In John 5:25-29 Jesus confirmed the dead will have a chance to obey His voice while still in the grave

[Alfred Persson]

It is explained by your understanding Alfred. Jesus told Lazarus to come on out, and that is what he did. The Bible states very clearly the dead are not conscious of anything, and I believe it sir, it does not contradict itself, if it does, what hope do we have?

Ok, I'll concede someone who doesn't exist can "hear", although that violates Occam's Razor.

The one point you never try to explain is how God can talk about "soul" when it doesn't exist apart from the body:

"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt. 16:26 NKJ)

If the soul and body are the same, then Christ's words make no sense:

"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own BODY? Or what will a man give in exchange for his BODY?

 

[Mungo]

Your own words made my point.

They mean what they say but not what your would like to interpret them as saying.
For example you interpret as saying "outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation". But it doesn't say that.

As if its the responsibility of non-Catholics to see such sophistry.

Produce one catholic divine in the early centuries who referenced a "non-Catholic Church as "the church".

Just one saying "outside the church there is no salvation" but talking about something other than the Catholic Church.

To quote you "you provide no evidence."

Also:

Dodging the point.
The point is that "outside the Church, there is no salvation" does not say outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

Justin Martyr martyred 165 wrote
We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus...and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably (First Apology 46).

St. Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) wrote concerning thos that died before receiving baptism:
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

The (Eastern) Orthodox split off from the Catholic Church in 1054 but the Catholic Church has always considered their sacraments as valid.

Your claims about the Catholic church have no merit.

If we can't take plain, clear statements as proof of belief, there is no proof possible in a legal historical sense.

The statement "outside the Church, there is no salvation" does NOT say outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and I have clearly shown that is does not mean that.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Dodging the point.
The point is that "outside the Church, there is no salvation" does not say outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

Justin Martyr martyred 165 wrote
We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus...and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably (First Apology 46).

St. Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) wrote concerning thos that died before receiving baptism:
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

The (Eastern) Orthodox split off from the Catholic Church in 1054 but the Catholic Church has always considered their sacraments as valid.

Your claims about the Catholic church have no merit.


The statement "outside the Church, there is no salvation" does NOT say outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and I have clearly shown that is does not mean that.

Unhistorical. That is the logical fallacy rending your argument unsound.

Justin Martyr existed BEFORE the Catholic Church, while Romans were hiding in Catacombs and not pontificating anything about 'the church'. And Aquinas is well after the period of time in question.

The phrase "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (outside the Church there is no salvation) first appeared in the writings of St. Cyprian of Carthage, in the third century A.D. in one of his letters:

"He who does not have the Church for his mother cannot have God for his father" (Epistle 4.4).

There is no nuance there, he means the Christian church, not some other church.


This idea was further developed by other theologians over the centuries, and the phrase "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" became a widely accepted doctrine in the Catholic Church during the medieval period.

So every Catholic who heard it before modern times would understand the phrase literally.

That its meaning changed with time, proves nothing against my argument.

 

[Mungo]

Unhistorical. That is the logical fallacy rending your argument unsound.

Justin Martyr existed BEFORE the Catholic Church, while Romans were hiding in Catacombs and not pontificating anything about 'the church'. And Aquinas is well after the period of time in question.

The phrase "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (outside the Church there is no salvation) first appeared in the writings of St. Cyprian of Carthage, in the third century A.D. in one of his letters:

"He who does not have the Church for his mother cannot have God for his father" (Epistle 4.4).

There is no nuance there, he means the Christian church, not some other church.


This idea was further developed by other theologians over the centuries, and the phrase "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" became a widely accepted doctrine in the Catholic Church during the medieval period.

So every Catholic who heard it before modern times would understand the phrase literally.

That its meaning changed with time, proves nothing against my argument.

Not true.
Lets go to the basic argument.
You claimed the Church changed its doctrine at Vatican II
You claimed the proof for this is a very strict interpretation of the statement "outside the Church there is no salvation".

I showed you that this strict interpretation was condemned by the Church before Vatican II.
Therefore the Church did not change its doctrine at Vatican II.
End of argument.

 

[Highway54]

What has that to do with what I said?

It was to show you that at that time the first resurrection had not yet occurred, therefore no one had went to heaven, and since Jesus was still alive that included him. He was the first to go to heaven after his resurrection.

We do believe the first resurrection has happened now, so all those who have been redeemed from the earth will instantly go to heaven upon their death at this time, but the remainder will remain in the grave until after the Kingdom comes sir. We believe the dead will be resurrected progressively, from the last to the first.

 

[brightfame52]

Jesus said the dead will hear His voice and all who "hear" (=obey) would live. Life or death are determined by the response to His voice. Jesus' point throughout this context is the Father has authorized the Son to judge and give life to all who obey His voice just like the Father. Just as with the Father, the dead (physically alive or not) are judged by their obedience to Christ's voice:

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice (ἀκούσονται τῆς φωνῆς) of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice (ἀκούσονται τῆς φωνῆς),
29 And shall come forth; they that have done (ποιήσαντες aorist participle) good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done (πράξαντες aorist participle) evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (Jn. 5:25-29 KJV)


In John 5:29 the KJV translated the aorist participles as "have done", but context requires "did":

In John 5:25-29 Jesus confirmed the dead will have a chance to obey His voice while still in the grave​

No He didnt, thats not what those scripture say !

 

[Highway54]

Ok, I'll concede someone who doesn't exist can "hear", although that violates Occam's Razor.

The one point you never try to explain is how God can talk about "soul" when it doesn't exist apart from the body:

"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt. 16:26 NKJ)

If the soul and body are the same, then Christ's words make no sense:

"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own BODY? Or what will a man give in exchange for his BODY?

Man is a soul sir, nothing lives on at death, future life is in God's hands which He grants through the resurrection. Jesus was talking about losing out on everlasting life, not the present life.

The Hebrew word Nephesh, and Greek Psykhe rendered soul means breathing creature. All fleshly creatures are souls Alfred. Why would Jesus have to die if we lived forever already? Why would God say we die, and see to it death is defined in His word? Do you honestly think that the Bible is in error when it states the dead know nothing sir?

Xpn Nephesh (neh'-fesh); Noun Feminine, Strong #: 5315


soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
living being
living being (with life in the blood)
the man himself, self, person or individual
seat of the appetites
seat of emotions and passions
activity of mind
dubious
activity of the will
dubious
activity of the character
dubious
KJV Word Usage and Count
soul 475
life 117
person 29
mind 15
heart 15
creature 9
body 8
himself 8
yourselves 6
dead 5
will 4
desire 4
man 3
themselves 3
any 3
appetite 2
miscellaneous 47
yuchv Psuche (psoo-khay');
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 5590


breath
the breath of life
the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing 1a
of animals 1a
of men
life
that in which there is life
a living being, a living soul
the soul
the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.)
the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life
the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body)
KJV Word Usage and Count
soul 58
life 40
mind 3
heart 1
heartily 1
not translated 2


I believe that death is the same as before you existed sir. All life exists through God and fleshly beings are animated by God's holy spirit, it is the absence of that breath of life that causes death, God stated they know nothing, sent His son to provide a ransom, and promises a resurrection, this is what I believe sir.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Not true.
Lets go to the basic argument.
You claimed the Church changed its doctrine at Vatican II
You claimed the proof for this is a very strict interpretation of the statement "outside the Church there is no salvation".

I showed you that this strict interpretation was condemned by the Church before Vatican II.
Therefore the Church did not change its doctrine at Vatican II.
End of argument.

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) did change the doctrine of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" and offered a more nuanced interpretation of it. In the Council's document Lumen Gentium, the Church affirmed that it is the ordinary means of salvation and that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body" (LG 14).

AND back in the early years it was literally believed by many.

My argument wasn't about Vatican II, it was the Church stopped winning hearts and minds with the good news of the gospel, and began threatening people with it, as Christianity became the "official religion."

The literal interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, was believed by some. That can't be denied.

The Argument should end, I won it.

 

[Alfred Persson]

No He didnt, thats not what those scripture say !

Context is clear, Jesus responded to those who first claimed He was breaking the Sabbath, healing a man and telling him to take up his bed and walk.

16 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath.
17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."
18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. (Jn. 5:16-18 NKJ)

Then Christ proved He is "equal with God", saying:

19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.
20 "For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel.
21 "For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.
22 "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,
23 "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
25 "Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.
26 "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,
27 "and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. (Jn. 5:19-27 NKJ)

Christ's point is clear, just as the Father commands the living and dead, so does the Son. This isn't about past deeds of sinners, its about Christ having the authority to do what He did, on the Sabbath and all other times.

Then Jesus says:

28 "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice
29 "and come forth-- those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. (Jn. 5:28-29 NKJ)

Just like the Father's voice kills and makes alive, so does the Son's voice. Its not about past deeds of sinners at all. Its about how people obey Christ's voice, and that is what decides who rises to a resurrection of life or resurrection of condemnation.

 

[brightfame52]

Context is clear, Jesus responded to those who first claimed He was breaking the Sabbath, healing a man and telling him to take up his bed and walk.

16 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath.
17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."
18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. (Jn. 5:16-18 NKJ)

Then Christ proved He is "equal with God", saying:

19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.
20 "For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel.
21 "For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.
22 "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,
23 "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
25 "Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.
26 "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,
27 "and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. (Jn. 5:19-27 NKJ)

Christ's point is clear, just as the Father commands the living and dead, so does the Son. This isn't about past deeds of sinners, its about Christ having the authority to do what He did, on the Sabbath and all other times.

Then Jesus says:

28 "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice
29 "and come forth-- those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. (Jn. 5:28-29 NKJ)

Just like the Father's voice kills and makes alive, so does the Son's voice. Its not about past deeds of sinners at all. Its about how people obey Christ's voice, and that is what decides who rises to a resurrection of life or resurrection of condemnation.

Context is clear, nothing about nobody having a chance to obey, thats made up garbage friend

 

[Alfred Persson]

Context is clear, nothing about nobody having a chance to obey, thats made up garbage friend

You are welcome to express unsupported non-scriptural opinion, but the reverse is true. I proved by the scripture what I said is NOT garbage.

This isn't twitter. It apologetics. There is a difference.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Man is a soul sir, nothing lives on at death, future life is in God's hands which He grants through the resurrection. Jesus was talking about losing out on everlasting life, not the present life.

The Hebrew word Nephesh, and Greek Psykhe rendered soul means breathing creature. All fleshly creatures are souls Alfred. Why would Jesus have to die if we lived forever already? Why would God say we die, and see to it death is defined in His word? Do you honestly think that the Bible is in error when it states the dead know nothing sir?

Xpn Nephesh (neh'-fesh); Noun Feminine, Strong #: 5315


soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
living being
living being (with life in the blood)
the man himself, self, person or individual
seat of the appetites
seat of emotions and passions
activity of mind
dubious
activity of the will
dubious
activity of the character
dubious
KJV Word Usage and Count
soul 475
life 117
person 29
mind 15
heart 15
creature 9
body 8
himself 8
yourselves 6
dead 5
will 4
desire 4
man 3
themselves 3
any 3
appetite 2
miscellaneous 47
yuchv Psuche (psoo-khay');
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 5590


breath
the breath of life
the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing 1a
of animals 1a
of men
life
that in which there is life
a living being, a living soul
the soul
the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.)
the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life
the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body)
KJV Word Usage and Count
soul 58
life 40
mind 3
heart 1
heartily 1
not translated 2


I believe that death is the same as before you existed sir. All life exists through God and fleshly beings are animated by God's holy spirit, it is the absence of that breath of life that causes death, God stated they know nothing, sent His son to provide a ransom, and promises a resurrection, this is what I believe sir.

And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (Rev. 20:4 NKJ)

Your word study fails to explain why, in a "prose report" of his vision, John speaks of "the souls of those who had been beheaded."

If souls died when the body died, it would be a false vision John sees, teaching falsehood about souls. Same here:

9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"
11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.
(Rev. 6:9-11 NKJ)

If God's revelation utilizes lies to teach truth, all hope is lost. We are dammed for sure. No way to distinguish lies from truth.

Therefore, souls do NOT die when the body dies. Scripture reveals they continue to exist.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJ)

 

[Mungo]

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) did change the doctrine of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" and offered a more nuanced interpretation of it.

Vatican II did not change the doctrine of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" and you provide no evidence that it did.

In the Council's document Lumen Gentium, the Church affirmed that it is the ordinary means of salvation and that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body" (LG 14).

1. What is the "it" that the Council is supposed to have affirmed is the ordinary means of salvation?

2. The quote you give does not appear in Lumen Gentium para 14

AND back in the early years it was literally believed by many.

Another claim with no evidence.. But apart from your lack of evidence what we are discussing is what the Church taught not what some people believed.

My argument wasn't about Vatican II, it was the Church stopped winning hearts and minds with the good news of the gospel, and began threatening people with it, as Christianity became the "official religion."

As far as I am concerned the argument is about Vatican II because it was about Vatican II that you made a false claim,

The literal interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, was believed by some. That can't be denied.

Yes, as I have already explained, the Feeneyites believed it and were condemned by the Holy Office for that belief. But it was not taught by the Church as a doctrine.

The Argument should end, I won it.

You lost.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Vatican II did not change the doctrine of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" and you provide no evidence that it did.


1. What is the "it" that the Council is supposed to have affirmed is the ordinary means of salvation?

2. The quote you give does not appear in Lumen Gentium para 14


Another claim with no evidence.. But apart from your lack of evidence what we are discussing is what the Church taught not what some people believed.


As far as I am concerned the argument is about Vatican II because it was about Vatican II that you made a false claim,



Yes, as I have already explained, the Feeneyites believed it and were condemned by the Holy Office for that belief. But it was not taught by the Church as a doctrine.


You lost.

Perhaps it was referenced in the footnotes, but I can't be sure. They certainly treated it:

Lumen Gentium 14​

This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(Cf. Mk 16, 16; Jn. 3, 5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door (people) enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.


The argument was about changing from good news to coercion, how that didn't work as well to evangelize. It certainly falls on deaf ears today. Has as much impact as rubber lips on a woodpecker.


If we ask "ChatGPT" for its opinion, to decide who won, I WON:

ME: QUESTION: "Did Roman Catholics once teach all outside the church were damned?


Yes, the Roman Catholic Church once taught the doctrine of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," which translates to "outside the Church, there is no salvation." This doctrine essentially meant that those who were not members of the Catholic Church were doomed to eternal damnation.

However, the interpretation and application of this doctrine have evolved over time, particularly since the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. Today, the Catholic Church teaches that while it is the ordinary means of salvation, there may be other ways that people who are not Catholic can be saved. The Catholic Church recognizes the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church but who, nevertheless, seek God with a sincere heart and try to follow his will as they understand it through the dictates of their conscience.-CHATGPT:

 

[Mungo]

Perhaps it was referenced in the footnotes, but I can't be sure. They certainly treated it:

Lumen Gentium 14​

This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(Cf. Mk 16, 16; Jn. 3, 5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door (people) enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

That does not say you have to be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved.
Read on

15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.

The argument was about changing from good news to coercion, how that didn't work as well to evangelize. It certainly falls on deaf ears today. Has as much impact as rubber lips on a woodpecker.

More claims without evidence

If we ask "ChatGPT" for its opinion, to decide who won, I WON:

ME: QUESTION: "Did Roman Catholics once teach all outside the church were damned?


Yes, the Roman Catholic Church once taught the doctrine of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," which translates to "outside the Church, there is no salvation." This doctrine essentially meant that those who were not members of the Catholic Church were doomed to eternal damnation.

However, the interpretation and application of this doctrine have evolved over time, particularly since the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. Today, the Catholic Church teaches that while it is the ordinary means of salvation, there may be other ways that people who are not Catholic can be saved. The Catholic Church recognizes the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church but who, nevertheless, seek God with a sincere heart and try to follow his will as they understand it through the dictates of their conscience.-CHATGPT:

Is that the level you are reduced to?

 

[brightfame52]

You are welcome to express unsupported non-scriptural opinion, but the reverse is true. I proved by the scripture what I said is NOT garbage.

This isn't twitter. It apologetics. There is a difference.

You welcome to post your garbage, nothing in that context about folk being raised to have an chance to obey.

 

[Alfred Persson]

That does not say you have to be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved.
Read on

15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.




More claims without evidence




Is that the level you are reduced to?

I thought you'd appreciate that. Welcome to the 22nd century!

I concede we both scored. You gave it an impressive attempt, but of course I did win!

 

[Alfred Persson]

You welcome to post your garbage, nothing in that context about folk being raised to have an chance to obey.

Not garbage, its apologetics. I supported my claim with Scripture.

If such "debate" isn't your cup of tea, try twitter. There you can proudly assert your opinion, without proof and claim everything you don't agree with is garbage.

They like that in Twitterville.

Here, only the intellectually challenged resort to name calling and smear.

 

[brightfame52]

Not garbage, its apologetics. I supported my claim with Scripture.

If such "debate" isn't your cup of tea, try twitter. There you can proudly assert your opinion, without proof and claim everything you don't agree with is garbage.

They like that in Twitterville.

Here, only the intellectually challenged resort to name calling and smear.

It is garbage, you may call it apologetics, just make up what you want to argue about it.

 

[Alfred Persson]

It is garbage, you may call it apologetics, just make up what you want to argue about it.

Curious if you can argue a point.

My argument is well reasoned, backed by scripture.

I don't believe you can do more than call it garbage.

Try proving me wrong, do more than smear.

If you reject this challenge, and continue to smear. I will cite the TOS and report smear to the "man".