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

[Exalt]

Thank you very much for your replies…!

I think I am having this trouble because of the forceful language that is used to define and defend this dogma in the pre-Vatican II Church. It doesn’t seem that the current teaching of the Church is a “development” of the dogma, but rather a renunciation of it. As in the words of my priest: “They don’t believe that anymore.” Seems my priest believes that the dogma is actually reversed, and he’s fine with that.

Here’s an example of the “forceful” pre-VII language that I’m talking about. (Also, the following even seems to veto the idea of further developments of dogma, as I understand it.) Anyway, here’s the quote:

*Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: *“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding. The only meaning of the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation is that which holy Mother Church has once declared in Her definitions. That meaning is that all who die without the Catholic Faith or outside the Church or in a non-Catholic religion cannot be saved.”

I showed my priest this quote (and several other quotes as well), but his response is that I have to trust the Church’s interpretation of these dogmas and not my own. I’m really struggling with putting my faith into something that doesn’t make any sense to me… that in fact seems to contradict itself. This is why I left the Baptists - because it didn’t make sense to me.

Sorry - I’m not trying to be difficult - it just comes naturally…

What I don’t understand is how someone can continue to see and understand the differences and continue to believe that the Church did not change it’s mind. It’s obvious. It’s as plain as day. It’s a simple recognition of the facts.

I don’t understand why you don’t accept that there is a contradiction and then make a choice about how you’re going to handle that. Denying the contradiction seems like the worst thing you could do.

If the Church has really changed it’s mind on this - and the evidence clearly demonstrates that it has - then what does that mean? Institutions and people make mistakes all the time. The human species as a whole has progressed and changed over the course of civilization. So has Catholicism. Is it really that big of a stretch to acknowledge that it has changed - sometimes in very substantial ways like this - and accept that as reality?

 

[Abu]

Exalt
If the Church has really changed it’s mind on this - and the evidence clearly demonstrates that it has - then what does that mean? Institutions and people make mistakes all the time. The human species as a whole has progressed and changed over the course of civilization. So has Catholicism. Is it really that big of a stretch to acknowledge that it has changed - sometimes in very substantial ways like this - and accept that as reality?

As a secular humanist, you seem frightfully unaware of the history and meaning of this teaching and have avoided the facts on this thread.

Post #49: “Christ’s Church knew from the beginning that non-Catholics could be saved:
Pope St Clement knew that non-Catholics could be saved from the beginning, for he wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].”

“Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus (literally, “outside the Church, there is no salvation”). Some people have wished to understand this saying in the most literal sense: that is, that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. The Church has condemned such an interpretation (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).”
[My emphasis].

 

[Beth_Martin]

Wasn’t St. Augustine one of the prominent proponents of predestination? Or are you disowning him now?

Jesus and most the writers of the Bible taught it - who cares what anyone else thinks unless they are wiser than God.
"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. ----- Jesus predestined to die at the hands of the Romans and the Jews

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; ----Isn’t sanctification becoming more and more conformed to HIs Son? ---- Appears all those were predestined.

and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. --Looks like the Lord of Glory takes those predestined from birth to glorification before they were even in their mothers womb.

***He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, *** – gosh I wonder if Paul is speaking about himself or all the redeemed?

also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, -------- predestined must be heresy and Paul a heretic of the worst sort.

***Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. ***–Is Peter also a heretic of the worst sort?

But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR {God’s} OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; ------ Here Peter is at it again.

After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen {and} establish you. ------- Peter just won’t give it up.

"Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. -Meet Matthew the heretic

***"Unless the Lord had shortened {those} days, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom He chose, He shortened the days. *** --Meet Mark the heretic

now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? Meet Luke the heretic

What about Jesus; is He also a heretic?
Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and {yet} one of you is a devil?”

"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and {that} your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.

Also in John 17; all the Father gave Him were given in the past tense; I wonder how He knew that?

Speaking the truth is in no way uncharitable, but calling the writers hereitics is uncharitable because as one can plainly see by few examples of many more that “election” is not an invention of man but a fact taught by God. Anyone one can call me what they want; it doesn’t bother me, but it does bother me when the word of God is attacked as heresy just because someones opinion differs from what is taught.

Bengoshi; I am in no way referring to you, just jumping off your post because you brought in a stepping stone; it is the “Sir Knight” that called what was taught in the Word of God as heresy because he does not agree with what the writers have said, then has the gall to say I am uncharitable when I speak the truth. He even attacks my “God bless”, which is also very charitable of him.

May God bless all of you and a special blessing for Sir Knight!!

Beth

 

[Bengoshi]

Jesus and most the writers of the Bible taught it - who cares what anyone else thinks unless they are wiser than God.
"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. ----- Jesus predestined to die at the hands of the Romans and the Jews

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; ----Isn’t sanctification becoming more and more conformed to HIs Son? ---- Appears all those were predestined.

and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. --Looks like the Lord of Glory takes those predestined from birth to glorification before they were even in their mothers womb.

***He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, *** – gosh I wonder if Paul is speaking about himself or all the redeemed?

also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, -------- predestined must be heresy and Paul a heretic of the worst sort.

***Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. ***–Is Peter also a heretic of the worst sort?

But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR {God’s} OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; ------ Here Peter is at it again.

After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen {and} establish you. ------- Peter just won’t give it up.

"Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. -Meet Matthew the heretic

***"Unless the Lord had shortened {those} days, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom He chose, He shortened the days. *** --Meet Mark the heretic

now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? Meet Luke the heretic

What about Jesus; is He also a heretic?
Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and {yet} one of you is a devil?”

"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and {that} your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.

Also in John 17; all the Father gave Him were given in the past tense; I wonder how He knew that?

Speaking the truth is in no way uncharitable, but calling the writers hereitics is uncharitable because as one can plainly see by few examples of many more that “election” is not an invention of man but a fact taught by God. Anyone one can call me what they want; it doesn’t bother me, but it does bother me when the word of God is attacked as heresy just because someones opinion differs from what is taught.

Bengoshi; I am in no way referring to you, just jumping off your post because you brought in a stepping stone; it is the “Sir Knight” that called what was taught in the Word of God as heresy because he does not agree with what the writers have said, then has the gall to say I am uncharitable when I speak the truth. He even attacks my “God bless”, which is also very charitable of him.

May God bless all of you and a special blessing for Sir Knight!!

Beth

Very good post! Godbless you too!

I mentioned St. Augustine because Catholics consider him as one of the greatest theologians of the Church. Moreover, it was from his writings and influence that Martin Luther (an Augustinian monk) and John Calvin got their doctrines on predestination. The Bible supports it, the early Church fathers and doctors support it.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Very good post! Godbless you too!

I mentioned St. Augustine because Catholics consider him as one of the greatest theologians of the Church. Moreover, it was from his writings and influence that Martin Luther (an Augustinian monk) and John Calvin got their doctrines on predestination. The Bible supports it, the early Church fathers and doctors support it.

Trying to interpret any intention of an early church father apart from Scripture is difficult at best without speaking directly to the person, which is impossible. Their idea of church was much different during the first few generations (20 plus years per generation); then after that there was so many divisions & false teachings penetrating even deeper, that picking and choosing gets even more difficult; this is why we must look at Scripture as a test to authenticity of any statement, which must be put into its context.

We can see after Constantine a significant change and a mixing of Christianity and paganism really manifesting itself. Even before that the chruch of Jesus was being infiltrated with false teaching, which is one reason why the NT writers have to running themes “warnings” and “exhaultation”. AKA" Remember what you were taught and live it out and watchout for those who want to pervert the truth and lead others astray. Then you have the issue of revisionist history; we need only look at our own country to see have it takes less than 300 years and we have so many writing from them, but the picture painted of the early founders is much different than who they were. The revisionist are always the dominant ones that use it to promote their own agendas, which is usually about control, power and money.

 

[tomch]

It’s OK, brother. I understand the difficulty you are going through!

My first word of advice is that you not seek to learn the Catholic faith from the Dimond brothers. I struck through Peter Dimond’s comment above.

Secondly, I encourage you to continue searching for that unity of meaning that exists in the dogma of there being no salvation outside the Church, both before and after Vatican II. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith confirmed in 1973 that Vatican I

“condemned the opinion that ‘dogmas once proposed by the Church must, with the progress of science be given a meaning other than that which was understood by the Church, or which she understands.’ There is no doubt that, according to these texts of the Council, the meaning of dogmas which is declared by the Church is determinate and unalterable.

“Such an opinion is likewise in contrast with Pope John’s assertion regarding Christian doctrine at the opening of the Second Vatican Council: ‘This certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which faithful obedience is due, has to be explored and presented in a way that is demanded by our times. One thing is the deposit of faith, which consists of the truths contained in sacred doctrine, another thing is the manner of presentation, always however with the same meaning and signification’ ” (Mysterium Ecclesiae).

From the same document: “[T]he objects of Catholic faith – which are called dogmas – necessarily are and always have been the unalterable norm both for faith and theological science.”

So be encouraged, my brother!

In Christ,
Pete

Thank you VERY much for such a helpful post. I appreciate it immensely!

 

[Saved_Lady]

To say “I WAS saved”…when was this and what are you doing now? Your belief in the Bible is totally self directed. Why bother reading the Bible if you have already been saved?

Excuse me, I AM SAVED! And now I serve God in any way that He wants me to. Before I was saved, God was not my priority and now that I am saved He is my priority. Again, Romans 10:13 Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord Shall be saved. Why do you want to criticise me and my belief in the Bible? God has put in my heart the desire to serve Him and I am serving God in the way that I believe in my heart, according to my Bible, is the way God wants me to. I am not a bad person. Just a sinner, saved by Grace bound for the Promised Land.
God Bless you and you have a nice day!

 

[inkaneer]

Excuse me, I AM SAVED! And now I serve God in any way that He wants me to. Before I was saved, God was not my priority and now that I am saved He is my priority. Again, Romans 10:13 Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord Shall be saved. Why do you want to criticise me and my belief in the Bible? God has put in my heart the desire to serve Him and I am serving God in the way that I believe in my heart, according to my Bible, is the way God wants me to. I am not a bad person. Just a sinner, saved by Grace bound for the Promised Land.
God Bless you and you have a nice day!

This is what I like. Protestants throw scripture verses as if they were hand grenades. You lob over Romans 10:13 someone else counters with John 6:54. Missing in all this is the fact that not only is scripture to be taken in its entirety but it must also take into account translation problems. A good example is President Jimmy Carter going to Poland and saying that He loves the Polish people. However in translating it into the Polish language it came out that He lusts for the Polosh people. The Polish got a laugh on that one. But this is why there are different translations of scripture from essentially the same texts. Everyone will use the text that favors their interpretation.

So does calling on the name of the Lord save you? How about Mt 25:31-46 where Jesus tells the people about judgement? There is not a word about calling on the name of the Lord there. Instead it is all about works of mercy. Indeed Scripture does state rather emphatically that we will be judged by our works. See Rev 20:12 and 20:13.

Some protestants like to say “I am saved” as if it is past tense. This is the OSAS heresy. But Paul certainly didn’t think he was already saved despite his encounter with Christ on the road. Instead Paul in 1 Cor 9 says that even he may be disqualified.

 

[Pete_Holter]

If Baptism by water saves one person in the NT then God changes because He did not save people in that way in the OT and does He saves both the same way & He does NOT change…by His grace in faith in Jesus.

Saved Lady knows exactly what Romans 11 says and she stated it correctly.

"is best understood as a baptismal confession" - what in the world is this doctrine?
It is always best to allow Scripture to speak for itself; so going back to Acts 9 we have Anaias laying hands on Paul, receiving the HS, getting up and as a fist act of obedience, getting water baptized. At what point was Paul acually saved? Upon receivng the Holy Spirit or the water? You decide.

Hi Beth!

I think we will save discussion about the Immutable God interacting with His mutable creation for another day.

I also think that once you come to appreciate the role of baptism in the economy of salvation, you’ll see baptism being pictured by Paul’s language even when the word “baptism” is not mentioned.

We believe that Paul was saved when he was baptized and received the Holy Spirit, having been “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5).

In Acts 9 we have:

Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus Who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized… (vv. 17-18)

In Acts 22 we have:

Ananias… came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know His will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from His mouth; for you will be a witness for Him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His Name.’ (vv. 12-16)

What happens when we put these two passages together is that we see that Ananias laid hands on Paul, Paul received his physical sight back, and he “saw him.” But even after Paul had hands laid on him and he had regained his sight, his sins were not forgiven (see the account of chapter 22), and hence he had not yet received the Holy Spirit unto salvation. Therefore, when Ananias says that he was sent to Paul so that he may regain his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit, we believe that the laying on of hands, in this case, was for a physical healing (cf. Acts 9:12), and that his baptism following after this coincided with his reception of the Holy Spirit, bringing the forgiveness of sins.

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

If everything that the Roman Catholic Church taught were true…

 

[Pete_Holter]

Here is what Peter had to say concerning the order of things…

This is the consistent pattern within the entire NT; Acts 2:38, when put into the gramatical format renders the same sequence without changing the context of the passage.

It sounds like you are saying that the order of Peter’s words in Acts 2:38 mirrors the order of the words in Acts 10? Actually, I’m not really sure what you are saying. But the order of events expected by Peter in 2:38 is for the people to repent and be baptized first, so that upon this happening they would receive the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins; but the opposite of this expectation happened in Acts 10. This is one reason why we understand the episode in Acts 10 to be exceptional.

In Chapter 11 of Acts in Codex Bezae, Peter’s rhetorical question to the circumcision party indicates that he thinks that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is given in baptism: “If then [God] gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God that I should not give them the Holy Spirit when they believed on Him?” (v. 17) Augustine’s text of Acts had a similar reading:

And when Peter afterwards was giving an account to the brethren that were at Jerusalem of this act of his, that he had baptized those who were not circumcised, because the Holy Spirit, to cut the knot of the question, had come upon them before they were baptized, and the brethren at Jerusalem were moved when they heard it, he says, after the rest of his words, “And when I began to speak to them, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us in the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, that John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, He gave a like gift to them, as also to us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could hinder God from giving to them the Holy Spirit?” (, Bk. 15On the Trinity).

In these versions, Peter sees baptism as the means of giving the Holy Spirit in a way different from the preceding falling of the Spirit upon them. Had he withheld baptism, he would have been withholding the Holy Spirit and “withstanding” or “hindering” God. If the meaning laid bare by these elaborations is the true meaning implicit in the shorter reading of 11:17, then the falling of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles that happened prior to their baptism, and which caused them to speak in tongues and praise God (cf. Acts 10:46), was a work of the Spirit apart from the regenerating effect of His indwelling presence. The initial falling of the Spirit on the Gentiles, if taken in this sense, would be akin to the Spirit of God coming upon certain Old Testament figures (cf. Judges 15:14, 1 Sam 19:23; 2 Chron 20:14, etc.). Therefore, Peter, upon seeing this Gentile-affirming work of the Spirit, baptized them so that they could receive the indwelling Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, and become children of God.

The other solution is to say that God baptized in this instance apart from human agency because the Church was unclear as to her mission. So that once this initial outpouring occurred, and it was known that God was sending Christians to both Jews and Gentiles, then the normative means of baptism would be employed. This transition from the extraordinary, unmediated form to the ordinary, sacramental form would then be signified by Peter completing the rite of baptism even though the grace of baptism had already been received. Following this understanding, Peter’s meaning when he says, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” is that the people should be baptized using water because they miraculously received the grace of baptism in anticipation of a baptism that would not have been offered had it not been anticipated.

Since i know little about Catholicism; I am going out on a limb and say that Catholic doctrine teaches that water Baptism removes sin? Correct me if that is not correct; I have already learned some surprising things already.

May God bless you!!

Beth

We believe that the Holy Spirit commingles Himself with the waters of baptism in accordance with the word of blessing, “I baptize you…”, and that He washes away our sin in accordance with the symbolic washing effect of the physical water used. When Jesus commanded His apostles to baptize, He was commanding them to baptize with water using the Trinitarian formula. When we invoke God’s Name and apply water to the body, then Jesus, being faithful to His word of promise, baptizes us inwardly at the same time with “rivers of living water” (John 7:38), His sanctifying Spirit; we believe that this is how we are “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5), which is “one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). We apply the water and Jesus applies His Spirit, and this is how we understand Jesus to be the one who baptizes “with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 3:16). And this is why we say, Come to the water!

Thank you for your blessing, Beth. In terms of your general hermeneutic, I think that it is a safer progression to start with the explanatory teaching of the apostles, and move from there to understand the individual episodes in light of that. It seems like you might be taking an opposite approach, which will be a very difficult path to safely navigate.

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[inkaneer]

Very good post! Godbless you too!

I mentioned St. Augustine because Catholics consider him as one of the greatest theologians of the Church. Moreover, it was from his writings and influence that Martin Luther (an Augustinian monk) and John Calvin got their doctrines on predestination. The Bible supports it, the early Church fathers and doctors support it.

That is an overstatement if there ever was one. The predestination of Calvin is totally different than the Biblical concept. The difference was that in Calvin’s predestination God more or less arbitrarily decided who went to heaven and who went to hell. In the biblical concept, God, because He created time and therefore exists outside of time as well as being an all knowing God, knows before hand [in time] who will go to heaven or hell. So what we consider the past, present and future is all the present for God. Or to put it abnother way, God has present knowledge of our past, present and future. The difference between the two is that Calvin’s predestination robs man of his free will whereas in the biblical predestination man is still free to choose. If Augustine were alive today and someone told him that he and Calvin were in agreement on predestination I do believe that Augustine would take offense as he did with the Pelagians and Donatists.

 

[Sherry_G]

Excuse me, I AM SAVED! And now I serve God in any way that He wants me to. Before I was saved, God was not my priority and now that I am saved He is my priority. Again, Romans 10:13 Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord Shall be saved. Why do you want to criticise me and my belief in the Bible? God has put in my heart the desire to serve Him and I am serving God in the way that I believe in my heart, according to my Bible, is the way God wants me to. I am not a bad person. Just a sinner, saved by Grace bound for the Promised Land.
God Bless you and you have a nice day!

Let me put this in another way:
What and when and where did the “save” take place. I am trying to understand what you mean by this comment. You have brought it up numerous times yourself. I would like to know exactly what is meant by this? The so called criticism is a legitimate question or should I say TWO questions. No one is questioning your integrity here. Does “save” mean that no more work needs to be done? Can you become UN-saved? Ditto on the God Bless and have a nice day.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I believe all of this from the Bible, but It still does not say that Baptism saves you. Again Romans 10:13 says, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved. period.
If Baptism saves you, why was it posted that not one non-catholic will go to Heaven?
I was saved, and then baptised so why will I not go to Heaven? I am not Catholic. I am going to Heaven because I believe what the Bible says.
Your Sister in Christ,
Susan

Hi Susan!

The Bible says that baptism saves us: “Baptism… now saves you… through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 3:21). Baptism is the sacrament of faith. When we talk about initial salvation, we do not see it as being faith over here and baptism over there. We see it as the two uniting as one to receive the grace of God to become His children. It is at baptism where our Father says, “today I have begotten you” (Luke 3:22). This is where we “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt 3:15).

In Acts 16, Paul tells the jailor to “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (vs. 31). In response to this, Luke tells us that “he was baptized at once” (vs. 33). And in summary of what had happened, Luke comes back around to tell us that “he had believed in God” (vs. 34). What we see happening here is the sacrament of baptism being freely interchanged with believing in the Lord Jesus. This is why believing in Jesus is not mentioned in Acts 2:38 and in the great commission of Matthew 28:19. Baptism is being used in such places to sacramentally represent faith and to lead us to understand that faith is received and made effectual in baptism. This is why baptism is not mentioned in Romans 10 and Ephesians 2. To mention faith alone suffices, understanding the relationship between the two. Augustine wrote that “As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith” (Letter 98).

This is why Vatican II can say that “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church” (Unitatis Redintegratio). When the Catholic Church refers to being “justified by faith in baptism,” it is talking about the fact that baptism bestows upon us the Catholic faith. This is the meaning of Trent when it says that faith is infused in us in baptism. This is what Pope Clement VI meant when he spoke of those “who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith” (, 570aEnchiridion Symbolorum).

If your baptism was valid, then we believe that you were saved at that point and that you received the Catholic faith. Until you become a heretic, schismatic, or are excommunicated, we believe that you are Catholic, and we hope that you will remain Catholic until you die. We hope that you will follow the grace of God leading you to fellowship and worship with us!

But we also believe that Christians can lose their salvation by committing a mortal sin. However, only the mortal sins of heresy, schism, and apostasy place us outside the Church. All other mortal sins cause us to lose our salvation, it is true; but in these cases, we are still considered to be “in the Church.”

I may not have time to reply to you and Beth any more if either of you respond. I’d like to find the time to first reply to XBaptist’s concerns. And posting on here can be time consuming! I have a family to love! But I wish you both the mercy of God in your lives! You can also email me if you have any questions that you’d really like answered (as best as I can by the grace of God) at pholter@amrl.net.

As with everything I post, “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[pismopal]

I believe all of this from the Bible, but It still does not say that Baptism saves you. Again Romans 10:13 says, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved. period.
If Baptism saves you, why was it posted that not one non-catholic will go to Heaven?
I was saved, and then baptised so why will I not go to Heaven? I am not Catholic. I am going to Heaven because I believe what the Bible says.
Your Sister in Christ,
Susan

I am wondering about all those Christians who died before there was a Bible available to read…out of luck were they?

 

[pismopal]

I believe all of this from the Bible, but It still does not say that Baptism saves you. Again Romans 10:13 says, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved. period.
If Baptism saves you, why was it posted that not one non-catholic will go to Heaven?
I was saved, and then baptised so why will I not go to Heaven? I am not Catholic. I am going to Heaven because I believe what the Bible says.
Your Sister in Christ,
Susan

Mathew 7:21 Not everyone who saith " Lord…Lord shall enter into heaven.

I am not trying to play Bible ping pong…I am just trying to underscore how dangerous it is to do so…uh period.

 

[Tomb54]

I would like to make one comment with all this talk about Bibles. You only need to explore when and where the bible came into being to see who the Holy Spirit was guiding in the early life of the Church. It is documented who the church was. Please just investigate this and you will start to find the whole truth.

 

[Bengoshi]

The difference was that in Calvin’s predestination God more or less arbitrarily decided who went to heaven and who went to hell. In the biblical concept, God, because He created time and therefore exists outside of time as well as being an all knowing God, knows before hand [in time] who will go to heaven or hell. So what we consider the past, present and future is all the present for God. Or to put it another way, God has present knowledge of our past, present and future. The difference between the two is that Calvin’s predestination robs man of his free will whereas in the biblical predestination man is still free to choose.

Foreknowledge of Persons, Not Facts: But this verse can hardly be used to demonstrate that God based his predestination on foreknowledge of the fact that a person would believe. The passage speaks rather of the fact that God knew persons (”those whom he foreknew”), not that he knew some fact about them such as the fact that they would believe. It is a personal, relational knowledge that is spoken of here:God, looking into the future, thought of certain people in saving relationship to him, and in that sense he “knew them” long ago. This is the sense in which Paul can talk about God’s “knowing” someone, for example, in 1 Corinthians 8:3: “But if one loves God, one is known by him.” Similarly, he says, “but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God…” (Gal. 4:9). When people know God in Scripture, or when God knows them, it is personal knowledge that involves a saving relationship. Therefore in Romans 8:29, “those whom he foreknew” is best understood to mean, “those whom he long ago thought of in a saving relationship to himself.” The text actually says nothing about God foreknowing or foreseeing that certain people would believe, nor is that idea mentioned in any other text of Scripture. Sometimes people say that God elected groups of people, but not individuals to salvation. In some Arminian views, God just elected the church as a group, while the Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) said that God elected Christ, and all people in Christ. But Romans 8:29 talks about certain people whom God foreknew (”those whom he foreknew”), not just undefined or unfilled groups. And in Ephesians Paul talks about certain people whom God chose, including himself: “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). To talk about God choosing a group with no people in it is not biblical election at all. But to talk about God choosing a group of people means that he chose specific individuals who constituted that group.
b. Scripture Never Speaks of Our Faith As the Reason God Chose Us: In addition, when we look beyond these specific passages that speak of foreknowledge and look at verses that talk about the reason God chose us, we find that Scripture never speaks of our faith or the fact that we would come to believe in Christ as the reason God chose us. In fact, Paul seems explicitly to exclude the consideration of what people would do in life from his understanding of God’s choice of Jacob rather than Esau: he says, “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue not because of works but because of his call, she was told, “The elder will serve the younger.’ As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”’ (Rom. 9:11–13). Nothing that Jacob or Esau would do in life influenced God’s decision; it was simply in order that his purpose of election might continue. When discussing the Jewish people who have come to faith in Christ, Paul says, “So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works” (Rom. 11:5–6). Here again Paul emphasizes God’s grace and the complete absence of human merit in the process of election. Someone might object that faith is not viewed as a “work” in Scripture and therefore faith should be excluded from the quotation above (“It is no longer on the basis of works”). Based on this objection, Paul could actually mean, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, but rather on the basis of whether someone would believe.” However, this is unlikely in this context: Paul is not contrasting human faith and human works; he is contrasting God’s sovereign choosing of people with any human activity, and he points to God’s sovereign will as the ultimate basis for God’s choice of the Jews who have come to Christ. Similarly, when Paul talks about election in Ephesians, there is no mention of any foreknowledge of the fact that we would believe, or any idea that there was anything worthy or meritorious in us (such as a tendency to believe) that was the basis for God’s choosing us. Rather, Paul says, “He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:5–6). Now if God’s grace is to be praised for election, and not human ability to believe or decision to believe, then once again it is consistent for Paul to mention nothing of human faith but only to mention God’s predestining activity, his purpose and will, and his freely given grace. Again in 2 Timothy, Paul says that God “saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago” (2 Tim. 1:9). Once again God’s sovereign purpose is seen as the ultimate reason for our salvation, and Paul connects this with the fact that God gave us grace in Christ Jesus ages ago—another way of speaking of the truth that God freely gave favor to us when he chose us without reference to any foreseen merit or worthiness on our part.

 

[Bengoshi]

I may not have time to reply to you and Beth any more if either of you respond. I’d like to find the time to first reply to XBaptist’s concerns. And posting on here can be time consuming! I have a family to love! But I wish you both the mercy of God in your lives! You can also email me if you have any questions that you’d really like answered (as best as I can by the grace of God) at pholter@amrl.net.

LOL! Yeah, these forums can be quite addictive!

 

[Beth_Martin]

This is what I like. Protestants throw scripture verses as if they were hand grenades. You lob over Romans 10:13 someone else counters with John 6:54. Missing in all this is the fact that not only is scripture to be taken in its entirety but it must also take into account translation problems. A good example is President Jimmy Carter going to Poland and saying that He loves the Polish people. However in translating it into the Polish language it came out that He lusts for the Polosh people. The Polish got a laugh on that one. But this is why there are different translations of scripture from essentially the same texts. Everyone will use the text that favors their interpretation.

So does calling on the name of the Lord save you? How about Mt 25:31-46 where Jesus tells the people about judgement? There is not a word about calling on the name of the Lord there. Instead it is all about works of mercy. Indeed Scripture does state rather emphatically that we will be judged by our works. See Rev 20:12 and 20:13.

Some protestants like to say “I am saved” as if it is past tense. This is the OSAS heresy. But Paul certainly didn’t think he was already saved despite his encounter with Christ on the road. Instead Paul in 1 Cor 9 says that even he may be disqualified.

You gave a great example in John 6:54 and how one takes and lobs without looking at the entire context because verse 63; Jesus Himself gives the disciples the explanation as to what He meant. The people that took it as literal all walked away in unbelief; the ones that took the “spirit and truth” are the ones who stayed. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

In the cultural context eating could be used as a dysphemism; which is the case here. To eat something as opposed to just tasting something or to dive into head first verses getting your toes wet. Jesus is saying you must not only listen and believe my words, but live by them as well. Remember that Jesus speaking to the Samaritan woman said the the Father seeks those to worship Him in “spirit and Truth”. What did Peter say?

Jesus said to the twelve, ***“You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” *** -------- Why didn’t Peter say "you have the flesh and the blood we can eat for eternal life? or why didn’t Jesus correct Peter; “no Peter; it is not the words, it is as I said you must eat My flesh”.

What I find interesting about the subject is that it is Paul that crystalizes the “remembrance” of breaking “bread”, as in the “bread of life” and Paul was not there. Jesus and the other writers had plenty of opportunity to clarify, by speaking of the transubstantiation of bread into flesh and wine into blood, but it is not in Scripture, but in Acts the church when the church met they use the phrase “breaking bread”, which is what Jesus did and said “do this in remembrance”.

If the perseverance of the saints is a heresy, then all the writers and Jesus are all heretics.

Another clear misunderstanding of Scripture that yes we will be judged by our deeds; for the Christian rewards, which is what Paul spoke of, and for the non-Christians wrath of God will be poured out on them.

Did Paul know he was saved? Intro to Romans:
1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called {as} an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about {the} obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; 7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called {as} saints: — this “called” is known as an “effectual call” as opposed to a general calling.

Here is what Jesus said concerning Paul; this is a perfect example of Jesus sovereighnty over those He has choosen and also from John 17 “all that the Father gives me I loose” how many? one or two? those that run from me? or NONE. He knows His sheep and His sheep know Him - sound familiar; the work of salvation from beginning to end is all of God; even the gift of faith is given by God for one to believe.

Intro to Galatians:
**Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen. **

Intro to Ephesians: (Best for last)
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.------ Gets back to John 17 where we see a promise made to the Son by the Father to give Jesus a redeemed humanity before the foundation of the world. His sheep have, do and will persevere by the power of God and not by the power of self.

 

[bluelake]

That is correct.

Not true, although the doctrine has developed somewhat over time.

Dogma cannot change, although we can develop a more thorough understanding of it.

When we say that there is “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”, it does NOT mean that non-Catholics cannot be saved! It means that they might be saved in SPITE of a lack of knowledge. They will be doing the will of God, as passed down through the Bible and proclaimed most fully through the Catholic Church, without even realizing it. It’s akin to this. Imagine the Catholic Church as a 16 year old who goes out and buys a brand new car. They read the entire instruction manual, sign up and take driving lessons, and successfully make it to school. Now, imagine other groups are 16 year olds who go out and buy used cars. They have only partial instruction manuals, or perhaps no instruction manual at all. Some get lessons, but some do not. Now, they may eventually make it safely to school as well, but if school represents the Kingdom of Heaven, which route is the safer choice? If they DO make it to school, it will be by unintentionally following the rules that were in the book they never read and the lessons they never signed up for. (In other words, they were still saved THROUGH the Catholic Church).

Here’s how some of this confusion comes about. If someone knows that the Catholic Church is the true church, or they grow up Catholic and abandon the faith (assuming they have full knowledge of the faith), then they have committed a mortal sin and lose hope of salvation. Most Protestants in the period of the Reformation fell into this category, and so that’s why there are so many harsh condemnations. However, today, many Protestants don’t know the first thing about Catholic doctrine, and so they might fall into the “invincibly ignorant” category. If you are “invincibly ignorant”, then you still have a chance at salvation based on what you know, and it’s always been that way, as the story of the Thief on the Cross attests to. Non-Christian groups may fall into this “invincibly ignorant” category as well, especially if they had no way of knowing about Christianity in the first place. Many documents were written in the 1500s about the chance of salvation for Native Americans when they were first discovered (try reading the papal document Sublimus Dei from that time period about how Indians should be regarded). Many asked, “How could God create two entire continents of people, just for them all to have no chance at salvation and go to hell?” Well, the answer was that they would be judged on their actions based upon the limits of their knowledge and understanding of God.

There are a group of oneness Pentecostals that teach they are the only ones saved too.

Jesus said, Where two or three are gathered in my name, ‘I am there’. Does this sound familiar?
We are not to judge one another, Mt.7;1-5

See Jn.3;16.

God bless,
bluelake

.