THE ORIGIN OF TRUTH

 

When Catholics and Protestants engage in debate, there is generally a lot of back and forth (we discuss the Marian doctrines, faith alone, Purgatory, the Eucharist, Confession, the priesthood, the papacy, etc., etc.)  But there is a foundational topic that we should probably address first: What is truth?  Where is the truth that carries authority?  How can a Catholic or Protestant know what’s true in these spiritual matters?   

Of course, different levels of truth can come from many sources, some more dependable than others.  We can get some spiritual truth from the early church fathers,  we can get it from church history, or even some secular history sources; we can get truth from eyewitnesses of biblical events, etc.  But in the end, what we are really asking is, “Where can we find the ultimate and infallible source of truth on spiritual matters that neither side can deny?” 

In these spiritual debates, both sides use Scripture as a source of truth (and rightly so).  But Catholics also insist that we need to add “infallible” Sacred Tradition and the “infallible” Catholic Magisterium (which they call “the living, teaching office” of the Church).

But are Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium really infallible sources of truth?  Let me say up front that I believe that there is only ONE infallible source of truth, or rule of faith, for the church today.  And that source is the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  If this is indeed true, then Catholic arguments fail and crumble to the ground, because Catholics invest so much in the Magisterium and Tradition.

Misuse of Terms

One of the first things I wish to address is the definition of the phrase “the Church,” used so often by Catholics.  The word “church” comes from the Greek “ecclesia,” which means “called out ones.”  The phrase has only two meanings within the pages of Scripture:

1   1) The faithful members of the universal church, worldwide (in other words, all those who are saved), or

2   2) The faithful members of the local body of believers.

But Catholics have a third (and unbiblical) meaning of the term “the Church,” which they use far, far more often than the biblical meaning.  They use the term to mean the LEADERS (or the Magisterium) of the Catholic Church.  For example, when they say things like, “The Church teaches ABC…” or “The Church believes XYZ,” etc., they mean a Magisterium.  One way that they misuse the term in Scripture is when they quote Matthew 18:17: “…And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church…”  Jesus is not saying to tell it to the Magisterium, He is saying to tell it to the local church body, not just the leaders, but the whole assembly.   And it is the duty of the whole congregation to treat the man as an outsider until he repents.

But, as I said, using the term to mean Magisterium is not biblical.  The term is never used this way in the Bible, so it causes much confusion between Catholics and Protestants and it distorts the idea of authority.  But when used in its intended sense, as stated above, much of the confusion can be avoided. 

I will offer the reader an experiment.  Go through the Catholic Catechism and find the word “church.”  See how many times it is described as the universal church or as the local body, as opposed to a Magisterium.  It may come as a surprise to Catholics that in the great majority of cases, it is used as the latter (i.e., in an unscriptural sense).

How the Church Started

Extravagant claims are made by the Catholic Church about itself and its authority, claiming to be the “one true Church,” i.e., the Church that Jesus Christ founded.  Why do they say this?  They usually break it down and present their argument something like this:

1   1) Jesus Christ established a Church (Matthew 16:18).

2   2) He founded this Church upon Peter (Matthew 16:18).  Peter is the foundation and human head of this Church worldwide.

3   3) Jesus gave Peter primacy over the other apostles by giving him the keys to the kingdom with the power to “bind” and “loose” (Matthew 16:19) when determining doctrine, faith and morals, and to rule over the whole Church.

4   4) This made Peter the first pope.

5   5) This authority extends to all of Peter’s successors (future popes), as well.  This is called Apostolic Succession, and it includes an unbroken, lawful chain of successors throughout history, from Peter to now.

6   6) This authority also includes the gift of infallibility (teaching without error) when the pope makes an official statement or proclamation to the whole church.

7   7) This necessarily established a Magisterium of Church leaders (with the pope as head) who are the ONLY ones who can truly interpret Scripture and Sacred Tradition (which is equal with Scripture).

8   8) This created the “three-legged stool,” consisting of Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, faithfully preserving and transmitting this deposit of faith.

9   9) The Catholic Church’s Magisterium has truly, and infallibly, determined the correct list of books of the Bible, thus, giving the Scriptures to the world.

1 10)       The early Church fathers unanimously agreed with this and wrote about it.  Not only that, but Church history confirms all of this.

Logic Leaping and Scripture Twisting

Ok, there are a lot of assumptions and giant unproven leaps of logic here.  Catholics may say that it’s a cumulative argument – that each piece of the puzzle forms a part of the whole picture.  But I would say that if each piece individually can be refuted, then the whole thing collapses.  I will attempt to very briefly address each one now:

1   1) We all agree that Jesus Christ established a church.  No problem there.

2   2) The Church of Jesus Christ is not founded upon any mere man (like Peter).  It is Christ’s church (“Upon this rock I will build MY church” – Matthew 16:18).  And He is the Head of it.  The focus here is on Jesus, not the apostles or disciples.  The rock refers to the truth of the revelation Peter was shown just a couple of verses earlier – “And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’”(Matthew 16:16).  THAT is what the church of Jesus Christ is built upon.  See also this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html

3   3) Peter was definitely a prominent leader in the early church.  But there is no scriptural reason to believe he had primacy over the other apostles.  As far as the keys to “bind” and “loose,” all the apostles received them (Matthew 18:18-19).  Jesus may have first mentioned that they will be given to Peter, but that doesn’t prove primacy.  The New Testament must be taken as a whole.  It is obvious that Peter, in his day, was never recognized by the other apostles as he is by the modern Catholic Church (Mark 9:33-34).  He had a position of prominence, but not primacy over the others.  Again, all the apostles were given the keys.  See this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html

4   4) There is no mention of an office of pope, pontiff, or “vicar of Christ” in this passage.  Actually, there is no such office anywhere in the New Testament, although several other offices are indeed mentioned there.

5   5) There is nothing in Scripture about a “lawful” and “unbroken” chain of successors with infallibility who will obtain “Peter’s office” in the future.  A direct pedigree or lineage was not, and still is not, necessary for the church to function.  Something was definitely handed down to his successors, but that was the teachings he got from Jesus, not a papal position.  See this link on Apostolic Succession:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html 

6   6) Nowhere in the New Testament do we find any post-apostolic teachers or leaders who acquired infallibility. 

7   7) There are leaders in every church today, but it is extremely arrogant for any of them to say that ONLY THEY can correctly interpret for the common people.  See here: 

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html

Concerning Sacred Tradition, it cannot be equal with Scripture, nor can it be infallible, since it often contradicts God’s Word.  Furthermore, Catholics cannot even tell us exactly what Tradition is.  I have asked many times, and no Catholic seems to be able to give a meaningful and specific definition of “Sacred Tradition,” much less demonstrate why it is infallible.  All we get is extremely vague descriptions, like, “It is the Living Voice of the Church,” or “The fullness of divine truth proclaimed in the Scriptures, preserved by the apostolic bishops and expressed in the life of the Church…”  In other words, it is whatever the Catholic Church wants it to be!

8   8) There can only be one ULTIMATE source of revelation for today.  It can also be demonstrated that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium often contradict Scripture.

9   9) The Catholic Church did NOT give us the Bible.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

1 10)    Many of the early church fathers had some valuable and useful information, but the idea of a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is inflated and untrue.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/church-fathers.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/10/eucharist-part-1.html

Whose Authority?

Ok, what about authority?  Who really has it?  This simply boils down to authority being for the person who is faithful to the Scriptures.  Authority does not belong to a spiritual dictator.  It does not belong to one who flirts with error or false doctrine.  A “common” Christian in the pew can use the authority of Scripture to rebuke a “pastor” who is flippant or careless with God’s Word.  Pastors, deacons and bishops have their role as leaders in the body, but they cannot, and should not, lord it over the people.  As Christians, we are all brothers and sisters (Matthew 23:8), and we all have biblical roles/positions.  But being a pastor or bishop does not automatically give one authority, but rather, responsibility in his God-given role should be emphasized, so he can rightly divide Scripture.  This produces true authority… a “Magisterium” does not.

What Has Proven True?

So where can we find truth?  I hope that we would all agree that the following entities have proven themselves:

God the Father – through mighty miracles, like creation, the parting of the Red Sea, the Jews’ victories over multiple larger armies, miraculously providing manna, the Tabernacle’s cloud and pillar of fire.

Jesus the Son – through His fulfilled prophecies, His many personal miracles, including raising the dead, and by His own resurrection.

The Bible – through the intricate tapestry of its design (God’s fingerprints are all over it), archaeological proofs, and through fulfilled prophecies and ample manuscript evidence.  Furthermore, Jesus recognized it as the Word of God, He pointed others toward it.  He lived it and obeyed it, and used it Himself during His temptation in the wilderness.  Furthermore, we cannot deny the changed lives (for the better) it has caused over the centuries.

THESE ARE TRANSCENDENT SOURCES and God has caused Scripture to prove itself as a source of divine authority.  God is using His Son (the Word) through the written Word, as the last word for the church today (Hebrews 1:1-2).

There is no Tradition of any kind and no Magisterium of any church that matches the Bible in its divine essence.  Scripture is the one infallible source for the church today.  And that, my friend, is the origin of spiritual truth.

 

 

THOSE NAGGING GAPS

When Protestants and Catholics discuss the role of authority, sooner or later, it is inevitable that the Catholic will point to the teaching of “Apostolic Succession.”  This seems to be their “ace in the hole” argument and the “ultimate proof” for all their debates on authority.  It is important to note that it is a foundational teaching for Catholics.  They point to this to prove the Catholic Church’s claim of being the One True Church.  From the highest Catholic theologian to the lowest amateur Catholic apologist, they all seem to hold tightly to this doctrine, and they are quick to point to it.

Defined

But what is Apostolic Succession, exactly?  It is the belief that the present pope can be traced all the way back (in an unbroken line of successors) to the apostle Peter (whom they claim is the first pope).  Here are some official Catholic statements concerning Apostolic Succession.  According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online), under “Apostolicity”:

“…the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession.”  [Emphasis added]

“…Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles…” (Ibid.) [Emphasis added]

“Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna [i.e., gap, blank space, or missing part] can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession.” (Ibid.) [Emphasis added]

“If any break in the Apostolic succession had ever occurred, it could be easily shown, for no fact of such importance could happen in the history of the world without attracting universal notice.” (Ibid.) [Emphasis added]

And according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #77:

“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority. Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.” (referencing “Dei Verbum,” a document of the Second Vatican Council) [Emphasis added]

Is it Really Unbroken?

So, to briefly recap, the Catholic Church claims that an “unbroken,” “uninterrupted” and “continuous” lawful chain exists in the successors of Peter (popes), with “no breaks” and “no lacunas” (gaps) in this line of succession.  But can they prove this claim of a continuous and unbroken line of Peter’s successors?  When challenged, the Catholic Church proudly displays a list of the whole line of popes to prove their claim.  But it is interesting that there have been several different lists of popes over the years.

The List

Here is an example of an official list of the popes from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

But if one looks closely at this particular list, he can see that there are several gaps when no popes were reigning.  For example, during the years of 259, 305, 306, 307, 639, 1242, 1269, 1270, 1293, 1315, and 1416, we see vacancies in the papal throne.  This cannot be considered an “uninterrupted substitution of persons,” nor is this an “unbroken chain,” as claimed.  There are indeed lacunas / gaps in this official list of popes.  Don’t just take our word for it, but click on the link just above and see for yourselves.  

And lest anyone think that this list was produced by some unknown amateur Catholic apologist, the encyclopedia article containing this list has the official Catholic seals of approval - the nihil obstat (“nothing hinders”) and the imprimatur (“let it be printed”).  We have also seen other lists with slightly different dating, but these have gaps, as well.

How Catholics Deal with it

So, why don’t Catholics seem to be aware of these embarrassing gaps?  Don’t these gaps serve to refute the Catholic version of Apostolic Succession and demonstrate that their claim is false?  Indeed it does.  So, how do Catholics respond to this “gap” argument?  Let’s go over some of their objections…

It’s Just a “Vacancy”

Objection #1 - Some Catholics will admit that these gaps exist.  By the way, they are officially called “interregnums” (i.e., a pause; interruption; gap; absence).  And some Catholics will say that these interregnums are not really a big deal.  They will claim that there must be some “down” time between the death of one pope and the election of the next.  They’ll say it is just a vacancy, not an actual break in succession.

But what size “vacancy” is acceptable in this case?  A few days?  A week?  A month?  Perhaps even a month would be an acceptable amount of time to tolerate the election process, but if there is no limit on the length of an interregnum, then it is open-ended.  And if it is open-ended, then there can never be an occasion of a “broken” succession.  There would be no real way to tell when it’s “broken” or not.  In other words, their claim is  unfalsifiable (not able to be tested in order to verify or refute).  You see, these Catholics are simply playing word games and trying to justify all of the actual gaps that are found in these lists.  They are trying to exempt themselves from the obvious. 

With no standard to limit the time of these “vacancies,” they can simply brush off any challenges about breaks or gaps.  So, according to their reasoning, any apparent gap is never really a gap at all.  Very convenient, but very dishonest.

Furthermore, if these “vacancies” are really no big deal, then where do you draw the line?   Why not have only one documentable pope every 50 or 100 years, since, according to this argument, it doesn’t seem to matter anyway?  After all, it would be “just another interregnum,” right?  Could they be just as proud of such a list?  Would they still be able to brag about their Apostolic Succession?  Without putting definite limits on interregnums, their claim to an “unbroken succession” is meaningless.  When you take it to its logical conclusion, this objection fails.

As Long as the “Office” Remains

Objection #2 – Some will say that as long as the office (of pope) has not been destroyed, it is an “unbroken” chain and it doesn’t matter if no pope is in office.  To them, Apostolic Succession simply means that there is always an office existing.

But the use of the word “chain” doesn’t refer to the office itself, but it must refer to the men (the individual “links”) within that succession.  Else, why would they describe it as a “chain” in the first place?  So, the continuation of Apostolic Succession is about the individual successors just as much as it is the office.  And what good is an office if no one is in it, if no one is there to fill it?  Whether pope, king, president, or senator, it certainly does matter if someone is in the office.  An office is useless if there is no one there functioning and fulfilling its demands.  So, this objection also fails.

It’s the Bishops that Matter

Objection #3 – To other Catholics, an unbroken line of successors refers to bishops, as well, not necessarily just to popes.  They’ll say apostolic succession means an unbroken succession of valid bishops.  And even if there is no pope, the valid bishops are there in place, causing this apostolic line to be unbroken.

But think about this.  When asked to demonstrate or prove this “unbroken succession,” Catholics will immediately point to their list of popes.  But why point to this list if it’s really all about bishops instead?

Another List?

Continuing with Objection #3, if it is all about the bishops (instead of just the popes), then why bother with a list of popes at all?  Why not make an unbroken list of all the bishops, instead, to prove their case?  But the problem with this is that they can’t even trace the POPES all the way back with accuracy, much less the lesser-known multitude of individual bishops!

And furthermore, without an official list of those bishop-successors, almost anyone else could make the same claim – that they, too, have an “unbroken” historical connection to others who have laid hands on, and ordained, their own successors all the way back to the same apostles.

Are You “Valid”?

Concluding this “bishop” objection, how do we know that every one of these bishops were “validly ordained” (according to Catholic standards) in the first place?  It is possible that they could be unauthorized bishops.  Ordaining a priest or bishop is a Catholic sacrament (“holy orders”), and in order for any sacrament to “work,” or be “valid,” the ordaining priest / bishop must have the correct intention (CCC #1466) and the recipient must also have the correct intention (CCC #1319 and #1491).  Otherwise, the ordination is invalid.  But how could anyone ever know the true intention of either the ordaining bishop or the receiving priest?  Without knowing the heart, or intention, of either one, it is very possible that an invalid pope could be created, if he is ordained by invalid bishops.  We just can’t know for sure.  So, for all these reasons, their “bishop” objection also fails the test.

Sufficient Sources?

Another problem with the Catholic concept of Apostolic Succession is that sources from the early church were not always plentiful.  The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), which also contains the Catholic seals of approval, states: 

 

“…the scarcity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate…” (Volume 1, page 696)

And even more damaging, that same encyclopedia also states:

“But it must be frankly admitted that bias or deficiencies in the sources make it impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or antipopes.” (Volume I, page 632)  

Let’s Be Honest

You know, we could respect the Catholic Church more on this topic if they told us, “The list of popes we have is not complete, but we’ve got a pretty good idea who they were and when they served in this long line from Peter onward…” –  instead of boasting of an “unbroken” and “uninterrupted” lawful chain of successors.  Why proudly display this seemingly “full” list?  Are they hoping that no one notices those gaps?  But if these nagging gaps do exist (and they do), then don’t call it an “unbroken line,” call it a “mostly intact” line, but don’t lie about it just to maintain an inflated image of “Mother Church.” 

   

A Lesson from the Pharisees

Stop and think – one of the reasons that Jesus and John the baptist rebuked the Pharisees is because they trusted in some kind of lineage back to Abraham (Matthew 3:9; John 8:37,39,56).  It is very possible that they did have an actual unbroken historical lineage back to Abraham.  But Jesus was not impressed with that (John 8:44).  And their historical line didn’t make them the “true church” of their day.  Just as Catholics do today, the Pharisees were trusting in their historical line in vain.  

Conclusion

The Catholic Church does not have what they claim to have.  But even if they did have a perfectly unbroken and legitimate historical line of successors all the way back to the apostles, the truth is not discovered that way… it is discovered by handing down the true TEACHINGS of the apostles, not just depending on a physical, historical succession of people in the church hierarchy. 

Consider the issue of Judas Iscariot.  He was an apostle, directly chosen by Jesus, Himself – yet, he defected and did not pass on the faith of Jesus Christ.  Because of Judas, there was already a failure in the “historical lineage-from-the-hierarchy” type system to maintain the truth.  Before the original twelve apostles could even HAVE their first successor, there were already issues.  Sometimes, even those we may trust will fail to faithfully pass on the correct teachings.  And the fact that even an apostle could defect destroys the Catholic Church’s concept of Apostolic Succession through historical lineage.  Even if all the “right people” may be there in this line, this will not guarantee truth coming through them.

Now, we Protestants do believe in apostolic succession, just not the Catholic version of it.  True apostolic succession is simply taking the inspired teachings of the apostles and passing these truths down to the next generation.  That’s it.  Nothing complicated about that, and no lists to worry about.

But in the end, these lists hold no weight anyway, since the cold, hard truth is that the office of “pope” is unscriptural to start with.  There never was a BIBLICAL office by that name or that function.  Catholics will claim that their type of Apostolic Succession is biblical, since the Bible does speak of laying hands on one's successor (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6), but dead popes can’t lay hands on their successors.  The papal process of "laying on of hands" is not the one identified in Scripture.  So, for many reasons, this foundational Catholic teaching crumbles upon its own weight. 

We pray that Catholics can come to see the truth of this.  Hopefully, these nagging, ever-present, and embarrassing gaps in the lists of popes will convince many (Catholics, Protestants, and others) of the deceitfulness of the Catholic Church’s claims.   

This particular article has dealt with the “unbroken line of successors” aspect of Catholic Apostolic Succession.  For more details on the “lawfulness” aspect of this teaching, see here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html

NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH?

When discussing salvation, the Catholic Church sometimes uses the term “extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”  This is a Latin phrase meaning “outside the Church there is no salvation.”  In Scripture, the word “church” means “called out ones,” and it refers to believers / saints (Acts 2:47), i.e., all those who are saved, throughout the world (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:17-18), and sometimes it refers to the local assembly of believers (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:2; Revelation chapters 1 and 2).

If the biblical definition of “the church” is what is meant in this Latin slogan, then it is somewhat redundant.  It is like saying that there are no Christians outside Christianity.  But that is self-evident.  But what does the Catholic Church mean by “the Church” in this context?  Are they referring to all true believers, no matter what denomination or group you belong to?  No, when they say “the Church” here, they mean only the Catholic Church, the organization / institution headed by the Vatican in Rome, the supposed “One True Church.”  They are claiming that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved.  If there is any doubt about this definition, here are just a few official Catholic sources to prove the point:

• In the Lateran Council (A.D. 1215), Pope Innocent III wrote about the Catholic Church:  “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved…” (Emphasis added)

• On November 18, 1302, Pope Boniface VIII wrote in a papal encyclical / bull called “Unam Sanctam”:  “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff [the pope].” (Emphasis added)

• In 1441, at the Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV, in the papal bull, “Cantate Domino,” wrote:  “It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock… ” 

• The Catechism of the Catholic Church, teaches the same concept, but in a softer, less abrasive, more ecumenical language, “reformulated positively.” CCC #846, quoting the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium (LG 14), says:  “Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council [Vatican II] teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation…” (Emphasis added)

In the past, the Catholic Church has hurled many anathemas (declarations of condemnation) toward Protestants and other non-Catholics.  But it seems that today it is not as blunt as it used to be, but is more concerned now about using ecumenical, “separated brethren” language that is not as offensive.  However, the point remains.  They are clearly telling us that one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church to make it into Heaven.  They’re not saying that all Catholics are saved, but that only faithful Catholics are.

However, in all fairness, the Catholic Church does also teach that a non-Catholic can still possibly be saved, if he is “invincibly ignorant” about the Church, “through no fault of his own” (CCC #847).  We can agree with the concept that a person who has never heard of Jesus Christ (and perhaps never will) can still be saved if he reaches out for God (Acts 17:26-27; Romans 1:18-20).  But these people are the exceptions to the rule.  We don’t have a problem with these exceptions.  But we do have a problem with the Catholic Church claiming that the norm is that no one is saved apart from the Catholic Church.  That’s an extraordinary claim, and as we’ve said many times before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  But biblical proof of this teaching is not to be found.

Catholicism’s concept of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” exists because of their belief that they are the “One True Church,” as mentioned earlier.  And why do they say this?  Mainly because they believe:

• The Catholic Church has all the right sacraments. 

• The Catholic Church has “Sacred Tradition.” 

• The Catholic Church has a leader in the pope who unifies its people, backed by apostolic succession.

• The Catholic Church has the “four marks of the true church,” and therefore, the fullness of the truth.

But we would respond in this way:

  1) Concerning the sacraments, it is (supposedly) through these that one can obtain and maintain eternal life, especially baptism, the Eucharist, and confession to a priest.  For the Catholic, the sacraments are inseparably tied into salvation (CCC #1129).  But there are some major problems with this system of salvation by works.  See here: 

 

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html

  2) Concerning “Sacred Tradition,” not only does this teaching have some special problems, it has an identity crisis, as well.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

  3) Concerning the concept of a pope, there is nothing in Scripture that teaches there is such a person or such a position in the church.  Furthermore, the Catholic Church’s concept of “apostolic succession” is not scriptural either, and it is morally and historically unsustainable.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/05/does-catholic-church-have-four-marks-of_25.html

  4)  Concerning the “four marks of the true church,” the Catholic Church cannot claim either the fullness of the truth, nor can it claim all four marks.  Actually, they cannot even claim one of the marks in the way they define them.  See here for a four-part series of articles addressing this topic:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/02/there-aremany-important-choices-that-we.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/03/does-catholic-church-have-four-marks-of_28.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/04/does-catholic-church-have-four-marks-of.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/05/does-catholic-church-have-four-marks-of_25.html

In conclusion, this idea that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is a trap; it is just as much a trap as Eve’s temptation in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1-6).  The temptations may not be the same, but the end result is:  spiritual death (Genesis 2:16-17).

When a person joins the Catholic Church, he is hoping to obtain eternal life, but if he is faithful to the Church’s teachings, he will only have a system which attempts to gain salvation through faith plus works - a network of bondage that enslaves its members from cradle to grave.  It is a method in which there is no power to save.  It is precisely the type of system that the Apostle Paul warned us about in Galatians 1:8-9, one which condemns the individual because it attempts to add our pitiful, imperfect works to the perfect, complete, and absolutely sufficient work that Jesus did on the cross (Romans 5:9; Hebrews 9:11-14; 10:16-20).

The bottom line is that “No Salvation outside the Catholic Church” is an arrogant and unscriptural concept that has burdened and entangled millions of souls.  So, dear friend, what will you do?  Will you give in to the many unproven claims of the Catholic Church… or will you submit to the simple gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16)?