Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[brakelite]

Another cop-out.
What a surprise . . .

I have been responding to you, and vice versa, on this site I think for several years now, or so it seems. I must be slow...because I have seen this type of rebuttal from you many times, not just to me, and I have just tonight come to the conclusion, and it is with regret that I have to say this, but I really think BoL that for some reason beyond my understanding, you truly have no real grip on reality.
I said, although not in so many words, I don't know what BoL thinks regarding the faith held by non-Catholics, whether he believes them to be true Christians or not. I was referring this also to Marymog...I had in the same sentence confirmed my view that epostle, Philip James, and one other that I can't remember, did indeed think there are true Christians outside Catholicism. Any reasonable English speaking literate person would have drawn that conclusion from what I wrote. But you, no. Your paranoia and self appointed guardian of the universe status against all things that challenge your pride and religion forbids you from recognising the obvious, much less admitting to it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

i understand that that is the perspective of many on the inside, bol, and i can even respect that, as far as it goes. But wadr we deem this "stockholm syndrome" now, essentially; making excuses for the lions, iow. Evabody hates America, and evabody dying to get in, like that. Its hypocrisy bro. It is not Scriptural.

And, as usual – you’re all over the place - you just can’t seem to stick to a topic.

Ummmmmmm, what exactly is “hypocritical” about what I said??
What exactly is “not Scriptural”??

I know you don’t usually know how to deal with specifics – but give it a try . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have been responding to you, and vice versa, on this site I think for several years now, or so it seems. I must be slow...because I have seen this type of rebuttal from you many times, not just to me, and I have just tonight come to the conclusion, and it is with regret that I have to say this, but I really think BoL that for some reason beyond my understanding, you truly have no real grip on reality.
I said, although not in so many words, I don't know what BoL thinks regarding the faith held by non-Catholics, whether he believes them to be true Christians or not. I was referring this also to Marymog...I had in the same sentence confirmed my view that epostle, Philip James, and one other that I can't remember, did indeed think there are true Christians outside Catholicism. Any reasonable English speaking literate person would have drawn that conclusion from what I wrote. But you, no. Your paranoia and self appointed guardian of the universe status against all things that challenge your pride and religion forbids you from recognising the obvious, much less admitting to it.

By your own admission – we have had MANY conversations over the last few years. I have repeatedly stated my position on this topic: True Protestant Christians ARE my brothers and sisters in Christ. They are my separated brethren – but brethren nonetheless.

Your recent claim that you were “unaware” of this fact after ALL this time is why I responded the way I did.

I guess I overestimated your attention span . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

bol, it seems you go out of your way to be pathetic, and seek others' pity?do you really believe this Roring Lion Standing where it should not be is the way to go bro?

And, as usual – you’re all over the place - you just can’t seem to stick to a topic.

Ummmmmmm, what exactly is “hypocritical” about what I said??
What exactly is “not Scriptural”??

I know you don’t usually know how to deal with specifics – but give it a try . . .

i dont mean to accuse you of being hypocritical per se, bol, in the same manner that i understand how the rebel flag may not be a symbol of oppression to a southerner, necessarily. But your perspective is obviously biased, and so an understanding of why is hardly "all over the place," imo, in the same way my perspective is biased, to the opposite extreme, and should also be considered. ok?

As to the general overall slaughtering of Scripture in the original by Catholicism, i doubt we would make any headway in that direction, and i dont want to contend with you on the matter tbh; you rely on scribes and other people between you and Christ as a matter of course, so wadr your opinions are simply not relevant to me, a Priest.

But since you will rebut anyway, i might offer...ha, any number of examples, "father forgive me, for i have sinned" comes to mind, Quote that if you can, and etc. Understand that i dont really care what you believe, as i am convinced that Yah does not, either, but surely we are at odds on even this most basic and demonstrated perspective, yeh?

In my opinion every, single thing that proceeds from your mouth is unscriptural, every verse is warped toward the mithraist perspective; however this is not how we are to judge, and as far as i am concerned you can kiss rings and call other people "father" to your heart's content, idc.

I love the current pope! And imo Roman Catholicism is a great school to be "from"

 

[Berserk]

bbyrd: "bol, it seems you go out of your way to be pathetic, and seek others' pity?...As to the general overall slaughtering of Scripture in the original by Catholicism, i doubt we would make any headway in that direction, and i dont want to contend with you on the matter....In my opinion every, single thing that proceeds from your mouth is unscriptural, every verse is warped toward the mithraist perspective."

That does it; stay tuned for my new thread on "Catholic Distinctives in Biblical Perspective." For 12 years I (a United Methodist with a Pentecostal background) was a Theology professor at a Catholic University. Every year I attended the annual Conference of The Society of Biblical Literature and often regional conferences on Scripture. From that experience and from my graduate experience in biblical studies at Princeton and Harvard, I can attest that Catholic biblical scholarship is in general respected far more in secular and non-Catholic academic Christian circles than Evangelical Bible scholarship.

During my participation in several online Evangelic sites, I have been appalled by the ignorance and simple-minded stereotypes of Catholic biblical apologetics and the frequent ad hominems that drive most thoughtful Catholics away from those sites. So the last time I developed a thread on Catholic Distinctives in Biblical Perspectives, Mods terminated the thread because of all the acrimony. Well, if Mods here want to ban my forth-coming pro-Catholic thread or me personally, I just don't care! Anti-Catholic Evangelical bigotry often makes me ashamed to call myself an Evangelical and my conscience compels me to speak out in the interests of fair play.

Hang in there, bol! I admire your brass.

 

[BreadOfLife]

bol, it seems you go out of your way to be pathetic, and seek others' pity?do you really believe this Roring Lion Standing where it should not be is the way to go bro?

i dont mean to accuse you of being hypocritical per se, bol, in the same manner that i understand how the rebel flag may not be a symbol of oppression to a southerner, necessarily. But your perspective is obviously biased, and so an understanding of why is hardly "all over the place," imo, in the same way my perspective is biased, to the opposite extreme, and should also be considered. ok?

As to the general overall slaughtering of Scripture in the original by Catholicism, i doubt we would make any headway in that direction, and i dont want to contend with you on the matter tbh; you rely on scribes and other people between you and Christ as a matter of course, so wadr your opinions are simply not relevant to me, a Priest.

But since you will rebut anyway, i might offer...ha, any number of examples, "father forgive me, for i have sinned" comes to mind, Quote that if you can, and etc. Understand that i dont really care what you believe, as i am convinced that Yah does not, either, but surely we are at odds on even this most basic and demonstrated perspective, yeh?

In my opinion every, single thing that proceeds from your mouth is unscriptural, every verse is warped toward the mithraist perspective; however this is not how we are to judge, and as far as i am concerned you can kiss rings and call other people "father" to your heart's content, idc.

I love the current pope! And imo Roman Catholicism is a great school to be "from"

Your objection to “Forgive me Father, for I have sinned”, illustrates your complete ignorance of Scripture.

St. Jerome wrote, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” – and in this case – he was right on the mark . . .

Jesus gave the Apostles (the first Bishops of the Church) the authority to forgive sins or to hold them bound (Matt, 16:19, 18:18). In John 20:21-23, Jesus appeared to the Apostles on the evening the first Easter. He told them:
“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

This is very significant because, in ALL of Scripture, there are only two places where God breathes on man. The first is when he breathed life into Adam (Gen 2:7). The second place is here in John’s Gospel, where he gives the Church the power to forgive sins or hold them bound.

St. Paul speaks of the sacrament of confessing our sins to the Church:
“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

He further explains in 2 Cor. 2:10, “Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ

The 1st century document, the Didache (the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), emphatically states the necessity of confessing our sins to the Church:
“Confess your sins in Church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . , On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14,14:1 [A.D.70]).

So – the fact that YOU are ignorant of Scripture and history is hardly a valid reason for rejecting a Scriptural doctrine.

 

[bbyrd009]

yes ok, ty bol, surely i am the ignorant

 

[bbyrd009]

Your objection to “Forgive me Father, for I have sinned”, illustrates your complete ignorance of Scripture.

St. Jerome wrote, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” – and in this case – he was right on the mark . . .

Jesus gave the Apostles (the first Bishops of the Church) the authority to forgive sins or to hold them bound (Matt, 16:19, 18:18). In John 20:21-23, Jesus appeared to the Apostles on the evening the first Easter. He told them:
“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

This is very significant because, in ALL of Scripture, there are only two places where God breathes on man. The first is when he breathed life into Adam (Gen 2:7). The second place is here in John’s Gospel, where he gives the Church the power to forgive sins or hold them bound.

St. Paul speaks of the sacrament of confessing our sins to the Church:
“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

He further explains in 2 Cor. 2:10, “Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ

The 1st century document, the Didache (the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), emphatically states the necessity of confessing our sins to the Church:
“Confess your sins in Church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . , On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14,14:1 [A.D.70]).

So – the fact that YOU are ignorant of Scripture and history is hardly a valid reason for rejecting a Scriptural doctrine.

Well, we ARE to confess our sins to one another.

^
as Christians, yes; but Catholics do not, and as seen above will unerringly direct one to extra-Biblical sources for verification, being as how they cannot use the Bible for that tripe.

goodbye BoL

 

[bbyrd009]

I have been responding to you, and vice versa, on this site I think for several years now, or so it seems. I must be slow...because I have seen this type of rebuttal from you many times, not just to me

i concur, and i respond to him only for the benefit of other readers, as he obviously cannot hear anything. But i am now seeing this as codependent behavior i guess, and anyone who listens to Bread of Death gets what they deserve imo. Leave him to satan, if you ask me, for as long as he refuses to face reality and remains in deliberate Homer-denial

brass.

ha, from a sychphants own lips lol. Brass, exactly.

 

[epostle]

wadr i'm afraid you havent really made your case here

wadr I'm afraid you are in denial of the historical facts, and the appropriate meaning of the obelisk. Your anti-Catholic polemics is offensive. At first it was plain ignorance on your part, which is excusable. Now you have no excuse, yet persist with stupid drivel.

 

[bbyrd009]

wadr I'm afraid you are in denial of the historical facts, and the appropriate meaning of the obelisk. Your anti-Catholic polemics is offensive. At first it was plain ignorance on your part, which is excusable. Now you have no excuse, yet persist with stupid drivel.

well, you might be right, but who determines "appropriate meaning?" A pope? You and Bread of Death, with your dedicated Satan's Dialectic? I'll pass, wadr. Have a nice day, and may you be lessed.

I would suggest you find your Boundary Stone and get on the right side of it, but i doubt you even know what i mean there wadr; so, you might finish this sentence for yourself, "I am in a Christian forum rather than one of the many Catholic ones available to me because _____________."

 

[bbyrd009]

So let’s stop tap dancing BOL...are all these Christians here, just pretending? Are they taking the Eucharist improperly and therefore doomed? And if so in your mind, why do you care what they say about Catholicism? Why are you Hellbent on molesting the Goats?

“Smithers! release the hounds”

ha, who are you calling a goat, pal? This is a Christian forum, after all?
Kinda nervy, what

 

[epostle]

^
as Christians, yes; but Catholics do not, and as seen above will unerringly direct one to extra-Biblical sources for verification, being as how they cannot use the Bible for that tripe.

goodbye BoL

John 20:21-23 is not extra-biblical verification. You just can't come to terms with the plain words of Jesus.
good bye, bbyrd

 

[bbyrd009]

and shame in you too imo, CB; you engender this crap on purpose, for ratings or idk what.
You might at least give Papists their own area?

You are the = of ppl who put two bettas together, or two pitbulls in a ring, imo.
shame, i say

 

[BreadOfLife]

^
as Christians, yes; but Catholics do not, and as seen above will unerringly direct one to extra-Biblical sources for verification, being as how they cannot use the Bible for that tripe.

goodbye BoL

More of the blatant dishonesty that has become your hallmark on this forum.

Not only did I give you Scriptural support for the doctrine – I gave you no less than THREE passages (John 20:21-23, 2 Cor. 5:18-10, 2 Cor. 2:10) and TWO other Scriptural references (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18)..

I used the quote from The Didache, written while the Apostles were STILL ALIVE - to show some historical harmony to go with the solid Scriptural evidence.

So far – YOU have offered nothing to refute this doctrine but your usual impotent denials.

Good job . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

i concur, and i respond to him only for the benefit of other readers, as he obviously cannot hear anything. But i am now seeing this as codependent behavior i guess, and anyone who listens to Bread of Death gets what they deserve imo. Leave him to satan, if you ask me, for as long as he refuses to face reality and remains in deliberate Homer-denial

ha, from a sychphants own lips lol. Brass, exactly.

So says the guy who's been repeatedly exposed for sticking his foot in his mouth . . .

 

[Berserk]

Evangelicals often fail to appreciate the need to cite noncanonical Christians like the Didache and early Church Fathers to reinforce points implied by canonical Scripture. We need to respect the views of believers who live within one or a few generations of the apostles when oral tradition of the original teaching is still fresh and accurate. A good example of this is the modern abortion debate. Both pro-lifers and pro-choice believers try to defend their positions from Scripture. They can do this partly because the Bible never explicitly condemns abortion. But Didache 4:2 (written in the first century) settles the matter by mandating, "Thou shalt not procure an abortion," thus making explicit the apostolic church's condemnation of abortion. So BoL is right to cite the Didache in support of his NT texts on the apostolic right to forgive sins (Matthew 16:19; 18:18; John 20:22-23).
The Catholic cgnfessional is an excellent way of increasing the likelihood that repentance is real because the supplicant must first do some soul-searching and then inconvenience him/herself to appear in private before the priest. By contrast, Evangelicals seem to view serious soul-searching as unnecessary because they consider their salvation secure and because an occasional hasty and therefore unfelt plea for divine forgiveness strikes them as sufficient. My only quibble with Catholic penitential practice is expressed in James 515-16:
"Anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed." I think lay Christians in general can perform this confession function in small prayer groups, but they rarely do so.

During the great Methodist revival in the late 1700s and the 1800s, Methodists were required to attend weekly Class meetings during which they would confess the inner and outer life of their soul and confess their sins to each other. As a result of these Class meetings, in the year 1870 40% of all Americans became Methodists. Then at the dawn of the 20th century Class meetings were voted as optional because Methodists became increasingly reluctant to air their dirty linen in front of each other. This in effect abolished Class meeting confessionals and Methodism has experienced a slow steady decline ever since. When confession and repentance are real and regular, Spirit-anointed revival can follow!

 

[Nondenom40]

Evangelicals often fail to appreciate the need to cite noncanonical Christians like the Didache and early Church Fathers to reinforce points implied by canonical Scripture. We need to respect the views of believers who live within one or a few generations of the apostles when oral tradition of the original teaching is still fresh and accurate. A good example of this is the modern abortion debate. Both pro-lifers and pro-choice believers try to defend their positions from Scripture. They can do this partly because the Bible never explicitly condemns abortion. But Didache 4:2 (written in the first century) settles the matter by mandating, "Thou shalt not procure an abortion," thus making explicit the apostolic church's condemnation of abortion. So BoL is right to cite the Didache in support of his NT texts on the apostolic right to forgive sins (Matthew 16:19; 18:18; John 20:22-23).
The Catholic cgnfessional is an excellent way of increasing the likelihood that repentance is real because the supplicant must first do some soul-searching and then inconvenience him/herself to appear in private before the priest. By contrast, Evangelicals seem to view serious soul-searching as unnecessary because they consider their salvation secure and because an occasional hasty and therefore unfelt plea for divine forgiveness strikes them as sufficient. My only quibble with Catholic penitential practice is expressed in James 515-16:
"Anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed." I think lay Christians in general can perform this confession function in small prayer groups, but they rarely do so.

During the great Methodist revival in the late 1700s and the 1800s, Methodists were required to attend weekly Class meetings during which they would confess the inner and outer life of their soul and confess their sins to each other. As a result of these Class meetings, in the year 1870 40% of all Americans became Methodists. Then at the dawn of the 20th century Class meetings were voted as optional because Methodists became increasingly reluctant to air their dirty linen in front of each other. This in effect abolished Class meeting confessionals and Methodism has experienced a slow steady decline ever since. When confession and repentance are real and regular, Spirit-anointed revival can follow!

I have no problem with ecfs, but when they contradict scripture we go with the inspired word of God, not fallible men hundreds of years later. And yes, if you think murder is bad then we have no problem finding abortion as abhorrent in the bible. Plenty of verses to choose from. But if that person doesn't see the bible as inspired its not going to convince them anyway is it?

Regarding confession, not a single person 'went' to confession. Not a single apostle 'heard' confession let alone gave priestly absolution. There is no ministerial priesthood in the n.t. anyway, so that whole thing is out.

Lastly regarding 'ecfs being so close to the apostles they would teach what was fresh in their minds...' I disagree. In 2 Tim Paul names names of people he knew. People he spoke with and ministered with.

2 Tim 4:10
10 for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; NASB

2 Tim 4:16
16 At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them. NASB

2 Tim 2:17-18
17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some. NASB

The point being, if these people knew Paul and could; desert, not support or go astray from the truth why put more faith or trust in those that came after the apostolic age? This is why scripture is our highest authority and not ecfs, popes or men in general, but Gods written word.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have no problem with ecfs, but when they contradict scripture we go with the inspired word of God, not fallible men hundreds of years later. And yes, if you think murder is bad then we have no problem finding abortion as abhorrent in the bible. Plenty of verses to choose from. But if that person doesn't see the bible as inspired its not going to convince them anyway is it?

Regarding confession, not a single person 'went' to confession. Not a single apostle 'heard' confession let alone gave priestly absolution. There is no ministerial priesthood in the n.t. anyway, so that whole thing is out.

WRONG.

The Protestant objection to human intercession is based largely on a single line of Scripture that says, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…” (1 Tim. 2:5).

However, we also read in the Bible that we are called upon to intercede in prayer for one another (1 Cor. 3:9, 1 Tim. 2:1-3, Eph 6:18, James 5:16, 1 John 5:16). Whereas, Jesus is our only mediator because only His blood is the perfect sacrifice before the Father for our sins, our intercession for one another is commanded in the Scriptures.

In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests:
- The High Priest
- The Levitical/Ministerial Priesthood
- The rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers.

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests:
- Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25)
- The Ministerial Priests (James 5:14-15)
- The general priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

Just as with all New Testament fulfillments, the fulfillment is always more glorious than the Old Testament type.

Finally, in the Epistle of Jude, we read the warning about those who would usurp Church Authority by assuming the ministerial priesthood without the Church’s consent (Jude 1:11). In this passage he compares them to the rebellion of Korah and their subsequent punishment (Numbers 16:1-35; 31:16).

We are ALL priests - but we are NOT all ministerial priests (James 5:14-15).

 

[Nondenom40]

WRONG.

The Protestant objection to human intercession is based largely on a single line of Scripture that says, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…” (1 Tim. 2:5).

However, we also read in the Bible that we are called upon to intercede in prayer for one another (1 Cor. 3:9, 1 Tim. 2:1-3, Eph 6:18, James 5:16, 1 John 5:16). Whereas, Jesus is our only mediator because only His blood is the perfect sacrifice before the Father for our sins, our intercession for one another is commanded in the Scriptures.

In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests:
- The High Priest
- The Levitical/Ministerial Priesthood
- The rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers.

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests:
- Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25)
- The Ministerial Priests (James 5:14-15)
- The general priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

Just as with all New Testament fulfillments, the fulfillment is always more glorious than the Old Testament type.

Finally, in the Epistle of Jude, we read the warning about those who would usurp Church Authority by assuming the ministerial priesthood without the Church’s consent (Jude 1:11). In this passage he compares them to the rebellion of Korah and their subsequent punishment (Numbers 16:1-35; 31:16).

We are ALL priests - but we are NOT all ministerial priests (James 5:14-15).

Its clear you don't understand the difference between mediator and intercessor. They are not synonymous. So youre wrong out of the gate. There is no ministerial priesthood in the new covenant. The priesthood of believers and Jesus' high priesthood. Thats it.