Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?

[thessalonian]

Clearly you do not understand all tradition. Your definition covers only one form of tradition.

"Hold fast to the TRADITIONS you have recieved, whether by WORD OF MOUTH or in WRITING from us.". 2 Thess 2:15.

Got that. First of all the Bible, i.e. scripture is a tradition. Secondly there are Godly authoritative traditions that are to be held to Paul tells us. These are not the traditions that you speak of but rather truths about the teachings of the scriptures.

 

[ZeroTX]

****edited by thessalonian****

I wonder if he's married?... Think that might be a wedding ring on his and/or his wife's finger? That's a pagan tradition. It's also where we established the dates for Christmas and Easter (FYI)... so that pagans who were converting to Christianity could feel more comfortable and revamp their traditions glorify God, rather than their pagan gods.

Indeed Scripture is a tradition, too. The New Testament began as the Church began reading the various letters and writings as a way to receive guidance... later, the Church had to work out which were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, which were good writings (but not explicitly straight from God), and which were no good at all... That was decided, and then (and only then), was there officially a Christian Bible. Decided by Tradition and Church authority... imagine that.

-Michael

 

[LittleNipper]

Clearly you do not understand all tradition. Your definition covers only one form of tradition.

"Hold fast to the TRADITIONS you have recieved, whether by WORD OF MOUTH or in WRITING from us.". 2 Thess 2:15.

Got that. First of all the Bible, i.e. scripture is a tradition. Secondly there are Godly authoritative traditions that are to be held to Paul tells us. These are not the traditions that you speak of but rather truths about the teachings of the scriptures.

The translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that I read is translated as follows:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the TEACHINGS we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by epistle.

This would limit "traditions" (if that is the word you desire to use) to the GOSPEL MESSAGE and the eventual Biblical canon. This would exclude fables, and person opinions, and trinkets as being of any eternal necessity. As for rings and Christmas trees, that does not mean that they may not acquire the rank of visual aids; however, their acceptance or rejection has no eternal ramifications in the eyes of GOD.

 

[ttg]

Clearly you do not understand all tradition. Your definition covers only one form of tradition.

"Hold fast to the TRADITIONS you have recieved, whether by WORD OF MOUTH or in WRITING from us.". 2 Thess 2:15.

Got that. First of all the Bible, i.e. scripture is a tradition. Secondly there are Godly authoritative traditions that are to be held to Paul tells us. These are not the traditions that you speak of but rather truths about the teachings of the scriptures.

The translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that I read is translated as follows:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the TEACHINGS we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by epistle.

This would limit "traditions" (if that is the word you desire to use) to the GOSPEL MESSAGE and the eventual Biblical canon. This would exclude fables, and person opinions, and trinkets as being of any eternal necessity. As for rings and Christmas trees, that does not mean that they may not acquire the rank of visual aids; however, their acceptance or rejection has no eternal ramifications in the eyes of GOD.

Why would you assume tradition is limited to the Gospel? St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and appointed as Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter. It is St. Ignatius who bests understands traditions, because he was taught them by an Apostle of Jesus. Would you ingore what he was taught (and later put in writing so he could teach others) because it is not in the canon of the Bible? His teachings were put in writing long before the Bible was assembled.

If you believe in the infallibility of the Bible, you must believe in the Apostolic tradition which made it possible.

 

[LittleNipper]

Clearly you do not understand all tradition. Your definition covers only one form of tradition.

"Hold fast to the TRADITIONS you have recieved, whether by WORD OF MOUTH or in WRITING from us.". 2 Thess 2:15.

Got that. First of all the Bible, i.e. scripture is a tradition. Secondly there are Godly authoritative traditions that are to be held to Paul tells us. These are not the traditions that you speak of but rather truths about the teachings of the scriptures.

The translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that I read is translated as follows:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the TEACHINGS we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by epistle.

This would limit "traditions" (if that is the word you desire to use) to the GOSPEL MESSAGE and the eventual Biblical canon. This would exclude fables, and person opinions, and trinkets as being of any eternal necessity. As for rings and Christmas trees, that does not mean that they may not acquire the rank of visual aids; however, their acceptance or rejection has no eternal ramifications in the eyes of GOD.

Why would you assume tradition is limited to the Gospel? St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and appointed as Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter. It is St. Ignatius who bests understands traditions, because he was taught them by an Apostle of Jesus. Would you ignore what he was taught (and later put in writing so he could teach others) because it is not in the canon of the Bible? His teachings were put in writing long before the Bible was assembled.

If you believe in the infallibility of the Bible, you must believe in the Apostolic tradition which made it possible.

I believe that the Apostles are now dead and that the miracles which which they were gifted ended with them. I do not hold to Apostolic secession. I do believe in discipleship. As for Saint Ignatius, I would consider his writing a learning tool; however, I would not apply the elevation of his writings to being scripture. I would consider what he espoused in light of the Bible and not in addition to it. The scripture was closed with Revelation.(95-97 AD)

 

[golfjack]

reply

Where does the Bible say that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased with the Apostles?




May God bless, golfjack

 

[thessalonian]

Scripture did end we the apostles. We agree.
We do not believe that those who we call Bishops are apostes. That is not what we mean by successors of the Apostles.
We do not hold Ignaitus, Irenaus, Justin Martyrn, Didache, Clement, and many many more to be scripture either. We see them as you do. As a witness to the early Church. But they were not protestant.

 

[LittleNipper]

Scripture did end we the apostles. We agree.
We do not believe that those who we call Bishops are apostes. That is not what we mean by successors of the Apostles.
We do not hold Ignaitus, Irenaus, Justin Martyrn, Didache, Clement, and many many more to be scripture either. We see them as you do. As a witness to the early Church. But they were not protestant.

No, Irenaus, Justin Martyrn, Didache, and Clement were not "Protestant," That would be like calling Henry the VIII an Episipalian. That said, they were certainly not "Catholic" in the Roman Catholic sense of the word. They likely considered themselves as part of CHRIST's CHURCH in a UNIVERSAL SENSE, but that is where it would stop. They may have seen themselve as citizens of Rome in a political sense. But I would see each individual as being in fellowship at a COMMUNITY church wherever that city or town might be.Example a Christian at Corinth, a Christian at Ephesus, a Christian at Thessonalica, etc.... None certainly saw himself as a ROMAN CATHOLIC. It is questionable that they even referred to themselves a CATHOLIC --- ever....

 

[ZeroTX]

Scripture did end we the apostles. We agree.
We do not believe that those who we call Bishops are apostes. That is not what we mean by successors of the Apostles.
We do not hold Ignaitus, Irenaus, Justin Martyrn, Didache, Clement, and many many more to be scripture either. We see them as you do. As a witness to the early Church. But they were not protestant.

No, Irenaus, Justin Martyrn, Didache, and Clement were not "Protestant," That would be like calling Henry the VIII an Episipalian. That said, they were certainly not "Catholic" in the Roman Catholic sense of the word. They likely considered themselves as part of CHRIST's CHURCH in a UNIVERSAL SENSE, but that is where it would stop. They may have seen themselve as citizens of Rome in a political sense. But I would see each individual as being in fellowship at a COMMUNITY church wherever that city or town might be.Example a Christian at Corinth, a Christian at Ephesus, a Christian at Thessonalica, etc.... None certainly saw himself as a ROMAN CATHOLIC. It is questionable that they even referred to themselves a CATHOLIC --- ever....

You do realize that the only people who use the term "Roman Catholic" are non-Catholics, right?... I'm a Catholic. "Roman Catholic" is a derogatory term used to explicitly or implicitly regionalize or reduce Catholicism to the same level as a protestant denomination. Of course they weren't "Roman" Catholic... but they were indeed Catholic and considered themselves as such to separate the Catholic Church from those who were heretics but claimed they were Christian. This is where the distictive terminology came about... Catholic, Universal Christian Church... as opposed to "Christian" but heretical. Not "Roman" Catholic. If you look for that term, you will find it only in the words of non-Catholics or dissenters.

-Michael

 

[thessalonian]

That said, they were certainly not "Catholic" in the Roman Catholic sense of the word

Let's see. Baptismal regeneration,
Real prescence in the Eucharist,
Primacy of authority of the Roman Bishop (check out Irenaus, Clement, and even Ignatius who said the Roman Church had the pure doctrine)
Bishops and priests,
Confession of sins,
Perpetual virginity of Mary
Confirmation,
salvation not by faith alone (in the protestant sense)

much more.

I think they were quite catholic. They may not have used terms such as Pope but it was quite clearly there.

 

[LittleNipper]

Re: reply

Where does the Bible say that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased with the Apostles?




May God bless, golfjack

I believe Paul eludes to this fact, though many "Protestants" may for their own reason disagree with me.

Read I Corinthians Chapter 13 starting at verse 1. Paul begins seemingly to refer to his own gifts as he move onto that of Love & Charity. He calls them the most important gifts because they will continue. I believe that the Bible ---- Old & New Testament together is that PERFECT standard that is established, when the writings were finished ---- and I believe that The Revelation of CHRIST as written down by the Beloved Disciple was the very last dictation/scriptural revelation from GOD about 95-97 AD. The WORD and the WORK were established and set into motion. Since that time the CHURCH in general has gone through times of paganization and re-evaluation, Biblical darkness and renewed interest. Special Revelations of additional scripture and Prophetic ministries have ceased----unless one wants to believe as Mormon's do. I feel that tongues has ended also. I've NEVER heard tongues along with a Divine translation ---- have you? That doesn't mean that as we get closer to the end times, that GOD will not reveal a clearer understanding of what HE has already provided in HIS WORD. Also, durning the time of Jacob's trouble / tribulation. The two witness will show up on the scene and they will testify of the end events. My feeling is that their prophecy will be of reiteration rather then additional. Their primary purpose seems to be as witnesses and to fulfill scripture.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

Where does the Bible say that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased with the Apostles?

Read I Corinthians Chapter 13 starting at verse 1. Paul begins seemingly to refer to his own gifts as he move onto that of Love & Charity. He calls them the most important gifts because they will continue. I believe that the Bible ---- Old & New Testament together is that PERFECT standard that is established, when the writings were finished ---- and I believe that The Revelation of CHRIST as written down by the Beloved Disciple was the very last dictation/scriptural revelation from GOD about 95-97 AD. The WORD and the WORK were established and set into motion.

I don't think you answered the question asked by Golfjack.

First of all, it is an ASSUMPTION made by Protestants that Public Revelation has ended. The Bible ITSELF never makes that claim. The Catholic Church says it has - based on Apostolic Tradition.

Secondly, 1 Cor 13 doesn't say anything about the gifts given to the Church have ended or will end in the future. This is strictly an assumption based on the Protestant idea that God only gifted that first generation of Christians with His Spirit. However, if one would bother to read the lives of the Saints, one can find all kinds of miraculous happenings - signs of the Spirit still working in the Church.

There is NO written indication that God's gifts to mankind culminated with the Revelation of His Word given through the Bible. Thus, it is a false assumption, based on no evidence whatsoever, that states that the Spirit is done gifting the Church merely because the Bible has been completed.

Regards

 

[LittleNipper]

Scripture did end we the apostles. We agree.
We do not believe that those who we call Bishops are apostes. That is not what we mean by successors of the Apostles.
We do not hold Ignaitus, Irenaus, Justin Martyrn, Didache, Clement, and many many more to be scripture either. We see them as you do. As a witness to the early Church. But they were not protestant.

No, Irenaus, Justin Martyrn, Didache, and Clement were not "Protestant," That would be like calling Henry the VIII an Episipalian. That said, they were certainly not "Catholic" in the Roman Catholic sense of the word. They likely considered themselves as part of CHRIST's CHURCH in a UNIVERSAL SENSE, but that is where it would stop. They may have seen themselves as citizens of Rome in a political sense. But I would see each individual as being in fellowship at a COMMUNITY church wherever that city or town might be.Example a Christian at Corinth, a Christian at Ephesus, a Christian at Thessonalica, etc.... None certainly saw himself as a ROMAN CATHOLIC. It is questionable that they even referred to themselves a CATHOLIC --- ever....

You do realize that the only people who use the term "Roman Catholic" are non-Catholics, right?... I'm a Catholic. "Roman Catholic" is a derogatory term used to explicitly or implicitly recognize or reduce Catholicism to the same level as a protestant denomination. Of course they weren't "Roman" Catholic... but they were indeed Catholic and considered themselves as such to separate the Catholic Church from those who were heretics but claimed they were Christian. This is where the distinctive terminology came about... Catholic, Universal Christian Church... as opposed to "Christian" but heretical. Not "Roman" Catholic. If you look for that term, you will find it only in the words of non-Catholics or dissenters.

-Michael

Well then, a lot of Catholic churches include the term ROMAN on their signage or R.C. Example: Saint Peter's R.C. Church in Riverside, New Jersey. I assumed that the RC stood for ROMAN CATHOLIC and not ROCKY CANCELLIERI. :-D I certainly didn't name that church and the United States doesn't seem the place to force anyone to call their edifice something they themselves didn't impose on it themselves..... As for "heretic," that seems a general label some "catholics" like to impose on those they disagree with, without much scriptural support but perhaps a papal bull under Jesuit influence or duress perhaps??????

 

[ttg]

The term "Roman" Catholic was invented by Anglicans in the 1600's who claimed to also be Catholic but wanted to differentiate themselves from the Church headed in Rome. Yes, it was used in a negative connotation. It is also where the slurs "Romanist", "popery" and "papists" came from.

Roman isn't considered to be derogatory any more and in fact the Catholic Church does call itself the Roman Catholic Church in some instances as a courtesy when communicating with other churches.

I'd say calling the Catholic Church "Roman" carries much less negative connotation than naming a bible after a man who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people accused of witchcraft, not to mention what he did behind closed doors with his boyfriends.

 

[LittleNipper]

Re: reply

Where does the Bible say that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased with the Apostles?

Read I Corinthians Chapter 13 starting at verse 1. Paul begins seemingly to refer to his own gifts as he move onto that of Love & Charity. He calls them the most important gifts because they will continue. I believe that the Bible ---- Old & New Testament together is that PERFECT standard that is established, when the writings were finished ---- and I believe that The Revelation of CHRIST as written down by the Beloved Disciple was the very last dictation/scriptural revelation from GOD about 95-97 AD. The WORD and the WORK were established and set into motion.

I don't think you answered the question asked by Golfjack.

First of all, it is an ASSUMPTION made by Protestants that Public Revelation has ended. The Bible ITSELF never makes that claim. The Catholic Church says it has - based on Apostolic Tradition.

Secondly, 1 Cor 13 doesn't say anything about the gifts given to the Church have ended or will end in the future. This is strictly an assumption based on the Protestant idea that God only gifted that first generation of Christians with His Spirit. However, if one would bother to read the lives of the Saints, one can find all kinds of miraculous happenings - signs of the Spirit still working in the Church.

There is NO written indication that God's gifts to mankind culminated with the Revelation of His Word given through the Bible. Thus, it is a false assumption, based on no evidence whatsoever, that states that the Spirit is done gifting the Church merely because the Bible has been completed.

Regards

I Corinthians 13:8

Charity never faileth: but whether prophecies, they shall fail; whether tongues, they shall cease, whether knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Revelations 22:19

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part from the Tree of Life and out of the holy city, and the things which are written in this book.

 

[LittleNipper]

The term "Roman" Catholic was invented by Anglicans in the 1600's who claimed to also be Catholic but wanted to differentiate themselves from the Church headed in Rome. Yes, it was used in a negative connotation. It is also where the slurs "Romanist", "popery" and "papists" came from.

Roman isn't considered to be derogatory any more and in fact the Catholic Church does call itself the Roman Catholic Church in some instances as a courtesy when communicating with other churches.

I'd say calling the Catholic Church "Roman" carries much less negative connotation than naming a bible after a man who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people accused of witchcraft, not to mention what he did behind closed doors with his boyfriends.

Was not King James Catholic...? Wyclif was the earlier Bible guy. You could not be talking about him. It seems to me that between the French, the Italian, and the Spanish kings, there was no end of FRUITCAKE.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

I Corinthians 13:8

Charity never faileth: but whether prophecies, they shall fail; whether tongues, they shall cease, whether knowledge, it shall vanish away.

This only means that charity will never fail - even if prophecies and tongues fail, even if knowledge was to fail.

You seem to say that prophesies and tongues have failed but why not knowledge, if this is the basis of your idea that the Spirit no longer works in the Church? Are you also saying that knowledge is no longer given as well???

Revelations 22:19

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part from the Tree of Life and out of the holy city, and the things which are written in this book.

Where does it say that Revelation has ended? This only says that no one can misconstrue the prophesies found in THAT book, the Book of Revelation, not the entire Bible! That is a serious case of reading what is not there.

Regards

 

[LittleNipper]

Re: reply

I Corinthians 13:8

Charity never faileth: but whether prophecies, they shall fail; whether tongues, they shall cease, whether knowledge, it shall vanish away.

This only means that charity will never fail - even if prophecies and tongues fail, even if knowledge was to fail.

You seem to say that prophesies and tongues have failed but why not knowledge, if this is the basis of your idea that the Spirit no longer works in the Church? Are you also saying that knowledge is no longer given as well???

Revelations 22:19

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part from the Tree of Life and out of the holy city, and the things which are written in this book.

Where does it say that Revelation has ended? This only says that no one can misconstrue the prophesies found in THAT book, the Book of Revelation, not the entire Bible! That is a serious case of reading what is not there.

Regards

I'm looking at the supposed "words of Knowledge" many Pentecostals speak of. It is simply another reference to prophecy to me. I believe what the HOLY SPIRIT REVEALS is UNDERSTANDING at THIS time. We add nothing more about heaven or GOD then what has been shown to us in GOD's COMPLETED Word. There is no additional information or secrete knowledge that I or you will be shown in this life. Presently, what we experience is the understanding of what the prophets and Apostles already expressed as the Christian matures in the SPIRIT..

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

I Corinthians 13:8

Charity never faileth: but whether prophecies, they shall fail; whether tongues, they shall cease, whether knowledge, it shall vanish away.

This only means that charity will never fail - even if prophecies and tongues fail, even if knowledge was to fail.

You seem to say that prophesies and tongues have failed but why not knowledge, if this is the basis of your idea that the Spirit no longer works in the Church? Are you also saying that knowledge is no longer given as well???

I'm looking at the supposed "words of Knowledge" may Pentecostals speak of. It is simply another reference to prophecy to me.

Sorry, that is poor Scriptural interpretation. There is no reason why the Scripture would repeat this concept twice in the same sentence..."knowledge" means something other than prophesy in the verse. The subject of the verse is "charity", not an exposition on the failure of the Holy Spirit to continue gifting the Church.

I believe what the HOLY SPIRIT REVEALS is UNDERSTANDING at THIS time. We add nothing more about heaven or GOD then what has been shown to us in GOD's COMPLETED Word.

Again, where does the Scripture say that the Word of God is completed?

Regards

 

[golfjack]

reply

I do know that I want to be in the know and flow in the last day move of God. Faith worketh by love. In other words, faith and hope will not work without love. The Bible says that Love is shed abroad in our our hearts. To see the God-kind-of love read chapter 13 in 1 Cor. 13:4-9. These gifts will cease at the end of this age.



May God bless, golfjack