Bible studies as well as church Bible studies, I read and study the Bible every day with few exceptions, I enjoy discussing, debating/arguing with those of different views than my own as I use it as an incentive to do more study. I have read the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, all of the NT and most of the OT numerous times.

I know atheists who have also read the Bible from front to back as well and “know it” as well as you do. I used to be an atheist and read the Bible just as much as a former protestant before that. So long as you relativize and subjectivize the Scriptures, so long as you insist that the truth of what the authors wrote comes from your opinion rather than what God wanted to convey, then you will never see the truth.

May I ask you, how often do you, not only read, but also study, what scripture says, or, like many, do you gain your understanding only from what the church says?

I read them often. As well as the works from those ECF’s of the first three centuries, who were much closer to Christ than either you or I. But again your opinion is sooo much stronger than what some superstitious twit wrote 1950 years ago.

Who cares if they were taught directly by Peter, Paul, or John. You obviously are better equipped and have greater understanding and a greater gift of the Spirit than those morons did.

That would only be necessary, if, one believes the CC is the only way to learn about God. There are many “churches” that teach from the word of God and what He expects of those who follow Him. IMO, no matter which “church” one attends, their teachings should be judged by the scriptures.

Oh, how that would be true if they actually ONLY taught the word of God. Instead, they read a verse here and there, and then go into an hour-long sermon as to what that verse meant according to them, not the Bible or the author who actually wrote the verse.

If Protestants actaully believed in sola scriptura, there would be no sermons. The proetestants would read from the Bible alone and that would be it. What they propose in theory they deny in practice, thus they contradict themselves.

Out of curiosity, what does your church teach concerning the “gospel”, what does it consist of?

That is a subject for another thread…

How would you react if I suggested to you that you go to say, a Methodist church and listen to what is being said?

You can’t get more from less.

I understand the CC makes that assertion, where do the scriptures? In the NKJV, there are 42 verses that refer to “salvation”, not one states, suggests or implies that baptism is required for salvation.

1 Peter 3:21 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, "

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Please notice in Acts 2:47 the phrase,

“and the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved”.

Does it say anything about belonging to a church or being baptized as a requirement for salvation? I do not think so; the Lord “added to the church” those that were being saved." Nothing there about the church saving anyone, is there?

So then you believe that the Church is of human origin?

Do I believe that we should be baptized, definitely, but out of obedience to the Lord and as a symbol of our old self being buried and our new self being raised with Jesus, a public testimony that we are followers of Christ, not because it saves us, only the Lord and the Holy Spirit can do that, IMO.

Adding to scripture, I see. Where in Romans 6 does Paul say that this burial is a “symbol”?

Does Jesus demand something just for public show? If its just for public show why do it at all? Was Jesus baptized just for public show?

Is Baptism in Christ’s name of heavenly origin, or earthly origin?

I would have no problem attending a Catholic service, would you attend a Protestant one?

Thanks for sharing.

Bear

Like I said, you can’t get more from less.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Eph 1:[20] which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places,
[21] far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come;
[22] and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church,
[23] **which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all. **

The Church is the fulness of Christ.

So if the Church is the fulness of Christ, if the Church baptizes, then it is Christ who baptizes.

If the Church is the fulness of Christ, can you be saved outside of that “Body” that which is the fulness of Him who saves?

If we are not baptized in His name we do not have God’s name, nor Christ’s death, nor do we receive the forgiveness of our sins, nor do we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

If Christ acts in and through His Body, the Church, then the Church is necessary to be saved. And those outside the Church who say that they “follow Christ” are bearing false witness against God and His Body(Matt 18:20; Luke 10:16; 1 Tim 3:15).

It’s simple logic. If “x”, therefore “y”; “y”, therefore “z”.

 

[tevans9129]

The short answer is no, you do not have to be a member of a church as such, but you do have to be a member of the Kingdom.

I am somewhat confused by your answer. Perhaps I stated the question poorly, not uncommon for me and my poor grammar, what I was trying to ask is, can one be saved before becoming a member of a church? I was not looking for comments on do’s, don’ts etc, that come after salvation.

When I say “member of a church”, I am speaking relative to named churches, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist etc, not “the church” as in the body of Christ.

Keep in mind that we only know about Christ as Savior, only know about the Bible and believe in it, is because of the Church. Without her, we would all be pagans. So, we are all dependent upon the Church in that way.

I do not deny the contribution of the church in producing the Bible that we have at our disposal. However, it is not my belief that the “church” wrote the Bible, I think it was written by those chosen by God to do so.

From what did Jesus and the apostles teach from, there was no “church” or church writings at that time, yet people were being saved with scrolls that were available to them at that time, IMO.

Am I trying to downplay the significant role the church played in the NT writings, of course not.

Also, scripture exhorts us to not forsake the gathering together, as is the practice of some. So, a lone ranger Christian is not what the bible expects.

May I ask how my original question suggested anything about “a lone ranger Christian”?

Plus, scripture commands us to be baptized,

That I agree with wholeheartedly!

and when that happens, we are automatically a member of the church!

And that, I disagree with. Would you please quote or reference the verse(s) that make such an assertion?

Am I incorrect in thinking that when one accepts Jesus as his Lord and Saviour that he becomes a member in the body of Christ? Do you have any scripture stating that baptism is required before salvation? As I have stated a number of times, “In the NKJV, there are 42 verses that refer to “salvation”, there is only one that suggests or implies that baptism is required for salvation.”

Mark 16:16 “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Two points, “has believed”, is suggesting if one believes, he will follow Jesus into baptism. Notice that only “disbelief” brings condemnation. It does not say that one who disbelieves and is not baptized shall be condemned.

OTOH, how many verses can be found that uses phrases such as, "confess with your mouth, believe in your heart, call on the name of the Lord, believes in Him, having also believed, by grace, through faith, who beholds the Son and believes in Him, he who believes, who calls on the name of the Lord, through the grace of the Lord Jesus, unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins, for salvation to everyone who believes etc, but do not mention "baptism as a prerequisite?

How much clearer can it be than in Acts 16:30 when the question is asked, “what must I do to be saved”, and the answer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved”.

Acts 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

Acts 16:31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Now, there are many, and not only Catholics, that believe baptism is required for salvation and I have no problem with anyone holding that view. OTOH, I have yet to see someone prove that view with unadulterated scripture. As I read one time, people are prone to take one or two rather obscure verses and try to establish doctrine on them when there are many other verses that make it very clear such a doctrine is not accurate.

Thanks for sharing your views.

Bear

 

[tevans9129]

Of course the only Catholic answer to the OP’s question is no.

Even the Pope has said that the unborn, the unbaptized have the possibility of salvation.

And I don’t know any priest who does not think that most protestant Christians are validly baptized.

We Catholics sometimes say that non-Catholics miss out on the fullness of the faith. But to deny salvation would be playing God.

But since Jesus said that the only way to the Father is through him. And since all that we know about Jesus (Scriptures) we got from what we now call the Catholic Church, and since that Church says it tries very hard to preserve all that we can know about Jesus, well, I don’t think God will deny anyone of us salvation, but spiritually, we may have a hard time with it if we don’t get straight with Christ. Personally, I need the Catholic Church to do that.

Thank you very much for sharing your views, extremely well stated, IMO.

Bear

 

[PRmerger]

I am somewhat confused by your answer. Perhaps I stated the question poorly, not uncommon for me and my poor grammar, what I was trying to ask is, can one be saved before becoming a member of a church?

You cannot be saved until after you die, tevans.

Salvation is what happens after we are dead, period.

 

[PRmerger]

From what did Jesus and the apostles teach from, there was no “church” or church writings at that time, yet people were being saved with scrolls that were available to them at that time, IMO.

No, tevans. No one is saved “with scrolls”.

Salvation comes after death, and it is through Jesus, and Jesus alone.

 

[Carlan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tevans9129
I would have no problem attending a Catholic service, would you attend a Protestant one?

Thanks for sharing.

Bear

Tevans, I second what Grey Pilgrim posted.
“Why would I, you cannot get more from less!”
The Catholic Apostolic Church has the fullness of Christ’s revelation. It is all there in the Scriptures and Tradition for you to know, given to you by God’s Holy Spirit through His Church the Body of Christ of which Jesus is the Head. The Groom and His Bride. Peace, Carlan

 

[mackbrislawn]

Hi Bear, thanks for your comments and questions. Gee, you got a tough job keeping up with all the posts, and everybody ganging up on you!

Your questions are honest and hopefully we can understand each other; if not actually agree, at least understand. Because as for proof, I don’t think there is such a thing as proof, that is, nothing can be “proven,” but only evidence given as to why. It may or may not be convincing, depending on one’s previous premises and how they were taught.

In regards to chapter and verse, there may not be a single chapter and verse, but an idea may be backed up more by the general flavor of scripture, that is a adding up of many verses, without any of them individually being specific about the idea or teaching.

So, I’ll begin this way to see if this is your question: The ordinary person in the street looks around and sees all these “named” churches about him. Across the street is a Baptist church, down the block is an Episcopal church, down the other way a Catholic church, and around the corner is an Assembly of God, and so on. They all look pretty much the same. How is he to tell them apart? After all, he does have bible and from that he has all he needs to know. So, why belong to any of them? This is a very reasonable question.

This phenomenon of multiple churches is called denominationalism, and is especially true in this day and age and in particular, in this country (the U.S.).

However, this has not always been so. In the very beginning there was only one church, there were no denominations, or “named” churches. The question of is it necessary to belong to a church would not make sense. The choice of “a” church, that is, one of many, simply didn’t exist in the time Christian scripture was written, and hence cannot be asnwered directly by chapter and verse! It doesn’t address the question.

tevans9129;7899992 I am somewhat confused by your answer. Perhaps I stated the question poorly, not uncommon for me and my poor grammar, what I was trying to ask is, can one be saved before becoming a member of a church? I was not looking for comments on do’s, don’ts etc, that come after salvation.

No, you cannot be saved before becoming a member of a church. Because becoming saved automatically makes you a member, if not of a church, but of the church.

Put it this way. Can you be saved if your sins are not forgiven? I think the answer is no. First a sinner hears the word, believes in it, has faith in it, and repents, or turns from his sins. However, his sins are still on him so they have to be washed away. That is why Peter in Acts 2:38 says, “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you shall receive the Holy Spirit.” Baptism is the overt ceremony in which the person knows for sure his sins are gone.

In verse 40 he says, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” So, baptism saves you now. And in 41, 42, “So then, those who had received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayers.”

Added means added to the church by means of baptism. The church means the single fellowship of Christians. They would gather as an assembly, or ekklesia, in fellowship and listen to the apsostles teach.

When I say “member of a church”, I am speaking relative to named churches, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist etc, not “the church” as in the body of Christ.

As mentioned, named churches are a modern, man-made phenomenon, which scripture is unaware of.

I do not deny the contribution of the church in producing the Bible that we have at our disposal. However, it is not my belief that the “church” wrote the Bible, I think it was written by those chosen by God to do so.

Indeed, it was written by those chosen by God to do so. However, those chosen by God were members of the Church. And it was the Church that accepted that these particular writings were actually inspired by God. There were numerous other Christian writings that the Church eventually decided were not inspired. This process took generations. We today believe in these particular writings simply because the Church teaches so.

From what did Jesus and the apostles teach from, there was no “church” or church writings at that time, yet people were being saved with scrolls that were available to them at that time, IMO.
Am I trying to downplay the significant role the church played in the NT writings, of course not

.

No, there were no church writings at that time, although there was “church.” The people weren’t being saved with scrolls, they were being saved by the teachings of the apostles. Again, Acts 2:42. They did have scrolls, meaning the Old Testament. What they used the Old Testament scrolls for was to show that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Of course the scrolls couln’t testify to the life death and resurrection of Jesus (that depended upon the apostles’ teaching) but they could testify as to whether Jesus fulfilled prophecy or not.

May I ask how my original question suggested anything about “a lone ranger Christian”?

Lone Ranger is my somewhat facetious appellation to a Christian who does not belong to “a” church, but just wings it by himself. That seemed to be implied by your original question.

Continued…

 

[steve_b]

The question was, “Is a church membership needed for salvation”?

You say that it is and I disagree, can you prove, with unadulterated scripture, that being a member of the church is required, before, one can be saved,?

Considering ALL the NT writers are IN the Church, writing TO the Church, it’s already a given then, that the NT scriptures and all the promises in it, are for those in the Church or who will be in the Church.

So, when Paul writes the following, he is teaching the Church, watch out for those who cause division from you and teach contrary to what you have been taught by US (the apostles).

• Rm 16:17…]*
  *17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I rejoice because of you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. *

therefore, being in the Church is good, but division from the Church is evil. Division is caused by Satan NOT by God… Those who divide from the Church, as Paul says, serve themselves and Satan, NOT Our Lord.

Paul tells us what the consequences for people who divide/dissent from the Church

[Gal 5:19…]
*19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. *

Combining Paul’s teachings here [Romans and Galatians], those who dissent/divide from the Church and don’t return do such a serious evil they won’t inherit heaven.

Here’s what Jesus said regarding the neccessity of being in the Church.
[Mt 18:15…]
*15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. *

Jesus founded ONLY one Church, which He gives all His promises to and will build on Peter in *[Mt 16:18…]. *If one won’t listen to HIS Church, they are no better than a pagan. Not my words, but Jesus words…true?

Therefore, is membership in HIS Church un-necessary, or is it necessary?

keep in mind, Protestants seperated from Our Lord’s Church in the 16th century.
t:

.

The actual order of the* first three so-called bishops of Rome* is a greatly disputed matter. The oldest tradition is that given by Irenaeus (Adv. Hoer. III. 3. 3) and followed here by Eusebius, according to which the order was Linus, Anencletus, Clement. Hippolytus gives a different order, in which he is followed by many Fathers; and in addition to these two chief arrangements all possible combinations of the three names, and all sorts of theories to account for the difficulties and to reconcile the discrepancies in the earlier lists, have been proposed. In the second chapter of the so-called* Epistle of Clement to James (a part of the Pseudo-Clementine Literature prefixed to the Homilies*)

• There’s no “great dispute”. This is the list. And you can read about each pope newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
• Clement has one approved epistle (To the Corinthians). All the others are spurious.

 

[tevans9129]

It is Wise, Prudent, Well-Founded, reasonable and rewarding BUT NOT MANDATORY:thumbsup:

WHY?

Because such a position would in “Cause and Effect” be no different than the ERROR of OSAS, and saved by “Faith Alone.”

Our Almighty and ALL-Wise God Created us [Humanity] as he did; precisely so that we COULD FREELY choose to love Him more perfectly. READ Isaiah 43: 7 and 21

God Bless you!

Pat

Thank you Pat for sharing your views regarding my question.

I disagree with your comment, "the ERROR of OSAS, and saved by “Faith Alone”, however that was not a part of the question so will not respond to it.

I agree with your other comment quoting Isaiah.

Bear