Is Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church the only way to salvation?

[justasking4]

The Old Testament was before the Catholic Church.

I’m glad you see that it is correct to say, “The Sacred Inspired Inerrant Word of God came from the Catholic Church.”

How can that be when the catholic church was not even in existence during the OT period?

 

[Lampo]

How can that be when the catholic church was not even in existence during the OT period?

Maybe I should clarify that I’m referring to the Bible as you have it today. Is the New Testament the Sacred Inspired Inerrant Word of God? Yes. Therefore it is accurate to say “The Sacred Inspired Inerrant Word of God came from the Catholic Church.”

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
How can that be when the catholic church was not even in existence during the OT period?

Lampo
Maybe I should clarify that I’m referring to the Bible as you have it today. Is the New Testament the Sacred Inspired Inerrant Word of God? Yes. Therefore it is accurate to say “The Sacred Inspired Inerrant Word of God came from the Catholic Church.”

It gives the impression that the OT (which is the major portion of Scripture) came from the catholic church which we know it did not.

 

[Lampo]

It gives the impression that the OT (which is the major portion of Scripture) came from the catholic church which we know it did not.

Okay. It’s easy enough to clarify.

 

[jmcrae]

Not so. I have the Scriptures and historical facts on my side…

What “historical facts” might those be?

The Catholic Church is not the Church of the Book of Acts?

Which one is, then?

The dozens/hundreds of Protestant denominations find their origins in one of two places: Luther’s 95 theses on the door of Wittenburg on October 31, 1517, or else in Calvin’s five points of doctrine, which were introduced to the English-speaking world in 1539. (I can’t find a date for when they were actually formulated.)

Since neither of these systems of thought existed at all in the first century, there can be no form of Protestantism that can lay any plausible claim to be the Church of the Book of Acts.

History also shows us start dates for the Eastern and separated Catholic forms of Christianity that are also well after the time of the first century. The Catholic Church is the only one that can be shown to have been in existence during the first century; therefore, it is not possible for any other church besides the Catholic Church to be the Church of the Book of Acts.

Apart from this process of elimination, we also see from the records of the Church that the earliest leaders of the Catholic Church were, in fact, the Apostles of Jesus Christ and their lawful successors.

 

[meandean]

Your answer is in John 14:6 as you posted. Jesus Christ Himself is the ONLY way for salvation - and that’s through faith in Him. No “church” can save you. Nor can celebrating "Mass."Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."That leaves out the name of Mohammad or any other so-called “prophet.” Jesus said:John 3:16-18 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."The Phlippian jailer is the perfect example. He asked Paul and his companions, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said:"Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved."It is not God who has made salvation complicated, men have. It’s God who saves, and that through faith in His Son and the redemptive work He accomplished and finished on the cross on our behalf.John 3:14-15 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.Salvation is not through Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic church (or any church), but through Christ alone, through faith in Him alone. Anything else is a false gospel. God did not send any church into the world to save it, but His Son - alone. The church Christ is now building is made up of those who are saved through personal belief in Him alone.

Down through the centuries men have stumbled over the simplicity of it all.

amen

 

[meandean]

Which then would be a belief apart from divine revelation.Scripture doesn’t say “follow,” but “believe” for salvation. As a disciple one “follows,” but for salvation one must “believe” in Him.

amen again

 

[KJK80]

You must be right… “following” is never recommended! All you must do is “believe”

How about we just agree that a good combination of “following” and “believing” is required.

One must follow to believe, and believe to follow.

Otherwise I’d have no reason to believe… If I did not follow…

Did the disciples always believe?

Matt 4:19 And He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

Matt 8:22 But Jesus said to him, “Follow Me, and allow the dead to bury their own dead.”

Matt 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man called Matthew, sitting in the tax collector’s booth; and He said to him, “Follow Me!” And he got up and followed Him.

Matt 10:38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

Matt 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.

Matt 19:21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Matt 19:28 And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

[meandean]

You must be right… “following” is never recommended! All you must do is “believe”

How about we just agree that a good combination of “following” and “believing” is required.

One must follow to believe, and believe to follow.

Otherwise I’d have no reason to believe… If I did not follow…

Did the disciples always believe?

ephesians 2:8-10. mmm, did judas believe? he followed jesus for 3 years. maybe we should look at demas, who served with paul on his missionary trips. what do you think?

 

[jmcrae]

ephesians 2:8-10. mmm, did judas believe?

Yes, he did. He believed, and then he lost his faith.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[wcknight]

Do you really believe that any and all sincere, devout Jews since the time of Christ will be denied entrance to Heaven?

Not denied entrance to Heaven BUT allowed entrance into Heaven because Jesus as God has granted them entry through His death and resurrection.

 

[KJK80]

Judas is a touchy subject in my opinion, that requires some speculation, so I prefer not to.

However, for the sake of taking up more space on these boards… It is my opinion that Judas always believed and indeed had faith in Jesus; as well as following Jesus (all this is up to the time of Christ’s death, I think history could have been different in regards to Judas; however his ultimate outcome adds more confusion to the matter; keep in mind, Peter DENIED Jesus, and yet went on to be an important part of God’s church)… but I think Judas, like us, got his own ideas of how Jesus’ kingdom was to come about; and attempted to circumvent the timeline a bit to force Jesus to “play his hand”… Of course, ultimately, Judas was a part of the plan for salvation. But I don’t think we can judge him, what his actual thought pattern was, or what happened to lead him to betray Jesus. Hindsight is 20/20, and we can speculate all we want about all the details… but in the end, that is for God to know.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Newsflash, there are still a lot of folks who don’t consider Catholics, Christians, which of course is ludicrous.

I don’t see calling Catholicism a denomination of Christianity, “watering down” my beliefs. To me, and most other folks I believe, Catholicism is a branch, the major branch of Christianity. IMO, being a Christian is the major key here, not what branch you belong too.

No, you are not strange. You are proud of your beliefs and there is nothing wrong with that.

Hello again Mike262,

You know that I like you but as a "Catholic”, you sure like going after other Catholics here. I think you “beat me up” more than some aggressive “Protestants” here, do… and that’s saying something… Can’t we all just get along…How about providing some “Catholic Answers” for some non-Catholics here?

Jesus is the Vine and we (The Catholic Church) are/is the first branch, and the word “denomination” implies something altogether different. I think this is what the other poster is trying to explain here. This is not a “big deal”, to quote another poster here, but it is an important distinction.

Peace

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3505348]What “historical facts” might those be?

The Catholic Church is not the Church of the Book of Acts?

Which one is, then? :rolleyes

:
The church in Acts and throughout the NT is not the same as the catholic church. We know this by doctrines and practices.

The dozens/hundreds of Protestant denominations find their origins in one of two places: Luther’s 95 theses on the door of Wittenburg on October 31, 1517, or else in Calvin’s five points of doctrine, which were introduced to the English-speaking world in 1539. (I can’t find a date for when they were actually formulated.)

Since neither of these systems of thought existed at all in the first century, there can be no form of Protestantism that can lay any plausible claim to be the Church of the Book of Acts.

Your trying to use a “historical” critieria which may have some merits on in the sense of an evoloving hisitorical connection. If we look at through a “doctrinal-church structure” criteria we see far greater distinctions.
For example you don’t see any offices of priests, pope i.e. supreme leader or purgatory in the church of Acts. They are not the same things.

History also shows us start dates for the Eastern and separated Catholic forms of Christianity that are also well after the time of the first century. The Catholic Church is the only one that can be shown to have been in existence during the first century; therefore, it is not possible for any other church besides the Catholic Church to be the Church of the Book of Acts.

Was it Roman catholic or what catholic?

Apart from this process of elimination, we also see from the records of the Church that the earliest leaders of the Catholic Church were, in fact, the Apostles of Jesus Christ and their lawful successors.

Are you referring to apostolic succession?

 

[jmcrae]

The church in Acts and throughout the NT is not the same as the catholic church. We know this by doctrines and practices.

The Church of the Book of Acts had the practice of using the relics of Sts. Peter and Paul to confer healings; which Church does that sound like, to you?

The Church of the Book of Acts made a Novena to the Holy Spirit with Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ; which Church does that sound like, to you?

The Church of the Book of Acts confered the Sacrament of Ordination on those chosen to become Deacons - males, only - which Church does that sound like, to you?

I could go on and on.

For example you don’t see any offices of priests, pope i.e. supreme leader or purgatory in the church of Acts. They are not the same things.

We most certainly do - reread Acts 15 - that’s a Council, just like Trent or Vatican II. What other Church structures its Councils like that?

Are you referring to apostolic succession?

Yes.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3506165]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The church in Acts and throughout the NT is not the same as the catholic church. We know this by doctrines and practices.

jmcrae
The Church of the Book of Acts had the practice of using the relics of Sts. Peter and Paul to confer healings;

Where in Acts does it speak of the “relics of Sts. Peter and Paul”?

which Church does that sound like, to you?

The catholic is the only church that i know that promotes relics.

The Church of the Book of Acts made a Novena to the Holy Spirit with Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ; which Church does that sound like, to you?

Again can you point to the passage for this claim? Where is the recitation of prayers for nine consecutive days to achieve a particular purpose?

The Church of the Book of Acts confered the Sacrament of Ordination on those chosen to become Deacons - males, only - which Church does that sound like, to you?

I familar with the requirements for a deacon in scripture but i have never seen it used in the context of a sacrament. Was it known at this time as a sacrament?

I could go on and on.

Quote: justasking4
For example you don’t see any offices of priests, pope i.e. supreme leader or purgatory in the church of Acts. They are not the same things.

jmcrae;
We most certainly do - reread Acts 15 - that’s a Council, just like Trent or Vatican II.

Where do we see priests mentioned in this passage? An elder is not a priest. These are 2 different and distinct offices.

Where do we see any mention of purgatory i.e. “is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions” mentioned in Scripture?

What other Church structures its Councils like that?

catholic church.

Quote:justasking4
Are you referring to apostolic succession?

jmcrae;
Yes.

Where do we see an apostle himself passing on his office and authority to another man in Scripture ?

 

[akalom]

I agree compeletly with that.
Then again, this is coming from a Catholic’s perspective.
I think it depends on your religion whether or not you want to believe the Roman Catholic Church and God are our only two ways to salvation. Personal opinion, however, I totally agree.

 

[mikew262]

Hello again Mike262,

You know that I like you but as a "Catholic”, you sure like going after other Catholics here. I think you “beat me up” more than some aggressive “Protestants” here, do… and that’s saying something… Can’t we all just get along…How about providing some “Catholic Answers” for some non-Catholics here?

Jesus is the Vine and we (The Catholic Church) are/is the first branch, and the word “denomination” implies something altogether different. I think this is what the other poster is trying to explain here. This is not a “big deal”, to quote another poster here, but it is an important distinction.

Peace

Yes, I do challenge my fellow Catholics at times, but I assure you it’s nothing personal, although I do get annoyed at times. I just speak my opinion when I read something I don’t agree with.

If I do offend, I apologize.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Yes, I do challenge my fellow Catholics at times, but I assure you it’s nothing personal, although I do get annoyed at times. I just speak my opinion when I read something I don’t agree with.

If I do offend, I apologize.

No problem…

Peace

 

[c659smith]

Judas is a touchy subject in my opinion, that requires some speculation, so I prefer not to.

However, for the sake of taking up more space on these boards… It is my opinion that Judas always believed and indeed had faith in Jesus; as well as following Jesus (all this is up to the time of Christ’s death, I think history could have been different in regards to Judas; however his ultimate outcome adds more confusion to the matter; keep in mind, Peter DENIED Jesus, and yet went on to be an important part of God’s church)… but I think Judas, like us, got his own ideas of how Jesus’ kingdom was to come about; and attempted to circumvent the timeline a bit to force Jesus to “play his hand”… Of course, ultimately, Judas was a part of the plan for salvation. But I don’t think we can judge him, what his actual thought pattern was, or what happened to lead him to betray Jesus. Hindsight is 20/20, and we can speculate all we want about all the details… but in the end, that is for God to know.

Although the Church does not teach that any particular individual is in hell, I believe that Scripture indicates that Judas Iscariot is in hell. Jesus says, “The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26:24). If Judas ended up in heaven rather than hell, it would be difficult to see how it would have been better for him not to have been born. Going through any amount of temporal pain and disgrace is not worth comparing to the joys of heaven (Rom. 8:18), and, if Judas went to heaven, matters still came out infinitely to his benefit. Only if Judas went to hell, it seems to me, would it have been better for him not to have been born.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?