Every now and then I get the question....
"Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?"
Most Catholics have no idea how to answer. Non-Catholics who are acquainted with the teaching of the Catholic Church are invariably disturbed and annoyed by it. Some call it “unreasonable nonsense” … others brand it as un-Christian arrogance and intolerance, or a doctrine utterly unfitting a merciful God.
It's one of those uncomfortable subjects. So why bring it up? Well I was asked again and I thought I would attempt to answer the question here.
The whole question is unfortunately confused by the fact that so many people (including Catholics) have an extremely vague understanding of the Catholic claim to be the One, True Church outside of which salvation is unattainable.
In brief, “outside the Church—no salvation” must be understood as applying to those adults who remain outside the Catholic Church in deliberately sinful opposition to the known truth that the Church was established by Christ as a necessary means of their salvation. This obviously involves on their part opposition to Christ and to the will of God.
It does not mean that Catholics believe mere membership in the Catholic Church is positive and unfailing assurance that all Catholics will be saved. Nor does it mean that all non-Catholics, merely because they are not Catholics, are headed for Hell.
Catholics believe that Christ is the Savior of all men … that He offered His life and death as an atonement for the sins of all mankind; and, therefore, all men can be saved. This was the thought of St. Paul when he spoke of the Savior “who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all …” (1 Tim. 2:4-5)
Catholics also believe that the Savior established one and only one Church, membership in which is a strict obligation for those who would benefit by His death. Did He not clearly state “… unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”? (John 3:5). If this means anything at all, it means that Baptism is necessary for salvation. But by Baptism people become members of His Church: “For in one spirit, we are all baptized into one body…” (1 Cor. 12:13) and that body is … “the Church, which is indeed His body…” (Eph. 1:23). If Christian Baptism is necessary for salvation and by Baptism we become members of His Church, membership in His Church is most certainly necessary.
That Christ intended all men to become members of His Church is clear from His description of Himself as the Good Shepherd: “I am the Good Shepherd … and I lay down my life for my sheep. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” (John 10:14-16). The “one fold” is nothing else than His Church. We as belivers are his Church and as believers, we are all united in the universal Catholic church.
66 comments:
I have been baptized in a non-catholic church, have put my trust in Christ, have felt the presense of the Holy Spirit, I have repent of my sins, regularly confesses my sins to God, and I believe that Christ's Church is the body of believers as a whole no matter what denomination, of whom the Catholic denomination is a part, and have no desire to join Catholocism nor be re-baptized in the Catholic church. I have attended Catholic school as a non-catholic, have been to Catholic mass, and I do not believe that the Catholic denomination is the "one true church", but rather part of Christ's church.
That is my belief in a nutshell. According to the Catholic church, am I doomed to hell?
"Baptism is necessary for salvation"
You cannot get this interpretation from Scripture if you take into account the WHOLE of Scripture and the context of it ALL.
Further study will show that baptism is a symbol and an act of obedience on the part of one who is ALREADY regenerated by faith in Christ.
Christ himself was baptized. Why? Did He need salvation? No - to say He did is to say He wasn't sinless; which is blasphemy.
I will post more on this subject if it is deemed that others would want to see the Scriptures.
I would say out side the catholic church there is no salvation, but lets get our ducks in a row, what do I mean by catholic, I don't mean the church of Rome who the pope leads, I mean the catholic church otherwise known as, the universal church, the apostolic church, that is to say the body of Christ, the one made up of all belivers Easter Othodox, Rome, Lutherans, et all.
And Hybosh, if you were to become a Roman I don't think they would require rebaptism, that is a mark of the ana-baptists, most denomonations that have infant baptism will accept any True baptism aka that is done with Water and in the name of The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
So finally am I catholic christian, yes, am I a Lutherna yes, am I a Roman Catholic no.
Can I say outside of the catholic church there is no salvation, and still include myself as one of the saved, yes, because any one that belives in Christ as the savor of the world, who came to die for our sins, and belives Christ is true God. I would say that any one that belives the following is a Christian and those that do now are not
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN."
Michael wins the prize! I am not dooming anyone to hell if you are not Roman Catholic. Even the Roman Catholic church would not re-baptize you so long as you were baptized as a Christian.
I'm all for denominational unity but first we all must understand how we are already united and that is through our faith in Jesus.
If thats the case, why confuse the issue by saying "outside the Catholic Church"? Saying that does often produce a knee jerk reaction in non-Catholics because it sounds like Catholics are saying "We are the only denomination that is saved! All Lutherans, Methodists, Orthodox, Non-denominational Christians, etc. are doomed to hell!"
Personally, I believe that outside of Christ there is no salvation. It sounds like that is what you really mean.
And that my friends is exactly the point. People assume they know what others mean when they really have no clue. That goes for all of us. Most of the issues people have with my own faith is due to a total misunderstanding of what they THINK I believe. Salvation is through Christ and applied through his church.
Kybosh, I for one welcome him saying "outside the Catholic Church" because at the very least with those that have "knee jerk reaction" but are still willing to talk about it, it creates the fourum to talk about such things, and open inter-denomination talks. I don't like this "lets agree to disagree" stuff, I will say that one denomonatin is full right, I belive all Christians are save because of Christ words "those that belive and are baptized shall not parish but have ever lasting life". That does not change that there is some disagreements between the denominations and I for one pray that some day that a full no bar debate will happen where the results will be that we all find out where each is right and where those that are in error will see it, and we can then end this Very Sad devision in the church. Also with "outside the Catholic Church" depending on how you read, you might get mad, or like me (if you read Catholic as the universal church) you will say yes, yes that is true.
But what I am saying is that 1) Powerblogger is right, first we need to know where we agree 2) we need to know where we disagree 3) we must be willing to talk about it 4) all must be open minded and listen.
While some of us know the difference many others don't. We ought to be clear about how we communicate.
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN."
IF AND ONLY IF by the word 'hell' you mean Sheol (the grave) and NOT 'Gehenna (the lake of fire)!!
The difference is infinite!
I think it is a poor choice of words, especially because of the strong association of the word "catholic" with the Roman Catholic denomination, especially when you type it with a capital "C".
I've actually had a nun tell me that I was going to hell because at the time I was Lutheran, and unless I became Roman Catholic, it was the big long burn for me.
The following website also echos the same thing:
http://www.ihsv.com/
If your goal is unity, why say something that is on the surface devicive? Most people aren't going to look deeper into word games and it will just drive us more and more apart as Christians.
James 5:12
Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.
James gives the element of certainty in speech. We shouldn't let on any other meaning than that which we intend.
Colossians 4:6
Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
how can you defend the faith if you 1) don't understand what you are relaying and 2) leave areas for mis-interpretation on the part of your hearers.
full of grace - grace and truth came by Jesus Christ; our speech is to imitate His; there is ample evidence in the four Gospels as to how He conducted His speech.
seasoned with salt - salt in Scripture is a symbol of the power of holiness in our lives. What is holiness? It is the emulation of the character of God towards sin. Again, Scripture is clear on how God views sin, so our conversation shouldn't allow the promotion of sin. This includes division in the Church.
Here's some food for thought...
"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.
Jesus Christ
The Gospel of John Chapter 17
“The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points of doctrine just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the churches in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, not do those in Spain, not those in Gaul, not those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions [Palestine] of the world.”
St. Ireneaus (c. 130-200)
Against Heresies
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood.“
St. Cyprian of Carthage
Letter to his Clergy and to All His People
“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”
Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519
more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses
quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356
“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”
Martin Luther
http://www.gzus.org
So Anon, what is it you are trying to say?
It's self explanatory. Read your Christian History and seek the truth w/ an open mind. :)
No, it isn't. Are you saying unity in Spirit, or "all Christians must become Roman Catholic?"
I'm all for unity, but outside of a massive movement of the Holy Spirit, dissolution of the different denominations and a return to "One Church" just isn't going to happen. Even with the Holy Spirit, I believe that many would still resist.
Roman Catholics would insist that all "return" to the RC church, and non-Catholics would still refuse to accept the RC non-scriptural beliefs that caused the splits in the first place.
Sorry, Anonymous, but quoting Luther out of context doesn't pass the sniff test.
Yes, Luther did not originally seek a break with Rome, but rather a return to the purity of faith that characterized the Church Fathers from the time of the Apostles. A faith founded on the pure Word of God and the Lord Jesus as found in Scripture. However, Pope Leo had a different agenda, striving with all of his amassed power and wealth to prevent this godly servant from delivering God's Word to His people and have him silenced as a heretic.
This forced Luther to move in the direction God intended and establish communities of faith free from the Roman tyranny and accountable only to the Word of God.
Yes, Luther would have made the second comment in the context that any moron can put forth any type of nonsense as prophetic and, dare I say, infallible and be believed by the vast majority of lazy, uninformed and undisciplined sheep. The point being that unless whatever is being spewed forth as prophetic can square with the whole counsel of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, you might as well wipe your ass with it, following Luther's recommendations regarding Leo's 'indulgences'.
Also, to the subject of the original post, I was very careful to read the wording and took absolutely no offense to the proposition that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. I've been reciting the Apostles Creed since I was a lad, mostly in a Presbyterian context and have always understood the phrase 'holy catholic church' to refer to what many call the 'Invisible Church'.
However, most of you (Thomas being the only exception) missed the real doctrinal error in Powerball's opening salvo. Baptism is not required for salvation, nor membership in Christ's Church. The thief on the cross beside our Lord had no opportunity to be baptized. Baptism understood rightly in the whole context of Scripture is a public declaration of a private truth.
There is a whole other division in thought over the infant baptism vs. adult baptism that I haven't resolved for myself as of yet. However, I once belonged to a Reformed Church that required new members to be baptized if they were infant baptized in the Roman Catholic church, even though they practiced infant baptism themselves. This is because of the understanding that many Catholics believe that infant baptism bestows salvation on the infant, precisely due to Powerball's stated belief that baptism is the means by which we are granted membership into Christ's body. This is opposed to the Reformed tradition of infant baptism reflecting a covenental seal between the parents and God to raise the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The argument could be made, therefore, that any individual baptized as an infant by parents outside of the community of faith, and lacking in the ability and/or will to enter into that covenant with the Lord, should be baptized subsequent to their spiritual regeneration in Christ.
Finally, denominationalism is not going to go away. Jesus parable concerning the sheep and the goats pretty much says it all.
"Lord, did we not...?"
And the response?
"I never knew you...Depart from me..."
I'm much less concerned with whether I belong to the right denomination than I am with NOT having to hear those words.
1 Peter 2:4-6
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—
5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
It is a basic tenent of Christianity to know that the Church is a spitirual entity, not solely a physical one. we are a body whose head is in Heaven.
Ephesians 1:22-23
22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,
23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way
Our sectarianism has driven us away from the view that the Church (the body & bride of Christ) is His and His alone. It is not ours nor is it for us. How self-centered we have become to view the Church in terms of what we can get!
Take a good hard look at the picture of this special relationship as it is pictured in the Scriptures in terms relating to husbands and wives. Our generally distorted views on marriage directly stem from our lack of understanding the relationship of the Christ and His Church. I digress...
Wow, I suggest you read Luther’s writings for yourself. Then read what the scriptures say about double minded men, men that use vulgar language, and men that break oaths.
The truth stings I know…I’ve been on both sides of the fence.
Riddle me this. Were the Judiazers saved from their distorted gospel?
Were the Judiazers members of the Church, after the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, if they refused to obey the decrees from leaders of the Church?
What makes the “reformers” any different then?
Now don't get me wrong, you can't be a heretic unless you once believed the truth, knew it to be the truth and then rejected it. Have non-Catholics that have been taught differently fall into that category? Obviously not.
There is invincible ignorance and as the saying goes ignorance is bliss. : )
I’d advise you not to read the first three hundred years of Church history if you wish to stay in ignorance.
Funny you should bring that up. The Judiazers were saying that you had to be circumcized in order to be saved, in essence saying that Christ's death on the cross was not enough to save. This is why Paul disagreed with them.
The reformers were professing the same thing that Paul was, that Christ's death on the cross is enough to save. THAT is the difference between them and the Judiazers. Saying that Christ's death isn't enough is what puts one on the wrong side of the argument, not whether they were "the church" or not.
Oh, and FYI, egocentric condescending arrogance is not the way to win people over to your way of thinking.
12:03 - Anon:
"Riddle me this. Were the Judiazers saved from their distorted gospel?
Were the Judiazers members of the Church, after the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, if they refused to obey the decrees from leaders of the Church?
What makes the “reformers” any different then?"
I say to you to keep reading ... Apollos was one such 'judiazer' ... read clear through the end of the New Testament to find out exactly what Scripture says of him. Scripture doesn't ever give us that Apollos wasn't part of the Church (those who are redeemed by Christ). He was wrong to teach the law in a day of grace, but in no way was he ever discredited as being 'without' Christ.
Again - I state that the WHOLE of Scripture must be used IN CONTEXT.
All apologies if I come off gruff. I am a little rough around the edges, but that's how the Lord made me. Text is a hard medium to convey your intent. I'll try to use more text smiley faces in the future. : )
But putting all kidding aside… If I come across arrogant, I'd again strongly suggest you read Martin Luther's writings for yourself. : )
Anon,
It's NOT the first 300 years of Church History that concerns me most, but the History of the Roman Church AFTER the first generations of Church Fathers passed away.
Pope Leo's indulgences are a historical fact. So is Luther's propensity for colorful and earthy language. Using selective quoting of the man to support your papist convictions, then going on to condemn him along with me with your barb about vulgar language seems a bit counter-productive.
I also am rough around the edges, with little patience for legalist attitudes and intellectual dishonesty. I also am not kidding when I challenge anyone to debate particular Roman beliefs such as we are with Scripture.
I HAVE read writings of Luther. Not all, but some. More importantly, I know quite a bit about the man that has always inspired me in my Christian walk. Luther had many significant failings, like we all do. But he never let go of the authority of the Scriptures when judging right from wrong.
My frustration with many in the RCC is that they want to quote any number of other writings to defend their positions, but only use Scripture in cut-and-paste mode to do the same.
As for double-mindedness, you've lost me. Who's double-minded? Luther? I think not. Luther certainly didn't want to found a 'breakaway church', but the Lord had other plans. Luther's focus was to teach the Gospel in it's biblical purity, stripped of Rome's self-serving and abusive dogma.
Vulgar language? What you call profane, I call making a point. And Luther did say that about indulgences.
Breaking an oath? I'm pretty sure the Bible I read had Jesus instructing us not to make oaths in the first place. Again, falling back on my Reformed traditions, the Scottish Covenanters were Christians who were persecuted and martyred for refusing to acknowledge King Charles as the 'Head of the Church' and for signing the 'National Covenant' in 1638 that declared the title belonged only to Jesus Christ.
This is the distinctive tenet of Protestant Christianity and has been the fuel of murderous rage and bloody consequences from Kings and Popes.
Where are the fruits of righteousness in this equation? The blood of saints is on the hands of those who claim to defend the One, True Church -- Catholic and Protestant alike.
Anon, not sure who you are talking to about reading Luther's work, me, Thomas, or The Drake.
I have read a good bit of Luther's writing. I've read letters he wrote to the Pope, and the private correspondences he wrote to friends about the Pope (which he later apologized for the harshness of his writings at the Diet of Worms).
"Apollos was one such 'judiazer'"
Could I get a scripture reference for that? Thanks :-)
Acts 18 - 19
Apollos was teaching the baptism of John, which is the gospel of the Kingdom - applicable to Israel.
He also wasn't communicating that the Holy Spirit dwells in and with believers. This is fundamental to the Christian faith.
Apollos was correct on the 'subject' of Jesus being the Christ.
If the subject of salvation through Christ alone is what you are referring to and not reformation/correction then Apollos isn't quite the same. If you refer to this by asking for Scriptural reference, then I concur with you.
But "...if they refused to obey the decrees from leaders of the Church..." leads me to believe that you are under the impression that apostolic succession is indeed a reality. Then I can't concur with you as there is no Scriptural grounds on which to base that thought.
The Drake, I would like to go after your claim that baptism is a work of man. No it is not, this sacrament is a work of God.
But to give a better anser I quote Luther
"
First.
What is Baptism?--Answer.
Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God's command and connected with God's Word.
Which is that word of God?--Answer.
Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Secondly.
What does Baptism give or profit?--Answer.
It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.
Which are such words and promises of God? Answer.
Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Thirdly.
How can water do such great things?--Answer.
It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.
Fourthly.
What does such baptizing with water signify?--Answer.
It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.
Where is this written?--Answer.
St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
"
Just a quick question here for Michael P. O'Connor as a point of clairification...
How does that reconcile with the thief on the cross?
I'm only asking for informational purposes, not trying to attack.
Kybosh, I am not saying you will be damed if you are not baptized, there are times when some one converts and there is no time for baptism, the thief on the cross, yes they are saved, but if there time for baptism why would one reject the gift of baptism, to refuse baptism when there is time would to be refuse God, which is unbelive. The their on the cross did not refuse baptism, there just was not that opotunity for that gift to be given to him.
Another example of some one that is saved without baptism, the person on the plan that is talking to the christian in the seat next to him, the Holy Ghost uses the Christian to convert him, and then the plan crashes, the person that just converted did not have the time to recive the gift of baptism, but has recived the gift of eternal life.
I'll jump in on that one. The promise was made to the thief before Jesus had died. Therefore, the redemptive work was not yet finished at the time of the promise. Also, we often assume that "paradise" is heaven. Yet paradise is wherever God is. It may be false to assume that Jesus was saying "Today you will go straight to heaven the moment you die." Where did Jesus go when he died?
Good anser powerball better then mine, way better.
I guess maybe a C++ program should not try to be a theologen since he's/she's vocation does not really involve that.
Again, could I have scripture references for Apollos. : )
"you are under the impression that apostolic succession is indeed a reality"
Now Apostolic Succession is easy enough to show from the written Word.
Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority.
Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin.
Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required.
Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands.
Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church.
2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word "episcopoi" (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul's use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.
1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.
2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.
2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry.
2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority.
Now that was only some of the texts from the written Word (there's more if you'd like).
Here's some quotes showing the early Christian communities believed in apostolic succession too.
Clement I
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
Hegesippus
"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).
Irenaeus
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).
"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).
"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).
"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).
"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).
Now if you don't agree that men had to be ordained by an apostle, or a man that was ordained by an apostle, you must be saying that others had this authority too.
And if that's the case please give me one scriptural reference where another party was allowed to bind and loose on the Christian communities in the bible. : )
Anon, on the topic of apostolic succession:
According to Peter in Acts 1:21-22, an apostle had to have accompanied them from the time Jesus was baptized by John to the day he ascended.
I heard a pastor once say that Peter was in error selecting Matthias by lot (that's the last we hear of Matthias), as Paul had already been selected by God to replace Judas.
There are other passages about the apostles being the foundation and Christ being the cornerstone, which can be extrapolated into other Christians making up the building upon the foundation, rather than replacements or successors to the foundation.
Jesus himself only appointed 12 apostles, but gave them 70 assistants to the apostles (Luke 10: 1), there are only 12 apostles to the lamb in Rev. 21: 14, the new Jerusalem has only twelve foundations, with each one bearing the name of one of the twelve Apostles (Rev. 21: 10, 14), etc.
If you want to see more, go to:
http://www.biblestandard.co.uk/magazinehome/apostolic.htm
Anon -
The doctrine of apostolic succession...
-Is without true scriptural basis
-Was devised by false teachers, in an attempt to counter other false teachers
-Has been used by many different churches, each asserting their own validity and authority
-Yet has not prevented wholesale apostasy from God and His Word
The Lord's church mentioned in Matt 16:18...
-Is built on the foundation of Christ and His apostles - Eph 2:19-22
-Grows whenever people respond to the gospel as proclaimed by the apostles - Acts 2:38-41,47
-Is manifested wherever people continue in apostolic doctrine, not traditions of men - Acts 2:42
-Is preserved by the power of God and the all-sufficient, once for all revealed, Word of God - Acts 20:32; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Jude 3
Scriptures
a. Matt 16:18 - if the church universal is the mystical body of
Christ, it's continuation is not dependent upon a physical
succession of church leaders; it requires only the Head
(Christ) and members (Christians)
b. Acts 20:17,28 - this passage only authorizes the authority of
elders (bishops) over a local congregation; no authority is
given over the church universal
c. 2 Tim 2:2 - a succession of teachers was the goal; nothing in
this passage supports an unbreakable succession of leaders
whose authority was to be unquestioned
d. Acts 12:1-2 - when the apostles James was beheaded, no
successor was appointed to replace him
History
a. The appeal to apostolic succession did not appear before
A.D. 170-200
b. All early succession lists were compiled late in the second
century
c. It was developed as a means to counter Gnostic and other
heresies
d. It became a convenient way to assert validity and authority,
taking precedent over appealing to the Word of God
Today, different churches use the doctrine to prove their claim to be the true church; the doctrine of those claiming apostolic succession today is far removed from apostolic teaching, which one are we to believe?
As to you promoting of the writings of men - men can be and often are wrong. I prefer to stick to Scripture on the subject. For each of those who promote the doctrine, there are just as many that don't.
"Now if you don't agree ... : )" - ALL accounts in Scripture must be taken into context when looking at binding and loosing. Yes, Peter was given it; but so were two or three gathered in the name of the Lord (Matt 18). So we have the foundation of the apostles and we have the authority in the Lord for thosae gathered unto His Name. There is ONE HEAD (Christ) and ONE BODY (the Church).
Powerball - "I'll jump in on that one. The promise was made to the thief before Jesus had died. Therefore, the redemptive work was not yet finished at the time of the promise. Also, we often assume that "paradise" is heaven. Yet paradise is wherever God is. It may be false to assume that Jesus was saying "Today you will go straight to heaven the moment you die." Where did Jesus go when he died?" - into the grave until He rose again the third day. Is it too hard to believe that Christ died and rose again, according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)? Why the need to speculate?
"paradise is wherever God is" - I'm not posistive you understand the implication of this statement. If it were true ... then even the cross, on that day, would have to be considered paradise. That's preposterous!
Plus - the thief died AFTER Christ did. God can make a promise as though it is already fulfilled because He is in absolute control.
"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago - whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows - such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man - whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows - was caught up into Paradise, and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak." 2 Corinthians 12:2-4
Paradise is in the third heaven. The first heaven is our atmosphere; the second heaven is our universe and the third heaven is where God lives. The third heaven is a spiritual realm. This is where Jesus promised the thief on the cross he would go. The thief believed in Jesus, and as a result, the thief did not have to do anything.
And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.” Luke 23:43
There was no time, no opportunity. He just believed, depended on Jesus, and as a result he went to Paradise (Rev. 2:7).
All in this blog - this is indeed a great discussion! It is my prayer that we all gain from it. I have.
"Now if you don't agree that men had to be ordained... "
It was my understanding that this authority came from the Holy Spirit, not from men.
Back to baptism....
"...unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”? (John 3:5). If this means anything at all, it means that Baptism is necessary for salvation."
...of water and of the Spirit...
This is a twofold explanation of the 'new birth'. Nicodemus was a Jewish ecclesiastic, and familiar with the symbolical of the application of water. The Lord's language was fitted to show that the thing intended was no other than a thorough spiritual purification by the operation of the Holy Ghost.
The element of water and operation of the Spirit are brought together in a prediction of Ezekiel (36:25-27). Already had the symbol of water been embodied in an initiatory ordinance, in the baptism of the Jewish expectants of Messiah by the John the Baptist, and through the baptism of Gentile proselytes before that; and in the future Christian Church it would become the great visible door of entrance into 'the kingdom of God', the reality being the sole work of the Holy Ghost
Baptism simply is an outward show of an inward reality - a uniform of sorts. To wear the uniform doesn't make me a soldier, but if a soldier I ought to wear the uniform for identitification.
"According to Peter in Acts 1:21-22, an apostle had to have accompanied them from the time Jesus was baptized by John to the day he ascended."
Correct for an Apostle....but apostles made Bishops to carry on their ministry.
:)
"The doctrine of apostolic succession...
-Is without true scriptural basis"
With all do respect shouldn't I believe men who were ordained by the apostles themselves, like Clement, over men that were born twenty centuries later, like you or I? I think it's really common sense that the early church fathers are a better source for what the apostles actually taught than men born thousands of years later.
So if apostolic succession has no scriptural basis, even though I could fill this post w/ them, show me one scriptural reference where someone other than an apostle, or a man that was ordained by an apostle, had the authority to bind and loose on the Christian community. Please, just one reference will do. : )
Great posts! Going back to the statement I made about the thief on the cross.
"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."
Luke 23:43
The word used is paradeisos, which can be compared to a similar word, pardec. Pardec refers to a park, preserve, or enclosed garden and also to a forest. The word paradeisos has a similar meaning - a garden, pleasure ground, grove or park. It mirrors gan, the word used for 'garden' in "the garden (of Eden)" in Genesis.
Later Jews thought that Paradise was a part of Hades, where pious souls stayed until the resurrection. Others said it was a heavenly paradise. Many early church fathers thought that the Garden of Eden was not destroyed and that it continued to exist, neither on earth or in heaven, but somewhere between the two.
But where or what is paradise? Is it just another name for heaven? Heaven is variously described and has several possible meanings. But the word ‘paradise’ appears to be different. Unlike 'heaven' which can apply to either the physical universe (literal meaning), or to the spiritual place (figurative meaning) where God lives, the word 'paradise' has only a literal meaning. Paradise, then, seems to be a place apart from heaven, but a place where the faithful go.
When Jesus rose on the third day He told Mary that He had not yet gone to be with His Father. That is, in heaven. This means that he was elsewhere in the period between dying and arising. Christ did not ascend into heaven (to be with His Father) until over a month later. And we know from scripture that He is now at the Father's right hand in heaven.
To sum it up, I believe this is Scriptural proof of purgatory and the thief did not go straight to heaven.
Powerball, that is an intersting thought about proof for purgatory, but I have a question. It is my understanding that in purgatory that it was a firy place to burn off ones sins before entry into heaven. First is that the correct understanding of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about purgatory?
The next question will be void if I have the wrong understanding of purgatory. Christ said to the theif that he would be in paradise, my question how can a firey place be paradise. Please I wish to understand what the RCC teachs here.
Thanks.
Paradise being a park of some sorts outside of heaven is just not supported in Scripture. In 2 Cor 12, Paul describes (as much as he can) an experience and equates paradise (the very same word used by the Lord) to the 3rd Heaven - the dwelling place of God. Is Paul mistaken or is Christ mistaken? Since both spoke, one who is God and the other by the Spirit of God, the same thing I will not speculate and go on what early church fathers thought up. The one passage doesn't contradict the other. Using PBall's view they do.
Furthermore, O'Connor's point is very valid to the point - how can something be referred to as pleasant if it is a place of purging?
"So if apostolic succession has no scriptural basis, even though I could fill this post w/ them, show me one scriptural reference where someone other than an apostle, or a man that was ordained by an apostle, had the authority to bind and loose on the Christian community. Please, just one reference will do. : )"
NO authority was given to single men over the Church. Look at Matt. 15 & 18 and 1 Cor 5 and Galatians 5. Binding and loosing has to do with discipline in the Church. It is to be carried out by 'the many' for the preservation of the spirit in the Day of the Lord.
Power - capacity to influence
Authority - right to influence
No right has ever been given to men regarding the Church. It is Christ's alone.
"When Jesus rose on the third day He told Mary that He had not yet gone to be with His Father. That is, in heaven. This means that he was elsewhere in the period between dying and arising. Christ did not ascend into heaven (to be with His Father) until over a month later. And we know from scripture that He is now at the Father's right hand in heaven."
So those who saw him really didn't? The Lord arose on the third day like he said and was physically present with His own just as He is physically present in Heaven this very moment.
The Lord wasn't in a position of 'in between' dying and arising. The soldiers at the cross witnessed that he was dead. (John 19:33) He was buried. He arose. He was seen of His own and then he ascended to Heaven - just as the Scriptures say - prophetically and evidentially.
Ps 22:15; Isa 53:5-6; Da 9:26; Zec 13:7; Lu 24:26,46; 1Co 11:2,23; Ga 1:12; 1Pe 1:11; 2:24; Ps 2:7; 16:10; Isa 53:10; Ho 6:2; Ac 2:25-31; 3:18; 13:33-35; 26:22-23
Thomas, I was not tring to make a point I was only asking a question. And I very much hope that PowerBall does anser.
Hey all!!!
”NO authority was given to single men over the Church….Binding and loosing has to do with discipline in the Church. It is to be carried out by 'the many' for the preservation of the spirit in the Day of the Lord.”
Can you give me one scriptural quote where binding and loosing is to be carried out by “the many”? Also, could you please site a reference where someone other than an apostle, or a man ordained by an apostle, had this authority. ( I keep asking, but I never get them….smells fishy if you ask me.)
Binding and loosing is a rabbinical term meaning to oblige obedience in some respect and to release one from it. Also, Matthew just so happens to be the Gospel to the Jews which makes even more sense. It is only given to the apostles in the scriptures. Also, the “keys to the kingdom” are a sign of authority. Jesus Christ set up his kingdom, Luke 22:28-30, and Davidic Kingdoms had a prime minister (Isaiah 22:20-22). A prime minister was second in command next to the king. When the king is away, the Prime Minister is the man to see if you need a decision on something. He can shut and open only to be overruled by the King himself. St Peter, the only apostle to have his named changed by God and the only apostle that was given the “keys to the kingdom”, fulfilled this role.
The great Protestant bible scholar F.F. Bruce noted that “in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward” ( from the book “The hard sayings of Jesus”).
Now lets glance at the Old Testament for a second. God in the O.T. picked the 12 sons of Israel, and their respective tribes, to become his called out covenant community. Out of those twelve men, one was set out to rule over his brothers, Joseph (Gen 37).
In the New Testament, God the Son chose 12 men who would become his called out covenant community and again he set one above the others, Peter (Matt 16:18).
Also with Joseph there are a few striking parallels to Peter in Matt 16:18.
For example Joseph was given a revelation from God to answer the Egyptian King’s question.
In Matt, Peter was given a revelation from God to answer Jesus’, the true King of Kings, question.
In the O.T. the King was amazed that God gave Joseph wisdom and he placed Joseph in the position of Prime Minister in his kingdom.
In Matthew Jesus does the same. The old saying that the new is hidden in the old and the old is revealed in the new fits appropriately here. I just love how God instructs us through his written Word!!!
Now, if you do not agree that God set one man over his covenant community from the bible alone, just look at how the scriptures themselves describe the unity of the covenant community of Christ. Without one man to Sheppard the Flock of Christ, unity of doctrine would simply be impossible, as we unfortunately see in Protestantism.
Without one man settling disputes over doctrine, like Peter in Acts 15, the oneness that Christ calls his church to in John 17 is also impossible. Simply look at the last 500 years since the start of Protestantism. Protestantism has gone from “one” community, Lutherans, and has split into thousands.
In contrast, the Catholic Church, under the leadership of the Popes and councils, have remained united for over 2000 years.
In short...
The bible is very clear that you needed the apostles mandate to teach and preach doctrine.
Acts 15:24-25 Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you…
The above verse makes it clear that you needed a “mandate” from the apostles to teach and preach and that the church ordained and sent “representatives” to enforce their teachings. Sounds awfully Catholic if you ask me. : )
The bible is also very clear that the covenant community of Christ is one and not to be divided.
John 17:20-23 “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me. “
Acts 2:44 “All the believers were together and had everything in common.”
Romans 16:17 “I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them.”
1 Cor 1:10 “I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.”
1 Cor 12:25 “so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.”
Philippians 2:2 “complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing.”
So with all do respect I’d have to say that the bible is very clear that the office of Prime Minister is a necessity for the unity of faith that God requires in his called out covenant community of believers.
The Many - 1 Cor 5. The epistle is written to all the beleivers in that place not just a select few. It says "when ye are gathered together" - that is the plural.
Now - you use much from the OT and from the Gospels to suuport your point.
1 - If you find it in the OT then it must be found in the NT to be applicable to the Church - and must be in context.
2 - You use much from the NT that applies to the kingdom of the heavens - not applicable to the Church generally - unless you find it supported elsewhere in Scripture.
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Let's have a closer look at your post from last week:
"Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority."
Peter did no such thing as "implement apostolic succession" ... Scripture clearly says that "they" appointed two who had seen and walked with Jesus, and then "they" left it to the Holy Ghost by means of the Jewish casting of lots for God (not Peter) to show who was to REPLACE (not SUCCEED) Judas.
Further, THE CHURCH HAD NOT YET BEEN FORMED. How can there be an appointment of someone to be "head of the church" when as yet Pentecost had not even come and there was "no church"?
"Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown."
The men chosen here had nothing to do with "apostleship" ... the twelve apostles were going to give themselves "continually" to prayer and ministering the Scriptures ... they would not take up the practical daily needs of deacon work. And further, THE APOSTLES DID NOT CHOOSE the seven deacons ... they told the assembly to do that (see the passage in Scripture) and the apostles simply expressed fellowship with the assembly's choice by "laying on of hands".
"Laying on of hands" is not "official ordination" (though there truly was 'official apostolic authority' when the apostles were living) ... there is no such thing found anywhere in Scripture (since the apostles passed off the scene) ... "laying on of hands" shows fellowship with an act, a person or a condition, not the official ordination or conferring of official authority.
"Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands."
Paul became no such thing by Annanias' laying on of hands. That laying on of hands conferred NOTHING as regards service or ministry, it GAVE PAUL HIS SIGHT BACK and that is all it did.
"Thomas, I was not tring to make a point I was only asking a question. And I very much hope that PowerBall does anser."
Whether you meant to or not - you did.
How can the purging of sin (at the hands of a holy, holy, holy God EVER be considerd pleasant)? To think so would be to blaspheme the holy sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The exaple we have as Christ our passover is shown in the the Passover account. The lamb was to be roast with fire and not sodden at all with water. There was to be nothing to stand in the way of the fire. So too, Christ bore in his own body on the tree our sins and met the wrath of a righteous God for you and I. It is no wonder he sweat great drops of blood.
"In contrast, the Catholic Church, under the leadership of the Popes and councils, have remained united for over 2000 years."
History reports some great divisions in the Catholic Church.
Also RCC history delineates the following:
Innocent VII, Gregory XII, Alexander V, John XXIII, Martin V, etc.
Alexander died long before Gregory, and was not his successor.
At the Council of Constance when Gregory resigned, and John, the successor of Alexander, was deposed, Martin V became pope.
This is not in any sense succession. Yet the written history would have us believe it so.
And was Urban VI or Clement VII the true pope?
The RCC was deeply divided on this. All France and Spain, and other places too, held Clement VII to be the true pope.
It is absurd, with two, and even three, popes at sometimes, and having all Europe divided between them, to keep up the idea of apostolic succession.
There are several points here so let me try to answer all of them.
Michael, I so glad you asked about purgatory. This issues is so often misunderstood. The section on purgatory in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is only three paragraphs long. So there are only three points on the matter which the Catholic Church insists: (1) that there is a purification after death, (2) that this purification involves some kind of pain or discomfort, and (3) that God assists those in this purification in response to the actions of the living. The Church does not insist that purgatory is a place or that it takes a certain amount of time.
Purgatory is a condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are not entirely free from venial faults. What that means is there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go.
I want to make clear my connection of this passage to pugatory is not offical Church teaching but my own thoughts. Now I can hear some of you thinking if what is say is true, then what Jesus did on the cross does not matter. Wrong!
That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things but still condemned him "to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow" until he returned unto dust.
In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matt., iii, 8; Luke, xvii, 3; iii, 3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance. Is is the forgivness of God an the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross that allows the sinner failing to do penance in this life to be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.
As for the question Michael asked about purgatory and paradise, it is possible the suffering of the thief on the cross and his intense contrition and love were sufficient to expiate all the temporal punishment that was due to his sins. He would still need to be cleansed by fire but we have no idea about he duration of his purgatory in temporal terms.
Jesus said "Amen I say to you, this day you will be with me in paradise". But the Bible says, ".. one day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8) How long in our kind of measurement was "this day" of which Christ spoke? We do not know.
We often tend to look at things of God and heaven with the mindest of man and hold God to the limitation we a bound by. "How can something be referred to as pleasant if it is a place of purging?"
Well if you knew the end result is going to be with the Lord it may be. Regardless of what you believe, what happens between the moment of death and enetering the Kingdom of Heaven remains a mystery. We are given hints and clues but no can say for sure.
I do know we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling and we do so by trusting in Jesus.
There are several points here so let me try to answer all of them.
Michael, I so glad you asked about purgatory. This issues is so often misunderstood. The section on purgatory in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is only three paragraphs long. So there are only three points on the matter which the Catholic Church insists: (1) that there is a purification after death, (2) that this purification involves some kind of pain or discomfort, and (3) that God assists those in this purification in response to the actions of the living. The Church does not insist that purgatory is a place or that it takes a certain amount of time.
Purgatory is a condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are not entirely free from venial faults. What that means is there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go.
I want to make clear my connection of this passage to pugatory is not offical Church teaching but my own thoughts. Now I can hear some of you thinking if what is say is true, then what Jesus did on the cross does not matter. Wrong!
That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things but still condemned him "to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow" until he returned unto dust.
In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matt., iii, 8; Luke, xvii, 3; iii, 3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance. Is is the forgivness of God an the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross that allows the sinner failing to do penance in this life to be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.
As for the question Michael asked about purgatory and paradise, it is possible the suffering of the thief on the cross and his intense contrition and love were sufficient to expiate all the temporal punishment that was due to his sins. He would still need to be cleansed by fire but we have no idea about he duration of his purgatory in temporal terms.
Jesus said "Amen I say to you, this day you will be with me in paradise". But the Bible says, ".. one day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8) How long in our kind of measurement was "this day" of which Christ spoke? We do not know.
We often tend to look at things of God and heaven with the mindest of man and hold God to the limitation we a bound by. "How can something be referred to as pleasant if it is a place of purging?"
Well if you knew the end result is going to be with the Lord it may be. Regardless of what you believe, what happens between the moment of death and enetering the Kingdom of Heaven remains a mystery. We are given hints and clues but no can say for sure.
I do know we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling and we do so by trusting in Jesus.
PowerBall thanks for the anser, I do agree, that fasting and almsgiving are truly fruits of repentance. Also I would agree that God has taken away eternal concoqences of our sins, but he has left in place the temperal concoqence of sin, aka if you break the law, yes God does forgive you, but you still may face time in jail, and the truly pentatn will reconize this and not fear it or hate it, but server said time in joy. I am not sure on the purgatory thing, but you have given me something to think about, and for that I thank you. But I could see with what you are saying (assuming purgatory) a person that does depart life in Gods grace could see purgatory as a form of paradise, a tempary place to suffer before entrance into heave.
Also thanks for the offical statment from what the RCC teaches.
So then I can safely say that 1 Thess. 4 is incorrect or at the very least incomplete.
13 Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.
14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.
15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.
16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
If there was a truth of purgatory it would have been addressed in this very passage. Scripture is silent as to this 'event'. The account of the thief on the cross doesn't hold.
The Christ is the perfect sacrifice.
Hebrews 10: "17 Then he adds: 'Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.' 18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin."
Hebrews 7:27 "He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."
1 John 1:7 "the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all [ Or every] sin."
PBall - To get the true meaning of Phil. 2:12 you must quote it with the verses found in proximity to it and in the context of the chapter in which it is found - Imitating Christ's Humility. Notice verse 12 starts with 'therefore'. It is a summation/conclusion to what preceeds it -- behavior that imitates Christ, not behavior that secures salvation.
12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,
13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
So it isn't regarding salvation I do these good works. I do them because now that I am a child of God He can use me as He desires to the furtherance of His good purposes. Only a child of God can obey what was delivered by the Apostles and is now found in the Word of God. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." And Romans 7:7 "the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."
"So if apostolic succession has no scriptural basis, even though I could fill this post w/ them, show me one scriptural reference where someone other than an apostle, or a man that was ordained by an apostle, had the authority to bind and loose on the Christian community. Please, just one reference will do. : )"
Matthew 18:18
1 Corinthians 5:1-5
The context of both is 'the many'. And in 1 Cor 5, the Apostle Paul didn't enforce his will on the local body of believers in Corinth - that local gathering was responsible to expel the immoral man. The Apostle reminds them of their responsibility and his thoughts on the matter. It says that he had previously passed judgement on the matter and as of the writing of the letter to them they hadn't expelled the man. Where is the absolute authority? It lies with the Body of Christ, not with an individual or individuals who have any gift or position in the body of Christ.
I do see the need for those who are more spiritual to lead and guide, but that is a matter of influence generated by a life of faith and good character before God. (1 Tim 3 & Titus 1) This is a different matter and doesn't deal with the subject of authority (right). Also, and I won't go into it in great detail here, the credentials for one in leadership (influence) are clear from Scripture. One basic requirement was that the man be the husband of one wife. Celebacy excludes someone from Church leadership. So isthe man with no children excluded. Paul then would have been excluded from his his own office. The offices are changed and succession isn't a reality. The apostles were part of the foundation - we build on that.
Eph 2
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Thomas, you are going in different directions here. First, Thess. 4 is not invalidated in any way. We need to have a clear understanding of what "life" and " fallen asleep" mean. Does "asleep" speak about a person's faith, the condition of grace or a physical death?
16: For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
Where does all this take place? Could it be purgatory? You are assuming all this will happen here on the physical earth.
Works are a result of God's grace and a vehicle to earn it.
Second, I think you are misunderstanding the issues apostolic succession. It was never a basic requirement was that the man be the husband of one wife. That means the a man could not be married to more than one women. The first restriction placed on married clergy.
If you go back and studt you will find the best case is unmarried clergy and an undivided heart.
I believe the model for the leadership is quite clear in Scripture and I believe is teaches authority and apostolic succession.
I wish I had time to go in to more depth but I have a show to do!
PBall,
Verse 17 says, "... clouds..." Where else would you have me assume this takes place.
We need to have a clear understanding of what "life" and " fallen asleep" mean. Does "asleep" speak about a person's faith, the condition of grace or a physical death?
'Life' and 'asleep' have to be taken in the context in which they are found.
Grace is never conditional. It may have a 'measure' or volume, but it is never conditional.
Romans 12:3 "For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."
Ephesians 4:7 "But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ."
James 4:6 "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."
"History reports some great divisions in the Catholic Church."
Of course history records divisions in the CC what do you think the first Lutherans were? : )
The CC has never "officially" taught different gospels such as you have in Protestantism. That’s the unity that I was talking about.
Furthermore, bishops make other bishops, so if one is disposed does that end the line of succession? No, it doesn't. You would have to kill every single bishop in the entire world to accomplish that, and that will never happen.
Maybe I should have said that in the 2000 year history of the CC conflicting gospels have never been taught. If you can find an example that proves me wrong, please post it. : )
The fact that the Popes have never contradicted a previous Pope in matters of faith and morals is truly astounding. It is also something that can not be said about the alternatives, which are still evolving their doctrine today.
Pope Boniface VIII:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Pope Eugene IV:
"It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels', unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Now, it is said that non-Catholics can be saved, as Pope John XXIII convened the general council referred to as Vatican II in 1962. Rather than being anathematized and outcast, non-Catholics are called separated brethren.
Or do you, Anon, believe that all we non-Catholics are doomed to hell?
And then there is the whole forbidding of the translation of the Latin Vulgate into any other language, which now isn't the case.
"Now, it is said that non-Catholics can be saved..."
Vatican II DID NOT CHANGE ANY dogmas of the Church. Only people with invincible ignorance can be saved outside of Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. : )
Like I said in my first post..."Now don't get me wrong, you can't be a heretic unless you once believed the truth, knew it to be the truth and then rejected it. Have non-Catholics that have been taught differently fall into that category? Obviously not."
Read Vatican II and see for yourself. God and his Church never change. The truth is the truth.
Good try though, but semantics do not make the cut.
"Only people with invincible ignorance can be saved outside of Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. : )"
Care to support that with Scripture?
The Bible is clear that God in His providence has placed each and every single individual in a time and place so that they would have ample opportunity to seek him:
"From one man God made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live, God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us," Acts 17:27. See also Acts 14:17; Romans 1:20
"Like I said in my first post..."Now don't get me wrong, you can't be a heretic unless you once believed the truth, knew it to be the truth and then rejected it."
Do you mean heresy or apostacy? Just a clarification ...
Heresy is False Doctrine.
Orthodoxy is true doctrine. Heterodoxy is false doctrine. The technical word here is heresy, meaning one's own views that divide from others. In practice, it produces wrong schisms. In general, all error is wrong and heretical. But in a more precise sense, heresy means the rejection of a fundamental truth. One can still be saved if he is in error on a secondary truth but still believes the essential truths. But rejection of any or all of the basics is heresy and theological poison. Scripture repeatedly warns against promoters of heresy as false prophets (Matt. 7:15), false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1) and false brethren (2 Cor. 11:26). God pronounces a curse on those who preach a false Gospel (Gal. 1:8-9). Heresy is no small thing. It attacks the very essentials of the faith. Those who believe heresy, do not believe in the fundamentals, and are not true Christians. It primarily refers to pseudo-Christianity, not non-Christianity.
Apostasy Occurs When a Person No Longer Professes Orthodoxy.
This is not the same as backsliding. True Christians backslide; but they do not lose their salvation. Apostasy occurs when someone who once professed the truth of the Faith now rejects it. This is what Heb. 6 is discussing. Judas is a good example. Apostasy is spiritual and theological treason. There are degrees of apostasy. One may reject only one essential doctrine but still profess the others, such as when someone goes from Evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism or Mormonism or other brands of pseudo-Christianity. Full-blown apostasy is when someone who once professed all the basic truths now rejects all of them, such as when one becomes an atheist. 2 Thess. 2:3 and I Tim. 4:1 predicted that there would be a great apostasy one day.
Anon said: "The fact that the Popes have never contradicted a previous Pope in matters of faith and morals is truly astounding. It is also something that can not be said about the alternatives, which are still evolving their doctrine today."
"It is beyond question that he [the pope] can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics." --Pope Adrian VI, 1523
Man do we need forums....these posts are too hard to follow. Get-R-Done Pball! : )
Man do we need forums....these posts are too hard to follow. Get-R-Done Pball! : )
Sorry Anon, but the way I see it, you are the one arguing semantics.
"Only people with invincible ignorance can be saved outside of Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."
John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
NOT Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me and the church, or by invincible ignorance."
"It is beyond question that he [the pope] can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics." --Pope Adrian VI, 1523
Pope Honorius (625-38) was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical council (678-87).
Agapetus (535-6) burned the anathema which Bonface II (530-2) had solemnly issued against Dioscorus (530). The latter is shown as an antipope, but Agapetus, who sided with him, is shown as a true pope. Adrian II (867-72) said civil marriages were valid; Pius VII (1800-23) declared them invalid. Both men are shown as legitimate popes. Nicholas V (1447-55) voided all of Eugenius IV's (1431-47) "documents, processes, decrees, and censures against the Council [of Basle]. ... to be regarded as having never existed" (Dollinger, op. cit., p. 275), yet both remain on the official list of popes today.
On July 21, 1773, Pope Clement XIV issued a decree suppressing the Jesuits, only to have it reversed by a decree restoring them, issued by Pope Pius VII on August 7, 1814. Eugenius IV condemned Joan of Arc (1412-31) to be burned as a witch and heretic, but she was beatified by Pius X (1903-14) in 1909 and canonized by Benedict XV (1914-22) in 1920.
"It has served us well, this myth of Christ." -Pope Leo X
Purgatory: Belief in Purgatory became a formal church 'dogma' only in the 16th century. The historical emphasis of the church had been that Purgatory is a dreadful place of painful, long-lasting punishment with fire. More recent references by the Pope imply that Purgatory is not "a place but [rather] a condition of life."
The current view of Mary was brought about by the church trying to attract Pagans. She was explained in the image of the Pagan "Mother Goddess".
The concept of Original Sin was taken by St Augustine from Gnosticism.
Many popes denied papal infalibility, among them Vigilius (537-55), Clement IV (1265-8), Gregory XI (1370-8), Adrian VI (1522-3), Paul IV (1555-9) and Innocent III (1198-1216).
On a side note, if Powerball goes to forums, Thomas and I will be very restricted in the times we can access them, as forum websites are blocked from our place of employment.
""It is beyond question that he [the pope] can err even in matters touching the faith."
Of course many Popes were heretics just as many Protestant pastors were, but none promoted heresy in a dogmatic decree, which cannot be said for the latter.
The Roman Pontiff is only infallible in matters of faith and morals when making a decree for the entire CC. Find me one example of this. The above quote from Adrian was not a papal bull, but a private opinion. It does not meet the requirements for what an infallible statement is, but it was a good try.
Let me be specific...
Faith and morals is the key. Has a Pope ever denied the Trinity, the sacraments, the bodily resurrection of Christ, etc… in an official document meant for the whole CC? Even the most sinful Popes, and there have been a few, have never done this.
Also, if you post a reference please cite it so others can read it in its entirety.
Happy searching! : )
Sorry. Already proved. See above.
Thanks for all the killer posts, Prots and Caths alike! I will not be posting anymore in this comment. It has become too disorganized for me to follow. :(
Keep searching and growing in the Lord!
Peace be w/ you.
Anony
And also with you, my friend.
As I've said before, when we all get to heaven, we'll have a chuckle over these discussions and be able to razz one another about who was right and who was wrong. ;)
Good posts! If we search prayerfully and let the Spirit do His work we shall all agree.
If not, we shall disagree and we then can only conclude the either one is right or both are wrong; both cannot be right.
PBall wasn't kidding when he said this was a 'loaded question'!
Post a Comment