/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Jesus is the only possible path to salvation. The Church is the Body of Christ, the temple of God where we encounter Christ and get grafted onto Him. Therefore there is no salvation outside the Church, because salvation is the Church.

The issue, of course, is to define where the boundaries of the Church begin and end. At the very least, the boundaries of the Church end at proper doctrine concerning who Jesus is.

Peter confesses that Jesus is truly God and truly man, and Jesus immediately links this to the foundation of the Church. St Paul warns the Church of Rome that they were grafted onto Israel for having faith in Christ, but if they cease to have faith they will be cut off, like the unbelieving Jews. Jesus permits some people to exorcise using His name even though they don't follow the apostles, because whoever uses His name (that is, believes properly about who He is) cannot speak ill of Him, but in contrast we see some unbelieving Jews in the book of Acts try to exorcize using Jesus' name and fail completely.

But that's about where the consensus ends. Sure, having the true faith is what defines where the Church is, but what are the implications? Catholics would say that, since the Pope is the successor of Peter and the sole infallible guardian of the faith, one must be in communion with the Pope to be in the Church. Orthodox would say that one must be under a canonical bishop to be in the Church, since only canonical bishops can give the sacraments which are how we encounter Christ (and for a bishop to be canonical, he must be recognized as Orthodox by the other bishops and himself agree to the 7 ecumenical councils). Protestants are a varied bunch - some consider that there is no true Christian faith apart from their denomination, some consider that the points of the Reformation (justification by faith alone, etc) are essential to the gospel and therefore Catholics and Orthodox aren't in the Church, and some consider that simply believing in Jesus in any capacity is sufficient.

With all this being said, there is also the motto of "we know where the Church is but not where it is not", which some may or may not agree with.

>>802194

How could it not?

The same way only one Arch survived the storm.

>>802216

This is pretty much where I am at right now as well. I see a ton of possibilities.

The only people who believe this are cults and sedevacantist Catholics.

>>802232

It seems to be pretty common in regular Catholicism and Orthodoxy too.

>>802243

It would seem to be invincible ignorance when it comes to which church. I've tried many times to sort this out and I can't get a firm footing. Maybe one day

>>802194

How many times did the Apostles say 'follow the traditions and doctrine that we gave you'? One doctrine one tradition. No gazillion interpretations, all contradicting eachother, all claiming to lead to salvation. There is one truth, no multiple truths. Either Christ is truly present in the eucharist or He's not. Purgatory either exists or doesn't exist. Infant baptism is right or wrong. Etc. All doctrines are not and cannot be equally valid.

All Apostolic Churches have 99% the same doctrine. What a darn coincidence, isn't it?

>>802194

It's more a believable claim in the RCC's case, however schismatics who have abandoned the teachings of the original Church and Bible making that same claim is quite ridiculous. Just look at Anderson.

>church, you're saved through faith alone

>but don't forget that ALL CATHOLICS ARE GOING TO HELL

>oh, but my buddy who runs a REAL baptist church in Texas is cool. he's definitely saved

>haha, but seriously MOTHER THERESA IS BURNING IN HELL RIGHT NOW

>the few independent fundamental baptist churches scattered around america that i deem "the real deal" are the true paths to salvation

It just doesn't make sense.

>>802253

To go off on this post. There can only be one Church because Christ is only married to one Church. He isn't a polygamist. To say that Christ would be married to the 30k different denoms, even the heretical ones that take Christ and His miracles as mere allegory, is beyond ridiculous.

Just like how God was married only to Israel in the Old Testament, Jesus is married only to the Church. Luther is burning in hell for shattering Christ's Church and sowing confusion in the hearts of man.

>>802253

>All Apostolic Churches have 99% the same doctrine.

If we count in numbers? Most "apostolic churches" (I assume you mean those who claim to have apostolic succession) do have 99% the same doctrine… since most of them are Catholic.

Do you mean as communions though? That is, Catholicism, Sedevacantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Church of the East… If so, I can't disagree more. I'd say 40-50% the same doctrine, at best.

>>802216

> Catholics would say that, since the Pope is the successor of Peter and the sole infallible guardian of the faith

Catholics don't actually believe this. If they did, they would declare every pope that contradicts 1 Peter 1:8-9 as antipopes, but the exact opposite happens.

>A unified church with no splits or different interpretations

>the Catholic church

The catholic church is many churches with many interpretations. Molinism? Augustinianism? Thomism? Pick and choose whichever you want. No different than protestants who have their Calvinism, Lutheranism, Arminianism

>>802243

>It seems to be pretty common in regular Catholicism and Orthodoxy too.

Orthodox have a popular saying: "We don't know everywhere that the Spirit is working, but we do know one place where he IS working." Another popular saying is "Come and see." Orthodox are welcoming yet confident of the truth of the Church.

Of course, there are outliers, but for the most part, it's true. Unlike Catholics, Orthodox don't confine the Holy Spirit to the Church. They have canonical status and valid sacraments, but God himself is not subjected to it. He is the provider of sacraments, not the servant of them. They are for us. Not him. OTOH, Catholics see sacrament as very entertwined with the very nature of God. Something clearly different and can be seen in practice is how they view the Eucharist and create a whole new devotion of Eucharistic Adoration, where the presence of Christ is somehow only on Earth in the Eucharist. While Orthodox see the Eucharist as the Presence of Christ, they also wouldn't say he is confined to it. The Eucharist is for eating. Not adoration. "Take and eat." Not "Take and adore."

Catholicism's own Catechism seems to disagree on exclusivity btw. They've loosened up over the years. It's actually surprising really. I'm pretty sure that's why Sedes even exist. They seem to dislike everything that came from Vatican 2.

>>802194

Matthew 16:18; that whole "you have the Keys to the Kingdom" part means anyone who is at odds with the Church is at odds with the Kingdom.

>>802375

>The catholic church is many churches with many interpretations.

Wrong.

No, differences between philosophical systems aside, all ciphers of interpretation must conform to Catholic teaching.

The protestant systems you cite conform to nothing but themselves.

>all ciphers of interpretation must conform to catholic teaching

What makes molinism a "cipher" but arminianism a "self referencing system"

>>802412

"Arminianism is a branch of Protestantism based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) and his historic supporters known as Remonstrants."

molinism is a philosophical system based entirely around suppositions infallibly defined by the Church.

arminianism is not.

>>802194

Because the Orthodox Church has preserved the faith as it was in the times of the apostles, but other churches have not. Both Papism and Protestantism are man-made (by Charlemagne and Luther respectively).