Is a church membership needed for salvation?

[mackbrislawn]

***My friend let me turn this around to aid your understanding: If as you think the Bible did not originate with the CC, which historically was the ONLY church, Only Faith [set of beliefs] not associated with pagan temples and Jewish Synagogue’s historically present. “CHURCH” implies One set of Faith beliefs as was always the Case taught throughout the ENTIRE Bible.], then what is the origin of the Bible for the 1,000 YEARS before the Eastern Schism, dating Back to Christ time on earth? And who is it that authored the ENTIRE New Testament; AND what is their Faith?

Who was Jesus speaking to and setting up in authority***?

***Both of you seem to have a incomplete understanding. Christianity Began with Christ. Judaism was the OT faith. [And yes I did understand your point]

If NOT Peter * then WHO:shrug: Why did Jesus explicitly give PETER [and Peter ALONE] the ‘keys to the gate of Heaven?” [Mt. 16:19]. That means ALL ACCESS TO HEAVEN IS TO FLOW THROUGH PETER and successors.

Peter was around LONG before Paul, and the “other churches” are ADDRESSES, not separate Faith beliefs. And of course “others founded” other Church address: such was the Mission given to them by Christ in Mt. 28:19-20.

In EVERY list of the 12 Apostles Peter is Listed First, and here is EVEN CALLED FIRST: Matt.10: 12 “The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called
Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother; ****

God Bless,
Pat

Christianity began with Christ. Christ delegated His authority to the apostles (Mt 28:17-20). So they, acting under Jesus’ authority, founded different congregations, all part of the same, Universal, Catholic, church. That is a good way to put it, “addresses,” not separate faith beliefs. These different congregations, or “churches,” were not separate but were different addresses of the same universal church.

Since Peter was the leader of the apostles, he therefore was also leader of the universal, catholic, faith belief.

However, confusion enters in because there were others, not acting under the authority of Christ, who also set up congregations. These others nevertheless claimed they were Christian, and following Christ, even though they were preaching a different gospel. These existed in NT times and followng, and actually prompted the writing of many of the NT epistles, to counter these false teachings.

The word “Catholic” came to be used to distinguish the true church of Christ from the mulltiple, local, false churches that tried to rival it.

 

[PJM]

=mackbrislawn;7883822]Christianity began with Christ. Christ delegated His authority to the apostles (Mt 28:17-20). So they, acting under Jesus’ authority, founded different congregations, all part of the same, Universal, Catholic, church. That is a good way to put it, “addresses,” not separate faith beliefs. These different congregations, or “churches,” were not separate but were different addresses of the same universal church.

Since Peter was the leader of the apostles, he therefore was also leader of the universal, catholic, faith belief.

However, confusion enters in because there were others, not acting under the authority of Christ, who also set up congregations. These others nevertheless claimed they were Christian, and following Christ, even though they were preaching a different gospel. These existed in NT times and followng, and actually prompted the writing of many of the NT epistles, to counter these false teachings.

The word “Catholic” came to be used to distinguish the true church of Christ from the mulltiple, local, false churches that tried to rival it.

GREAT reply. The term Catholic was first used in 110 AD by Saint Ignatious. While the Church has always been under attack, no other sect amounted to real competation for the Christine church. The problems of GREAT concern centered around persecution; although heretics were addressed “head on.”

God Bless,
Pat

 

[WantingUnity]

I appreciate your comments. I believe the operative word in your statement is “if”. I think it is very debatable that Jesus built His church on Peter, or any man. In answer to Jesus’ question, Peter said that Jesus was the Messiah and I believe that Jesus was saying that is the “rock” that His church will be built upon. If Jesus is head of the church, why would he say that He was building it on a man?

To answer your question, yes, I would want to be a part of the body of Christ. In my view, Jesus does not make mistakes, every other church body does. I believe the Bible is the word of the Lord and it is infallible, no church run by man is, which I think is the reason the Lord admonishes us in Acts 17:11,

“Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.”

Do you notice that it does not instruct us to run to this church or that church for verification but to the Scriptures? Churches make mistakes; the Lord does not, IMO.

Bear

I appreciate that you may not agree with Peter being the one on whom Jesus built his church, it took me much time and consideration to come to the point where I realized that this is what Jesus did. Part of that is considering these writings in their historical context, part was studying to see what people said in the early church history - in particular significant people in the 100s to 300 or 400’s, and then looking at the Biblical writings as a whole - as I believe they were designed by God to be considered as a whole so that we would not wander away from His message by taking just a part out of context - looking at context is what any good reader does whether or not you agree with the statement.

As I said, it took me MUCH effort, MUCH prayer, and MUCH study to realize Jesus founded the Church on the office of Peter, and I am not the Holy Spirit so I know that unless the Holy Spirit leads you to understanding that I can not convince you, but I would hope you pray for the Holy Spirit to show you the truth as I will pray for you. How God does that is up to Him and His timing.

Others have answered your questions on your quote about examining the scriptures and so I will leave their answers as enough - I will say that it is through such examining of the scriptures and considering their full meaning that I came to a fullness of faith that brought me into the Catholic church after being a Protestant for over 40 years including mission trips so it was by no means a decision I made lightly.

As far as the Church being infallible, there are only limited instances that the Church specifically what the Pope says is considered infallible - on matters of faith and morals. We’re all still sinners here on earth, and I didn’t miraculously lose the ability to sin or make mistakes when I entered the Church a few weeks ago, but thanks be to God that I now can participate in the sacrament of Reconcilliation and know that my sins are forgiven in a way that allows me to fight against the devil in a way I couldn’t before when I asked God to forgive me as a Protestant. I need that sacrament. And thanks be to God that I now can receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus as often as I have need of it - and for me, that is very often.

If you are truly searching or wondering as I was when I started my search, I would ask that you go to church at a Catholic church - try it for a few weeks, then listen to the testimony of Scott Hahn, PM me if you don’t know how to get it and you want it. And pray, for God will show you if you truly want to know.

Blessings.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

OK, I will try to explain and hopefully in a way that will not offend anyone. If the “group” that compiled those scriptures thinks that I am wrong, then why not use the scriptures that “they” compiled to show me that I am wrong?

I did, here:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7870432#post7870432

To me, it is quite simple, I do not think it mandatory to belong to a named church, i.e., RCC, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist etc as a pre-requisite for salvation.

So it is your opinion that you can be saved by Christ without actually being united to Christ’s body. IOW you will only take God’s salvation on your terms instead of His.

Therefore, if I am wrong, all one must do to change my mind is to quote the scriptures from the Bible, or the original text stating that membership is required for salvation, and, to explain the verses that I have quoted that says differently. That is not saying that I do not believe that it is important to belong to a Bible believing church, because I do.

The Scriptures are clear that you must be a member of the Body of Christ to be saved. This Body is real, one in unity and doctrine, authoritative, and apostolic. This Church was divided geographically but never divided theologically. If you were not a part of THIS Body your were an “unbeliever”, faithless.

There is no such thing in the Bible as “just me and Jesus is all I need.” The Faith has never been individualistic but has always focused on the Church, the Family of God. Your individualistic version of soteriology is a modern “enlightenment” invention, barely 200 years old.

Personally, I do not buy into the RCC starting with Peter, and I am not saying that to be offensive.

The Church wasn’t started by Peter, it was started by Christ. The church in Rome wasn’t started by Peter. But is was grounded by the twin ministries of both Peter and Paul.

There were many churches started by the Disciples of Christ not just Peter.

So what? The fact remains that Peter held primacy and those churches only remained in the Church so long as they held to the faith of the apostles with Peter as their head.

I believe that I am correct that they were known as Christians, not Catholics.

They were known as Christians. The Church was called the Catholic Church(see Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyrneans). The terms were/are not mutually exclusive.

Just as there were different churches, by name, in the first century, as there are today.

This is just equivocation. The geographical locations of the church had nothing to do the doctrines that you now hold. There was no such thing as “faith alone”, or “bible alone”, or any other inventions that came from the protestant revolt. The was One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. The Church of Corinth believed the exact same doctrines that the Church in Rome did, that the Church in Anitoch did, that the Church in Ephesus did, that the Church in Jerusalem did. To assume that they believed different doctrines, or distinguished between “essential” & “non-essential” doctrines and glossed over differences is the height of absurdity.

If one believed in and was a follower of Christ, was he not referred to as “Christian”?

If he believed and was a follower of Christ, he was in the Catholic Church. And in the first three centuries he was martyred with the phrase “christiano sum” on his lips. There was no other Church to follow Chirst or to be united into His death.

Jesus did not use the word Catholic, His disciples did not use the word, in fact, it appears no one did until 110 AD. Why do you suppose that something that seems to be so important for so many was not mentioned by Jesus?

These seem like the last desperate attempts to justify a position that is obviously flawed.

Trinity is not in the Bible. Are you arguing that there no such thing as the Trinity?

The phrase “faith alone” is nowhere to be found in the Bible(except in James where he writes that we are not saved by faith alone), yet I’m sure that you’ll hold to that belief unto your dying breath.

Do I really need to list the litany of protestant practices that are not in the Bible but I’m sure that you’ll insist are “Biblically based”?

All of these protestant communities have developed practices, and it is to be expected. In any community eventually such “rituals” do develop.

The Bible, necessarily, presupposes the Church. So to claim to follow Christ in the Bible necessarily requires that you belong to the Church.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

To me, it is quite simple, I do not think it mandatory to belong to a named church, i.e., RCC, Methodist, Lutheran…

Through baptism we become part of the body of Christ. The body of Christ is the Church. If you are not in Christ, you are not saved. I think that Lumen Gentium (see the link provided in post #130, supra) does a pretty good job of laying out the Catholic position regarding the necessity of the Church. Again, it goes back to your use of the word “Church” as meaning the same thing as a local community of believers or a denomination. While in some instances the term can be used as such, you must see that from a Catholic perspective, there is only one universal Church founded by Christ and all of us who are baptized in the manner that Christ instructed the disciples, are connected to it by virtue of the sacrament in a real (although in your case imperfect) way. In that sense, you are a member of the one true church through your baptism, even if you attend a Lutheran, Baptist or “bible-believing” church. There are well over 300 citations to scripture in Lumen Gentium, which develops this notion in Chapter II. Here is another link to Lumen Gentium.

tevans9129:

Well, … it does not make sense to me when one has difficulty using the Bible that their church claims responsibility for, to prove the teachings of that church.

First, I don’t think that the Church has any difficulty at all supporting her claims through scripture. Whether or not individuals have difficulty is immaterial. Second, you are beginning your proposition from the unproven assumption that the bible is the sole rule of faith. Since you have not established that this is so, your argument lacks support. This seems more like an attack upon the indivual poster, rather than upon the authority of the Church.

tevans9129:

Personally, I do not buy into the RCC starting with Peter… There were many churches…

It is clear from Scripture, however, that Peter enjoyed a position of authority with respect to the other disciples. Christian tradition shows that the person who succeeded to Peter’s position (or “see”) enjoyed the same authority over the successors of the other Apostles. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of history. Here’s a link to a page that gives several tracks that include quotations from the Church Fathers establishing Papal authority and Papal succession.

tevans9129:

I believe that I am correct that they were known as Christians…

Well, I would make a distinction here. I agree there were communities of Christians established by different Apostles all over the known world, but they were not distinct in their doctrines as are the differing Protestant faith communities of today. They were more akin to the Dioceses that exist within the Catholic Church. All are separate structures - e.g. the Los Angeles Archdiocese is separate from the Boston Archdioces, but all are one in doctrine and moral teaching. A letter from the archbishop of L.A. to the archbishop of Boston may be addressed to “the Church in Boston” but that does not make these two communities separate “churches.” Those early church communities in the ancient world that were *not *teaching the same doctrines and moral teachings of Peter and the Other Apostles were in fact heretical, although they may still have self-identified as “Christian” communities.

tevans9129:

If one believed in and was a follower of Christ, was he not referred to as “Christian”? I believe in and I follow Christ, at least to the best of my ability, therefore, am I not a Christian?

Yes, I would not disagree with this statement. But I would make the distinction that you are a Christian who (from the Catholic perspective) is in error to the extent that your faith is incomplete or inconsistent with the fullness of what Christ has revealed through His Church. So, while you are a member of the Body of Christ that has its fullness in the Catholic Church, you are imperfectly joined.

tevans9129:

If you contend that all Christians are Catholic, then call me whatever you wish. I am a Christian, according to many verses in the Bible that you say came about because of Catholics.

You’re missing the point here. It’s not that the Catholic Church contends that all Christians are Catholic. The Church teaches that all who receive the sacrament of baptism are joined to the Catholic Church, although imperfectly. That would make you a Christian, which I do not deny (and in fact applaud). But to be honest about the circumstances, one cannot ignore the doctrinal differences that cause your union to be “imperfect.”

tevans9129:

It says in Acts 11:26, “…And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.”… How many verses can you quote that one is referred to as a “Catholic”?

This is not an effective argument. (See also, my point above re: assumption of bible as sole rule of faith) You don’t see the words “Trinity” or “hypostatic union” in the bible either, but these are fundamental biblical concepts that we both agree upon. The Church founded by Christ is “one.” (Mt. 16:19) That makes it universal. “Katholike” - meaning universal - is merely a descriptor of the one Church that has existed from the time Christ established it upon Peter, through apostolic succession, down the millenia to Benedict XVI in 2011. It is the fullness and visible manifestation of that one Church described in the bible, to which all must by definition belong to be “saved.”

Peace,
Robert

 

[tevans9129]

Y

Bear
Your scripture citations, while being out of context themselves,

Part 1 of 2

Romans 10:9, two things, could you please explain to me how it is out of context, is it not about salvation?

also ignore one glaring fact: in all of Paul’s letters he is writing to people who are already IN THE CHURCH. They are already Christians and therefore members of Christ’s body(

That being the case why did Paul use the phrase, “you will be saved”, is that not future tense? If he was speaking to people that were already saved, why would he have not said something like, “you were saved or, you are saved”, why use future tense? Why was he telling them if they did so and so, they would be saved, would they not have known the requirements and fulfilled them if they were saved?

Are you saying that Romans chapter 9 & 10 are written “to people who are already IN THE CHURCH”? Can you prove that? It is my impression that Paul was talking to the Jews, who at that time, I believe one would have a very difficult time proving they were “already Christians”, am I wrong, and if so, what is your evidence?

His statements are not meant to be constitutative elements in how to become a Christian but rather that he is addressing problems that existed within the local communities themselves.

Are those not your words, Romans 10:9 says, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”? I see nothing in that verse that, “is addressing problems that existed within the local communities themselves”. Perhaps you could explain how you arrive at that conclusion reading Rom 10:9,10?

Chrst instituted a Church.

This Church has four marks: The Church is One ( Acts 4:32; 1 Cor 1:10; Phil 2:2 )

No argument from me, what do they have to do with belonging to a church before being saved?

The Church is Holy(Rom 11:16; 1 Cor 3:17; 1 Cor 6:19; Eph 5:27; Col 1:22; Tit 1:8; 1 Pet 2:9 )

Did Paul, in his writings not refer to three distinct groups of people, Jews, Gentile and church. (body of Christ), in 1 Corinthians 10:32? If you read Rom 11:13, who is Paul speaking to, does it not say “Gentiles”? My point being that your claim, “in all of Paul’s letters he is writing to people who are already IN THE CHURCH” is not a factual statement. Why would he use “Gentile” rather than “church”?

The Church is Universal(Catholic) (1 Cor 1:2; 1 Cor 4:17; 1 Cor 7:17; 1 Cor 12:28 )

1 Cor 1:2, the Greek word used for “church” is, ekklesia,; from a comp. of 1537 and a der. of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concr.) a popular meeting, espec. a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Chr. community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):—assembly, church.

I see the meaning can be, "a calling out, a popular meeting, a religious congregation, Jewish or Christian, an assembly and/or church. Do you see one meaning listed for “Universal or Catholic”? If you choose to believe the meaning to be “Catholic”, that is certainly your right to do so. However, I believe that is only your belief and not the words as written in scripture.

to be continued.

Bear

 

[tevans9129]

The Church is Apostolic: (Acts 2:42).

The authority of the Apostles is the authority of Christ Himself. And they passed this authority to those whom they discipled.(Luke 10:16; 1 Thes 2:13; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 John 4:6).

part 2 of 2

OK, if the “authority” is passed, without modification, to subsequent representatives, then they should have the same power as the preceding, is that not correct?

Luke 10:19 Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

How many of the Bishops, Cardinals, Popes etc would you say would be willing to trample on serpents etc and not be hurt?

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me

& John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

Jesus gives His authority to men. Men that He chose, but men nontheless.

Yes, and would you agree that men make mistakes, especially the more removed from the original source? Do you believe within a few generations of the disciples that all of those “men” were still teaching the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

The Church has the promise of the Holy Spirit (John 20:22; John 14:26; John 16:13; Acts 15:28 ), not just any believer(Rom 8:9).

For heavens sake, do I also have the privilege of having the verses say whatever I wish them to say? I only bothered to check two of your references and neither of them say what you claim. I would like to see one unbiased person, read those two and conclude they say what you assert.

The Church is the fullness of Christ (Eph 1:22-23).

OK, what does scripture say, unadulterated that is, as to what makes up the church? Is the church not the body of Christ and is not the body of Christ made up of those that believe in and follow Him?

The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth(1 Tim 3:15).

I have no argument with this, other than, the word you used “bulwark” has a different meaning than the Greek word used in the verse.

1. hedraioma ; from a der. of 1476; a support, i.e. (fig.) basis:—ground.

The Church is the Body of Christ(1 Cor 12:27).

OK, I have had enough, I have chased more than enough of the verses that you have referenced and found they do not say what you claim they say. Therefore, any further discussion for you and I would not be productive for either of us.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.

Two things, “you”, personal pronoun of the sec. person singular; thou, it does not say “church”.

Also notice, the “you” is the body of Christ and, “members individually”. Therefore, are there multiple churches or, multiple individuals that make up the body of Christ?

I happen to believe the Bible is the Word of God and that He said what He meant to say and He meant what He said. If you choose to believe otherwise, that is certainly your right and is between you and God.

I stopped reading at this point as it became very clear that I was not going to be convinced of what you present by the way you misrepresent scripture, and, as far as I am concerned, you lost all creditability.

Bear

 

[steve_b]

Thanks for the response Vico, would you care to explain the verses that I have quoted below and answer the questions that I have asked?

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Do you see any qualifiers in v9, are there any exceptions, are there any “ifs or buts”?

Who is Paul writing this to? It’s to the Church of Rome. This is a summary statement. It is presuming all the other teachings and beliefs are in place also for one to make such a profession.
t:

Romans 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

I see nothing in v10 about belonging to any “church”, do you?

Now you know who this letter is written to. The same Church that gave you these scriptures and assembled the bible.
t:

Romans 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

I “believe on Him” with all my heart, I have confessed with my mouth that Jesus is Lord, I believe that God raised Him from the dead, I have confessed my sins to Him and have asked His forgiveness and that He will be my Lord and Savior, however, I am not Catholic, therefore, is it your opinion that I do not have salvation?

Since you believe Jesus really IS Lord, then you know you need to obey Him as well in everything He taught. That means to be a member of His only Church He started. The Catholic Church.
t:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

I have faith that the Lord will do as He promises and that I am saved by His grace, not by anything that I have done, or not done.

Ephesians 2:9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. If one must do works for salvation, is salvation then a “gift of God” or, is it something that we have earned?

What works is Paul 1st talking about? They are works of the old law. The works of Moses. 621 laws. Protestants however, routinely leave out v10. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

What do you suppose happens to the one who doesn’t do the good works God prepared in advance for him TO DO? Do you think he still has salvation?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Part 1 of 2

Romans 10:9, two things, could you please explain to me how it is out of context, is it not about salvation?

Put the letter in context. Being a Christian in the Rome in the first century meant that you would be arrested and charged with atheism(not believing in the Roman gods). If convicted the punishment was death.

Secondly you are assuming protestantism in your question. Paul, rightly, understood salvation as a process. We have been saved(or more properly understood as redeemed), we are being saved(sanctified), and we will be saved when we die.

That being the case why did Paul use the phrase, “you will be saved”, is that not future tense? If he was speaking to people that were already saved, why would he have not said something like, “you were saved or, you are saved”, why use future tense? Why was he telling them if they did so and so, they would be saved, would they not have known the requirements and fulfilled them if they were saved?

Again, you’re assuming protestantism. Correct you soteriology.

Are you saying that Romans chapter 9 & 10 are written “to people who are already IN THE CHURCH”? Can you prove that? It is my impression that Paul was talking to the Jews, who at that time, I believe one would have a very difficult time proving they were “already Christians”, am I wrong, and if so, what is your evidence?

Easy: "[1] Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God
[2] which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
[3] the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
[4] and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
[5] through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
[6] including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ;
[7] To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom 1:1-7)

I think “who are called to be saints” who call God “our Father” would have been a dead giveaway.

Are those not your words, Romans 10:9 says, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”? I see nothing in that verse that, “is addressing problems that existed within the local communities themselves”. Perhaps you could explain how you arrive at that conclusion reading Rom 10:9,10?

Already refuted.

No argument from me, what do they have to do with belonging to a church before being saved?

You seem to not be able to reconcile your idea of “a church” as opposed to the Church and those that pretend to be churches.

Did Paul, in his writings not refer to three distinct groups of people, Jews, Gentile and church. (body of Christ), in 1 Corinthians 10:32? If you read Rom 11:13, who is Paul speaking to, does it not say “Gentiles”? My point being that your claim, “in all of Paul’s letters he is writing to people who are already IN THE CHURCH” is not a factual statement. Why would he use “Gentile” rather than “church”?

If you can’t tell from the context that Paul is writing to people in the Church about people outside the Church then I don’t see how we can have a beneficial discussion. Nothing of what you’re ranting about negates the truth of what I said.

Are you really saying that when you read 1 Cor 10:32 you can’t tell that Paul is telling those in the Church how to conduct themselves outside of the Church? Or that in Romans 11 you can’t tell that Paul is speaking to those Gentile(Greek speaking) converts in the Roman church? Who Paul is writing to is clear in His addresses at the beginning of his letters. This is a no-brainer.

1 Cor 1:2, the Greek word used for “church” is, ekklesia,; from a comp. of 1537 and a der. of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concr.) a popular meeting, espec. a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Chr. community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):—assembly, church.

I see the meaning can be, "a calling out, a popular meeting, a religious congregation, Jewish or Christian, an assembly and/or church. Do you see one meaning listed for “Universal or Catholic”? If you choose to believe the meaning to be “Catholic”, that is certainly your right to do so. However, I believe that is only your belief and not the words as written in scripture.

Your now assuming sola scriptura, which is nowhere in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is sufficient. And spare me 2 Tim 3:16 because “sufficient” appears nowhere in that verse. “Inspired and profitable”, Amen it does! Sufficient? No.

The universality of the Church is implicit in Jesus’ command to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”.

Col 1:23 Paul says that the gospel had been preached “to every creature”.

“Catholic” is merely the English transliteration of the Greek “katholeke”-universal. That is just simple linguistics. It’s not about “what I choose to believe.” It’s about what is and what is true. Those are the facts.

Your traditions weren’t believed even in the first century. Nor in the second, or the third. In fact sola fedei and sola scriptura weren’t taught until the 16th century by a Augustinian monk who decided that he was the voice of God for the people. These are the historical facts. Take it or leave it.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

part 2 of 2

OK, if the “authority” is passed, without modification, to subsequent representatives, then they should have the same power as the preceding, is that not correct?

Luke 10:19 Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

How many of the Bishops, Cardinals, Popes etc would you say would be willing to trample on serpents etc and not be hurt?

I don’t know, I’m not them. But let’s flip it around.

You make the assertion, so are you willing to do that which you insist that they must do to “proove” themselves? That is if I’m to receive you as an apostle you should follow your own criteria, should you not?

Yes, and would you agree that men make mistakes, especially the more removed from the original source? Do you believe within a few generations of the disciples that all of those “men” were still teaching the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Sorry, your “lost in translation” or “through the grape vine” analogy doesn’t hold any water. It makes Jesus a liar and assumes that the Holy Spirit is inept. Either Jesus was going to be with the Church “unto the end of the age” or not.

Either Jesus told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into “all truth” or He knew immediately that they (the Church) would fall away and said it anyway.

No, God the Holy Spirit used these successors to the apostles to protect and defend the teachings of the apostles in their entirety, protected them from teaching error, and helped them to transmit the Faith fully and faithfully to the next generation.

For heavens sake, do I also have the privilege of having the verses say whatever I wish them to say? I only bothered to check two of your references and neither of them say what you claim. I would like to see one unbiased person, read those two and conclude they say what you assert.

John 20:22; John 14:26; John 16:13, all demonstrate that the Holy Spirit was given properly and primarily to the Apostles and that He would guide them to the truth. And that with the Holy Spirit they speak with the authority of God as in the Council of Jerusalem(“it is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of US” (Acts 15:28 ) -emphasis mine). They speak for themselves.

OK, what does scripture say, unadulterated that is, as to what makes up the church? Is the church not the body of Christ and is not the body of Christ made up of those that believe in and follow Him?

Again, your assuming the truth of sola scriptura and therefore you’re begging the question.

The Bible doesn’t define the Church. Nor does it consitute the Church. The Bible presupposes the Church and depends on the Church for its authentication.

The Bible does say that to be a member of the Body that you have to be baptized into Christ’s Church, and being born again through baptism into Christ’s Body you are incorporated into His death. You cannot call yourself a “follower of Christ” and not follow Christ in His Church. You can’t be a sheep wandering at your leisure and at the same time claim to be in the shepherd’s fold.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I have no argument with this, other than, the word you used “bulwark” has a different meaning than the Greek word used in the verse.

1. hedraioma ; from a der. of 1476; a support, i.e. (fig.) basis:—ground.

hedraioma can, like many other Greek words, mean many things depending on their context. My RSV has “bulwark” which seems to convey that the word has an active sense which means that the Church is to be a defense against heresy, not merely passive “agree to disagree” when it comes to the Faith.

OK, I have had enough, I have chased more than enough of the verses that you have referenced and found they do not say what you claim they say. Therefore, any further discussion for you and I would not be productive for either of us.

You make the claim with no evidence to back it up? Bad form.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.

Two things, “you”, personal pronoun of the sec. person singular; thou, it does not say “church”.

You, sadly, missed the point of the citation. “Body”-singular. One Body, not tens-of-thousands of bodies all having different doctrines.

Also notice, the “you” is the body of Christ and, “members individually”. Therefore, are there multiple churches or, multiple individuals that make up the body of Christ?

Again when Paul says “you” he is writing to the CHURCH IN CORINTH, not you the individual.

Only if you assume protestantism can you make that logical jump from “One Body, many members” to “many bodies-many members all believing different things”.

I guess when Paul asks “Is Christ divided?” you answer the unequivocal “YES”.

How sad. You’re so imbedded in your tradition and your prejudices that you refuse to be open to the evidence.

I happen to believe the Bible is the Word of God and that He said what He meant to say and He meant what He said. If you choose to believe otherwise, that is certainly your right and is between you and God.

The corollary being that I obviously don’t? That is laughable. If you truly believed as you say you do you’d be Catholic. The Bible is a Catholic book. You have it because of the Catholic Church.

By revereing the Bible as you do you implicitly and unknowingly confirm the Church’s God-given authority.

And there is that relativism that rears its head when a protestant meets a Catholic who knows the Bible and knows that he can’t win.

I stopped reading at this point as it became very clear that I was not going to be convinced of what you present by the way you misrepresent scripture, and, as far as I am concerned, you lost all creditability.
Bear

I lost all credibility??? You refuse to refute the scripture citations I gave and you have the nerve to say that I lost all credibility?

That I presented from the Scriptures that just how Catholic the Bible and the Chuch really is was so offensive to your sensibilities to essentially shoved your fingers in your ears and walked away yelling “na-na, na-na, I can’t hear you!”

Spare me.

 

[jmcrae]

Part 1 of 2

Romans 10:9, two things, could you please explain to me how it is out of context, is it not about salvation?

That being the case why did Paul use the phrase, “you will be saved”, is that not future tense?

Nobody who is still alive is “already saved” - not even if they are a perfect Christian. We don’t “get saved” until after we die, and after we receive the Judgement.

If we are found perfect (by means of the Grace of God which flows to us in Jesus’ blood, by means of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church) - then, and only then, we are saved.

Until then, we are “being saved,” and “will be saved,” but we are not yet saved.

Are you saying that Romans chapter 9 & 10 are written “to people who are already IN THE CHURCH”? Can you prove that? It is my impression that Paul was talking to the Jews, who at that time, I believe one would have a very difficult time proving they were “already Christians”, am I wrong, and if so, what is your evidence?

Yes, the Letter to the Romans was written to the congregation of Christians who were living in Rome at that time.

St. Paul never wrote any letters to any non-Christian organizations - as a Bishop of the Church, he only had authority over the Christian churches in the various different cities. He had no authority over the Jews, or over anyone who was not yet converted.

 

[tevans9129]

Yes, one must belong to the Church in which one can receive the Bread of Life - that is to say, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, given to us under the appearances of bread and wine, by a Catholic priest who is in full communion with the Apostle Peter’s successor, the Bishop of Rome (because it was to Peter that the Keys were given, to bind and loose Church doctrine and Church discipline, and he passed them on to the Bishop of Rome at the time of his death).

Jesus Himself tells us that we must consume His Body and Blood, in order to be saved. The only way we can do that is by becoming Catholics in good standing with the Church and in a state of grace, so as to be able to receive the Eucharist, which is the only thing on earth that is His Body and Blood.

Thank you for answering my question and for sharing your views. However, I do not see one piece of evidence proving those views are accurate, only your words, which I disagree with. At some time in the future, perhaps you will be able to say, “You see, I told you so”, or, vise-versa.

Bear

 

[mackbrislawn]

tevans9129;7868256
Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Do you see any qualifiers in v9, are there any exceptions, are there any “ifs or buts”?

Well, yes, I do see an ‘if’ in v9, a big IF in “IF you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe…”

So, if and only if you confess and believe, will you be saved. But, and here is the ‘but’ that is there, if you stop confessing, stop believing, no longer confess, no longer believe, you will not be saved. This is very clear.

That is why Paul was so upset when the Galations were turning away, because they might lose their salvation.

Now, what does it mean to confess Jesus as Lord? What is Lord? Lord is someone you obey. Confessing Jesus as Lord means you confess that you must obey Him. Obey? Yes, obedience is involved in confessing Jesus as Lord. Obedience to the Mosaic Law is no longer required, but obedience to the Law of Christ is required. What? Law of Christ? Yes, there is a Law of Christ. See Galations 6:2.

How about believing Christ as being raised from the dead? Murray J. Harris, a so-called evangelical Christian, in his book From Grave to Glory, thinks Jesus was not physically raised from the dead. Is Harris saved?

Romans 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

I see nothing in v10 about belonging to any “church”, do you?

Romans 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

No, there is no mention of “church.” However, it is this way. If a person believes and confesses, he will obey Jesus and be baptized. The main purpose of baptism is to wash away one’s sins, but as a side effect, it brings one into the body of Christ, into the “church,” if you will. Christians existed as a community of believers, a congregation, an ecclesia, and one was baptized into that community, or church.

So, there is much more implied in the seemingly simple statement of ‘believe and confess’ than merely believing and confessing. It assumes you will go through with believing and confessing and continue to obey Christ, be baptized and therefore become a member of the church.

Note that today there are all sorts of “churches,” or congregations and denominatons around to choose from. It is extremely important to realize that this was not so in the very beginning.

Paul or another apostle would come to town, and he was the church, there was no other to pick from! And when you heard the good news, and confessed and believed, there was only one church to be part of! You and the others were it! Somewhat later, as other missionaries came along and created confusion among the original churches, was there a choice. But Paul wrote to them and said there was no choice, there was only one gospel, the one he originally preached to them. Which means the churches that possessed the original gospel, only those were truly of the body of Christ.

Now, there were local churches, or congregations, or ecclesias, such as the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, and so on, but they and their members realized they were also part of a larger body of Christ, a larger ecclesia. We know that they believed so because the local congregations would copy Paul’s letters and share them with the other congregations that were considered to also be of the body of Christ. This larger body of Christ was the universal ecclesia, the universal assembly, the universal 'church." The universal, or catholic, Church.

In regards to Romans 10:11, it is obvious that those who do not, who no longer believe in Him, will be put to shame.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Are you saying that Romans chapter 9 & 10 are written “to people who are already IN THE CHURCH”? Can you prove that? It is my impression that Paul was talking to the Jews, who at that time, I believe one would have a very difficult time proving they were “already Christians”, am I wrong, and if so, what is your evidence?

You mean your impression is that Paul was writing to the Jews in Rome? Jews that had not been converted? That there was no Christian congregation in Rome to write to? Is that what you mean?

If so, let’s turn it around. Put the burden of proof on you. What is the evidence for your impression?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

If [Paul] was speaking to people that were already saved, why would he have not said something like, “you were saved or, you are saved”, why use future tense?

Because Paul understood the term in the same way the Catholic Church understands it? The determination of one’s ultimate salvation occurs at their judgment after death. So, while one may have the moral assurance that their faith and keeping the Lord’s commandments will save them, the actual moment of salvation comes at the end of a faithful life, when one has completed the “running” of the race. Salvation does not occur, as your question presumes, in the midst of the race.

tevans9129:

Are you saying that Romans chapter 9 & 10 are written “to people who are already IN THE CHURCH”?

Paul was writing to the Christians at Rome, which were made up of both Jewish and Gentile converts. See this discussion, with citations to Scripture:

tevans9129:

Romans 10:9 says, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”?

Interestingly, Paul does not say you “are saved at that moment in time.” He says you will be saved. His statement makes it clear that confessing and believing are certainly necessary. But he is not stating here that salvation is absolutely assured from the moment of one’s confession and belief.
tevans2129:

I see nothing in that verse that, “is addressing problems that existed within the local communities themselves”.

If you continue reading from Rom 10:9-13, Paul makes the point of saying all who call upon Christ - Jew or Gentile - will be saved:

9 for, if you confess 5 with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.
11 For the scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.”
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, enriching all who call upon him.
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

The discussion at the link above notes:

Others have viewed Romans more in the light of Paul’s earlier, quite polemical Letter to the Galatians and so see the theme as the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, a topic judged to be much in the minds of the Roman Christians… (See the link above for the full text. Don’t have the word-count to add the full discussion)… For [Paul], the purity of the religious understanding of Jesus as the source of salvation would be seriously impaired if Gentile Christians were obligated to amalgamate the two religious faiths.

tevans2129:

Did Paul, in his writings not refer to three distinct groups of people, Jews, Gentile and church. (body of Christ), in 1 Corinthians 10:32?

Paul is speaking to Christians in Rome - made up of both Jewish and Gentile converts. There’s no artificial distinction between a Gentile Christian Church and a Jewish Christian Church. THAT is what Paul rails AGAINST in Galatians.
tevans2129:

Do you see one meaning listed for “Universal or Catholic”? If you choose to believe the meaning to be “Catholic”, that is certainly your right to do so. However, I believe that is only your belief and not the words as written in scripture.

Your comment makes no sense here. Doesn’t it only matter what the Catholic Church means when it describes itself as such. Whether you and I agree or disagree over variant definitions, for purposes of our discussion, isn’t it only relevant how the Church defines the term? How does the Church define “Catholic?”:

830 The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense:

First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church."307 In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him "the fullness of the means of salvation"308 which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost309 and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

831 Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race:310
All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God’s will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one. . . . The character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.311

307 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn. 8,2:Apostolic Fathers,II/2,311.
308 UR 3; AG 6; Eph 1:22-23.
309 Cf. AG 4.
310 Cf. Mt 28:19.
311 LG 13 §§ 1-2; cf. Jn 11:52.

I hope this helps.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Because Paul understood the term in the same way the Catholic Church understands it? The determination of one’s ultimate salvation occurs at their judgment after death. So, while one may have the moral assurance that their faith and keeping the Lord’s commandments will save them, the actual moment of salvation comes at the end of a faithful life, when one has completed the “running” of the race. Salvation does not occur, as your question presumes, in the midst of the race.

Paul was writing to the Christians at Rome, which were made up of both Jewish and Gentile converts. See this discussion, with citations to Scripture:

Interestingly, Paul does not say you “are saved at that moment in time.” He says you will be saved. His statement makes it clear that confessing and believing are certainly necessary. But he is not stating here that salvation is absolutely assured from the moment of one’s confession and belief.

If you continue reading from Rom 10:9-13, Paul makes the point of saying all who call upon Christ - Jew or Gentile - will be saved:
The discussion at the link above notes:

Paul is speaking to Christians in Rome - made up of both Jewish and Gentile converts. There’s no artificial distinction between a Gentile Christian Church and a Jewish Christian Church. THAT is what Paul rails AGAINST in Galatians.

Your comment makes no sense here. Doesn’t it only matter what the Catholic Church means when it describes itself as such. Whether you and I agree or disagree over variant definitions, for purposes of our discussion, isn’t it only relevant how the Church defines the term? How does the Church define “Catholic?”:

I hope this helps.

Peace,
Robert

Can I get some feedback from someone. Anyone! I feel like I’m writing to myself here.

Peace,
Robert

 

[jmcrae]

Because Paul understood the term in the same way the Catholic Church understands it? The determination of one’s ultimate salvation occurs at their judgment after death. So, while one may have the moral assurance that their faith and keeping the Lord’s commandments will save them, the actual moment of salvation comes at the end of a faithful life, when one has completed the “running” of the race. Salvation does not occur, as your question presumes, in the midst of the race.

Paul was writing to the Christians at Rome, which were made up of both Jewish and Gentile converts. See this discussion, with citations to Scripture:

Interestingly, Paul does not say you “are saved at that moment in time.” He says you will be saved. His statement makes it clear that confessing and believing are certainly necessary. But he is not stating here that salvation is absolutely assured from the moment of one’s confession and belief.

If you continue reading from Rom 10:9-13, Paul makes the point of saying all who call upon Christ - Jew or Gentile - will be saved:
The discussion at the link above notes:

Paul is speaking to Christians in Rome - made up of both Jewish and Gentile converts. There’s no artificial distinction between a Gentile Christian Church and a Jewish Christian Church. THAT is what Paul rails AGAINST in Galatians.

Your comment makes no sense here. Doesn’t it only matter what the Catholic Church means when it describes itself as such. Whether you and I agree or disagree over variant definitions, for purposes of our discussion, isn’t it only relevant how the Church defines the term? How does the Church define “Catholic?”:

I hope this helps.

Peace,
Robert

Can I get some feedback from someone. Anyone! I feel like I’m writing to myself here.

Peace,
Robert

Great explanation!

 

[tevans9129]

It does not say “only” do this, and be saved. This is one of the many things that one must do, to be saved.

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

We must fulfill every verse of the Scriptures; not just the one that amounts to the least work and trouble for us.

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

St Paul was writing to Catholic Church members - they were already members of the Church so he did not need to instruct them to join the Church.

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?”

Not very complimentary to members of the CC, do you think?

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.

If you continue in this way, and you truly hear God, then one day, you will be Catholic, either in this life or in the next.

Being that you provided no evidence to support such a statement, it is only your word and I do not agree that it is fact.

The Church itself is a gift from God, and membership in the Church is a gift from God; it is not something we “earn.” Indeed, many infants become members of the Church without ever doing anything at all on their own behalf.

Would you please provide scripture that supports your assertions, or, are they only your opinions? What is your definition of “church” and “membership”?

Bear

 

[PRmerger]

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

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.