Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?
- Thread starter aspen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I was not alive then. I am asking if you believe that Christ did not have a church on earth until 1500's?
Like I already told you, "He has always had His Body here on earth made up of regenerate believers from varying sects (basically those regenerate ones holding to the basics of Scripture)."
Please make your point without beating around a PC bush.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
My question was direct and clear. I do not think you like the true answer. So you are are beating around the bush.
You started by saying you didn't want to offend me, then you gave me a bunch of leading questions like I was on trial under examination and now you say your question was direct and clear and pompously add, "I do not think you like the true answer.". OK, whatever. I've heard this spiel hundreds of times over.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Not a spiel, reality. You should know that I am not Catholic. But I do like common sense. Christ did have a Church on earth, whether you and I agree with it or not. Christianity did not start in the 1500's.
Am I talking to a wall? I've told you 3 times Christ Jesus has always had a Church since Calvary. You keep trying to get me to deny that and say something like the Reformers started the Church. Sorry if I got you off script.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Oh contraire mon frere, you never said Church. So in the 1500's we see those that do not agree with the corruption and sins of the Church and they break away... hence the name Protest Churches. Now we have to pick one. Martin intended to reform the Catholic Church but it got away from him and the Catholic Church ended up reforming itself. So from there the Protestant churches began to fracture. The last count 32,000 denominations worldwide. So which one did you pick?
Why did you start with Luther? (Hint Eastern Orthodox0.
BTW Christ Body = Church.
Colossians 1:18 (KJV) And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Colossians 1:24 (KJV) Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The complete history would be rather lengthy and I did not mention the Moravian church or the Anabaptists either. So your point? Which one did you pick?
I know the history. You started with 'Martin', so I in a sense asked 'why Martin?', when you had the Great Schism of 1054 AD with the Eastern Church. So now talk about denominations.
This conversation is so old and unfruitful.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
No it is not. I am Christian and I like Christians. If someone was telling you, that you were wrong and condemned your beliefs, I would come to your defense. But what we have as they say...it is what it is. There is no reason to condemn each other. And the way it is now, in the world, the wolves are circling, and it would be good for Christianity to stand together. We do not have to agree on everything it is good enough to say that we believe in Christ and His saving Grace.
I agree, but I am not going to cowtow to a 'system' that exalts Church Tradition and reason to the level of Scripture and thereby introducing strange teachings into the Body of Christ. (This holds true for any 'religious' body that downplays Scripture in any way, not just Rome).
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I could care less about Rome. And I am not asking you to cowtow to anything. Not asking you to agree with anything but your own beliefs. I am asking, as Christians, do we have to condemn each other? Is it enough to say, we do not agree? When I was overseas I fought side by side with men and women of different faiths. We fought for your right to believe what you want. Is that enough?
I have never denied someone to believe what they want to believe. When I sound harsh, I am attacking their system or systematic doctrine, not the person. Evidently those that continue to question my faith, equally won't respect my right to believe what I want to believe.
Thanks for your service. Was that the Nam war?
When Jesus died for my sins, He died that I might believe. I am not beholden to any military action for that freedom, even if I must die for my convictions.
Last edited:
I see two stages in spiritual life. The first is when we depend on others and on books. If we have followed the right men and read the right books (even if they may be somewhat flawed), the time may come (God knows when) that we cease being a herb like the mustard plant and become a tree with our branches reaching up into the heavens. If and when that happens, then we understand what the holy men and holy books were trying to show us. If that doesn't happen, we remain closer to the earth and still cannot know with certainty.
Think of the lives of the saints in the Catholic Church. Some came to see and know for themselves. I think one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Real Presence is what the saints who reached a higher level said of it. I see three types of witnesses there: Scripture, Tradition and the lives of the saints. The saints had needed holy books and holy men, but they reached a stage where they knew for themselves.
I do not see that kind of witness among those who say Communion is a mere symbol. I don't see their position in the Bible or in any tradition either.
You are speaking after 2,000 years of learning ...
John 20:29
[29] Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
It is a difficult thing to believe without seeing...
It is a mysterious thing to believe without seeing...
Can't understand it for you.
God Bless,
Taken
Council of Florence
“The holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches that … With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians. ”
Thomas Aquinas, following Augustine's lead, wrote:
“I respond, As the Apostle says (Rom. 5:17), “if by one man’s offense death reigned through one,” namely Adam, “much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.” Now children contract original sin from the sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death, which “passed upon all” on account of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the same passage (Rom. 5:12). Much more, therefore, can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself said (Jn. 3:5): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ. Moreover it was fitting that children should receive Baptism, in order that being reared from childhood in things pertaining to the Christian mode of life, they may the more easily persevere therein; according to Prov. 22:5: “A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it.” This reason is also given by Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii).”
Augustine himself said unbaptized babies could not be saved, but their "condemnation" would be light.
It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation; whereas the apostle says: Judgment from one offense to condemnation, Romans 5:16 and again a little after: By the offense of one upon all persons to condemnation. Romans 5:18 When, indeed, Adam sinned by not obeying God, then his body — although it was a natural and mortal body — lost the grace whereby it used in every part of it to be obedient to the soul. Then there arose in men affections common to the brutes which are productive of shame, and which made man ashamed of his own nakedness. Genesis 3:10 Then also, by a certain disease which was conceived in men from a suddenly injected and pestilential corruption, it was brought about that they lost that stability of life in which they were created, and, by reason of the mutations which they experienced in the stages of life, issued at last in death. However many were the years they lived in their subsequent life, yet they began to die on the day when they received the law of death, because they kept verging towards old age. For that possesses not even a moment's stability, but glides away without intermission, which by constant change perceptibly advances to an end which does not produce perfection, but utter exhaustion. Thus, then, was fulfilled what God had spoken: In the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die. Genesis 2:17 As a consequence, then, of this disobedience of the flesh and this law of sin and death, whoever is born of the flesh has need of spiritual regeneration — not only that he may reach the kingdom of God, but also that he may be freed from the damnation of sin.
Last edited:
Similar threads
