Very confused on "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church."

[QuickCat]

That is a good example of the error of private interpretation. Paul is actually addressing “the saints who are in Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus.” (ver.1), so he is speaking to the baptized.

“Two metaphors characterize the mission and function of the Holy Spirit. He is the seal stamped on our souls at Baptism as the mark of ownership; He is the pledge [or promise] (the word denotes an actual portion of a whole), of the blessed life paid in full in Heaven.” A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Ed. Dom Bernard Orchard, Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953, p 1121].

In Eph 1:13,14, Paul said “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance, until the redemption of God’s possession, to the praise of His glory.” Here Paul emphasises that Baptism puts a mark or seal upon the soul as a first installment, a down payment by God towards full salvation as he reiterates in 2 Cor 1:22.

So much has been lost with the loss of the truth that the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:16), but the many coming home do so precisely because they regard that truth as the epitome of fidelity to Christ.

“Here Paul emphasises [sic] that Baptism puts a mark or seal upon the soul…” No where in this Scripture is baptism mentioned. It is not even alluded to. The seven unities of the Body of Christ [Eph. 4:4-6] includes the ONE baptism of the Holy Spirit baptizing believers into the Body of Christ the moment they hear and believe the gospel. It seems to me that religion forms the doctrine first and then tries to find Scripture that they can twist and spiritualize to back up their theory.

 

[Abu]

QuickCat
It seems to me that religion forms the doctrine first and then tries to find Scripture that they can twist and spiritualize to back up their theory.

You couldn’t have expressed your dilemma more concisely, and that of all who deny Christ’s teaching through His Church. It is a classic of putting the cart before the horse. Now you can reflect upon why your religion does just that – it applies so well to you.

Christ gave us His Church with His authority to each His truths. She, within some 10 to 35 years after His redemptive Passion and Crucifixion, gave us the New Testament, and by the fifth century had declared which writings form the inspired Word of God, O.T and N.T.

Now you come along and try to tell Christ’s Church what Her Sacred Scriptures mean!

From the earliest times popes and councils, saints and scholars have encouraged Bible reading; the half-educated and befuddled don’t know this. Until some years after the printing press was invented, Bibles were scarce and expensive because copied by hand - so often there could be only one book in a town but, nearly everyone who could read could read Latin. Catholic monks faithfully copied the texts, and the production and use of translations, corrupted to support false teachings, was condemned.

Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic, produced the first printed Bible, with the Church’s approval, in 1455. Luther was not born until 1483. There were 18 German editions of the whole Bible before the Catholic monk Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517, and there were German, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, and Polish editions before Luther left the Church. The first English edition appeared in 1525. James I in England authorised the “King James” version only in 1604. The Church has declared that the Sacred Scriptures are without error as they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, while individual opinions and interpretations are not without error. Error is incompatible with truth.

Fifteen hundred years, after several heresies, once again some deluded Catholic thought he could change Christ’s Church. It will go on until the end of time. Now you feel you can. Time to face reality in truth.

 

[Janet1983]

“Here Paul emphasises [sic] that Baptism puts a mark or seal upon the soul…” No where in this Scripture is baptism mentioned. It is not even alluded to. The seven unities of the Body of Christ [Eph. 4:4-6] includes the ONE baptism of the Holy Spirit baptizing believers into the Body of Christ the moment they hear and believe the gospel. It seems to me that religion forms the doctrine first and then tries to find Scripture that they can twist and spiritualize to back up their theory.

What do you mean by that?
Baptism itself is mentioned in Scripture…

 

[EDWARDJL]

What do you mean by that?
Baptism itself is mentioned in Scripture…

---

Janet1983,

I believe ABU was referring to the particular scripture where it says we are sealed with the Holy Spirit as a down payment. Baptism is certainly found in other scripture verses, just not that particular one.

 

[Abu]

In Eph 1:13,14, Paul said “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance, until the redemption of God’s possession, to the praise of His glory.” Here Paul emphasises that Baptism puts a mark or seal upon the soul as a first installment, a down payment by God towards full salvation as he reiterates in 2 Cor 1:22.

Paul is actually addressing “the saints who are in Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus.” (Eph 1:1), so he is speaking to the baptized, baptised as taught by Jesus with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The idea of “baptism of the Holy Spirit baptizing believers into the Body of Christ the moment they hear and believe the gospel” is the fetish – the petard on which the poster is hoist – his own interpretation. This mirage excuses him, in his mind, to proclaim his own teaching against Christ.

 

[mardukm]

Dear xBaptist,

I still haven’t gotten to all the articles in this thread, but I’m to the point of frustration, and need to quit for the night.

The Catholic Church claims to have protected the “store of faith” from error from the beginning of Christianity. It has taught at least the *concept *of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” in a *literal sense *since the beginning of the Church. I have exact quotes written down from many Church fathers. I’ve done a ton of reading over the last 3 years, and it seems obvious that for 1900 years, the Church has taught a very different understanding of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” than they do now. It was a very clear, literal, and resounding message until about 50 years ago.

I’m sure that the Jews of Jesus’s day had a hard time accepting Jesus’s radical gospel. When He preached, some believed, and some didn’t. Jesus was ALL ABOUT MERCY, and yet He said that those who heard - but didn’t believe - were condemned because they did not believe. That’s simple to understand. Obviously, nobody can be condemned for not believing what they have never heard (ie: invincible ignorance), but Jesus said that once they’ve heard, they either believe or are condemned.

Today’s ecumenical message seems to be that unbelief is no longer condemned. Now it is categorized as “Invincible Ignorance” which includes any excuse imagineable. “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” and “invincible ignorance” have become such a confused mess that they almost mean nothing at all. I can’t believe that we’re the only family that is confused and frustrated by this.

I understand what the Church is saying today. I just don’t understand how this teaching could have changed so drastically from the Pre-Vatican II teaching. I know I’m supposed to submit to the Magisterium, but I’m having a tough time doing that when today’s Magisterium seems to totally contradict previous Magisteriums and the direct words of the Bible.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not anxious to condemn non-Catholics. My entire family is Baptist. Quite frankly, we are all confused by the seeming radical change in the “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” dogma. This confusion is an obstacle to their conversion. Even my priest says that there was a radical change of this dogma after Vatican II. We didn’t think that was supposed to happen in the Catholic Church, so we’re a bit confused.

Please don’t be confused. The Church has ALWAYS taught the doctrine that “outside the Church there is no salvation.” However, the Church has equally ALWAYS taught the principle of invincible ignorance, ever since Jesus’ day - and even since Old Testament times. When God gave his laws and rules to the Israelites, He always distinguished between sins that were done on purpose, and those that were not done on purpose. Recall also that Jesus taught “those who HEAR and refuse to believe will be condemned.” He did not say non-Christians will be condemned without qualification. The book of Romans states that those who do not know Christ will be judged according to their works, with the possibility of salvation. There are numerous other proofs from Scripture, not to mention the Church Fathers, supporting the principle of invincible ignorance, from St. Clement of Alexandria, to Pope St. Gregory, to St. Thomas Aquinas and beyond.

If you need help on understanding the principle of invincible ignorance, let us know, and we will try to explain.

So the Church from the beginning has NEVER had a strict, exclusivist interpretation of the teaching “outside the Church there is no salvation.” The teaching of the Church has always been consistent.

I would like to comment that even though I accept the principle of the development of doctrine, I feel it is incorrect for the Catholics here to claim that a “development” has occurred with regards to this doctrine. Catholics should be more careful about throwing the word “development” around - that’s just a catchphrase for “innovation” to non-Catholics. What Catholic apologists should be doing is researching the patristic sources for their belief, instead of shuffling everything under the rug of “development.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Janet1983]

In Eph 1:13,14, Paul said “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance, until the redemption of God’s possession, to the praise of His glory.” Here Paul emphasises that Baptism puts a mark or seal upon the soul as a first installment, a down payment by God towards full salvation as he reiterates in 2 Cor 1:22.

This is not about water baptism…
God’s own Spirit comes to dwell in the one who believes and He secures and preserves his eternal salvation. The seal Paul mentions is an official mark of identification as placed on a letter, contract or other document. Those then were officially and directly under the authority of the one person whose stamp was impressed on the seal. Four truths are shown by the seal:

1. *]security (cf. Da 6:17; Mt 27:62-66);
   *]authenticity (cf. 1 Ki 21:6-16);
   *]ownership (cf. Jer 32:10); and
   *]authority (cf. Est 8:8-12).
   The Holy Spirit is given by God as His pledge of the believer’s future inheritance in glory (cf. 2Co 1:21)

 

[Janet1983]

The book of Romans states that those who do not know Christ will be judged according to their works, with the possibility of salvation.

Where exactly does it say that?

 

[Abu]

mardukm
I would like to comment that even though I accept the principle of the development of doctrine, I feel it is incorrect for the Catholics here to claim that a “development” has occurred with regards to this doctrine. Catholics should be more careful about throwing the word “development” around - that’s just a catchphrase for “innovation” to non-Catholics. What Catholic apologists should be doing is researching the patristic sources for their belief, instead of shuffling everything under the rug of “development.”

Very well said.

 

[Abu]

Janet1983
God’s own Spirit comes to dwell in the one who believes and He secures and preserves his eternal salvation. The seal Paul mentions is an official mark of identification as placed on a letter, contract or other document.

To clarify: “Two metaphors characterize the mission and function of the Holy Spirit. He is **the ****seal **stamped on our souls at Baptism as the mark of ownership; He is the pledge or promise] (the word denotes an actual portion of a whole), of the blessed life paid in full in Heaven.” A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Ed. Dom Bernard Orchard, Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953, p 1121, on Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, 1:13-14].

The same Catholic commentary on Ephesians shows that Paul, in addressing the baptized, explains the nature and characteristics of Christ’s Church:

1. She is ONE – one head and one body (Eph 4:3-6)
2. She is HOLY through Christ (Eph 1:13-14, 23; 3:16)
3. She is UNIVERSAL (Catholic) (Eph 2:19; Cf. Col 3:11)
4. She is APOSTOLIC – the Apostles and Prophets are joined to Christ as the foundations on which the temple of the Holy Spirit, which is the Church, is raised up. (Eph 2: 20-22)
5. She is a VISIBLE SOCIETY – St Paul’s theme is the mystical union between Christ and the Faithful in His Church that must teach and rule (Eph 4:11)

 

[Bengoshi]

Harsh is just the start of it. Just in case you did not realize it, you are flirting with damnation. You are using YOUR interpretation of the scriptures which you admit is harsh to damn people to hell. Maybe you should look at Matthew 7:1.2 which says:

“1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” [Mt 7:1,2]

Again, Jesus said:

“21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” [Mt 7:21]

You are very much like the Pharisees against whom Jesus spoke the two parables in Matthew 21:28-45.

The message is clear. You judge others harshly so you will be judged harshly also. A very wise old priest told me something when I was young that has stuck with me ever since. You won’t find this specifically stated in any Church doctrine but the idea is worth thinking about. He said there were two doors to heaven. One door is the door of God’s justice. This is the door that Jesus entered when He ascended to the Father. Jesus and only Jesus is capable of meeting the criteria of God’s justice. The other door is the door of God’s mercy. This is the door that we sinners will enter. For to those who show mercy to others will be shown mercy by God:

“7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.” [Mt 5:7]

I do hope you reconsider your harsh judgement of Jews because invinceable ignorance, by which it is possible that even you may enter heaven, is not limited to non Catholic Christians.

Please read my response again. I said “especially those who actually know about Him.” Are you telling me and all the others in this thread that a person who rejects Jesus as Lord, Christ, and Savior can still be saved? That is not what the Bible in its entirety teaches. God is just. He has already provided the Way for our salvation. However, He will not force His will upon us. Anyone who chooses to reject the Way shall definitely not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

As to Matt. 7:1-2. Did you know that this is the very same verse that are always being used by liberals to justify homosexuality, promiscuity, and all other sins? Put in its proper context, as well as Jesus’ disdain for the pharisees, Jesus was refering to the self-righteousness of the Jews in that they condemn people because of their sinful acts. That is not what I am doing. I am judging a person’s decision, and the consequences of that decision. I only said “if ChosenPeople will continue to reject.” I am not judging him, I am merely describing the consequences of his continuous rejection of Christ, if he indeed persists in it. Remember John 3:16, where Jesus said “that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.”? Now how can a Jew who rejects Jesus as the Messiah “believe” in Him? I am merely a fellow sinner who has humbled himself to God, thereby receiving His forgiveness by faith in Christ as manifested in my good works. I pray that the now living Jews will come to accept that Jesus is the Messiah that they have been waiting for. Only then will they be able to enter eternal life with God.

 

[Bengoshi]

The main reason for your confusion is that you are looking to a denomination for your answers. The Baptists are even more legalistic than the Catholics. They both and other religions too, make up their own rules aside from Scripture. I am not a literalist, but as soon as I see a hint of man made rules a red flag goes up. The Catholics say if you die in a state of mortal sin you cannot go to heaven. Whether our sin is small or big, mortal or venial, we cannot go to heaven unless we have accepted Jesus as our Saviour. We are all sinners and even one little sin is enough to keep us out of heaven because we must be perfect as God is perfect and that is impossible without the Saving Grace of Jesus. So it doesn’t matter if it is mortal or venial it is all sin. What exactly is the church? It is an assembly of people who follow Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. It is not whether you are Catholic, Methodist, Jehovah Witnes, or Amish. People need to start opening their eyes and not be led to the slaughter by the evil one who puts blinders on our eyes. I hope this opens your eyes.

I agree with you, however, Jehovah’s Witnesses is a cult which believes in a different Jesus Christ that Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and Evangelicals believe in. They believe that Christ is the incarnate Archangel Michael. To be saved, we must believe in the correct Jesus Christ.

 

[Bengoshi]

Jesus commanded us to do good works. That is what the moral commandments are,and they lead to salvation,as scripture says. When Jesus was questioned by a scribe as to what is necessary for eternal life,Jesus referred him to the commandments.

“keep the commandments”. Jesus is not teaching that good works can earn eternal life, for in vv. 21–22 he will show the man how far short he falls of keeping the first commandment (cf. Ex. 20:3) and the first of the two greatest commandments (cf. Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:36–40). But obedience to the law is also an expression of belief in the truly good God who is the source of all good, including eternal life. Scripture elsewhere clearly affirms that salvation is a gift of God’s grace received through faith, and not by works (see Eph. 2:8; 2:9–10).

 

[Bengoshi]

Bengoshi;6486696:

Ex Cathedra means from the chair. It is only one of the requirements for a statement to be infallible. You prots really like to muck things up. Why not look up Catholic doctrine from a Catholic source

instead of those liars you call ministers who have their own butts to cover?

Uhmm… we did get it from Catholic sources. I have Catholic textbooks used in Catholic seminaries, including the CCC, among others. Anyway, wouldn’t it be so convenient to deny the so-called “infallibility” of a papal document when it seems to contradict others or cause confusion in the Church? So there really is no sure way of determining whether or not a papal document, even though it bears the mark “ex cathedra”, is infallible according to the Magisterium of the RCC.

 

[Abu]

Bengoshi
So there really is no sure way of determining whether or not a papal document, even though it bears the mark “ex cathedra”, is infallible according to the Magisterium of the RCC

A papal encyclical etc. doesn’t “bear a mark”.
When does the Pope teach infallibly is the question. As you know for infallibility to be exercised, the Pope must teach (post #211)
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

That HAS been clearly defined in the dogma on papal infallibility of Vatican I (post #183).

And, yes, dissenters have caused confusion, among some, since the time of Christ. They always do.

 

[Bengoshi]

I did not respond to this post because I feel it to be bone-chilling, especially as I even asked about non-Christian children being sent to death and their fates in the afterlife in the sola-scriptura evangelical view. I guess Bengoshi’s response speaks for itself. I’ll leave it at that. Jesus most certainly did not die to send innocent people to Hell.

First of all, I think we have to make something really clear. Nobody, not one person, is innocent, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). No one is righteous, not even one. Because of Adam’s sin, all of creation was affected. We now have original sin. David says in Psalm 51:5 – “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Take note, people are condemned not because they did not hear about Christ, but because of their sin. If there is a person who could obey ALL the commandments of God perfectly, then that person shall definitely be saved, even without Jesus dying on the cross! So we are in no position to say that God is unjust in sending us all to Hell if He wanted to for we all have sinned.

This is where the Good News (Gospel) comes in! God gave us the Way to be saved! It is in the person of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:23; 10:9-10; John 3:16; Eph. 2:8-9). Now, did I say that those infants or those who are invincibly ignorant who died without knowing Christ will go to Hell? Not necessarily! There are examples in Scripture, such as David and Bathsheba’s child, of infants who went to Heaven without knowing anything at all. What I said is that if people, such as ChosenPeople, will continue to reject that Jesus is the Christ prophesied by the Tanach (OT), and do not accept him as their Lord and Savior, then, definitely, they shall suffer eternal fire.

So let me ask you a question: Assuming that Jews and Muslims have heard the Gospel from an orthodox (true, real) Christian, and still they reject Jesus’ divinity, messiahship, and lordship, would they still be able to enter heaven?

 

[Bengoshi]

Yes, the iron fisted salvation of the new age evangelical fundamentalists would throw untold billions of souls into the damnation of hell. And these are the same people who rail against those who say there is no salvation outside the Church or that everyone is subject to the pope. They have to be mentally blind not to see their hypocrisy.

First of all, I think we have to make something really clear. Nobody, not one person, is innocent, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). No one is righteous, not even one. Because of Adam’s sin, all of creation was affected. We now have original sin. David says in Psalm 51:5 – “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Take note, people are condemned not because they did not hear about Christ, but because of their sin. If there is a person who could obey ALL the commandments of God perfectly, then that person shall definitely be saved, even without Jesus dying on the cross! So we are in no position to say that God is unjust in sending us all to Hell if He wanted to for we all have sinned.

This is where the Good News (Gospel) comes in! God gave us the Way to be saved! It is in the person of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:23; 10:9-10; John 3:16; Eph. 2:8-9). Now, did I say that those infants or those who are invincibly ignorant who died without knowing Christ will go to Hell? Not necessarily! There are examples in Scripture, such as David and Bathsheba’s child, of infants who went to Heaven without knowing anything at all. What I said is that if people, such as ChosenPeople, will continue to reject that Jesus is the Christ prophesied by the Tanach (OT), and do not accept him as their Lord and Savior, then, definitely, they shall suffer eternal fire.

So let me ask you a question: Assuming that Jews and Muslims have heard the Gospel from an orthodox (true, real) Christian, and still they reject Jesus’ divinity, messiahship, and lordship, would they still be able to enter heaven?

 

[Bengoshi]

I would once again ask if it would be possible to quote for me the various places in the Torah and Prophets in the Tanach where it says or implies the concept of faith in Messiah ben David for personal salvation or any redemptive value, such as the parts where it says the Messiah ben David is coming to “die for our sins”, or to “save” us or to do any of the things which Christians attribute to Jesus. The Torah and Prophets repeat every single theological concept repeatedly for clarity and emphasis.

The fact that the Messiah was prophesied by the Old Testament (Tanach) is a sign that we should believe everything He says. A sample prophecy is the one from the prophet Isaiah:

Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

[Bengoshi]

please correct me if i’m off a bit. very simple: when we say about “no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” it doesn’t mean they are going directly to Hell. No! that is why Purgatory (in Greek means a deep place) is in place and taught by the Catholic Church. it is also found in Maccabbees 1 and 2. So for example or for instance, as people around the world who have many religions they haven’t heard about Jesus and his Church are directly going to heaven, nor as Catholics if they are ignoring the teaching of the C.C. remember Jesus is the Authority of the Catholic Church and all it’s teaching by externally showing his ministry to his disciples. i hope i’m making sense here. my grammar sort of off sometimes. but i also want to clearify the arguments that is made by protestants and atheists that if from begining or now other religions have no salvation then Christianity is bias. No! in fact others are being bias. it doesn’t mean they going to be condemit right away. in the bible in O.T. prophets before Jesus, they were not exactly in heaven but in a resting place and that is what we call purgatory, a place to purify souls and we have to pray for those who are not saved or not fully accepted. lastly, when Jesus died for us, it says in the bible he descended into hell (read original languages bible, in english it is not original), a place said to be releasing souls by defeating satan.

i hope this helps. by the way i am Assyrian Chaldean Syrian Catholic from the Middle East. i understand the struggle here in America not understanding these issues. i speak Assyrian Aramaic. God bless you and welcome to the One Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church.

Where in the Bible did it say that Jesus “descended in to Hell”? It is from the faulty translation of the Apostles Creed that we see this. The Church has corrected its translation into “He descended into the dead” not hell. There is a difference between Sheol and Tartaro (Heb.) and between Hades and Gehenna (Greek).

 

[mardukm]

Where exactly does it say that?

Romans 2:12 - 16.

Blessings