Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[ScottA]

Then you HAVE taken your lead from the 16th century ecclesial Rebels.

Your first comment is either an assumption which is wrong (as I have already told you the truth), or another lie. So, there is no need to go further. Nothing you say is to be trusted; and I have read it and it is full of errors and misunderstandings.

 

[ScottA]

Yehren says:
The Bible you read, for example, is a compilation by men, who used prayer, tradition, and scholarship to determine which books were actually the Word of God.

So unless you subscribe to the notion of infallibility (which apples as much to the bishops in council as it does to the Pope) you're following the traditions of men.

Yes. The canon of the Bible you use was determined by a group of men. They used prayer, and tradition, and scholarship to determine what it would be. And there was not universal agreement.

I get it, but you're still rebelling against His way. You see, He said that His church would not fail. So the bishops in council are infallibly inspired by God, just as the Pope is, when speaking ex cathedra.

You are confusing "infallibility" and "impeccability." Two different things. But His grace and guidance is what the doctrine of infallibility is about, as He said when He declared that His Church would not fail.

I sited God as the source of His word, you sited men.
You are wrong.
That makes you the rebel, not me.

Indeed "His" church will not fail. But His church is not an earthly/worldly group of fallible men voting on doctrine and the teachings of men. You claiming "grace and guidance" about evil men is complete error. His grace and guidance is not for the evil among the flock, but because of them and against them...to the one life and the other death.

 

[epostle]

Luk_1:69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David;
Luk_1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto His people by the remission of their sins,
Luk_2:30 For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation,
Luk_3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
Luk_19:9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
Joh_4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Act_4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Act_13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
Act_13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Act_16:17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.

--------------------------​

* Salvation was to come through the People of Israel, and through the Lord Jesus Christ, His person and His work: only when Israel had gone away into blindness and unbelief at the end of the Acts period, was salvation sent to the Gentiles, for they would hear it.

'Be it known therefore unto you,
that the salvation of God
is sent unto the Gentiles,
and that they will hear it.'
(Acts 28:28)

* This is 'The salvation of God', which is received through Jesus Christ our Lord.
* When Israel comes to repentance, Christ return, and the times of refreshing come from the presence of God as promised in Acts 3:19-20, then Israel will once more fulfil their Divinely allotted task of taking the word of salvation to the nations at the end of the age.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Those are lovely verses, but they have nothing to do with the anti-authority, anti-institutional mindset that infects this forum.

 

[Enoch111]

Those are lovely verses, but they have nothing to do with the anti-authority, anti-institutional mindset that infects this forum.

The RCC sabotaged the authority of Christ by making the Pope the Vicar of Christ (Vicarius Christi). Not to mention the title of the pagan high priest of Rome Pontifex Maxiumus taken by the popes. Even the Eastern Orthodox Church could not stomach this.

The claim made by the popes is that they are successors to the apostle Peter. But Peter would be the first apostle to shut down the Vatican. Here is what he said to all the elders: Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. (1 Pet 5:3).

 

[Yehren]

Yehren says:
The Bible you read, for example, is a compilation by men, who used prayer, tradition, and scholarship to determine which books were actually the Word of God.

So unless you subscribe to the notion of infallibility (which apples as much to the bishops in council as it does to the Pope) you're following the traditions of men.

The canon of the Bible you use was determined by a group of men. They used prayer, and tradition, and scholarship to determine what it would be. And there was not universal agreement.

I get it, but you're still rebelling against His way. You see, He said that His church would not fail. So the bishops in council are infallibly inspired by God, just as the Pope is, when speaking ex cathedra.

You are confusing "infallibility" and "impeccability." Two different things. But His grace and guidance is what the doctrine of infallibility is about, as He said when He declared that His Church would not fail.

I sited God as the source of His word,

You cited what men told you about God. As you learned, what you accept as the Word of God is a compilation by men, who used prayer, tradition, and scholarship to determine which books were actually the Word of God.

You are wrong.

It's just a fact. No point in denying it.

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.

The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?
How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? | GotQuestions.org

As you just learned, it was prayer and tradition and scholarship by which men decided which books were inspired. That makes you the rebel, not me.

Indeed "His" church will not fail. But His church is not an earthly/worldly group of fallible men voting on doctrine and the teachings of men.

See above. Jesus gave Peter the keys to His Church on Earth. You believe in infallibility when it suits your purposes, and not when it does things you don't want to accept.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your first comment is either an assumption which is wrong (as I have already told you the truth), or another lie. So, there is no need to go further. Nothing you say is to be trusted; and I have read it and it is full of errors and misunderstandings.

Sooooo, you’re saying that YOU invented your perverted doctrines??

i can prove to you that they were invented some 450 years before you were even born.

So, whether YOU want to admit it or not – or play your little word games – YOU took your lead from your Protestant Fathers who taught the same perversions YOU are espousing.

 

[epostle]

Sooooo, you’re saying that YOU invented your perverted doctrines??

i can prove to you that they were invented some 450 years before you were even born.

So, whether YOU want to admit it or not – or play your little word games – YOU took your lead from your Protestant Fathers who taught the same perversions YOU are espousing.

I disagree. Scott has his private version of Christianity that is removed from reformist founders. He is his own authority claiming the spirit reveals truth to him that supersedes everyone else's opinions, be they true or not. That makes him a true Protestant.

 

[Giuliano]

Yes, but to deny that God used sinful humans to preserve His Word is self defeating and illogical. All authority belongs to Jesus, and He gave His very own authority to earthly, physical human beings to teach and baptise.

Matthew 28:18-20

"therefore" in verse 19 is a conjunctive verb, joining the authority of Christ with the authority He bestowed upon the Apostles. The Bible clearly and repetitively teaches that God would preserve His Church. You either accept what the Bible says about God preserving His Church, or you fall for the man made tradition of a supposedly destructable Church. You are in denial of Psalm 12:6-7 that you quoted, or you don't understand it. The "Word of God" appears in the Bible about 200 times, and nowhere is "Word of God" confined to the written word alone. That is another self defeating, illogical man made tradition.

The Lord giveth and taketh away.

 

[epostle]

The RCC sabotaged the authority of Christ by making the Pope the Vicar of Christ (Vicarius Christi). Not to mention the title of the pagan high priest of Rome Pontifex Maxiumus taken by the popes. Even the Eastern Orthodox Church could not stomach this.
The claim made by the popes is that they are successors to the apostle Peter. But Peter would be the first apostle to shut down the Vatican. Here is what he said to all the elders: Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. (1 Pet 5:3).

This title was used by pagan Roman emperors who were Supreme High Priests of all Pagan religions. Ambrose of Milan told Emperor Gratian not to use this title because it was pagan. Pontifex is Latin word which in Greek is often translated Archiereus (Arch priest). In Book of Hebrews 4,14 Christ is called the archiereius megalis (or in Latin pontifex magnus).

The Early Church Fathers were opposed to the title because, at that time, it was used by the Roman Emperors, who were the supreme rulers over civil and pagan religious affairs. You’ll recall that many, many Catholics were killed for refusing to sacrifice to the Roman emperor, who was considered a god. So no wonder the ECF’s were opposed to calling any emperor by that title.

The title means supreme pontiff, or chief bridge maker. It was not until the Empire split in two, with the Western Empire going to Emperor Gratian (c. 360 AD) and Emperor Theodosius retaining the East, that the Pope was given the title Pontifex Maximus. Feeling that it was not right for he himself to carry that title (since he was, after all, not a Christian priest) the Emperor Gratian bestowed it upon Pope Damasus I, who became the first Pope in history to hold the title “Pontifex Maximus,” signifying that religious authority no longer rested with the emperors, but with the Catholic Church.

(This is the same Pope Damasus who presided over the Council of Rome in 382 that canonized and named the Old and New Testaments and formed the Bible – ta biblia.)

St. Ambrose was advisor to Emperor Gratian and his successor, Valentinian II. It was due to Ambrose’s influence that paganism was stamped out in the Roman Empire. Valentinian had become an Arian, but Ambrose brought him back to the True Faith.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Vicar means “deputy.” The deputy is never superior to the chief. To think that any of the Pope’s titles mean that he’s in any way superior to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is ludicrous.
Pontifex maximus

ludicrous
[ˈlo͞odəkrəs]
ADJECTIVE

1. so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous.
   "it's ludicrous that I have been fined" ·
   Synonyms: absurd · ridiculous · farcical · laughable · risible · preposterous · foolish · idiotic · stupid · inane · silly · asinine · nonsensical · crazy · mad · insane · derisible

 

[Giuliano]

Giuliano said: ↑
First, it is a grave error to discern the truth by judging the actions of others. Second, the Catholic Church does not claim to have "all truth", that is polemical nonsense. The claim to be the one true Church does not mean nobody else can have truths. Dichotomous thinking is stupid.

I agree. That is why I objected to Bread of Life's when he said that. He wrote:

Our job as Christian is to discern the truth by judging the actions of INDIVIDUALS – NOT to condemn Christ’s Church. When you condemn His Church – you condemn HIM and the ONE who sent Him (Luke 10:16).

https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/is-there-salvation-outside-the-catholic-church.29789/page-86#post-628840

You need to take this up with Bread of Life then, not me.

As for "all truth," I thought Catholics claimed that the Apostles and their successors were led into all truth. . . .

 

[Giuliano]

(This is the same Pope Damasus who presided over the Council of Rome in 382 that canonized and named the Old and New Testaments and formed the Bible – ta biblia.)

I thought the Council of Trent did this in 1546.

St. Ambrose was advisor to Emperor Gratian and his successor, Valentinian II. It was due to Ambrose’s influence that paganism was stamped out in the Roman Empire. Valentinian had become an Arian, but Ambrose brought him back to the True Faith.

So much for religious freedom, eh?

 

[ScottA]

You cited what men told you about God. As you learned, what you accept as the Word of God is a compilation by men, who used prayer, tradition, and scholarship to determine which books were actually the Word of God.

That is a lie.
That makes you a liar.
That makes anything you say garbage.

 

[ScottA]

Sooooo, you’re saying that YOU invented your perverted doctrines??

i can prove to you that they were invented some 450 years before you were even born.

So, whether YOU want to admit it or not – or play your little word games – YOU took your lead from your Protestant Fathers who taught the same perversions YOU are espousing.

You cannot prove your lies.

I was prepared to recommend you be honest and reasonable and we could perhaps walk through your errors and misunderstandings point by point, but I see you are not up to it, not capable. Now I know that what may appear to be intellect in you, is not. Never mind.

 

[brakelite]

The Bible you read, for example, is a compilation by men, who used prayer, tradition, and scholarship to determine which books were actually the Word of God.

This is the party line, preached here and repeated by bread of life, epostle, Marymog,, and Philip James. Cardinal Gibbons says, “The Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe." The council of Trent confirmed this.The Catholic church has made the decrees of the councils and the bulls of the popes equal to the books of the Bible. In other words, with the Roman Catholic Church, the Scriptures are still in the making.
As far as giving us the true Bible, I would look a little closer to history, and seriously consider the role Lucian played on giving the church of his time the sacred scriptures, without the paganised allegories associated with Origin, Tertullian, and Clement. The Alexandrian association with Rome brought with it a perverted Christianity and the acceptance of non biblical practices and traditions that were enforced upon the church. Like Sunday observance. Which was followed by the persecution of those who desired to follow the Bible and the Bible alone.

 

[Yehren]

Yehren said:
The Bible you read, for example, is a compilation by men, who used prayer, tradition, and scholarship to determine which books were actually the Word of God.

This is the party line, preached here

It's just an historical fact. Would you like me to show you, again?

Cardinal Gibbons says, “The Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe."

Scripture says that explicitly:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Author, not His servants.

In other words, with the Roman Catholic Church, the Scriptures are still in the making.

The Council of Trent disagrees, having determined the canon of scripture. And as you see, the Bible itself says that it's no the only authoritative source of information about God.

The modern revisions of some denominations not withstanding.

 

[Yehren]

Yehren observes:
You cited what men told you about God. As you learned, what you accept as the Word of God is a compilation by men, who used prayer, tradition, and scholarship to determine which books were actually the Word of God. It was generally finished by 150 AD, but was not definitively set until the Council of Trent. Because Christians, prior to Luther did not consider it to be the only source of truth about God, there were considerable differences of opinion as to which books were divinely inspired.

That is a lie.

It's just an historical fact. No point in denying it. It's very well documented.

That makes you a liar.

Calm yourself. Language like that tells people a lot about you and your motives. You are becoming abusive, because you are beginning to realize these things, and you're rebelling against it.

That makes anything you say garbage.

As I showed you, it's just historical fact. Denying it, does your case no good at all.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I agree. That is why I objected to Bread of Life's when he said that. He wrote:

Our job as Christian is to discern the truth by judging the actions of INDIVIDUALS – NOT to condemn Christ’s Church. When you condemn His Church – you condemn HIM and the ONE who sent Him (Luke 10:16).

https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/is-there-salvation-outside-the-catholic-church.29789/page-86#post-628840

You need to take this up with Bread of Life then, not me.

As for "all truth," I thought Catholics claimed that the Apostles and their successors were led into all truth. . . .

And there you go being completely dishonest again. You remind me of the sickening circus that the Democrats are making of his phony "Ukraine-Gate" nonsense . . .

The CONTEXT of my statement was NOT a general statement - but a comparison of what YOU were doing. YOU were judging the entire Catholic Church based on the actions of a few individuals - and that is why I said it is NOT our job to condemn the Church but to judge individual actions.

You have proven repeatedly on this thread that you will LIE and misrepresent the Gospel in order to make your case.
You are one of the most dishonest posters on this forum - and that is saying a LOT with the amount of lies being spewn here on a daily basis by the moronic anti-Catholic fringe , , ,

 

[BreadOfLife]

You cannot prove your lies.

I was prepared to recommend you be honest and reasonable and we could perhaps walk through your errors and misunderstandings point by point, but I see you are not up to it, not capable. Now I know that what may appear to be intellect in you, is not. Never mind.

TRANSLATION:
"I'm making up this nonsense as I go - so don't make me explain myself."

Consider yourself publicly-exposed, Scott.

 

[Giuliano]

And there you go being completely dishonest again. You remind me of the sickening circus that the Democrats are making of his phony "Ukraine-Gate" nonsense . . .

The CONTEXT of my statement was NOT a general statement - but a comparison of what YOU were doing. YOU were judging the entire Catholic Church based on the actions of a few individuals - and that is why I said it is NOT our job to condemn the Church but to judge individual actions.

You have proven repeatedly on this thread that you will LIE and misrepresent the Gospel in order to make your case.
You are one of the most dishonest posters on this forum - and that is saying a LOT with the amount of lies being spewn here on a daily basis by the moronic anti-Catholic fringe , , ,

Now I'm dishonest for quoting you? You said it, not me. You have a peculiar sense of what's true. . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Now I'm dishonest for quoting you? You said it, not me. You have a peculiar sense of what's true. . . .

Like I said - YOU sound just like the lying Democrats during this impeachment nonsense.

The only way you can even attempt to make a case is by taking my words out of context. Fortunately, most of the readers here aren't as intellectually-challenged as you are.
That, coupled with your complete dishonesty makes your posts about as impotent as a Nevada Boxing commissioner . . .