Not the same God?

[PRmerger]

Who would deny that there is tradition? However, there is no such thing as “sacred” tradition unless you mean the apostolic tradition of the inspired written Scripture which they handed down to us.

That *is *what I mean. Except that not all of it was written down.

And the evidence for that is:

-the canon of Scripture, which was discerned without any written Scripture

and

-Scripture doesn’t say that all of God’s Word was retained in the written text

 

[PRmerger]

It seems an odd definition, however, it does give credence to the fact that the councils did not decide the canon.

Exactly. They only confirmed and affirmed what the bishops had already been proclaiming orally.

Tradition.

Sacred Tradition.

Decide/discern - the same thing. However, as I just explained “the Church” did not decide/discern the canon. The people of God recognized that which was circulated throughout the churches as inspired.

Fair enough.

Then it wasn’t through Scripture that they knew this. So the early Christians weren’t sola scriptura.

[SIGN1]And when you submit to the “people of God’s” decision, you are submitting to an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture.[/SIGN1]

and thus, you aren’t a sola scriptura advocate either.

However, there existed no Roman Catholic bishops. Only the elders/bishops which led each individual church.

Okay. Does your church have bishops, kelman? Just wondering.

And did each of these bishops have the authority to discern for themselves what they decided to be theopneustos?

Actually, in fact, it was those “first century Christian running around” who recognized the various letters as inspired.

Fair enough. So when you quote, say, Hebrews, it is because you are submitting, then, to the authority of these “first century Christians running around”, and NOT to Scripture.

Again, it seems that when you make this argument you are advocating a position that you are not sola scriptura, yes?

 

[kelman]

If Cornelius was “a devout man who feared God with all his household” and was acceptable to God (Acts 10: 2), then, yes, it is surely very probable that he would have been eternally saved had he died before St. Peter arrived and preached to him. Do you really believe that such “a devout man who feared God” would have been consigned to Hell fire, simply because he might have had the misfortune to have died before St. Peter’s arrival? My dear friend, we are talking here of one who “gave alms liberally” and who “prayed constantly to God” (Acts 10: 2).

And yet the same could be said of the Pharisees, they prayed and did good works. Even Paul, himself a Pharisee, was not saved until he had faith in Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, we know that man’s works cannot save him, it cannot be the basis of salvation nor can it aid.

Where in Scripture do you find man’s works described as being a basis for salvation? Instead we see: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8-9).

Do you know of something in Scripture which negates Eph 2:8-9?..I don’t. The only works that save are those of the Lord Jesus Christ. ** “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”** (John 3:16).

Whilst I would agree that the Roman’s passage you reference is of importance in showing the necessity of missionary endeavour, it rather, I think, supports my position than the inflexible one that you are seeking to uphold. Men cannot call upon the name of the Lord unless they have first believed, and they cannot believe, unless they have been taught.

Paul’s intent is seen to be those who do not believe are not saved, therefore, the necessity of preaching the Gospel. He begins in Rom 10:3 declaring that Israel is not saved because they think their righteousness(good works) is somehow a basis for salvation. Here’s yet another verse stating how works cannot save and this would include the good works of Cornelius. ”For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

Paul says in Rom 10:13 ”For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”. The clear implication of the questions Paul asks is that if missionaries are not sent to preach Christ to those who have not heard about Him in order that they may hear about Him, believe in Him, and call upon His name for salvation, these unevangelized people, who are condemned already, will remain unsaved and cannot and will not be saved by any other means.

Thus the man who is invincibly ignorant cannot be blamed if he does not so call upon the Lord, especially if he has been nursed in ignorance or prejudice - we are back to Dr. Arnold’s wise words again (quoted in my previous post today).

I didn’t comment on Arnold’s quote because without context the intent is not always clear. However, one thing is clear from his comment, he does not say that those never hearing the Gospel are saved.

 

[kelman]

You write that “each denomination is united in agreement on theological issues”, but sadly it is divided from other denominations over different interpretations of the same bible.

The RCC is also divided from other denominations even from those who also claim “apostolic succession”. Roman Catholics are also divided on biblical interpretation no doubt because the RCC has “officially” interpreted so few. The churches which actually practice sola Scriptura are in remarkable agreement. I know little about the Church of England so I can’t comment on the differences in their church.

Actually, the worse that can be said is that each denomination among us is just like the RCC: it has unity with only one - self - and even that is only official, formal, and embracing only those issues that self alone currently regards as necessary for agreement. We all know this. The “unity” of which the RCC seems so proud is just with itself, exclusively, solely, uniquely - and even that is only formally, officially, institutionally, and in those issues that it itself alone currently regards as good to agree upon. At least as much can be said for any other denomination.

The fragmented condition of present day Protestantism and the unbroken unity of the Catholic Church are obvious even to the most casual observer.

An “unbroken unity of the Catholic Church”?..an RCC assumption and one which has not been proven. Nevertheless, of what value is there to a “seemingly” cohesive body when, in fact, it produces many dogmas unknown, and in some cases, antithetical to Scripture? And, even undertakes to bind men’s consciences to such.

The conclusion which can be drawn from this contrast is that individual private judgment leads one along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions, whereas the infallible church leads men to a common conviction as they share in the life of the one true fold.

Again, you make assumptions but offer no proof for them. That the church cannot and is not “infallible” is clearly seen from Scripture and from the historical record. I much prefer “competing opinions” than to accede to multiple dogmas which have little to none basis in Scripture.

You are not infallible, therefore, you have simply made a very fallible private judgment to base your trust in a particular church – no different than anyone else. I have used my private judgment to place my trust in a sola Scriptura church, any of which I believe are closer to the teachings the Apostles handed-down to us than any church which rejects that biblical principle.

It is clear that your certainty that any of the things your church teaches you is right cannot be greater than whatever certainty you have that your private judgment has decided the question rightly whether you ought to submit unreservedly to its teaching . So, whether you admit it or not, you’re in no better position than anyone else.

The proof that sola Scriptura is true is straightforward: since the Bible is God speaking to us, and since God is the highest authority, no authority can be higher than the Bible, and only God can be equal in authority to the Bible. That is simply acknowledging reality.

As to who is or who is not inclusivist among the Evangelicals, would largely depend on which Evangelicals you were talking to. They are a very large grouping indeed and there are, needless to say, many interpretations of Sacred Scripture and many ‘insights’. Thus some would be inclusivists and some would not be. That does prove how deeply divided they are, not only on this issue, but many others as well.

Those who not only profess the sola Scriptura principle but actually adhere to it are those who reject the inclusivist view based on the fact that it is unknown to Scripture.

An inclusivist understanding only seems to lack biblical warrant if one adopts a very inflexible approach to the biblical data and is locked into letter of scripture, rather than its spirit.

Otoh, the exclusivist view would only seem to lack biblical warrant if one jettisoned the entire New Testament.

God Himself seems very “inflexible” when He repeatedly declares such truths as ”For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Is there some other meaning than the plain one?..that it takes belief in the Son to not perish? We also see God’s inflexibility in the OT as He brought judgment after judgment upon men, women and children who could not possibly have heard anything about Him.

 

[kelman]

The fact is, dear friend, that equally devout and equally bible believing men do interpret the bible on this topic very different to yourself. Who are we to believe? This is why we need the infallible Church to speak authoritatively on the matter, which it has done. The Catholic Church does not change its teaching, but it does develop and expand its dogma.

I understand you must believe this, nevertheless, the historical documents prove that it is just not true. – the RCC did in fact change its teaching on this matter. The last thing anyone needs is for a church claiming “infallibility” to teach that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is optional.

Thus there is no salvation outside of the Church, but this only means that without the Catholic Church, no man can be eternally saved.

This statement seem to thoroughly contradict your entire presentation thus far. As framed, it also appears to lack the basics of soteriology.

The merits of Christs saving Passion can be applied to the men of good will and God fearers and they may (not will) attain final salvation, if they were truly invincibly ignorant through no fault of their own.

No church can claim credit for God’s grace in salvation. No church “applies” God’s merits to anyone. Where is the biblical evidence that God’s saving graces are distributed to anyone on the basis of his good works?

To remark that there is “precious little appeal to Scripture for the inclusivist”, is only your opinion based upon, as I said above, a very inflexible approach to the biblical data and a refusal to to look at the widness of God’s mercy.

No, actually it is considerably more than “my” opinion. My opinions are not my own but those that I have adopted as my own because I recognize the authority that has produced them, the Holy Spirit inspiring the authors of Scripture. I haven’t dealt in speculation and emotion, in fact, I’ve offered reference upon reference whereby God claims that faith is Jesus Christ is not optional.

As for “inflexibility”, it would seem God has proven Himself to be precisely that - He insists man is justified only through faith in Christ “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:”(Rom 5:1). Or, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”(Gal 3:24).

Moreover, there are biblical passages that do in fact support an inclusivist understanding (I have already drawn your attention to these), it is just that you do not accept them or elucidate them differently, which is not quite the same as saying that there is no evidence. Again though I bound to say that this only serves to underscore the necessity for an unerring guide and authoritative voice to decide which interpretation is correct.

I’ll go back and make a quick check but I don’t recall any verse being offered which supports the inclusivist view either explicitly or implicitly. We’ve seen no relevant citation. Since there is no “unerring guide”,(we’ve seen no evidence) it would seem to me that appealing to one is rather useless. The papal historical documents prove that the RCC has changed its position on this matter.

 

[kelman]

Who would deny that there is tradition? However, there is no such thing as “sacred” tradition unless you mean the apostolic tradition of the inspired written Scripture which they handed down to us.

Yet, we have no inspired words of Jesus Christ or the Apostles that are not found in the only thing God calls inspired – the written Scriptures. Since that is the case, Scripture alone remains “sacred”.

And the evidence for that is:
-the canon of Scripture, which was discerned without any written Scripture

How is your statement(which I disagree with) evidence that anything other than the written Scriptures can be considered “sacred”?

-Scripture doesn’t say that all of God’s Word was retained in the written text

And yet we have no other.

 

[kelman]

It seems an odd definition, however, it does give credence to the fact that the councils did not decide the canon.

Yes, I agree that the Gospel was first orally taught and then written down. That is certainly attested to in Scripture, however, we see apostolic letters circulating throughout the churches even while the Apostles still lived.

Decide/discern - the same thing. However, as I just explained “the Church” did not decide/discern the canon. The people of God recognized that which was circulated throughout the churches as inspired.

Fair enough.
Then it wasn’t through Scripture that they knew this. So the early Christians weren’t sola scriptura.

No, I wouldn’t agree to that. I believe the Scriptures are self-attesting and therefore the early Christians would have recognized the same. I’m sure they would have studied these new books in the light of the OT. No doubt they did as the Bereans did.

And when you submit to the “people of God’s” decision, you are submitting to an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture.
and thus, you aren’t a sola scriptura advocate either.

Not really, since Scripture is self-attesting.

However, there existed no Roman Catholic bishops. Only the elders/bishops which led each individual church.

Okay. Does your church have bishops, kelman? Just wondering.

The term they use is elder.

And did each of these bishops have the authority to discern for themselves what they decided to be theopneustos?

They, along with their church, recognized inspired books. Did they look at it as having “authority”?..I doubt they were given to arguments about “authority”.

Fair enough. So when you quote, say, Hebrews, it is because you are submitting, then, to the authority of these “first century Christians running around”, and NOT to Scripture. Again, it seems that when you make this argument you are advocating a position that you are not sola scriptura, yes?

Not really, because these first century Christians were able to recognize the self-attesting nature of Scripture. The Bible is not a random collection of books, lacking inner unity leading some to believe they need an “infallible” authority to canonize….far from it. To believe that Scripture itself doesn’t furnish a table of content is to fail to understand the internal unity of Scripture.

The unity of Scripture figures in the canonicity of Scripture, as an interconnected set of books - the self-witness of Scripture to the canon of Scripture. Therefore, I feel safe in saying that my sola Scriptura “credentials” are still very much in tact.

 

[PRmerger]

I understand you must believe this, nevertheless, the historical documents prove that it is just not true. – the RCC did in fact change its teaching on this matter. The last thing anyone needs is for a church claiming “infallibility” to teach that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is optional.

I believe that you are operating under the misapprehension that Catholics profess “belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is optional.”

We do not.

In fact, we go so far as to say that outside the Catholic Church you are not saved. Which is, of course, only an extension of Christ’s teaching that outside of Him there is no salvation.

 

[PRmerger]

Yet, we have no inspired words of Jesus Christ or the Apostles that are not found in the only thing God calls inspired – the written Scriptures.

Really? Can you tell me where Jesus said “It is better to give than to receive”? Book, chapter and verse where Jesus said this, please. We only know that he said this because it’s quoted in Acts 20:35–and the only way St. Paul knew this is from, well, sacred tradition.

Since that is the case, Scripture alone remains “sacred”.

Well, this is merely a question of semantics. You are quite Catholic when you say that Scripture alone is the inspired word of God, where “inspired” indicates the action of the Holy Spirit in guiding the human authors. Sacred Tradition, while also the word of God, is not considered to be theopneustos. We refer to Sacred Tradition as being “assisted” by the Holy Spirit. But only the Bible has God as its primary author and while Tradition may also be “sacred”, only Scripture is divinely inspired.

 

[Portrait]

And yet the same could be said of the Pharisees, they prayed and did good works. Even Paul, himself a Pharisee, was not saved until he had faith in Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, we know that man’s works cannot save him, it cannot be the basis of salvation nor can it aid.

Where in Scripture do you find man’s works described as being a basis for salvation? Instead we see: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8-9).

Do you know of something in Scripture which negates Eph 2:8-9?..I don’t. The only works that save are those of the Lord Jesus Christ. ** “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”** (John 3:16).

Paul’s intent is seen to be those who do not believe are not saved, therefore, the necessity of preaching the Gospel. He begins in Rom 10:3 declaring that Israel is not saved because they think their righteousness(good works) is somehow a basis for salvation. Here’s yet another verse stating how works cannot save and this would include the good works of Cornelius. ”For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

Paul says in Rom 10:13 ”For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”. The clear implication of the questions Paul asks is that if missionaries are not sent to preach Christ to those who have not heard about Him in order that they may hear about Him, believe in Him, and call upon His name for salvation, these unevangelized people, who are condemned already, will remain unsaved and cannot and will not be saved by any other means.

I didn’t comment on Arnold’s quote because without context the intent is not always clear. However, one thing is clear from his comment, he does not say that those never hearing the Gospel are saved.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your replies at this very busy time of year, talking of which, I think that we ought to consider winding up our discussion fairly soon as I am going to be pretty much tied up after today. However, may I just say that I have thoroughly enjoyed debating with you, my dear brother, both on this thread and the previous one. We have, I think, demonstrated that it is possible for men to disagree without being disagreeable, so thankyou for your charity and good will. It is my intention to respond to all of your posts, but if I cannot, please forgive me. In any event, you have the final word, kelman.

The Pharisees were a self-righteous hypocritcal bunch and were very caught up with an ostentatious display of piety. This is why their good works were so unacceptable to God. However, good chaps like Cornelius - earnest devout men - hardly fall into this category. Their good works sprang out of a genuine heart of love and faith and they were decidedly not self-righteous hypocrites. Thus I think it right that we differentiate between the two.

In our Lord’s depiction of the Last Judgment we do, in point of fact, see men judged on the basis of their meritorious works and nothing is said respecting ‘justification by faith’ (see S. Matt. 25: 34-40). Indeed, good works are the determining principle on which the eternal destiny of men appears to be decided, not a conscious acceptance of Jesus as Saviour. Obviously, we cannot enter into a lengthy discussion of the role of good works in salvation, but suffice to say that “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (St. James 2: 17,26), so “you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (2: 24).

Cornelius, and many in the non-Christian religions, are not necessarily “going about to establish their own righteousness”, but are sincerely living up to the light that has been granted to them. To put it simply, they are trying to live pious lives and are striving to go about doing good to their fellowman. This, we say, does not go unnoticed by God and if they are, for whatever reason, not fortunate enough to be brought under the sound of the Evangel, then God, because of the wideness of His mercy, may save such men, especially because they are inculpably ignorant through no fault of their own.

On the contrary, Dr. Arnold does imply that those who do not hear the Gospel are not responsible until “it comes to them, then it is theirs”. Now if they are not responsible, then how can they be consigned to eternal damnation, for that would surely make God very unjust and unloving indeed, especially in the case of men who are devout God-fearers and who are zealous in good works. It does not chime with what we know of God’s character from Sacred Scripture to espouse such a harsh viewpoint (see, for example, Gen. 18: 23-33). Dr. Arnold would not have wrote as he did if he did not believe that the unevangelised might finally be saved.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

The RCC is also divided from other denominations even from those who also claim “apostolic succession”. Roman Catholics are also divided on biblical interpretation no doubt because the RCC has “officially” interpreted so few. The churches which actually practice sola Scriptura are in remarkable agreement. I know little about the Church of England so I can’t comment on the differences in their church.

Actually, the worse that can be said is that each denomination among us is just like the RCC: it has unity with only one - self - and even that is only official, formal, and embracing only those issues that self alone currently regards as necessary for agreement. We all know this. The “unity” of which the RCC seems so proud is just with itself, exclusively, solely, uniquely - and even that is only formally, officially, institutionally, and in those issues that it itself alone currently regards as good to agree upon. At least as much can be said for any other denomination.

Dear kelman,

Hello again.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination but the one true Church established by Christ upon St. Peter. Moreover, it was in existence long before the churches of the Reformation emerged upon the stage of world history. You write that “Roman Catholics are also divided on biblical interpretation”, but what is of paramount importance is that the magisterium of the Church is not divided and hence all of the faithful agree with their Church’s teaching on faith and morals. As I said previously, the presence of dissidents within the Church does not vitiate the claim to unity because dissidents do not speak authoritatively on behalf of the Church. The ecclesial communions that are heirs of the Reformation principle, sola scriptura, are decidedly not in “remarkable agreement”, for otherwise they would not be divided from one another and there would not be a multiplicity of Protestant denominations. They actually do differ over some fundamental doctrines, for example, whether a man once ‘saved’ can loose his eternal salvation and what water baptism does and who should be the recipients of that ‘ordinance’. They also do entertain differing views on the very topic currently under review, namely the fate of the unevangelised and the inculpably ignorant.

One would expect doctrinal unity in the one true Church of Christ and this is what we find in the Catholic Church. The Protestant denominations cannot even agree over fundamental doctines or how they should be interpreted or understood. Some have even been led to a denial of the corpreal Resurrection of Christ and one of the Anglican bishops back in the 1980’s, termed the Resurrection “a conjuring trick with bones”!

The unity of the Catholic Church in faith and morals is one of the ‘notes’ that has such an attractive power to potential converts, fed up with the quagmire of competing opinions and doctrinal chaos and moral laxity of Protestantism. This exerted a great influence as regards my own conversion to the Church a few years ago.

Everyman must initially make a choice to become a Catholic, just as he must initially make a choice to become a follower of Christ. However, Christ established only one Church, not many, so a man who embraces the Christian faith will want to join himself with the one true Church, not any of those who have broken away from the original Fold and become schismatical bodies. It is, would you not agree, a jolly wise move to use one’s fallible judgment to decide for an infallible Church that teaches authoritatively in Christ’s name? Quite frankly, dear friend, I would prefer that to the alternative of the doctrinal and moral chaos that is Protestantism today.

Scripture emerged from the Church and is the Book of the Church, therefore it is the Church’s function alone to interpet that book for the faithful. It is inconceivable that God would have given us an infallible bible but no infallible organ to interpret it, leaving it to each man to interpret its contents as he deems right. That is where sola scriptura leads us and there are as many interpretations as there are men.

It is not necessary to throw the N.T. overboard, but it is necessary that we do not adopt a rigid approach to its contents, so as to uphold a particular theory. We need to see the broad general sweep of the N.T. teaching and not come to it with spectacles which only allow us to accept what fits in with our own theological framework and doctrinal pre-suppositions. The only real safegaurd against this tendency is to accept the magisterium of the Church, which is the authentic oracle on biblical interpretation. With respect to biblical interpretation, it is either up to you or me or some authority that is greater and more reliable than both of us.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

I understand you must believe this, nevertheless, the historical documents prove that it is just not true. – the RCC did in fact change its teaching on this matter. The last thing anyone needs is for a church claiming “infallibility” to teach that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is optional.

This statement seem to thoroughly contradict your entire presentation thus far. As framed, it also appears to lack the basics of soteriology.

Dear Kelman,

Thankyou for the above. This must, alas, be my final posting as Christmas is but a short time away now.

To conclude our discussion, I would like to respond again to your contention that the Catholic Church has changed it teaching regarding the salvablity of non-Christians.

The words, the wideness of God’s mercy, have continually sprang to mind during our discussions together and I think that this is what we need to grasp in this whole issue if we are not to risk devaluing the Sacrifice of our Blessed Saviour. Please do not misunderstand me, dear friend, I do not question the the truth of the passages from Sacred Scripture that you cite, which insist upon repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ - a hearty amen to all that sort of thing - but I would, along with many Protestant Christians, past and present, maintain that these can only relalisticly apply to those who have come under the joyful sound of the Glad Tidings, as the great Dr. Arnold held. Our understanding of the character of God forbids us from holding that the men of sincere good will in the non-Christian religions, will be consigned to eternal damnation, simply because they have not had opportunity to make a conscious response to a Gospel or a Christ of which they have never heard. These men are ignorant of the Gospel and claims of the Church through no deliberate fault of their own and are therefore invincibly ignorant. Now the wideness of God’s mercy demands that we make allowance for this grave disadvantage, especially since some have been bred in an atmosphere of prejudice and superstition. However, notwithstanding, many of them have strived to live up to the light they have received, have sought after truth, have been devout God-fearers (like Cornelius, prior to his conversion) and have lived lives by no means barren as regards good works. To say by way of reply that these men are condemned for being sinners and not ignorance of the Gospel, is not really very helplful for everyone is a sinner in the sight of God and worthy of death, as you have pointed out from St. Paul. Even so, some ‘sinners’ who are unaware of the Gospel, do strive to be good people and do good to their fellow men. We say that God cannot and does not ignore this and can save such men, if they are inculpably ignorant, due circumstances of birth and upbringing.

The fact is that, notwithstanding the modern channels of communication such as the interweb, the vast majority of mankind never have a chance to learn about God as we Christians know God, or to hear about Sacred Scripture and Jesus Christ. Even if they do hear of these things it is not infrequently through the distorted lenes of prejudice and defective thinking. Can we really argue that such men are condemned to Hell?

With the discoveries of new regions and conntinents, with their billions of pagans, however, the landscape changed literally. For this reason and others, the Church gradually came to realize that, unless the salvation that Christ set out to achieve was a failure for most of mankind, then the Holy Spirit must be at work in ways that we have not heretofore thought of. Jesus Christ is , we firmly believe and truly, the source and fulfillment of all salvific work; any man anywhere, anytime, is only saved through and in Him and through His Holy Catholic Church. However, if that salvation is truly at work in the whole world, then faith in Christ, and in the heavenly Father whose wonderful love He revealed, must surely be possible in ways other than explicit, conscious acts of “accepting Him as personal Saviour”. That is what B. Pope John Paul II, the Catechism, Council documents and other Catholic sources mean when they speak about the possibility of salvation outside of the borders of the Church.

Catholics believe the possibility of salvation, the possibility of coming under the influence of the Holy Spirit’s movements inspiring faith in Jesus Christ, is available to all men, not merely a priviliged few who happen to live in the right place and the right time, where the Evangel can be formally preached unto them.

Dear brother, I do not suppose that I will cause you to have a change of heart on this matter or that you will revise your thinking this side of Christmas, but we need, all of us, to be careful about presuming to put limits on what the Almighty can do. Can I ask kelman that you at least ponder on what I have said in this post and my previous ones, and what my fellow Catholics have said in this thread also, even if at present you just cannot agree with our postion.

It only remains for me now to bid you farewell and thank you for a very charitable debate and I hope we can discuss another topic at another time in another thread. May I take this opportunity to wish you a very Blessed Christmas and may Jesus be the cheer of this Holy Season.

God bless you, my friend, until our paths cross again.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[PRmerger]

And yet we have no other.

This is begging the question, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I agree that the Gospel was first orally taught and then written down. That is certainly attested to in Scripture, however, we see apostolic letters circulating throughout the churches even while the Apostles still lived.

Yes, in addition to about 300 other Christian texts.

How is it that you know that the Odes of Solomon are not inspired but that the Gospel of Mark is?

Only through an outside authority–not the Scriptures.

No, I wouldn’t agree to that. I believe the Scriptures are self-attesting and therefore the early Christians would have recognized the same.

I have heard this peculiar paradigm “I’ll know the Scriptures when I see it” espoused quite frequently by those who wish to deny the authority of the CC.

It prompts this question:

-where do the Scriptures say that they are “self-attesting”? (2 Tim 3:16 only says that everything that’s in the Bible is inspired. It says NOTHING about us being able to “know Scriptures when we see it.”)

Is there something in this verse that tells you whether it’s Scripture or not (without, of course, taking recourse in Fr. Google )

Guide us to the straight path, the path of those whom You have favored; not (the path) of those who earn Your anger nor of those who go astray

[SIGN1]If I gave a Christian a random set of texts would they be able to know, without any other reference, what was inspired and what wasn’t, simply because the texts are “self-attesting?”[/SIGN1]

Thus, is “My breath is offensive to my wife” self evident that it is Scripture?

Really?

I’m sure they would have studied these new books in the light of the OT. No doubt they did as the Bereans did.

Fair enough. And they were able to dismiss the Odes of Solomon based on what in the OT? And claim that the letter to Philemon is inspired based on what in the OT?

Not really, since Scripture is self-attesting.

Can you tell me what is self- attesting in this Scripture verse, "Saul went into a cave to relieve himself:?

 

[PRmerger]

The term they use is elder.

Fair enough. What qualifies them to be considered an “elder”? Must they attend seminary? Are they ordained?

Just curious.

They, along with their church, recognized inspired books.

Could you explain how this happened?

Let’s say the bishop/elder of a church read this:

He said to them, “It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds. But when it falls on tilled soil, it produces a large plant and becomes shelter for birds of the sky.”

What would tell them whether this was inspired or not?

Not really, because these first century Christians were able to recognize the self-attesting nature of Scripture.

Again, how? What is “self-attesting” or “self-negating” about this verse:

Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great horror," declares the LORD

IOW: How would reading this “attest” to being Scripture or not?

(Clearly, they couldn’t google, as you might be tempted to do to discern whether this is theopneustos or not. But by your claim, we should be able to look at some verses and “just know” that things are inspired.)

So if I give you a random set of verses are you willing to proclaim that you will be able to know, by “self-attestation”, whether something is theopneustos? (No googling, okay?)

The unity of Scripture figures in the canonicity of Scripture, as an interconnected set of books - the self-witness of Scripture to the canon of Scripture. Therefore, I feel safe in saying that my sola Scriptura “credentials” are still very much in tact.

This is a corollary to the “I’ll know Scripture when I see it” paradigm.

This “I know Scripture because it’s inspired” and “I know it’s inspired because it’s in the Bible” paradigm is a nonsensical paradigm. You need to have a start to this circular argument.

And that start is the Church.

 

[couponfit]

Greetings~
Well, here I am in a mess again.
My husband is a Lutheran and he was deeply offended when I told him that Catholics have a different God than Lutherans have because the way I saw it, there was no way it ever could be the same one, the qualities are too disimilar. Protestants are too quick to say we make everything up.
It’s a bit strange because if our God *is the same *then either we are all going to hell or they are all going to hell. Better choose wisely. I knew I needed to find out for sure…
My husband said oh sure, go to CAF and ask the Catholics but I told him that the people on these forums are completely unbiased and have schooled me when I have been wrong and enlightened me about things when I needed to know the truth. So that’s why I posted here again
Thanks so much for reading this thread,
Jen

Hi Jen, in fairness many who answer here are not Catholic at all. Some are not even Christian and some are atheist and come here not to learn but to smear, mock or simply insult Catholics and in essence any faith. It took me some time to figure that out, as at first I actually thought there was way too much hate here on CAF.

Now onto your question: Pastorally speaking christian and even the faithful of God are very much similar. The expression varies based very much on the individual and the community’s level of faith and needs. If you asked me does my father want a tie or a sweater for Christmas, his answer would be “yes”. If you asked me is Light a Particle or a Wave the answer would be “yes”. If you would ask me does being a lutheran set a path for me to go to heaven or does being a catholic set a path for me to go to heaven, the pastoral answer is “yes”. We join in prayer with our Lutheran brothers and sisters because we realize there is blessing in it. There is a real God and to embrace that God we often need rules, policies, and answers to specific questions that we have as individuals, families, communities, and societies, and of course God answers our questions with a simple reply to those who seek him: “yes”.

 

[couponfit]

Greetings~
Well, here I am in a mess again.
My husband is a Lutheran and he was deeply offended when I told him that Catholics have a different God than Lutherans have because the way I saw it, there was no way it ever could be the same one, the qualities are too disimilar. Protestants are too quick to say we make everything up.
It’s a bit strange because if our God *is the same *then either we are all going to hell or they are all going to hell. Better choose wisely. I knew I needed to find out for sure…
My husband said oh sure, go to CAF and ask the Catholics but I told him that the people on these forums are completely unbiased and have schooled me when I have been wrong and enlightened me about things when I needed to know the truth. So that’s why I posted here again
Thanks so much for reading this thread,
Jen

Hi Jen, in fairness many who answer here are not Catholic at all. Some are not even Christian and some are atheist and come here not to learn but to smear, mock or simply insult Catholics and in essence any faith. It took me some time to figure that out, as at first I actually thought there was way too much hate here on CAF.

Now onto your question: Pastorally speaking christian and even the faithful of God are very much similar. The expression varies based very much on the individual and the community’s level of faith and needs. If you asked me does my father want a tie or a sweater for Christmas, his answer would be “yes”. If you asked me is Light a Particle or a Wave the answer would be “yes”. If you would ask me does being a lutheran set a path for me to go to heaven or does being a catholic set a path for me to go to heaven, the pastoral answer is “yes”. We join in prayer with our Lutheran brothers and sisters because we realize there is blessing in it. There is a real God and to embrace that God we often need rules, policies, and answers to specific questions that we have as individuals, families, communities, and societies, and of course God answers our questions with a simple reply to those who seek him: “yes”.

 

[CMatt25]

How is it that you know that the Odes of Solomon are not inspired but that the Gospel of Mark is?

Only through an outside authority–not the Scriptures.

Perhaps long before a 5th century canon, PR, those first century Christians could have been assisted by God thru His Holy Spirit to know. So the only authority would have been God and once they knew which writings were inspired Scripture, they became sola scriptura. Merry Christmas btw to you and your family.

 

[kelman]

Moreover, when Catholics assert her indefectability, they mean that the Church on earth is imperishable and so shall endure until the end of time.

I agree that a visible church will continue to the end because that is generally where the believers are found, however, the RCC will simply be one among many.

By indefectability we also mean that the Church’s essential constitution, her definitive teaching and the number of her sacraments will never change. If none of this were so then the Catholic Church would cease to be the one true Church established by Christ.

I’d be concerned then because the historical documents prove that your church has changed a “definitive teaching”. We know it has been proven because all the rhetoric to the contrary cannot eliminate Eugene’s “Jews and Pagans”.

BTW, I should be appalled if a Church claiming to be founded by Christ and to speak with His authority did not not claim to be indefectable and infallible. What sort of guide to eternal destiny would God have given us, if that guide calmly confessed that she was unsure of the way herself?

Actually, I’ve always been somewhat appalled that a church would claim to be “infallible” without the slightest bit of biblical or historical evidence from the early church. And then refuse to accept the indefectibility of the grace of God to save. Perhaps your church may be “sure” nevertheless, that which it is not “unsure” of is in total error - that faith in Jesus Christ is optional.

It not a matter of speculation that the message of the Gospel must be received without the grave disadvantage of distorted lenses to be efficacious.

No, I’m afraid this is speculation of the highest order. Nowhere is there a scriptural defense for such an assertion. In fact, we see the opposite - the Jews of Jesus day had a very “distorted” view of Him and yet many became saved. It is this type of “infallibility” which has led to “salvation” for those who are members of all sorts of religion – those who believe Jesus is simply a prophet albeit a lesser one than Mohammed - to worshippers of idols and even to professing atheists. All these errors based upon more errors - man’s innate “righteousness” resulting in good works which saves him. This is not the soteriology we find God declaring regardless of a church’s desire to seek another “way”. No, God has given us only one Way, we may never allow the imagination to construct alternate ways.

For example, a Protestants prejudice against Catholicism is a real, even if unrealized, negative force in those educated or reared under the influence of Protestantism, a force blinding men to the defects of Protestantism and, alas, the merits of Catholicism.

This is something RC’s tells themselves but, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. For myself, I was not reared “under the influence of Protestantism” - just the opposite. Usually, when the first doesn’t pan-out, the next excuse offered will be how former RC’s have become “Catholic haters”. That’s easier to believe than the simply truth that we do, in fact, see the real “defects” of Roman Catholicism.

The “negative force”, if there is one, is due to the fact the RCC proclaims itself the “one true church” without either biblical or historical support. indicating ignorance of “church”. And by such an assertion, proves itself ignorant of what “church” actually is. And, of course, the many dogmas it holds which are not found in Scripture nor can be reasonably deduced from it. Therefore, knowing all this, there would be no “merits” that Protestants would see in Roman Catholicism.

The “keys” were a symbol of St. Peter’s authority and this symbolism is used elsewhere in Sacred Scripture (see Is. 22: 22).

Simply assuming the relevance of the Isa 22 passage does not, in fact, prove the assertion. There isn’t even patristic defense of the use of Isa 22:20-22 in reference to finding succession in the papacy in Matthew 16:16-20. Nowhere is Peter made the “prime minister”. We have seen that neither citation is relevant with regard to proving Peter as somehow having a superior authority than the other eleven. In fact, we need merely look at Scripture to know this view stands in opposition to the truth.

As regards I Cor. 5: 12, yes, “ecclesiastical judgment” is involved in the passage but in verse 13 St. Paul specifically states that “God judges those outside”. By this he is distinctly saying that he has no authority to judge those external to the Church; they are in the hands of God and He will decide what is to be their portion.

All men are in “the hands of God” and will be judged on the last day. Paul is making the point that though the church judges or censures fornication, covetousness, idolatry, etc., found in it members those “without” will not escape judgment. These verses do not even begin to touch on the topic of inclusivism vs exclusivism. Additional evidence that the inclusivist view is non-biblical – the attempt to wrangle something from verses which bear no relevance to the subject but are in fact teaching something else entirely.

kelman, I cannot agree with your exegesis of I Tim. 4: 9 either.

I hope that doesn’t mean you reject the fact that God is the providential Savior of all men. In any case, the very words ”specially of those that believe” are plainly seen to be denoting a difference between the two types of salvation and the two groups mentioned, the second being a subset of the first. We see there is something pertaining to this second group “specially of those that believe” in regard to salvation which does not pertain to “all men.” Otherwise, we are left with a nonsensical redundancy that God brings all men to heaven “specially those who believe”.

 

[kelman]

Jesus is the Saviour of all men because He gave His Son to be the expiation “for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (I Jhn. 2: 2). That Sacred Scripture should make so absolute declaration of this,…

Interesting, the inclusivist has absolutely no problem rejecting the other “absolute declarations” made by Sacred Scripture even in the face of Scriptures overwhelming reiterations.

When John uses ”my little children”(verse 1), he is making reference to believers….Jesus also used the term “children”(John 13:33). These verses declare that believers have an “Advocate” in heaven, the eternal High Priest, and Jesus does not advocate for “all” men just as He does not propitiate for “all” in the sense of every individual in the whole world. We see in John 17:9 that Jesus does not pray(advocate) for the world ”I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” We come to biblical truth by allowing Scripture to define itself – not by flying in the face of it for any reason by declaring faith in Jesus Christ is not needed.

No, these verses are not teaching some type of quasi-universalism. John is a Jew, writing to Jews. He is teaching that Gentiles are included in this “propitiation”. Throughout Scripture the word “world” is often used to denote Gentiles and in fact most times when Scripture says “world or the whole world” it is used in a limited sense (Luke 2:1; Rom 1:8; Rev 3:10; 12:9; 13:3; and 1John 5:19).

We see, as an example, Paul speaks of Gentiles as “the world” in Rom 11:12-13 ”I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?”

Can we seriously doubt that God will find ways of having mercy upon them which we no nothing of?

Rather, the question should be can we seriously doubt that God insists man’s “good works” cannot get him to heaven? This is essentially the salvation you are advocating – working to receive mercy from God and entrance into heaven. Because we are so “righteous” it is no longer a free gift and God is now obligated to save us. This is the soteriology here being offered but is nowhere found in the Scriptures.

He is the Saviour especially of those that believe since by their believing they actually accept His mercy and honour Him for it, and plead the all-sufficient Sacrifice. Obviously those who have not heard cannot do this, so He is is not, and indeed cannot be their Saviour in this sense.

You offer two salvation plans yet we see God offering only one – faith in Jesus Christ – not the performance of “good works”. Such a view has God saying that He brings all men to heaven “specially of those that believe” which of course makes no sense. Besides, such a view violates the overall emphasis God makes that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. Very simply, “God is the Saviour specially of those that believe” (1Ti 4:10), both as to “the life that now is,” and also as to "the life which is to come" which point Paul already made in verse 8.

As for Rom. 2: 14, the text makes clear that it has reference to those who “sin without the law” (emphasis mine), but it does not decide the fate of those devout, God fearers, like Cornelius, who strive earnestly to live up to the light they have been granted and perform good deeds towards their fellow men.

And yet we know that Cornelius was not saved until he heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 11:13-14). This fact is also in keeping with the overall teaching of Scripture concerning faith in Christ. We should never reject the oft repeated truth of Scripture declaring that good works cannot earn a place in God’s heaven (Rom 3:23; Eph 2:8-10; 11-13).

It would seem from Sacred Scripture that it looks very good for such men of good will and that they will not have their portion allotted with the Devil and his angels (S. Matt. 25: 34-40). We have that on the authority of Christ Himself.

Mat 25 says: ”inherit the kingdom”; who “inherits”?..heirs, those adopted into God’s family and according to Scripture only those with faith in Christ inherit the kingdom of God ( Rom 8:17; Gal 4:6,7; Heb 1:14; 1John 3:2; Rom 8:29-30; ). I can only wonder how many times God must say that we need to spiritually eat the “bread of life” to “live for ever” for it to be taken on its merits. ”This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”(John 6:58).

Mat 25 is not indicating that faith in Jesus is unnecessary or that good works will earn you heaven. Who is Jesus speaking about in these verses?..just anyone who does good? No, He speaks of those who are “blessed of my Father” and we see in Mat 5 that only believers are blessed: ** "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”**

It has still not been shown where is it written that men do not need faith in Jesus Christ. Where is it written that man’s good works will aid in saving him? What we do have written is that Cornelius, this “good” man, was not saved until he heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and rightly so considering the price.