Question for all protestants

[Heart_Foam]

Outside the Church there is no salvation, dronald.

I agree, as I’m sure so does dronald, but it all rather depends what one means by Church…

 

[PRmerger]

Regardless of when it was defined, the belief was always held. Other doctrines of the CC however have not always been believed since AD33.

Egg-zactly.

This is another testament to your belief in Sacred Tradition.

“Always held” = kerygma = Sacred Tradition.

 

[batman1973]

I agree, as I’m sure so does dronald, but it all rather depends what one means by Church…

She means the Roman Catholic Church. Keep in mind, the Mormons also believe there is no salvation outside of their church as well:shrug:

 

[PRmerger]

I agree, as I’m sure so does dronald, but it all rather depends what one means by Church…

The Catholic Church, of course.

Unless there is some other way you know what it is that Christ spoke, except through this Church?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Heart Foam is a great name. It’s so absurd. Hi, I’m Stephen. My logic is in good order.

Even if Catholics contend that the Marian dogmas were always true, they weren’t required beliefs for salvation until relatively recently. That’s the problem. Have the requirements for salvation changed? You’re not engaging with the issue.

Can I make a crucial observation in the interest of clarity and understanding and all that. Note well the different usage of the word “faith”. Catholics tend to mean a laundry list of things, about the Church, about Mary, etc. that one must give intellectual assent of faith to. Forgive me for saying this, but it becomes almost as arbitrary as being required to believe the sky is blue. And if Rome says one must believe that to be saved then so be it because Rome has the power to bind and loose. It comes down to saying “I believe x because Rome says I must”. In formalizing the Marian dogmas it decided that believing them was a required belief - as you know. Until then, it was *not *required. And I’m not wrong about the list of things that must be believed. It is growing. You know it has grown. Someone in the NT didn’t have to believe what you have to believe now. And Mary as mediatrix and co-mediatrix will surely one day be a required belief for salvation according to Rome, and it isn’t now. When Protestants talk about “faith” we mean personal trust in Christ who paid the price of salvation. There are over 200 verses that link faith with salvation. They mean faith in Christ.

And this is easy:

There are many, but I’ll go for papal infallibility. There’s no mention of it for the first 12 centuries. Some have tried to argue for an earlier date. Some say 13th-century Franciscan priest Peter Olivi was the first person to attribute infallibility to the pope. At any rate, it would be very hard find it in the early church and early councils. Rome had some primacy being the center of the empire, but the specific idea that the bishop of Rome is* infallible* when speaking ex cathedra is certainly not there from the start.

Here’s a thought experiment: did the Apostle Paul have to believe in the Assumption of Mary - only made dogma in 1950 - to be saved? If not, why not?

Who says you have to believe every doctrine and dogma of the church for salvation ?

That is not even remotely close to catholic teaching.

To be a member of the Catholic Church you must accept the doctrines and dogmas, but that is very different from salvation.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Regardless of when it was defined, the belief was always held. Other doctrines of the CC however have not always been believed since AD33.

I am curious how your logic works in this case. You contend that the Trinity and Scripture were there since the beginning (ignoring, I suppose, the fact that even the New Testament Canon was not decided upon for several hundred years, and at times varied in opinion from excluding Revelation, Hebrews, and 3 John, to including The Shepherd by Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Gospel of Barnabas) and that the Body of Christ was capable of determining this, and then deny that the very same Body of Christ was capable of answering the theological questions or disputes with which you disagree.

It seems as though your notion of the guidance of the Holy Spirit to all Truth is quite hit or miss. I am curious to your reasoning. Is God not capable of using flawed instruments to do His will (this would render the Apostles and Scriptures dubious)? Does He simply not want to lead us to all Truth or to be able to resolve important theological issues and maintain unity? Does He want His house to be the pillar and foundation of Truth, but only on the occasion that people happen to get it right by their own power?

Sorry if I’m misunderstanding. Then again, I’ve never understood the Protestant line of reasoning. It makes so little sense to me that God would lead us to partial truth sometimes and full truth others, in a seemingly arbitrary way. But, hey, maybe that’s just me.

 

[dronald]

Prove to me one doctrine that was not held by the church at the time if John’s death (Revelation ceased with apostles not Jesus).

There have been many periods when different beliefs have been held that are no longer held. I’m glad that you asked:
For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the** hands of the priest,** how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? Treatise on the Priesthood (excerpt)
by St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407)

So if I was alive during the year 347-407, I would be told that I shall not escape the fires of Hell because I do not believe a Priest is needed in order to take communion.

Muslims don’t even take communion and yet:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

You really don’t know what the “official Catholic teaching” on baptism is?

No, I don’t. And I’m not sure the Catholic Church knows either.

Egg-zactly.

This is another testament to your belief in Sacred Tradition.

“Always held” = kerygma = Sacred Tradition.

Sweet.

The Catholic Church, of course.

Unless there is some other way you know what it is that Christ spoke, except through this Church?

We’re all Catholic if you mean Christ’s Universal Church.

I am curious how your logic works in this case. You contend that the Trinity and Scripture were there since the beginning (ignoring, I suppose, the fact that even the New Testament Canon was not decided upon for several hundred years, and at times varied in opinion from excluding Revelation, Hebrews, and 3 John, to including The Shepherd by Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Gospel of Barnabas) and that the Body of Christ was capable of determining this, and then deny that the very same Body of Christ was capable of answering the theological questions or disputes with which you disagree.

It seems as though your notion of the guidance of the Holy Spirit to all Truth is quite hit or miss. I am curious to your reasoning. Is God not capable of using flawed instruments to do His will (this would render the Apostles and Scriptures dubious)? Does He simply not want to lead us to all Truth or to be able to resolve important theological issues and maintain unity? Does He want His house to be the pillar and foundation of Truth, but only on the occasion that people happen to get it right by their own power?

Sorry if I’m misunderstanding. Then again, I’ve never understood the Protestant line of reasoning. It makes so little sense to me that God would lead us to partial truth sometimes and full truth others, in a seemingly arbitrary way. But, hey, maybe that’s just me.

No worries. What you need to recognize is how close we truly are.

 

[Heart_Foam]

No one who’s a Protestant can articulate a single viewpoint espoused by Protestants.

Can you see how monstrous this is?

I can appreciate how it looks for Catholics, yes. And there are a lot of Protestants that I doubt are part of the one, true Church. We tend to talk past each other because things like the Church and unity which are often uppermost in Catholic minds are not necessarily on ours. To some extent the wild claims of disunity in Protestantism aren’t fair. But it’s not easy because we can’t easily stand outside our viewpoint, and we feel we’re betraying what we believe when we do. It’s hard. The church here in this little town is an interdenominational one. Yes, we come from different backgrounds, and listening to Catholics you’d think we’d have no common ground or find it impossible to have a service. But we can. There is unity. And I can articulate the material principle of Protestantism. It is justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. There is no salvation outside this.

I’ll be off for a while.
Yours &c.

 

[Jon_S_1]

There have been many periods when different beliefs have been held that are no longer held. I’m glad that you asked:
For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the** hands of the priest,** how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? Treatise on the Priesthood (excerpt)
by St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407)

So if I was alive during the year 347-407, I would be told that I shall not escape the fires of Hell because I do not believe a Priest is needed in order to take communion.

Muslims don’t even take communion and yet:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

No, I don’t. And I’m not sure the Catholic Church knows either.

Sweet.

We’re all Catholic if you mean Christ’s Universal Church.

No worries. What you need to recognize is how close we truly are.

First,

I did not know John Chrysostom was the bearer of doctrine.

Protestants love to do this, find quotes from Saints and declare them doctrine. That’s not how it works. Just because he is a saint does not make every word he said infallible unless of course you give him more authority than the Catholic Church.

Second,

The quote is both removed from its context of history and the context of the entirety of church teaching.

Third,

The church only speculates on salvation outside the church. They desire to build bridges with Jews and Muslims who believe in the One true God even though they are extremely mistaken about Him.

Who have you been talking to dronald! These are the worst arguments I’ve seen from you!! Step it up brother!

 

[rinnie]

Outside the Church there is no salvation, dronald.

Now, is it possible for someone who does not take the Eucharist but to still be within the invisible bounds of the CC, yes, it is possible. He may be saved. Not will be saved.

Was it always believed to be possible? Yes.

You will note that the CC has never declared a single soul–not a single heretic–to be in hell.

That’s because it’s outside our pay grade.

We must also say that although while we cannot condemn anyone to hell, we also cannot promise anyone entrance to heaven. Both are only known by the Father Almighty himself.

But with that said, the Church cannot teach that you do not have to eat and drink, It has to teach what Christ taught.

Only God can make exceptioms to the rule. If Christ said you MUST eat and drink, how can anyone teach otherwise? Who has the right to teach other than Christ taught.

 

[rinnie]

I can appreciate how it looks for Catholics, yes. And there are a lot of Protestants that I doubt are part of the one, true Church. We tend to talk past each other because things like the Church and unity which are often uppermost in Catholic minds are not necessarily on ours. To some extent the wild claims of disunity in Protestantism aren’t fair. But it’s not easy because we can’t easily stand outside our viewpoint, and we feel we’re betraying what we believe when we do. It’s hard. The church here in this little town is an interdenominational one. Yes, we come from different backgrounds, and listening to Catholics you’d think we’d have no common ground or find it impossible to have a service. But we can. There is unity. And I can articulate the material principle of Protestantism. It is justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. There is no salvation outside this.

I’ll be off for a while.
Yours &c.

Exactly. Faith ALONE. Yet the bible says faith without works is fruitless.

Also why is unity in Christ not important. How can you find truth without Unity?

You claim unity is not the most important thing, then you claim to have it, How?

Unity in prayer? What if we want to say the Hail Mary?
Unity in confession? Who do we confess to?
Unity in the Eucharist? When one finds him in the Eucharist, the other denys him in the Eucharist?
Unity in teaching? Who is right the preacher or the congregation?

Or even worse there is no truth, no right or wrong?

How can we rid oneself of sin, when many deny sin, Jesus paid for it all. That what every single protestant told me. If you are a Christian you are saved point blank! No questions asked.

How in the world could we all come together in unity? Is there ONE RC in this Church. If so I need his or her answers.

 

[dronald]

First,

I did not know John Chrysostom was the bearer of doctrine.

Protestants love to do this, find quotes from Saints and declare them doctrine. That’s not how it works. Just because he is a saint does not make every word he said infallible unless of course you give him more authority than the Catholic Church.

Second,

The quote is both removed from its context of history and the context of the entirety of church teaching.

Third,

The church only speculates on salvation outside the church. They desire to build bridges with Jews and Muslims who believe in the One true God even though they are extremely mistaken about Him.

Who have you been talking to dronald! These are the worst arguments I’ve seen from you!! Step it up brother!

My arguments make complete sense I think. Lol.

Reason being that burning heretics and eternal damnation for all who do not take the Eucharist were widely taught and believed. My main point is that anyone should be allowed to separate themselves from a Church that teaches (even if you say it didn’t count) false teachings. No one refuted my argument on burning heretics and I decided I would post another example of a commonly held belief that isn’t believed.

Keeping in mind that I do not and will not accept Moral Relativism as it relates to God.

 

[rinnie]

Heart Foam is a great name. It’s so absurd. Hi, I’m Stephen. My logic is in good order.

Even if Catholics contend that the Marian dogmas were always true, they weren’t required beliefs for salvation until relatively recently. That’s the problem. Have the requirements for salvation changed? You’re not engaging with the issue.

Can I make a crucial observation in the interest of clarity and understanding and all that. Note well the different usage of the word “faith”. Catholics tend to mean a laundry list of things, about the Church, about Mary, etc. that one must give intellectual assent of faith to. Forgive me for saying this, but it becomes almost as arbitrary as being required to believe the sky is blue. And if Rome says one must believe that to be saved then so be it because Rome has the power to bind and loose. It comes down to saying “I believe x because Rome says I must”. In formalizing the Marian dogmas it decided that believing them was a required belief - as you know. Until then, it was *not *required. And I’m not wrong about the list of things that must be believed. It is growing. You know it has grown. Someone in the NT didn’t have to believe what you have to believe now. And Mary as mediatrix and co-mediatrix will surely one day be a required belief for salvation according to Rome, and it isn’t now. When Protestants talk about “faith” we mean personal trust in Christ who paid the price of salvation. There are over 200 verses that link faith with salvation. They mean faith in Christ.

And this is easy:

There are many, but I’ll go for papal infallibility. There’s no mention of it for the first 12 centuries. Some have tried to argue for an earlier date. Some say 13th-century Franciscan priest Peter Olivi was the first person to attribute infallibility to the pope. At any rate, it would be very hard find it in the early church and early councils. Rome had some primacy being the center of the empire, but the specific idea that the bishop of Rome is* infallible* when speaking ex cathedra is certainly not there from the start.

Here’s a thought experiment: did the Apostle Paul have to believe in the Assumption of Mary - only made dogma in 1950 - to be saved? If not, why not?

No offense but if you don’t believe your Church is guided by the HS like myself for the RCC, why would I be there.

Now did the Apostle Paul believe what I believe was told to him by the Apostle Thomas. I sure hope so. I mean I know Thomas was a doubter but a Liar I don’t think so.

What do you consider right from the start. If you believe as we do BEFORE the start when Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, then you are correct, it was actually BEFORE the start of the RCC.

And again if we believe an apostle would lie, why believe one thing and not another then?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I can appreciate how it looks for Catholics, yes. And there are a lot of Protestants that I doubt are part of the one, true Church. We tend to talk past each other because things like the Church and unity which are often uppermost in Catholic minds are not necessarily on ours. To some extent the wild claims of disunity in Protestantism aren’t fair. But it’s not easy because we can’t easily stand outside our viewpoint, and we feel we’re betraying what we believe when we do. It’s hard. The church here in this little town is an interdenominational one. Yes, we come from different backgrounds, and listening to Catholics you’d think we’d have no common ground or find it impossible to have a service. But we can. There is unity. And I can articulate the material principle of Protestantism. It is justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. There is no salvation outside this.

I’ll be off for a while.
Yours &c.

This is all fine and dandy from afar. It all sounds great, and when I was Protestant this was how I felt… As long as you went to a good Bible church and had faith in Christ your good. I never thought about authority in church.

My authority was the government and personally the Bible.

Little problem came up though when my wife started having different extreme views based on someone else interpretation. Doctrines on marriage and family came into question. Despite going to many pastors, she chose to believe the cult leader she found and his interpretation of the Bible.

And with both if us appealing to the Bible, everything else was just opinion. The Holy Spirit told her after all that she must hate her family literally to follow Jesus.

So, in Protestantism there is nothing but opinions. Countless opinions. If this situation had arise 1000 years ago it would have been clear that the cult leader was exactly that. Instead he appeared just as any other Protestant pastor.

So forgive me when I want to hear an answer from you on how Matt 18 works in Protestantism.

In my very personal experience it failed miserably because there was no church to go to in Protestantism.

 

[Jon_S_1]

My arguments make complete sense I think. Lol.

Reason being that burning heretics and eternal damnation for all who do not take the Eucharist were widely taught and believed. My main point is that anyone should be allowed to separate themselves from a Church that teaches (even if you say it didn’t count) false teachings. No one refuted my argument on burning heretics and I decided I would post another example of a commonly held belief that isn’t believed.

Keeping in mind that I do not and will not accept Moral Relativism as it relates to God.

Really dronald

ALL who did not take the Eucharist were burned as heretics. REALLY?

 

[dronald]

Really dronald

ALL who did not take the Eucharist were burned as heretics. REALLY?

NOOOOO hahahha

You got my two mixed up. It was okay to burn heretics and all who did not take the Eucharist would burn in hell forever.

Neither of these are beliefs held now, but they were once!

No offense but if you don’t believe your Church is guided by the HS like myself for the RCC, why would I be there.

Now did the Apostle Paul believe what I believe was told to him by the Apostle Thomas. I sure hope so. I mean I know Thomas was a doubter but a Liar I don’t think so.

What do you consider right from the start. If you believe as we do BEFORE the start when Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, then you are correct, it was actually BEFORE the start of the RCC.

And again if we believe an apostle would lie, why believe one thing and not another then?

Protestants don’t believe Catholics have to be Protestant; Protestants believe that it is reasonable to have many members to the same body. That is, if one Church loses it’s way at some point in history at least every other Church can denounce it. If the CC is doing something horrible (which they don’t do anymore! ) then we can separate ourselves from the CC.

Think of how rough it must be for Muslims that there are only two denominations. Both Sunni’s and Shi’ites are blowing each other up. (And others). Now imagine they had many larger denominations that could say, “Sunni’s are not acting as true Muslims.” Or something of that sort.

I don’t believe in heretic burning that the CC practiced and the Pope condoned, nor do I believe in witch burning that Protestants took part in. So if I want to not be apart of a Church that would burn heretics and claim it’s “the will of the Spirit” and yet not be burned as a heretic myself for disagreeing, where do I go?

As I stated though; Pope Francis is a great fella and I’m really happy for the CC as it is now.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Heart Foam is a great name. It’s so absurd. Hi, I’m Stephen. My logic is in good order.

Hi, Steven. Good about your logic, because Catholicism IS logical, so if you are logical, too, it make things easier going forward.

Even if Catholics contend that the Marian dogmas were always true, they weren’t required beliefs for salvation until relatively recently. That’s the problem. Have the requirements for salvation changed? You’re not engaging with the issue.

Maybe it’s because I don’t see one. You seem to think that we have this BIG insurmountable problem because doctrine develops. I know this must be disappointing for you to hear, but really, Stephen, we’ve managed just fine. Would you be happier if Catholics were all anxiously wringing their hands over what they must believe to be saved? Maybe YOU have a problem keeping it straight, but generally speaking, I think we’re doing okay on this side of the fence, than you.

Can I make a crucial observation in the interest of clarity and understanding and all that. Note well the different usage of the word “faith”. Catholics tend to mean a laundry list of things, about the Church, about Mary, etc. that one must give intellectual assent of faith to. Forgive me for saying this, but it becomes almost as arbitrary as being required to believe the sky is blue. And if Rome says one must believe that to be saved then so be it because Rome has the power to bind and loose. It comes down to saying “I believe x because Rome says I must”.

Yes and no. No, because we Catholics can think and reason just as well as you can. Did it ever occur to you that we’re CATHOLIC because we AGREE with what the Church teaches? It may be hard to conceive of this, but some of us examined all the evidence and then CHOSE to become Catholic ON PURPOSE. I didn’t wake up with a hangover and chrism on my forehead after an all-nigher, you know. I studied and decided to become a Catholic.

But yes, because having come to conclusion that Rome IS infallible based upon the logic of the arguments and the scriptural evidence, I don’t have to re-invent the wheel every time some doctrine is proposed. You can sleep very soundly when you know who is driving the bus.

In formalizing the Marian dogmas it decided that believing them was a required belief - as you know. Until then, it was *not *required. And I’m not wrong about the list of things that must be believed. It is growing. You know it has grown. Someone in the NT didn’t have to believe what you have to believe now.

Given the snail’s pace at which this stuff happens, most folks have a loooooong time to assimilate knew ideas. But when I specifically asked my in-laws who were adults in 1950 about the reaction of the laity when the Assumption was announced, they were puzzled. They said, “Well, it was what we believed all our lives, so we were happy, but it wasn’t anything new.” So, I think you are playing a dead hand here. Again, I know you must be disappointed that this does not get more mileage for you.

And Mary as mediatrix and co-mediatrix will surely one day be a required belief for salvation according to Rome, and it isn’t now.

Maybe. But I’m not holding my breath, so that dog don’t hunt, either.

When Protestants talk about “faith” we mean personal trust in Christ who paid the price of salvation. There are over 200 verses that link faith with salvation. They mean faith in Christ.

Amen! Catholics love every one of those 200 verses just as we do all 73 books of the Inspired Word of God.

But here’s the haunting question that you cannot answer, why is neither Paul nor any other NT author ever used the phrase “faith alone” in a single one of those verses to teach what you believe about salvationi. ! In fact, the only time the words “faith” and “alone” are used in proximity is when James says that we are NOT saved by faith alone. Now, THAT is a tradition of men.

Here’s a thought experiment: did the Apostle Paul have to believe in the Assumption of Mary - only made dogma in 1950 - to be saved? If not, why not?

Nope. Paul didn’t have to believe it at all because it had not yet be defined as a divinely revealed doctrine. However, he KNEW it to be true because he had spoken to Peter, James and John when he stopped in to check his doctrine with the Rock.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There are many, but I’ll go for papal infallibility. There’s no mention of it for the first 12 centuries. Some have tried to argue for an earlier date. Some say 13th-century Franciscan priest Peter Olivi was the first person to attribute infallibility to the pope. At any rate, it would be very hard find it in the early church and early councils. Rome had some primacy being the center of the empire, but the specific idea that the bishop of Rome is* infallible* when speaking ex cathedra is certainly not there from the start.

Yes, I read the same Wikipedia article you did.

Brian Tierney argued that the 13th-century Franciscan priest Peter Olivi was the first person to attribute infallibility to the pope.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Now, I’m torn…do I disprove your point by showing you from scripture where the doctrine of papal infallibility is found? Or do I explain to you why it is of NO CONSEQUENCE whether the early Church understood papal infallibility?

I’ll let you choose.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Who says you have to believe every doctrine and dogma of the church for salvation ?

That is not even remotely close to catholic teaching.

To be a member of the Catholic Church you must accept the doctrines and dogmas, but that is very different from salvation.

Oh, sure. Open that can of worms…

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ll be off for a while.

Dang it. I’m just getting started.