What is the largest Church in America?

I believe your post is mis-leading. The Church teaches that those believers who don't have opportunity to be baptized (ie: converts before martyrdom) are saved. And your right, if you are not part of the Body of Christ- you aren't saved. The Catholic Church teaches that there are Christians-like you and others on this board-that are not in communion with the RCC but are part of the Body of Christ and saved just the same. "The Catechism restates positively that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the church which is His Body. What this statement does not mean is that you have to be a member of a Catholic Parish to be saved." (Agape Bible Study)

Ann, are you familiar with the English New Testament scholar, George (G.R.) Beasely-Murray? He wrote a book called Baptism In The New Testament. The reason I'm asking is because I read that Beasely-Murray was a sacramentalist. I wasn't aware there was such an animal. He claimed Baptist sacramentalist are far more common in England than in the United States.

http://archives.sbts.edu/CC/article/0,,PTID325566_CHID717902_CIID1988672,00.html

I just ordered a book called Baptist Sacramentalism. Authors: Anthony R. Cross and Phillip E. Thompson. Contributors include John Colwell, Anthony R. Cross, Stanley Fowler, Curtis Freeman, Timothy George, Tim Grass, Stanley Grenz, Barry Harvey, Michael Haykin, Brian Haymes, Stephen Holmes, Elizabeth Newman, Clark Pinnock, Stanley Porter, lan Randall, and Philip Thompson. Maybe your familiar with some of these people. There are two volumes and I ordered the first one.

I have no idea where these people stand on the necessity of baptism or if they understand baptism as a means of grace-or??? I'll have to read it first.

 

I meant to say, "the Baptist English New Testament scholar, George (G.R.) Beasely-Murray". That's the problem with posting in the middle of the night.

 

This is from both the catechism and Catholic.com:

"Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus does not mean that only faithful Roman Catholics can be saved. The Church has never taught that. So where does that leave non-Catholics?

Jesus told his followers, "I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). After his Resurrection, Jesus gave the threefold command to Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Tend my sheep. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:15–17). The word translated as "tend" (poimaine) means "to direct" or "to superintend"—in other words, "to govern." So although there are sheep that are not of Christ’s fold, it is through the Church that they are able to receive his salvation.

People who have never had an opportunity to hear of Christ and his Church—and those Christians whose minds have been closed to the truth of the Church by their conditioning—are not necessarily cut off from God’s mercy. Vatican II phrases the doctrine in these terms:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciences—those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16)."

 

Often papal decrees change or are clarified.

 

We are certainly saved by grace through faith.

But did He just die for just the elect or for all mankind???

 

There is another thread in which there are those who believe Jesus or God only loves the elect and hates everyone else. That Jesus' death was limited only to the elect.

I personally disagree with this and think its a result of hyper calvinism.

 

My point is that there are Baptists churches that teach Christ died only for the elect. Many others teach that He died for all mankind. Both doctrines cannot possibly be right. One is heretical and the other is truth. The Holy Spirit was promised to lead us into truth right? John 16:13.

The same example can be made of freewill or OSAS. Both cannot be right. One is definately heresy. Both groups would claim the Holy Spirit is leading them to believe this way or that. The group that is wrong is being led by something else other than the Holy Spirit.

Is my thinking on this flawed?

 

The second statement is irrelevant as long as you continue to be deceived by the first. The RCC has never taught that one is saved by grace through faith. At the council of Trent, they cursed those who would believe in that doctrine. It was an official curse put on those who believed in salvation by grace through faith. How could you make such a statement?
In the RCC salvation is through baptism!

 

DHK, I have read through this thread and a line of questioning has developed in my mind. Perhaps you can clear it up for me.

Lori4dogs has stated that she was previously Baptist and is saved. Later she became Catholic.

So is she no longer saved?

Did she only think that she was saved but really wasn't/isn't?

Or is she saved?

An answer of yes to the first two questions creates a problem where it comes to assurance of one's own salvation.

An answer of yes to the last question creates a problem with all the rest that you are saying where it comes to "right doctrine" as a condition for salvation.

What is one to think?

 

Perhaps she was never saved in the first place. I don't know. I do know this. One cannot believe in justification by faith and justification by water baptism at the same time which is essentially she is putting forward. She claims to have believed the evangelical meaning of the new birth as a baptist, and now believes that the new birth means baptismal regeneration. Both cannot be true. You either believe one or the other. A true believer would never forsake his own salvation, or deny the meaning of it.

In the light of what she has posted concerning the new birth it is a good possibility. Ask God, not me. He knows the heart.

Ask God, not me. He knows the heart.
The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it. The answer is, God alone.

I have no problem with an assurance of my own salvation. Most people on this board do not. They would never deny their salvation or question, or change the meaning of what it is to be born again.

"Examine yourself to see whether you are in the faith."
That was Paul's advice. As for me I have no problem.

 

"I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day"

 

So what did you believe that would keep you?
The RCC definition of the new birth?
The evangelical definition of the new birth?
Both can't be true. You have to believe one and renounce the other.
You can't sit on the fence.

 

Dutch Calvinism teaches that every local church and denomination is contaminated by sin. This also has been my observation.

 

DHK, lori4dos already said that she was saved when she was in a Baptist church.

So why would you think that she was keeping a RCC definition of the new birth?

You said that only God knows her heart - which was the correct answer - but you continued questioning of her makes me think that you believe that she is not.

So if she was saved as a Baptist did she lose her salvation when she left for the RCC?

She still says that she is saved - and you act as though she is not - so is she fooled in her assurance?

If she can be fooled - why can't you or I?

 

All Calvinists believe that man is born in sin. I believe the RCC believes this doctrine also. So do I. There are not too many that don't.

 

Yes its considered an Augustinian view. However, the Orthodox hold to ancestrial sin rather than original sin in the way the west views it. Accordingly to them man is only predisposed to sin. Not necissarily contaminated by it unless its acted upon.