Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus…..Outside The Church There Is No Salvation !!!!

[bigsurfer63]

prots have a hard time dealing with this...

 

[prodromos]

prots have a hard time dealing with this...

What was the contexf of when the above declaration was made? Was it directed at lapsed Catholics? Because I have a hard time believing that anyone besides Catholics would be likely to read it at the time it was written.
We Orthodox would certainly not have expressed it that way. We know that salvation is found through being united to Christ's body which is the Orthodox Church (others may disagree with the last bit), but we in no way limit how God may work out the salvation of those who are not members of the Orthodox Church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

prots have a hard time dealing with this...

Hello bigsurfer63, and I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome you to CF.

I'm not quite sure of the intent of your post - it might help if you gave us a bit more context. Otherwise, folks might think your intent is just to drop a sort of "bomb" ... and Traditional Theology isn't the place for that. We are committed to respectful discussion here, though we do come from several different Traditions.

Again, welcome to CF, and if we can help you find your way around, or you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

Somebody said that l'm Lutheran, other, crypto-Calvinist, because I recognize the Wittenberg Concordia (1536), as the dogmatic end of the Nicene creed's true explanation. In fact, I receive the original Nicene creed and the Bible as historic Holy Ghost testimony, according to Ac.5/33-42, Jd.3, Eph.4/4-7 or Heb.13/8-9. So, according to the scriptures alone, Nicene creed must be explained. There is four issues in this creed, One God and the Trinity, resolved between 325-381, One Lord and Incarnation, between 431-681, One baptism and Sola Fide, by the unaltered Augsburg confession, in 1530, and One church, unity in faith, by the Wittenberg Concordia, agreed by Calvin, Bucer, Luther and Melanchthon, between 1536-1538. I'm a little bit buceran, nor plainly Lutheran nor Calvinist. Is choice an obligation?...
How can somebody affirm or say that I'm out of the church?

 

[mark46]

How can somebody affirm or say that I'm out of the church?

There is no salvation outside of Jesus, outside of the Church. As Catholics, we teach that fellow Christians are part of the Church. Orthodox teach that non-Orthodox are not part of the Orthodox Church. However, they do NOT teach that non-Orthodox are not going to Heaven. Neither of us would presume to know who Jesus will choose as friend and who he will not.

I will note that before the late 60's (before Vatican II), it was common to misinterpret this doctrine to mean that all non-Catholics would go to hell, with the exception of those who have not heard the Word.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Somebody said that l'm Lutheran, other, crypto-Calvinist, because I recognize the Wittenberg Concordia (1536), as the dogmatic end of the Nicene creed's true explanation. In fact, I receive the original Nicene creed and the Bible as historic Holy Ghost testimony, according to Ac.5/33-42, Jd.3, Eph.4/4-7 or Heb.13/8-9. So, according to the scriptures alone, Nicene creed must be explained. There is four issues in this creed, One God and the Trinity, resolved between 325-381, One Lord and Incarnation, between 431-681, One baptism and Sola Fide, by the unaltered Augsburg confession, in 1530, and One church, unity in faith, by the Wittenberg Concordia, agreed by Calvin, Bucer, Luther and Melanchthon, between 1536-1538. I'm a little bit buceran, nor plainly Lutheran nor Calvinist. Is choice an obligation?...
How can somebody affirm or say that I'm out of the church?

I'm not sure about any of that (though I find a certain irony in requiring "scripture alone" in regards to the Creed) ... but from an Orthodox point of view, it is not our place to judge anyone's salvation, if that's what you mean.

From our point of view, the Orthodox Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic - whether one is united to the Orthodox Church in their lifetime is a very objective question. But we do not presume to limit the grace of God.

We Orthodox would certainly not have expressed it that way. We know that salvation is found through being united to Christ's body which is the Orthodox Church (others may disagree with the last bit), but we in no way limit how God may work out the salvation of those who are not members of the Orthodox Church.

Incidentally, fwiw, "Church membership" is not equivalent to "achieved salvation" for the Orthodox.

Sometimes it's very easy to misunderstand what some of us are saying - I know that from being on both sides of the (Orthodox/Protestant) fence.

I'm not speaking for the Catholic Church in any sense, since I don't know exactly what their position is.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

I'm not sure about any of that (though I find a certain irony in requiring "scripture alone" in regards to the Creed) ...

I didn't use the notion of Sola scriptura but of juxta scriptura, because we must confirm the creed ACCORDING TO the scriptures, like the Jesus-Christ's resuscitation in the creed. If you don't agree with this principle, so you must revoke the creed too...

 

[~Anastasia~]

I didn't use the notion of Sola scriptura but of juxta scriptura, because we must confirm the creed ACCORDING TO the scriptures, like the Jesus-Christ's resuscitation in the creed. If you don't agree with this principle, so you must revoke the creed too...

I'm not looking to debate, btw.

From a historic standpoint, I don't see the absolute necessity of resting the Creed upon the Scriptures, though. It seems more to me as though the faith - once for all delivered to the Saints - was what informed both the recognition of writings as Scripture as well as the Truth found within the Creed. However, I think there was a bit of synergy going on from the earliest days, into the time of the council as well.

The irony (to me) was the rather late date (relative to the formation of the Creed) of the canonization of Scripture.

But as I said, I'm not looking to debate, and history is not my main focus either. (Though I don't say this to shut down replies. )

I must admit I'm a bit curious to hear your answer on a point though. I may be misunderstanding your intention, but do you say that sola fide is spelled out in the Creed? I'd be curious to know how you view this, if I may?

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

First, if we believe that Jesus-Christ rose again from death, ACCORDING TO the scriptures, I cannot understand, if we admit the canonical book list's existence, how we can deny for Gospel, what it's necessary for his base, the resuscitation?
Secondly, Sola fide is the unique coherent explanation, at my sight, of the baptismal article of the creed. In fact, if we aknowledge ONE baptism for the forgiveness of SINS, so, we must understand that this is the Trinitarian faith, or faith in Jesus-Christ, God and saviour, which save us all the time, even after baptismal act, if we shall sin again. That is the meaning of the Augsburg confession, in its article XII, according to the Paul's teaching, in Romans and Galatians. So, that's not the baptism as bath but as faith given in this bath which saves us: Mk.16/16. So, if we fall again in sin, we can be forgiven, again and again, if we repent, by the baptismal faith, or the gospel, which is the same thing. This is how I've found the sola fide in the creed...

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

Martin Luther, The Small Catechism 7
The Sacrament of Holy Baptism AS THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY SHOULD TEACH IT IN A SIMPLE WAY TO HIS HOUSEHOLD
FIRST
Whatis Baptism? Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word. Which is that word of God? Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Matthew: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” [Matt. 28:19]
SECOND
What benefits does Baptism give? It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare. Which are these words and promises of God? Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Mark: “Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” [Mark 16:16]
THIRD
How can water do such great things? Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a lifegiving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St Paul says in Titus, chapter three: “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying.”[Titus 3:5–8]
FOURTH What does such baptising with water indicate? It indicates that the Old Adam in us should by daily contrition and repentance be drowned and die with all sins and evil desires, and that a new man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in righteousness and purity forever. Where is this written? St Paul writes in Romans chapter six: “We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” [Rom. 6:4]

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

Article XII: Of Repentance.
 1]
Of
Repentance
they
teach
that
for
those
who
have
fallen
after
Baptism
there
is
remission
 of
sins
whenever
they
are
converted
2]
and
that
the
Church
ought
to
impart
absolution
to
 those
thus
returning
to
repentance.
Now,
repentance
consists
properly
of
these
3]
two
parts:
 One
is
contrition, or
4]
terrors
smiting
the
conscience
through
the
knowledge
of
sin;
the
 other
is
faith,
which
is
born
of
5]
the
Gospel,
or
of
absolution,
and
believes
that
for
Christ's
 sake,
sins
are
forgiven,
comforts
6]
the
conscience,
and
delivers
it
from
terrors.
Then
good
 works
are
bound
to
follow,
which
are
the
fruits
of
repentance.
 


 
 (Augsburg Confession)

 

[~Anastasia~]

First, if we believe that Jesus-Christ rose again from death, ACCORDING TO the scriptures, I cannot understand, if we admit the canonical book list's existence, how we can deny for Gospel, what it's necessary for his base, the resuscitation?
Secondly, Sola fide is the unique coherent explanation, at my sight, of the baptismal article of the creed. In fact, if we aknowledge ONE baptism for the forgiveness of SINS, so, we must understand that this is the Trinitarian faith, or faith in Jesus-Christ, God and saviour, which save us all the time, even after baptismal act, if we shall sin again. That is the meaning of the Augsburg confession, in its article XII, according to the Paul's teaching, in Romans and Galatians. So, that's not the baptism as bath but as faith given in this bath which saves us: Mk.16/16. So, if we fall again in sin, we can be forgiven, again and again, if we repent, by the baptismal faith, or the gospel, which is the same thing. This is how I've found the sola fide in the creed...

Thank you for your explanation and helping me see where your point of view comes from.

I hope you won't consider it argumentative if I point out that it is the overlayment of your interpretation of the Scriptures (or those from the Augsburg Confession) that puts sola fide into the Creed for you. But I had been curious what your answer would be.

Differences in interpretation of the same Scriptures lead to many differences - some great and some small - between different traditions. So I'm not criticizing, when I asked you for your reasoning. Thank you for the explanation.

 

[bigsurfer63]

What was the contexf of when the above declaration was made? Was it directed at lapsed Catholics? Because I have a hard time believing that anyone besides Catholics would be likely to read it at the time it was written.
We Orthodox would certainly not have expressed it that way. We know that salvation is found through being united to Christ's body which is the Orthodox Church (others may disagree with the last bit), but we in no way limit how God may work out the salvation of those who are not members of the Orthodox Church.

This expression comes from the writings of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a bishop of the 3rd century. The axiom is often used as shorthand for the doctrine that theChurch is necessary for salvation. It is a dogma in the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches in reference to their own communions.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

I hope you won't consider it argumentative if I point out that it is the overlayment of your interpretation of the Scriptures (or those from the Augsburg Confession) that puts sola fide into the Creed for you.

Miaphysits may serve the same argument to chalcedonians, or Nestorians to Cyrillians...

 

[~Anastasia~]

Miaphysits may serve the same argument to chalcedonians, or Nestorians to Cyrillians...

Indeed .... I think it could be put from AnyTheology-ian to AnyOtherTheology-ian ...

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

Indeed .... I think it could be put from AnyTheology-ian to AnyOtherTheology-ian ...

Obviously, only the Holy Ghost can convince and create faith...

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

What was the contexf of when the above declaration was made? Was it directed at lapsed Catholics? Because I have a hard time believing that anyone besides Catholics would be likely to read it at the time it was written.
We Orthodox would certainly not have expressed it that way. We know that salvation is found through being united to Christ's body which is the Orthodox Church (others may disagree with the last bit), but we in no way limit how God may work out the salvation of those who are not members of the Orthodox Church.

That's something that I've noticed with regards to the Orthodox Church, and to the merit of your hierarchy. We Catholics are quite obsessive with our need to account for everything, we need to say precisely what sort of divine mystery is going on or precisely what our relationship is to this or that sect/religion. The Orthodox Church makes it its business not to comment on such things.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

From a historic standpoint, I don't see the absolute necessity of resting the Creed upon the Scriptures, though. It seems more to me as though the faith - once for all delivered to the Saints - was what informed both the recognition of writings as Scripture as well as the Truth found within the Creed. However, I think there was a bit of synergy going on from the earliest days, into the time of the council as well.

I've always felt that scripture must first and foremost be liturgical. I think that when it formed the basis of the prayer and celebration of the Eucharist then it functioned as the Scripture of the Church.

The irony (to me) was the rather late date (relative to the formation of the Creed) of the canonization of Scripture.

I would say that when Trullo and Nicea II made decisions which endorsed apparently contradictory canon listings they were in fact endorsing the Orthodoxy and Catholicity of the various communions in question. For whom some particular books or another had a part to play in their liturgies.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

I've always felt that scripture must first and foremost be liturgical. I think that when it formed the basis of the prayer and celebration of the Eucharist then it functioned as the Scripture of the Church.

If we believe that Jesus-Christ rose again from death, ACCORDING TO the scriptures, I cannot understand, if we admit the canonical book list's existence, how we can deny for Gospel, what it's necessary for his base, the resuscitation: the "juxta scriptura"?...

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

If we believe that Jesus-Christ rose again from death, ACCORDING TO the scriptures, I cannot understand, if we admit the canonical book list's existence, how we can deny for Gospel, what it's necessary for his base, the resuscitation: the "juxta scriptura"?...

You should accustom yourself to use the correct theological terminology. Jesus was resurrected, he was raised to a new existence, transformed, not simply resuscitated.

"Of close proximity to Scripture" is a strange relationship to the scriptures. Scripture and Tradition share the same relationship as a Mobius strip.