What am I?

Ashbx

I was reading another thread in this forum and without going into detail a poster said that someone was not a Christian because they did not belong to a church and it got me thinking.......

I was raised what I personally would call a Christian. If someone asked me was I a catholic, protestant, orthodox etc. I would reply, none....I am a Christian.

The "church" I attended growing up was set up my dad and a few of his friends. It started off approximately 10 people going to someone's house to worship every Sunday. This expanded over 10/20 years to nearly 100 people and over the years we held our meetings in schools (not sure about the logistics of this....I assume we rented out or paid some sort of a fee). Usually held in a classroom, kids then had "Sunday School" in another classroom and we had tea and coffee in a third classroom for afterwards. Usually one person was nominated to hold the service that day and talk about whatever they wanted to. Sometimes it was about a story in the bible and sometimes it was a personal story told and how God helped them in that situation. We would worship, pray and sing songs....and of course some tea and biscuits afterwards!

I got baptised when I was 8 years old. This was not done by a church official. We held a group baptism in a church in the city centre which had a baptismal font (again not sure of the logistics but I assume we rented it out....no-one from our "church" was connected to this church). I was baptised by my dad and his best friend.

So if I am not officially part of any church....am I not deemed a Christian? I wouldn't consider myself very religious but there is no doubt in my mind that I am a Christian...despite not belonging to a church. I would be interested in hearing peoples opinions.

J C

The salient Bible verses are:-

Matthew 18:20 New International Version (NIV)

20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

and

Acts 16:29-31New International Version (NIV)

29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Everything else is 'icing on the cake' ... nice to do/have ... but not essential to a church or your salvation.:)

If you have believed on Jesus Christ to Save you ... you are a Christian ... and if you meet with one or more other Christians in Jesus Christ's name you are a member of a Christian Church.

antiskeptic

Ashbx wrote: »

I was reading another thread in this forum and without going into detail a poster said that someone was not a Christian because they did not belong to a church and it got me thinking.......

I was raised what I personally would call a Christian. If someone asked me was I a catholic, protestant, orthodox etc. I would reply, none....I am a Christian.

The "church" I attended growing up was set up my dad and a few of his friends. It started off approximately 10 people going to someone's house to worship every Sunday. This expanded over 10/20 years to nearly 100 people and over the years we held our meetings in schools (not sure about the logistics of this....I assume we rented out or paid some sort of a fee). Usually held in a classroom, kids then had "Sunday School" in another classroom and we had tea and coffee in a third classroom for afterwards. Usually one person was nominated to hold the service that day and talk about whatever they wanted to. Sometimes it was about a story in the bible and sometimes it was a personal story told and how God helped them in that situation. We would worship, pray and sing songs....and of course some tea and biscuits afterwards!

I got baptised when I was 8 years old. This was not done by a church official. We held a group baptism in a church in the city centre which had a baptismal font (again not sure of the logistics but I assume we rented it out....no-one from our "church" was connected to this church). I was baptised by my dad and his best friend.

So if I am not officially part of any church....am I not deemed a Christian? I wouldn't consider myself very religious but there is no doubt in my mind that I am a Christian...despite not belonging to a church. I would be interested in hearing peoples opinions.

1. A true Christian is one who conforms to the definition of a Christian as decided upon by God. Anyone else, irrespective of their Christian adherences / church upbringing (of whatever type), beliefs .. isn't a Christian

2. The criteria to be satisfied in order that a person be declared a Christian by God are set by God

3. The only person who can say whether they have satisfied those criteria is the person themselves. They may or may not be right.

4. You live with the consequences of the above.


I don't see any issue with the church as you experienced it. It sounds more like church than the big denominations do. That experience however doesn't make you a Christian, anymore than attending a large denomination and being baptised in same makes you a Christian.

It's hard for someone (who, like me, is convinced they have satisfied the criteria set down by God) to pronounce on another (unless over time they indicated that what happened to me has also happened to them.

Suffice to say, I wouldn't suppose a person has to be religious (in the sense of church going and the like). But I would suppose that a light somewhere has gone on in them and that they know what they are because they know what they are.

looksee

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Can anyone throw any light on this biblical quote? It suggests that so long as the male / master of the house is saved, so is anyone connected to him - wife, children, servants. So it seems that only the man of the house has to believe, no one else has any personal responsibility?

The idea was carried forward - though I have only just looked at it in this way - when for example St Patrick appeared to be primarily concerned with converting chiefs as the rest would automatically follow.

At what stage was it decided that all individuals needed to believe to be saved?

Nick Park

looksee wrote: »

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Can anyone throw any light on this biblical quote? It suggests that so long as the male / master of the house is saved, so is anyone connected to him - wife, children, servants. So it seems that only the man of the house has to believe, no one else has any personal responsibility?

The idea was carried forward - though I have only just looked at it in this way - when for example St Patrick appeared to be primarily concerned with converting chiefs as the rest would automatically follow.

At what stage was it decided that all individuals needed to believe to be saved?

Often the best way to throw light on a biblical quote is to read it in context:

They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household.’ 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptised. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God – he and his whole household. (Acts 16:31-34)

When we read this passage as a whole, we see that they preached the Word to everyone in the household, not just the head of the house. We also see that everyone in the household responded in faith.

It is perfectly reasonable to read verse 31 (Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household) as saying that the promise of salvation as a result of faith is extended, not just to you, but also to the rest of your household.

This is how I've heard it taught in churches over the years, that when you come to Christ you should claim this promise and believe that eventually the rest of your family will also believe on Christ and be saved.

J C

Ashbx wrote: »

So if I am not officially part of any church....am I not deemed a Christian? I wouldn't consider myself very religious but there is no doubt in my mind that I am a Christian...despite not belonging to a church. I would be interested in hearing peoples opinions.

... and I have no doubt that you are a Christian too ... but it is essentially a matter between yourself and Jesus Christ.

Peregrinus

Ashbx wrote: »

I was reading another thread in this forum and without going into detail a poster said that someone was not a Christian because they did not belong to a church and it got me thinking.......

I was raised what I personally would call a Christian. If someone asked me was I a catholic, protestant, orthodox etc. I would reply, none....I am a Christian.

There's (at least) two ways of looking at this.

You can think of the Catholic church, the Anglican church, the Presbyterian church, etc, as organisations or structures within a larger movement that we can call Christianity. If Christianity is defined by baptism, shared faith, etc, then it makes sense to say "I'm a Christian, but I'm not a member of any of those particular Christian organisations." (Or ". . . I'm a member of a fairly small, informal organisation that consists of family and friends, and doesn't really have a name.")

Sometimes people in this situation are called non-denominational Christians, or they call themselves that.

But an equally valid way to look at things is to think of Catholicism, Protestantism, etc not as the names of organisations or structures, but as the names of distinctive traditions of Christian belief or practice. In this sense, a non-denominational Christian might have beliefs and practices which are classically Protestant - i.e. the emerge from the Protestant reformation and characterise the denominations which trace their history to that reformation - and in that sense they could reasonably be described as Protestant.

In the end, these are just labels. Use them if you find them useful; abandon them if you don't.

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Can anyone throw any light on this biblical quote? It suggests that so long as the male / master of the house is saved, so is anyone connected to him - wife, children, servants. So it seems that only the man of the house has to believe, no one else has any personal responsibility?

The idea was carried forward - though I have only just looked at it in this way - when for example St Patrick appeared to be primarily concerned with converting chiefs as the rest would automatically follow.

At what stage was it decided that all individuals needed to believe to be saved?

There's a tension here between individualism and collectivism.

We live in a particularly invidividualist age, in which we stress autonomy and personal responsiblity, and we have come up with the notion of accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour - a notion which I think would have puzzled earlier generations of Christians.

This individualism is a hallmark of modernity. In earlier times, faith was still seen as necessary for salvation, but faith was something that could be (and typically was) developed communally, collectively rather than primarily individually. To be blunt, in a relatively primitive society, nobody can survive alone. Everybody's survival is the work of the community, not of each individual. And, as with survival, so with salvation; this was something pursued collectively as well as (or more than) individually.

This isn't a simple abdication of personal responsibility to the community and/or its leaders; it also involves accepting responsibility for your own failings, and the impact they will have on the community. So it would be a mistake to think of it as childish and immature, with modernity representing a transition to a more adult type of religion. If the more individualist, modern approach to personal responsiblity in matters of faith seems better to us, that's not because it's intrinsically better; it's because we are creatures of our age as much as anyone else is, and we embrace its values and assumptions, and this affects the way in which we are religious just as much as it affects the way we do everything else.

So, as Nick points out, the passage in Acts is not saying that the personal faith of the head of the family will save the entire household. Rather the assumption is that the faith of the head of the household will lead the entire household to faith, because their faith-life is taken to be bound up with his. Because, in that world, it was.

Nick Park

Ashbx wrote: »

So if I am not officially part of any church....am I not deemed a Christian? I wouldn't consider myself very religious but there is no doubt in my mind that I am a Christian...despite not belonging to a church. I would be interested in hearing peoples opinions.

Christianity, in my view, is much more about having a relationship with Jesus Christ than it is about belonging to an organisation. So, if you have a living relationship with Jesus, where you pray and feel His presence with you each day, and seek to let Him guide your life, then of course you're a Christian.

The word 'Christian' was first used in Antioch as a nickname for followers of Jesus (Acts 11:26). So they were dedicated followers of Christ first, before they were ever called 'Christians'.

But there is also a sense in which true Christianity inevitably involves our relationship, not just with God, but with other Christians. A large part of the New Testament addresses how we work out our life and how we relate to other people in a community of believers. To those first-century Christians, describing yourself as a 'Christian' but never participating in a community of Christians would probably make about as much sense as calling yourself a 'football player' when you occasionally kick a football round your garden by yourself.

Peregrinus

I'd put it even a little more strongly than that. The point about the Incarnation is that Christ has entered into, and is materially present in, humanity. This wasn't a one-off never-to-be-repeated special offer which commenced with the Annunciation and terminated with the Ascension; it's a continuing reality. And, while there are various ways in which various Christian traditions discern the incarnate Christ, there's pretty unanimous agreement that Christ is present in his church (not in the sense of hierarchy, or denomination, or fancy building, but in the sense of the community of believers). When Paul calls the church the "body of Christ", that's not a metaphor. Christian see the community of believers as the continuing incarnate presence of Christ in the world.

So the idea of a Christian who's wholly disconnected from the Christian community is a contradiction in terms, really. You may find (some) Christian beliefs appealing or attractive or convincing or whatever, but it doesn't really make sense to think of yourself as being in a relationship with Christ if, in actuality, you avoid any connection with the church, which is the material presence of Christ in the world around you. There's an inherent contradiction there that, at some point, you're going to have to resolve, one way or the other.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the end, these are just labels. Use them if you find them useful; abandon them if you don't.

This makes a lot of sense, insofar as your religious identification is very much your own choice and is not dependant on the labels others might put on you.

So the idea of a Christian who's wholly disconnected from the Christian community is a contradiction in terms, really.

Saint Theophan the Recluse must've missed that memo OT, but I'd understood there was a long tradition of hermits, recluses and ascetes in Christianity.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Saint Theophan the Recluse must've missed that memo OT, but I'd understood there was a long tradition of hermits, recluses and ascetes in Christianity.

Yes, there is. The view is that hermits unite themselves with the wider community through prayer, and also through subjecting themselves to the supervision of a superior (abbot, bishop, whatever). You're not supposed to be a freelance hermit.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're not supposed to be a freelance hermit.

Fair enough. I'd guess it makes your CV of rather limited value to boot

martinedwards

in a mainly Roman Catholic country (as far as church going is concerned) there will be suspicion of a house church or free church which is what you describe.

Many RCs look at other denominations (even the big ones) and say they aren't christian, but as a full member of Methodist and Church of Ireland churches (don't ask... too complicated) and with close connections into several house churches and smaller one fellowship denominations, I have no problem with your testimony.

there is a church that meets in the school my wife teaches in. started with a family, grew to a room upstairs over a shop, now meet in the assembly hall with over 200 every sunday.

EirWatchr

martinedwards wrote: »

in a mainly Roman Catholic country (as far as church going is concerned) there will be suspicion of a house church or free church which is what you describe.

Many RCs look at other denominations (even the big ones) and say they aren't christian.

If you don’t mind me saying, I think that might be more reflective of how you view Catholic Christians, than how contemporary Catholics may view non-denominational, or non-Catholic Christians.

I’m RC, and live in a parish that has many diverse Christian communities & churches. There is a strong ecumenical bond between all of our communities too, frequently participating in common events, prayer services, talks, etc. that all find very enriching of our Christian faith. The drive to come together as individual Christians, and as Christian communities (despite differences or perceptions) expresses and nourishes our very Christianity.

looksee

Well in fairness, some 40-odd years ago when I came to Ireland I was told several time that as a Protestant I was not a Christian. This was not done aggressively or critically, just as a simple statement of fact.

.........

martinedwards wrote: »

in a mainly Roman Catholic country (as far as church going is concerned) there will be suspicion of a house church or free church which is what you describe.

Many RCs look at other denominations (even the big ones) and say they aren't christian, but as a full member of Methodist and Church of Ireland churches (don't ask... too complicated) and with close connections into several house churches and smaller one fellowship denominations, I have no problem with your testimony.

there is a church that meets in the school my wife teaches in. started with a family, grew to a room upstairs over a shop, now meet in the assembly hall with over 200 every sunday.

The Catholic Church accepts baptism and marriage carried out in many other mainstream Christian denominations as valid.

But any chance the tired haggard old usual Catholic strawmen and sectarianism could be given a rest for one Christian thread ? We can all do tit for tat - Plenty non catholic Christians are adamant that Catholics are not Christians.

.........

Ashbx wrote: »

I was reading another thread in this forum and without going into detail a poster said that someone was not a Christian because they did not belong to a church and it got me thinking.......

Well a lot of people from Atheist to Christian to Jehovah witness to Mormans define it differently to suit themselves just like they do with scripture.

The forum charter, that nobody bothers to read or abide by, defines it as " For the purposes of this board 'Christian' means broad assent to historic Christian belief such as is contained in the Apostles' Creed."

Mancomb Seepgood

martinedwards wrote: »

in a mainly Roman Catholic country (as far as church going is concerned) there will be suspicion of a house church or free church which is what you describe.

Many RCs look at other denominations (even the big ones) and say they aren't christian, but as a full member of Methodist and Church of Ireland churches (don't ask... too complicated) and with close connections into several house churches and smaller one fellowship denominations, I have no problem with your testimony.

there is a church that meets in the school my wife teaches in. started with a family, grew to a room upstairs over a shop, now meet in the assembly hall with over 200 every sunday.

I'd imagine it's a case of curiousity rather than suspicion.House churches or churches which operate out of rented premises are relatively new in Ireland but most Catholics would know that they exist and are probably curious.Don't forget that Catholics work with evangelical churches in groups such as Churches Together, the Dublin Council of Churches,and so on.

.........

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

I'd imagine it's a case of curiousity rather than suspicion.House churches or churches which operate out of rented premises are relatively new in Ireland but most Catholics would know that they exist and are probably curious.Don't forget that Catholics work with evangelical churches in groups such as Churches Together, the Dublin Council of Churches,and so on.

House churches are nothing new to Catholics, they had to be used during the penal laws along with mass rocks, just as Christians had to during the persecutions in Rome. Catholics in Syria and Iraq are back using house churches today. And indeed masses are still said by Priests on occasion in peoples homes in Ireland.

J C

looksee wrote: »

Well in fairness, some 40-odd years ago when I came to Ireland I was told several time that as a Protestant I was not a Christian. This was not done aggressively or critically, just as a simple statement of fact.

In fairness this was a time when most Christians (of all types) emphasised the denomination to which they belonged rather than the fact that they were Christians, first and foremost.

This led to incidents, like you describe ... where members of particular denominations tended to think of themselves as the only 'true' Christians ... and everyone else as not quite as Christian as they were !!!:)

A kind of Christian one-up-manship, if you will.:D

Jellybaby1

looksee wrote: »

Well in fairness, some 40-odd years ago when I came to Ireland I was told several time that as a Protestant I was not a Christian. This was not done aggressively or critically, just as a simple statement of fact.

I have had the same experience in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. I was told because I was not RC that I would go to hell. At the time I felt angry. Today I see that these people were taught to believe this and now I feel sorry for anyone who had such teaching.

.........

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I have had the same experience in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. I was told because I was not RC that I would go to hell. At the time I felt angry. Today I see that these people were taught to believe this and now I feel sorry for anyone who had such teaching.

It's even more ironic that's not teaching of the Catholic church and never has been.

Effects

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. A true Christian is one who conforms to the definition of a Christian as decided upon by God.

So by that definition there are actually very few Christians.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

@Sosurface please don't derail the thread.

Thanks for your attention.

homer911

I'm surprised hinault hasn't waded into this thread!

Jellybaby1

Ashbx wrote: »

I was reading another thread in this forum and without going into detail a poster said that someone was not a Christian because they did not belong to a church and it got me thinking.......

I was raised what I personally would call a Christian. If someone asked me was I a catholic, protestant, orthodox etc. I would reply, none....I am a Christian.

The "church" I attended growing up was set up my dad and a few of his friends. It started off approximately 10 people going to someone's house to worship every Sunday. This expanded over 10/20 years to nearly 100 people and over the years we held our meetings in schools (not sure about the logistics of this....I assume we rented out or paid some sort of a fee). Usually held in a classroom, kids then had "Sunday School" in another classroom and we had tea and coffee in a third classroom for afterwards. Usually one person was nominated to hold the service that day and talk about whatever they wanted to. Sometimes it was about a story in the bible and sometimes it was a personal story told and how God helped them in that situation. We would worship, pray and sing songs....and of course some tea and biscuits afterwards!

I got baptised when I was 8 years old. This was not done by a church official. We held a group baptism in a church in the city centre which had a baptismal font (again not sure of the logistics but I assume we rented it out....no-one from our "church" was connected to this church). I was baptised by my dad and his best friend.

So if I am not officially part of any church....am I not deemed a Christian? I wouldn't consider myself very religious but there is no doubt in my mind that I am a Christian...despite not belonging to a church. I would be interested in hearing peoples opinions.

OP, I don't think it matters what church if any you attend, if you believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the son of God sent to save mankind, then you are a Christian. Equally if you attend your church whatever form it takes, and still do not believe in Jesus Christ, then you are of course not a Christian. Only you and the Lord knows what you really believe.

Save

Jellybaby1

......... wrote: »

It's even more ironic that's not teaching of the Catholic church and never has been.

Not officially of course, but members of the RC church do have a lot of beliefs that are not official teaching. But someone taught them that I was going to go to hell.

Don't want to derail, I'm finished now Mod.

lazybones32

OP - if your baptism was legitimate, you are a baptised Christian. Whether you can be called a practicing Christian, or whether your church could be called Christian, is a different question.

Being a "lone wolf" Christian kind of goes against the whole communion, unity and family aspect of Christianity but it doesn't stop you from being one. Doesn't lessen Christ's care for you either...

Ashbx

Thanks for all the comments on this. Its interesting to hear other peoples takes on it.

Just so its clear, I do consider myself a Christian. I understand that I may not have had what people call a "normal" religious experience but my parents made sure that God was a part of our lives and that's what's important to me. Some people may struggle with the concept that I consider myself a Christian and yet not part of an official church but honestly I don't care. Its the relationship with myself and Christ that's important at the end of the day!

Thanks for the input!

.........

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Not officially of course, but members of the RC church do have a lot of beliefs that are not official teaching. But someone taught them that I was going to go to hell.

No, not all members at all, some maybe, just like some Protestants maybe have a lot of beliefs that are not Christian either, and a lot of false claims about Catholics and Catholicism, but not all Protestants. Somebody taught some Protestants a lot of rubbish about Catholics and Catholicism as well. Be nice if one thread stayed on topic without the usual Catholic mud slinging. Mod: If people are finished making accusations and sectarian generalisations about other Christian denominations, I'm finished replying.

Jellybaby1

......... you have taken my post in a spirit that it was not given. No insult was intended but you have taken insult. I apologise for having posted at all.

.........

It's nothing to do with insults. Catholics to my knowledge still have as much a right of reply here as any other Christian when claims are made against them and their faith.

Jellybaby1

Of course Catholics have the right to reply. I have no argument with you. I merely stated my own experience.

.........

I could equally claim similar generalisations on this thread about Protestants and non Christians based on my experiences with them, but why, and other than sectarianism, to what purpose does this tit for tat serve exactly ?

antiskeptic

Effects wrote: »

So by that definition there are actually very few Christians.

Why do you say that?

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. A true Christian is one who conforms to the definition of a Christian as decided upon by God . . .

Effects wrote: »

So by that definition there are actually very few Christians.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why do you say that?

Because so far as we know God has yet to decide upon a definition of "Christian". Definitions can be found in various dictionaries, but none of them are authored by God.

The New Testament uses the word on, I think, three occasions, but doesn't offer a definition or explanation.

hinault

J C wrote: »

The salient Bible verses are:-

Matthew 18:20 New International Version (NIV)

20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.?

Father Haydocks commentary on St.Matthews Gospel Chapter 18.
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id36.html

J C wrote: »

29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, ?Sirs, what must I do to be saved??

31 They replied, ?Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved?you and your household.?[/COLOR]

Everything else is 'icing on the cake' ... nice to do/have ... but not essential to a church or your salvation.:)

If you have believed on Jesus Christ to Save you ... you are a Christian ... and if you meet with one or more other Christians in Jesus Christ's name you are a member of a Christian Church.

Father Haydock's commentary on Acts 16

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id131.html

hinault

......... wrote: »

It's even more ironic that's not teaching of the Catholic church and never has been.

Incorrect.

The Church did teach that there was no salvation outside of the church.

.........

hinault wrote: »

Incorrect.

The Church did teach that there was no salvation outside of the church.

extra Ecclesiam nulla salus doesn't mean a non Catholic cannot go to heaven and it never did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

Don't try and pretend otherwise or attempt to twist and misrepresent my post again.
Read the catechism of the Catholic Church, and then post for us what is says about salvation of non Catholics.

Unless of course you're a supporter of the heresy of Feeneyism, which would explain a lot of the rubbish you post and the sites you swallow it from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeneyism

hinault

jellbaby1 wrote:

I have had the same experience in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. I was told because I was not RC that I would go to hell. At the time I felt angry. Today I see that these people were taught to believe this and now I feel sorry for anyone who had such teaching.

......... wrote: »

It's even more ironic that's not teaching of the Catholic church and never has been.

hinault wrote:

Incorrect.

The Church did teach that there was no salvation outside of the church.

......... wrote: »

That doesn't mean a non Catholic cannot go to heaven. Don't try and pretend otherwise or attempt to twist and misrepresent my post again.

There is no attempt/misrepresentation needed, because what you asserted is incorrect.

.........

hinault wrote: »

There is no attempt/misrepresentation needed, because what you asserted is incorrect.

You're wrong again, either you don't understand or are trying to misrepresent the doctrine of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

or your advocating the heresy of Feeneyism.

Which is it ?

hinault

......... wrote: »

You're wrong again, either you don't understand or.................

Your earlier reply was factually incorrect. Continuing to try to deny your earlier words makes you appear to be a liar.

.........

hinault wrote: »

Your earlier reply was wrong. Continuing to try to deny your earlier words makes you appear to be a liar.

I'll ask you again to prove your claim that the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus once claimed a non Catholic cannot go to heaven and was then changed . . .and we'll soon see who the liar is.

hinault

......... wrote: »

I'll ask you again to prove your claim that the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus once claimed a non Catholic cannot go to heaven and was then changed . . .and we'll soon see who the liar is.

That's not my claim. Please supply the quote where you assert I made what you assert?

J C

......... wrote: »

extra Ecclesiam nulla salus doesn't mean a non Catholic cannot go to heaven and it never did.

Which part of the phrase "outside the Church there is no salvation" are you saying doesn't mean what it seems to mean?

.........

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I was told because I was not RC that I would go to hell.

......... wrote: »

It's even more ironic that's not teaching of the Catholic church and never has been.

hinault wrote: »

Incorrect.

The Church did teach that there was no salvation outside of the church.

......... wrote: »

extra Ecclesiam nulla salus doesn't mean a non Catholic cannot go to heaven and it never did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

Read the catechism of the Catholic Church, and then post for us what is says about salvation of non Catholics.

Unless of course you're a supporter of the heresy of Feeneyism, which would explain a lot of the rubbish you post and the sites you swallow it from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeneyism

Now Hinult, time to man up.

(1) where did I claim the Church did not, or does not teach the doctrine of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ?

(2) where does the doctrine of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus teach that non Catholics go to hell ?

(3) Do you subscribe to Feeneyism ?

No more deflection, no more misrepresentation, no more avoidance of what you are actually asked, no more Strawmanning. No trying to call me a liar.

Be truthful and honest this time. If you are not , then we know what you are, and the matter is concluded. I've given you every chance, I'm not giving you any more after this.

hinault

......... wrote: »

I'll ask you again to prove your claim that the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus once claimed a non Catholic cannot go to heaven and was then changed . . .and we'll soon see who the liar is.

Address the question you were asked, first

Supply the quote where I made the claim that you assert (above).

.........

hinault wrote: »

Address the question you were asked, first

Supply the quote where I made the claim that you assert (above).

Here you are again . . . .

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I was told because I was not RC that I would go to hell.

The poster claims he was told he was going to hell for not being a Catholic

I said that was not the correct teaching of the Catholic Church

......... wrote: »

It's even more ironic that's not teaching of the Catholic church and never has been.

Hinult claims I'm incorrect [that the Church never taught non Catholics go to hell ] and also tries to conflate that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means non Catholic go to hell [aka Feenyism]

hinault wrote: »

Incorrect.

The Church did teach that there was no salvation outside of the church.

---

Hinult, as I said in the last post, yet another attempt at avoidence, stalling and strawmanning from you says it all.

Day Lewin

Aw rats. This was interesting before the ping-pong started.

hinault

......... wrote: »

Here you are again . . . .

Nope.

You made an assertion, which I never made.

......... wrote: »

I'll ask you again to prove your claim that the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus once claimed a non Catholic cannot go to heaven and was then changed . . .and we'll soon see who the liar is.

Instead Jellybaby1 made an assertion

jellybaby1 wrote:

I have had the same experience in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. I was told because I was not RC that I would go to hell. At the time I felt angry. Today I see that these people were taught to believe this and now I feel sorry for anyone who had such teaching.

You replied to Jellybaby1 with this incorrect statement

......... wrote: »

It's even more ironic that's not teaching of the Catholic church and never has been.

In reply to your incorrect statement, I asserted

Incorrect.

The Church did teach that there was no salvation outside of the church

Your refusal to accept that the Church did teach that there was no salvation out of the church, doesn't alter the facts here.

Your denial is one issue.
Your persistent posting of incorrect facts is another issue.
Your attempt to misrepresent what I posted is another separate issue.