M. You raise a number of issues as to the Catholic view of whether Protestants are saved, but this thread is for whether Catholics are Christians from a Protestant view. Nonetheless, I'll answer your post.
S. IMHO, I certainly gave adequate reasons why P's think C's are unsaved and do not see how I could make it any clearer, except to go into detail on certain doctrines which was not the place for it. I will briefly do so here. The lies and distortions of history and Holy Writ, coupled with a never-ending string of obligations foisted on the public, makes a mockery of placing our entire trust in the work of Jesus Christ, and thus, Catholics are guilty of the same error of the Galatians, who sought to ADD to the finished work of Christ, which they felt needed "supplementing". Paul said he would not tolerate it,
"no, not for an hour", and neither will I.
M. Ott also has a section on invincible ignorance, something you have overlooked that is detramental to your use of Ott and your understanding of the Catholic view of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
S. When faced with the blanket statements addressed to the world's inhabitants about how salvation is forfeited if one refuses RC claims and practice, Catholics will inevitably refer to their escape hatch about "invincible ignorance" to LESSEN the impact of Rome's taskmaster theology of the past. However, all this talk of being "too dumb to be saved, yet God allowing you into heaven with a dunce cap", is nothing but the imaginations of men who have to keep adding to their theology to hopefully make it "work".
No. "Invincible ignorance" by definition, is ignorance that can supposedly be overcome with some diligent "effort". However, Scripture declares in no uncertain terms that men are born spiritually dead and CANNOT, under any circumstances whatsoever, make any diligent effort after God unless the Father chooses to draw such a one to Christ by lighting the match of their soul to actually do so. Hence, the very idea of being saved in "I.I." is unbiblical at the get-go. Jesus THANKED the Father for blinding the eyes of the "know-it-alls", to instead, reveal His truth unto the humble (Matt 11:25-26; cf. 13:10-17, Mk 4:11; Luke 10:22; Jn 9:39, 17:6, Rms 11:7). Consequently, Catholics are correct in recognizing such a thing as ignorance, but are wrong when using it to sweeten the sour taste left behind by those who issued tickets to hell in days gone by. The concept of being saved in "I.I." due to their own neglect or circumstance, does not allow God to be sovereign in the matter of choosing the elect by giving them the necessary faith they need. Instead, the RC opines that
"God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel, so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator [because] man is master over his acts" (CCC 1730). On the contrary, the Lord manipulates and interferes in the actions of man from Genesis thruuu Revelation, and has some biting words about the "will of man" in the matter of salvation in Romans 9:16. Ergo, if someone is in a state of ANY sort of ignorance, it is because God Almighty has left them there, and it is up to HIM to take that person out of it. The Holy Spirit blows like the wind here and there, tapping on the shoulder those ordained to be one of the elect (Jn 3:8).
Having now eliminated this excuse from your armory, my objections still stand.
M. When I was a Protestant, I was a major fan of James White..., [but] I wasn't even very fond of [him] as a Protestant either.
S. I find this statement contradictory. Either you were a fan or you were not. In any case, Mr. White's God-glorifying work speaks for itself and I seriously doubt your objections, whatever they are, are anything to speak of. I trust you know that the Lord expects His followers not to hope for universal acclaim.
"Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you." IOW, if everyone is agreeing with us, that is indicative that our theology is in the midst of compromise, and our heart's desire is capitulating into pleasing men, rather than God. Now that I think of it, Frank recently issued an invitation to the world to come
"celebrate the Reformation". Now please. This man's glaring attempt in batting his eyes to his spiritual enemies is simply despicable, and is a prime example of someone deserving the "woe" of the Lord.
M. Keep in mind that when Catholics say that it is possible for Protestants to be saved through invincible ignorance, we have never said this is very likely (and Lumen Gentium, paragraphs 14-16, indicates it is unlikely).
S. As I've just proved, NO ONE will be saved "out of ignorance" unless God chooses to turn on the light, so as a matter of fact, it simply doesn't matter WHAT you think because your point is moot.
Second, I repeat, the "unlikeliness" excuse was dreamed up to lessen the impact of the very
"certain to be lost" rebuke issued across the board to all non-Catholics in days gone by. The modern bigshots realized their grandparents went too far, and so had to come up with some "exception" dicta so ecumenical efforts could continue.
Third, more whitewashing came in the form of the RCC saying that you will only be condemned if you "know" the RCC is true, but refuse to enter in. As I told you elsewhere, this is religion gone a muck. There has never existed, nor will there ever exist, anybody who has ever claimed to "know" the RCC is true, "but I'm not joining because___________."
Thus, because no such person exists, your apologetic fails and is exposed for what it is: namely, worthless.
Keep in mind that all these bad arguments are all stepping stones to Protestants rejecting so-called "Catholic Christians."
M. For those that are vincibly [willfully] ignorant, they cannot be saved.
S. Repeat: There is no such thing as someone willfully turning their back on the RCC when at the same time "knowing" that Jesus established it for their salvation. It is so infinitely illogical that on this point alone, Catholicism does not have any right to even be called a religion, let alone Christian.
M. You assume there are no exceptions but if you read Ott on no salvation outside the Church then you will see this principle well before Trent, going back to St. Augustine and even the NT. So, there are exceptions.
S. If any of these entities made reference to exceptions, THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE ONES THAT CAME LATER WHO DID NOT MAKE ANY EXCEPTIONS. You have no right to suppose that a person's theology in one century, must necessarily be defined by that of someone else's in another century. I find your efforts at damage control less than convincing. For example, will you happily join hands with Augustine's statements about the Eucharist, and unite them to your own? Of course you won't.
For his position was distinctively Protestant:If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure...-----NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 16 (section 24).
To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.
-----NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25, §12.
Hence, you are guilty of arbitrarily picking and choosing the early fathers that agree with you, but will drop them like a hot potato when they don't!
M. There are plenty of examples where words that may be absolute, like "no one" are not always absolute. For example, Scripture says that all have sinned but you would make an exception for Jesus (as would I).
S. This is a poor answer. Christ is the exception because Scripture TELLS us so, and not because of anyone's opinion...
(Matt 27:4, 19; Jn 8:46, Luke 23:4, 22, 41, 47; 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Pet 1:19).
As a side note, because the Holy Spirit goes OUT of His way to make these glaring exceptions for Christ, logic demands that He should have done the same for Mary. But since He did not, all chatter about her sinlessness is nothing but a sham and hoax, and once again, Catholics are not Christians because the "logos" [logic] of God has refuted them.
The same line of reasoning would also apply to her perpetual virginity... . If God was so kind to tell us of other women who remained chaste (2 Sam 13:20, Judges 11:37), no doubt He would have told us of Mary's exception as well, if it were true. But the silence is deafening! And if the Lord was so kind to tell us of Jael who wuzzz a sinner like us all, but nevertheless, "blessed among women" (Judges 5:24), then when we read of Mary being blessed among women, we may rightly deduce from good and necessary consequence that she was a sinner likewise...and so, this constitutes further reason that Catholics are not Christians due to their scatter-brained conclusions that grind against God's holy word.
As to the phrase,"no one" not always being absolute; yes, that could be true, but again: common sense and human courtesy demands that if we are aware of an exception, WE MUST SAY SO; otherwise, confusion results, and He is not the God of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). I submit to you that those making the "no one outside the church" phrases were being all-inclusive and NOT being led by the Spirit of God, because the Spirit is in the HABIT of making those very necessary exceptions ON THE SPOT. Watch it...
"Neither will I be with you anymore, EXCEPT ye destroy the accursed from you." (Josh 7:12). "Thou shalt not see my face EXCEPT thou first bring Michal..." (2 Sam 3:13). "EXCEPT thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither." (2 Sam 5:6). "EXCEPT the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." (Ps 127:1). "Then said these men, we shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, EXCEPT we find it against him concerning the law of his God." (Dan 6:5).. "They were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, EXCEPT the apostles." (Ax 8:1).. Other "exceptions" may be found in Matt 5:20, 32, 12:29, 18:3, 24:22, 26:42, Mk 3:27, Luke 13: 3, John 3:2. 3:3-5, 3:27, 6:44, 12:24, 19:11).
M. I'm not very big into "playing footsy" with Protestants. I believe they can be saved, but I believe it is very hard for them to be saved apart from full communion with the Church,
S. True Christians, on the other hand, are satisfied with being in full union with their Savior, PERIOD.
What you mean to say is, as Mr. Ott reports,
"...nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving salvation." (FOCD, p. 262).
Rather than having "conditions" that must be fulfilled to "achieve" salvation, Paul taught in Rms 4:4-8 that a man is justified by faith in opposition to works. Thus, it is FAITH in the unspeakable, finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ--and NOT the "fulfillment of conditions" that is reckons us righteous and--- wherein having BEEN justified (past tense!) we now have "peace with God" (5:1). Catholics are unsaved because they do not know anything of a justification that is
accomplished, neither do they have peace with God, unaware that there is therefore
"NOW, no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rms 8:1).
M. I'd be happy to discuss Papal infallibility with you in a thread on that topic
S. I only mentioned infallibility to show that this self-proclaimed attribute foisted on the world at Vatican 1 is a lie, and hence, Catholics are not Christians because they are following those who claim to speak for God-- but can't even get His word straight! 1 Tim 3 was a prime example.
M. 1 Tim. 3:15 does say that it is the Church that is the pillar of truth, but it is Peter who is the head of the Church, the two are not incompatible.
S. Oh no you don'. That slippery excuse will not work, first because if the magisterium had any sensitivity to the word of God when they said Peter was the pillar, they would have clarified their position ON THE SPOT, as any normal writer would. But because they did not, we must believe the Holy Spirit left them in their blindness (neither did He choose to alert even ONE person out of
MANY, of this error, who read the final draft!)....
yet I noticed it immediately upon impact! Hence...Catholics are not Christians because the Holy Spirit is obviously not guiding them. As for Peter being head of the church, Scripture indicates no such thing. If anyone was a Pope, the apostle Paul fits the bill better than his brother:
1) Paul wrote more books of the N.T. than anyone else, much to the dismay of Catholics today and yesterday.
2) P singles himself out as the standard of orthodoxy (1 Cor 4:17).
3) Only P refers to himself as having a rod (a symbol of authority) 1 Cor 4:21.
4) P is the only apostle who refers to his authority over
ALL the churches (1 Cor 4:17; 7:17, 2 Cor 11:28) ...wreaking havoc with the claim of Vatican 1 that Peter immediately received from Christ a primacy of honor over the whole church militant!
5) The Jews in Acts 21:28 recognized P's "primacy" by saying he was THEE man they held most responsible for spreading Christianity everywhere.
6) Paul worked more than all the other apolstles (1 Cor 15:10).
7) Paul is the only apostle who is called God's chosen vessel who will bear His name before both Jews
and Gentiles (Acts 9:15), while Peter's ministry was confided primarily to the Jews (Gal 2:1-10).
8) P had the best training and education of all the apostles (Phil 3:4-6).
9) P wrote more about church unity, church government and the intricacies of the gospel than any other, and when he did, there was no mention of a papacy (1 Cor 12:28).
10) Paul said he was not a whit behind (or at all inferior) to the very chiefest (or most eminent) apostles (2 Cor 11:5
AND 12:11), and that,
"He who worked effectively in Peter...worked effectively in me also" (Galatians 2:8) --- putting himself on the same level as his spiritual brother.
M. Peter was more than the "Prime Minister" of the early Church. I recommend you read this lecture:
www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.aspS. This is not the place to critique Hahn's article, but I was not impressed with his "revelation" that Isaiah 22 was
"for me, the breakthrough. This discovery was the most important discovery of all."
Nonsense. Isaiah 22 was never used as the "norm" for defending papal claims and he admits as much in the article. That's all I will say about that, other than to indicate that these are desperation tactics. Deep down, Hahn is disappointed that the Holy Spirit forgot to mention the papal office in the list of church offices in 1 Cor 12:28-29 & Eph 4:11-12! He knows that
THESE verses should have been the very place to prove the papacy; the "breakthrough" and "the most important discovery" to prove his apologetic. But it was not to be so. It is simply comical that he needs to go back to the O.T. to prove his PRIMARY reason for embracing popery, and expects everyone to accept it uncritically.
In addition, his response to the question, "why isn't infallibility mentioned in the Bible? -----Answer:
"Well the word "trinity" isn't mentioned either" --- is worse than ridiculous, and shows once again the spurious and arrogant nature of Rome's claim to rule the world.
As for your quotes from antiquity regarding Peter, there is MUCH that could be said. William Webster examines every quote imaginable that came from their pen and rightly concludes,
"that the contemporary RC interpretation had no place in the biblical understanding of the early church can no longer be disputed."---("Peter and the Rock").