Technically speaking there is absolutely NO salvation outside of the Church. If you die outside the Church you are damned. Which simply means that any Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Other who make it to Heaven where in some sense part of the Church when they died in a state of Grace.
BenYachov,
Do you have a bible verse for that doctrine?
Material sufficiency for this doctrine?
bibliolatry is a sin, Ken
It's indirect, Ken, as far as I know. The Bible presents the Church as central in Christian life; therefore it stands to reason that it would play a key role in God's salvific purposes.
Protestants have tried to minimize the importance of ecclesiology and the Church for 500 years, but it just don't fly, biblically-speaking.
Matthew,
To want some Scriptural text for a doctrine is not "B i b l i o l a t r y".
Material sufficiency -- that every doctrine and dogma must have Scriptural texts -- material - is what RCCs agree that the Early Church Fathers taught. Protestants would say that the ECF taught even more than material sufficiency, coming very close to formal suffiency of "Sola Scriptura", even though it was not expressed in the same difinitive way that the Reformers expressed it.
It follows the church fathers, which Dave and many RCC believe, is that they clearly taught ( at least, if not more, coming very close to "Sola Scriptura") "material sufficency" of Scripture. (Ireneaus, Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa)
"We have learned from none others [the apostles] the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a latter period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith . . . " ( Ireneaus, Against Heresies, III:4:2)
"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things." (Athanasius, History of Councils, 6)
"The sacred and inspiried Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth." (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, 1:1)
"Concerning the dvine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures . . . For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, IV:17
Gregory of Nyssa:
"We make the Holy Scriptures the canon and the rule of every dogma; we of necessity look upon that, and recieve alone that may be made comformable to the intention of those writings."
("On the Soul and Resurrection")
The Fathers did not teach sola Scriptura, which is formal, not material sufficiency.
Also, material sufficiency does not mean that every doctrine has explicit or direct biblical proof. Oftentimes it is only indirect and/or deductive. Even the Trinity has this characteristic to a large extent.
Several Protestant doctrines have no direct biblical proof whatsoever, such as sola Scriptura. The Protestant canon has absolutely no biblical proof (it is safe to say). So it is accepted on the basis of tradition.
Therefore, since the very Bible that Protestants believe in, and the principle of Bible Alone that they adhere to (and base every other doctrine and theological method on) are both unbiblical doctrines, methinks there is a bit of a problem here . . . it's called internal inconsistency or 'self-defeating." Logical circles are not all that impressive . . .
Dave wrote:
"It's indirect, Ken, as far as I know. The Bible presents the Church as central in Christian life; therefore it stands to reason that it would play a key role in God's salvific purposes."
Yes, the Bible presents the church as central, important, the bulwark and support of the truth, the body of Christ, but it does not say, "there is no salvation outside of the church".
"Protestants have tried to minimize the importance of ecclesiology and the Church for 500 years, but it just don't fly, biblically-speaking.
Dave Armstrong
Informed, historically minded Protestants don't minimize church below what the Scriptures say about the church. We teach all that the Scriptures say about the church. They only brought reform and correction to a wrong and unbilblical practice of church by the RCC.
Only seeing the church as a secondary authority and not an infallible authority is not minimizing ecclesiology, but recognizing that the church is not infallible. Only the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant.
Church is an authority, but not infallible nor final. Scirpture is the final and only infallible rule of faith. The church ( a local, biblical church) is the normal means and instrument by which people hear the gospel, which is what Augustine meant by "being moved" by the authority of the catholic ( Universal) church.
Tying salvation to the sacraments and church is the big problem in RCC -- goes against the Early Church Fathers.
Whenever the Early Church fathers speak in such a way as to constue the sacraments ( baptism and Eucharist) as causing salvation, they violated their own principles, perhaps without realizing it, because they are not infallible. So, they can have contradictions within their own writings because they are fallible humans. But the Scriptures cannot have contradicitons, that is the rule of the analogy of faith, that God speaks with one mind in all of the canonical Scriptures.
"These are the fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness . . . Athanasius, Festal Letter 39, AD 367.
Ken:
"Yes, the Bible presents the church as central, important, the bulwark and support of the truth, the body of Christ, but it does not say, "there is no salvation outside of the church". "
Off the top of my head, I thought of Matthew 18:15-20. Note the central role of the Church there. If the sinner doesn't listen, he is outcast. What is bound on earth (Church determinations) is bound in heaven - cf. Jn 20:23. Hence, excommunication, or shunning, or Church discipline (the last two practiced by Protestants also), which are all designed to bring folks back in line. If they don't reform and listen to the Church, I think the clear implication is that they endanger their soul and salvation.
Also, my explicit biblical evidence for indulgences ties into this. In 1 Cor 5:3-5, Paul, acting authoritatively as a leader in the Church, commands the Corinthians to "deliver this man to Satan . . . that his spirit may be saved . . . " If he doesn't repent, he is in big trouble. But if he does, Paul says to issue an indulgence and receive him back into fellowship (2 Cor 2:6-11).
In Acts 5:2-11, God used Peter to exercise strict discipline, even to the point of death. Ananaias and Sapphira were struck dead. God didn't just wait till they died and judge them then. He used Peter the first pope and leader of the Church. This was the first "anathema" announced by the Church through Peter.
Whaddya think? I don't think this is too bad, off the top of my head! This is an interesting biblical question to pursue further. Good question. I think I have some "leads" for further writing on this point.
Commenting by HaloScan
