Denominations that teach that salvation is exclusive to them

[concretecamper]

This is having a tendency to go back and forth, or at least it seems to.

Not really, since you seem to get it

That response seems to boil down to: Yes.

 

[ozso]

Not really, since you seem to get it

Okay: so the official position of the Roman Catholic church is, Christians who aren't ROMAN CATHOLICS ARE GOING TO HELL.

Glad we go that cleared up finally.

 

[concretecamper]

Okay: so the official position of the Roman Catholic church is, Christians who aren't ROMAN CATHOLICS ARE GOING TO HELL.

Glad we go that cleared up finally.

You keep changing the conditions. First you ask about those who reject the RCC and now you refer to those who are not Roman Catholic. If you can't keep you thoughts straight, don't expect a clear answer .

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I am sure the Jews of Christ's day viewed it that way as well - but notice His solution to the problem in Mark 7

6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Now obviously they want to reply "no we don't do anything wrong... everything we do is right - it is you who are wrong and we have our tradition on our side"

Yet Christ's sola scriptura method did work as we see in Acts 6:7

7 The word of God kept spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.



Because the Bible shows it to be correct - just a in Mark 7 Jesus proves that the Jews were wrong by showing the Bible case for it... and not only could Christ's hearers see the point when He did so - but also in Acts 6:7 many of the priests came around on that as well.

And that is what you saw Christ saying in Mark 7.

God sends the Holy Spirit to 'Guide into all truth" as we see in John 16 - but He does not "mind zapp" people - each person must choose. Christ's method is the right one.

I always consider my view to see if it is in error - after all I am not infallible. But the Bible is and the Holy Spirit is as wel. God tells us to use Christ's method.

In Act 17:11 "They studied the scriptures to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO" -- now these were NOT Christians doing it - they were people of the Jewish faith. Their own leaders were telling them that Paul was dead wrong. YET they had the ability "to read" and to see that Paul was in fact correct even though he was not strictly following their own religious leaders.



I understand. But the Bible shows us how it is done so we follow that method. A method that resulted in millions of Jews and 100's of millions of gentiles, pagans etc - rejecting their own leaders - and choosing Christianity.

1. The Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit - 2 Tim 3:16
2. Conviction of truth is the work of the Holy Spirit - John 16
3. Christ shows us how to use the sola scriptura method with opponents and Acts 6:7 shows that it works as does Acts 17:1-3

Ok that is circular reasoning. The Bible is true because the Bible is true. You also think tradition is bad because the Jews used bad tradition. Both of those are flawed thinking and the Holy Spirit who guides into all truth would not lead you to believe that way.

 

[ozso]

You keep changing the conditions. First you ask about those who reject the RCC and now you refer to those who are not Roman Catholic. If you can't keep you thoughts straight, don't expect a clear answer .

At this point, I most certainly would not expect a clear and forthright answer from you.

 

[concretecamper]

At this point, I most certainly would not expect a clear and forthright answer from you.

Thank you, I can only respond to the words you write, not to the thoughts you may or may not have.

 

[ozso]

Thank you, I can only respond to the words you write, not to the thoughts you may or may not have.

I think you know perfectly well what I'm asking, and you're being purposely vague and ambiguous in your replies.

 

[JSRG]

What does "through no fault of his own" mean regarding those who are Eastern Orthodox and Protestant?

In regards to who qualifies as "through no fault of his own", I believe the Catholic Church says that that is something only God determines, and thus we do not know the extent of it. Some have viewed it very narrowly, whereas others have viewed it far more expansively.

 

[BobRyan]

Ok that is circular reasoning.

Technically it is not at all.
The idea that Christ had the answer and that new testament examples of the successful method that works
is an argument from proven success and trusted sources. (At least for Christians)

The only way to re-imagine it as "circular reasoning" is to argue that for an atheist any argument that uses the Bible's teaching to prove a point is circular reasoning since the Bible itself is assumed to be in doubt and likely false so no proof "from the Bible's history or examples" can be accepted.

I assume for this conversation we are dealing with the Christian context as a given.

The Bible is true because the Bible is true.

If we are debating the atheist as to whether the Bible is true or not then I agree that we can't use the Bible the way I used it for that specific point. I assumed you were not talking about trying to prove this point to an atheist.

You also think tradition is bad because the Jews used bad tradition

No --- I think Christ's example proves that tradition must be tested to see which part is hay-stubble-straw and which is legit.

Both of those are flawed thinking and the Holy Spirit who guides into all truth would not lead you to believe that way.

circular reasoning much?

 

[FaithT]

This is having a tendency to go back and forth, or at least it seems to.

The question was: So if one rejects the RCC they won't go to Heaven, correct?

The response was: Now, separating from His Church is a schismatic act, you are in fact rejecting Christ, which is extremely serious. I'll let you complete the thought experiment.

That response seems to boil down to: Yes.

As in: Yes if one rejects the Roman Catholic church they won't go to Heaven.

I think that's what you really want to say, but the rules won't let you.

Agreed

 

[BobRyan]

Not really, since you seem to get it

Now see, that was not so hard.

 

[RileyG]

I'm asking what the Roman Catholic Church's official position is.

Ultimately, it's up to God. And God alone. Period.

 

[RileyG]

This is having a tendency to go back and forth, or at least it seems to.

The question was: So if one rejects the RCC they won't go to Heaven, correct?

The response was: Now, separating from His Church is a schismatic act, you are in fact rejecting Christ, which is extremely serious. I'll let you complete the thought experiment.

That response seems to boil down to: Yes.

As in: Yes if one rejects the Roman Catholic church they won't go to Heaven.

I think that's what you really want to say, but the rules won't let you.

No one said that those who reject the RCC will be damned. That's heresy, that has long been condemned by the RCC.

 

[ozso]

In regards to who qualifies as "through no fault of his own", I believe the Catholic Church says that that is something only God determines, and thus we do not know the extent of it. Some have viewed it very narrowly, whereas others have viewed it far more expansively.

As far as what God determines, it seems there's a differentiation between what's directly from Scripture, and what's been decreed by way of creed, counsel and catechism hundreds of years after the New Testament was written.

 

[RileyG]

As far as what God determines, it seems there's a differentiation between what's directly from Scripture, and what's been decreed by way of creed, counsel and catechism hundreds of years after the New Testament was written.

Scripture: Mark 16:16

 

[RileyG]

Okay: so the official position of the Roman Catholic church is, Christians who aren't ROMAN CATHOLICS ARE GOING TO HELL.

Glad we go that cleared up finally.

The Church does not teach this. Period.

 

[Valletta]

As far as what God determines, it seems there's a differentiation between what's directly from Scripture, and what's been decreed by way of creed, counsel and catechism hundreds of years after the New Testament was written.

Sacred Scripture is only part of the Word of God. We are to stand fast by all of God's Word.

 

[RileyG]

Sacred Scripture is only part of the Word of God. We are to stand fast by all of God's Word.

Amen

 

[ozso]

No one said that those who reject the RCC will be damned. That's heresy, that has long been condemned by the RCC.

Thank you for that direct clear unambiguous statement.

 

[ozso]

Sacred Scripture is only part of the Word of God. We are to stand fast by all of God's Word.

Unfortunately this, as one of many examples, is what the Latter Day Saints tell us about the Book of Mormon.