In his heart to heart with Roman Catholics, Matt Slick said:
He doesn't? Then why did Jesus send the Church out to make disciples?Originally Posted by Matt Slick
Jesus Does not tell us to come to him through a prophet, a prophetess, an organization, a church, a philosophy....or anyone.
Matthew 28:19-20
King James Version (KJV)
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
In this one statement, it is proved that your teaching contradicts Scripture.
First, Jesus sent the Church, an organization which He established to teach His philosophy.
phi·los·o·phy/fəˈläsəfē/
Noun:
- The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.
- A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it.
philosophyc.1300, from O.Fr. filosofie (12c.), from L. philosophia, from Gk. philosophia "love of knowledge, wisdom," from philo- "loving" (see philo-) + sophia"knowledge, wisdom," from sophis "wise, learned;" of unknown origin.
Second, this organization is composed of prophets (and prophetesses) as well as Apostles and teachers and many other folks with a variety of gifts all of which they use to edify the other members of the Church.
1 Corinthians 12:28
King James Version (KJV)
28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Therefore Scripture says:
Hebrews 13:7
King James Version (KJV)
7Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
To me, it sounds very much as though Christ wants us to come to Him through the Church.
So, if Jesus did not want us to come to Him through the Church and the people in His Church, why did He send the Church out to teach, make disciples and Baptize in His name?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi De Maria,
ReplyDelete(Part 1)
I found some of the contents of this article to be a bit disturbing. To me, you said that the church is the only way for a person to reach Jesus Christ. What if a child got stranded on an unknown island for the rest of his or her life? How then could the church lead that person to eternal salvation? Are they automatically condemned to Hades? Of course not!
This is what the Scriptures teach:
1."10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:10-12
2."Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
3."5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 1 Timothy 2:5-6
4." 14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews 4:14-16
The church is not the Savior. It is simply the body of the saved!
God Bless,
Jesse
CONTINUED (PART 2):
ReplyDeleteYou quoted Matthew 28:18-20 in an attempt to prove that the church is capable of saving believers. However, such is clearly not the case and is thus not the true Gospel (Galatians 1:8-9)! Jesus simply instructed His disciples to carry on His work of preaching the gospel to the world. Today, we have been given the same task (1 Peter 2:5-9; 2 Corinthians 5:20).
You also quoted Hebrews 13:7 in an attempt to prove that the church is the final authority in religious/doctrinal matters. Yes, we must abide in the doctrine of Christ or we do not have God (2 John 9-11). However, church leaders have been commanded by Jesus and the apostles to submit themselves to the higher authority of the Scriptures (Matthew 15:1-9;1 Corinthians 4:6;2 Timothy 3:15-17;Revelation 22:18-19). Should anyone just randomly submit to any professing Christian denomination such as the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses? Obviously not.
I sincerely hope that anyone who is seeking knowledge of the Truth studies the Scriptures fluently so that they can learn the foundational doctrines necessary for living a godly life (John 20:30-31). I say these things because I love everybody and want them to inherit perpetual salvation.
De Maria, thanks for letting me speak.
Jesse
Greetings Jesse!
DeleteI'm going to have to address your comment in multiple posts. Sorry for any confusion.
FIRST
Your analogy does not even present an argument against what De Maria and Matt Slick are debating. I could now turn the question around on you very simply: How could a child growing up stranded on an unknown island for the rest of his/her life, ever come to know Jesus unless they knew he existed in the first place? You're attempting to create a theoretical situation that LEAVES OUT a great deal of information, such as whether the child even knew of, or had heard of Jesus Christ. Simply knowing that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior is also not grounds for automatic salvation.
The answer that you provided to your own question: "Are they automatically condemned to Hades? Or course not!"; also demonstrates a HUGE gap in your theological understanding as well as demonstrating a strawman argument. First of all, you provided ABSOLUTELY NO CONTENT as to the life style this stranded person lived. If you assume that being stranded alone on an unknown island somehow prevents the child from growing up and committing sin, then you have presented a very false analogy. Simply living by oneself is not grounds for salvation, nor does it qualify anyone from ever committing mortal sin.
YOU SAID: This is what the Scriptures teach:
RESPONSE: Absolutely nothing in your use of Acts 4:10-12 deminishes the necessity of Christ's Church. Who would perform the act of Baptizing? Who would perform and test your proper knowledge and understanding of what Jesus taught? Who would administer to you the Priesthood? Who would administer to you the Annointing of the Sick? The Catholic Church is THE Church Christ established, as a VISIBLE extension of his authority here on earth. If you disagree with this statement, then you need to provide the scriptural support to refute it and give evidence from early Church history, that support your belief.
Your use of John 14:6 demonstrates your misunderstanding of what Jesus said. Jesus is talking about COMING TO HIS FATHER, not to Jesus, himself. What you quote actually supports the case of the Catholic Church being the BEST, VISIBLE, and COMPLETE source to use in order to be lead to the Kingdom of Heaven.
SECOND
DeleteYou then quote 1 Timothy 2:5-6. No Catholic would disagree with that, and that verse, in fact, supports the claims of the Catholic Church, since the Catholic Church was given the authority to perform a COMPLETE and proper form of mediation, as dictated by Christ, himself. Show me the Scriptures that tell us that we can come to Jesus Christ only through the reading of the Scriptures? Can you show me Scripture that tells us that we need ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE for salvation other than to acknowledge Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior? I ask this because such a claim would contradict other Scriptural passages that say otherwise. Such as:
“How does one receive salvation, justification, new birth and eternal life?
By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)?
By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)?
By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)?
By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)?
By declaring with our mouths (Lu 12:8; Rom 10:9)?
By coming to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)?
By maintaining the faith (Col 1:22-23; Mt 24:13)?
By works (John 5:28-29; Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)?
By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)?
By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)?
By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)?
By His cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)?
By the way: Just WHAT EXACTLY is Jesus mediating when Scripture claims:"There is only one mediator between God and men"?
You then go on to quote Hebrews 4:14-16. I have a question for you: How does one achieve the title of High Priest, unless there is something subordinate to that position? In other words, how can Jesus Christ be given the title of "High" unless there is something that can be lower? If Jesus Christ is the High Priest, then would this not also logically infer a station or status that is lower? Yes, it would.
What you fail to address by using that verse is the rest of the context of the Letter to The Hebrews, that being how Paul mentions the power and authority of the Priesthood and the Church. What I would like to ask you regarding Hebrews 4:14-16 is this: Where in those verses does St. Paul tell US HOW TO APPROACH the Throne of Grace? I would really like for you to answer that question.
YOU SAID: The church is not the Savior. It is simply the body of the saved!
RESPONSE: You are partially correct but you are also wrong. No one can judge whether someone is saved except Jesus Christ alone....no one. Your claim that the Church is made up of the body of the saved is a FAR stretch that is not supported by Scripture. We must persevere to the end and be judged in order to know whether we are saved. To me, those who make the claim of "once saved always saved" are by far the most arrogant of individuals (or misinformed) because they side-step what Scripture says and take on the role of the Almighty Judge, Himself. The Church DOES have the power to save but not through its own power but through that granted and administered through Christ. If you would like to discuss this further, I would be happy to dialogue on this subject.
DeleteAsserting that the De Maria has presented an unclear case should be backed up with Scripture that either opposes or debunks De Maria's claim. You simply made an assertion and then used Galatians 1:8-9 which says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING against De Maria's position, nor does it even mention the Church being incapable of bringing salvation to others. In fact, it only mentions "another gospel", to which I would ask you: What is the COMPLETE Gospel of Jesus Christ? The fact that Jesus instituted a physical and visible Church to remain on earth until His Return, is PURELY AND PROFOUNDLY ESTABLISHED in Scripture. If such an institution is supported by Scripture, then its purpose would be to lead others to the Salvation through Jesus Christ. I don't see any Scriptural verse or chapter that says all we need to do is read the Scriptures in order to obtain full knowledge of Jesus Christ and thus find salvation.
Your use of 1 Peter 2:5-9 is nothing that the Catholic Church would reject, because after all, she doesn't reject any scripture. However, I would like to ask you this question: Who is St. Peter addressing in those verses? Had you read the entire Letter, you would see that Peter is not addressing a "body of believers" but more, those who have chosen the path to FOLLOW Christ and what he established. You seemed to conveniently ignore verse thirteen of the same chapter. By doing so, it then makes it easy to argue your point against De Maria's claim, but you simply ignore what St. Peter wrote further down in the same chapter, which actually SUPPORTS De Maria's claim.
1 Peter 2:13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, * whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right." This is something I witness CONSTANTLY among protestants. They ignore certain Scriptural verses and chose only those that suit and fit their personal belief. We Catholics use ALL of Scripture. Scripture can not contradict itself. It must be unified and reconciled with each other. Protestants don't do this. They simply dismiss a verse that seems contradictory to their personal beliefs by saying something like:"Oh well, that was Paul or Peter who said those things and not Jesus, so I don't have to listen to it." Or they will say this: "Well, I don't think Jesus really meant what he is saying there." That is nothing more than avoiding the mental distortions that occurs when one reads the Scriptures and finds things that seem to contradict what the reader believes, or seem to contradict other Scriptural verses. They don't stop to reconcile the verses, they simply dismiss and move on. And when someone shows them that the Scriptures must be unified and reconciled, they will admit to the fact but then not practice it.
Your use of 2 Corinthians 5:20 only solidifies De Maria's statement even more. How so? Who is Paul addressing in that Letter? Read the entire chapter and you will see he is addressing BOTH those of the clergy and those of the laity. But the verse you cite has a prior verse that describes SPECIFICALLY who St. Paul is addressing. You seemed to skip this verse in order to utilize your quoted verses out of context in order to disprove De Maria's claim. It actually backfires.
DeleteYOU SAID: Yes, we must abide in the doctrine of Christ or we do not have God (2 John 9-11). However, church leaders have been commanded by Jesus and the apostles to submit themselves to the higher authority of the Scriptures (Matthew 15:1-9;1 Corinthians 4:6;2 Timothy 3:15-17;Revelation 22:18-19). Should anyone just randomly submit to any professing Christian denomination such as the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses? Obviously not.
RESPONSE: Jesse, Not one of your Scriptural verses used demonstrates anywhere, Jesus Christ telling us to use Scripture as the ultimate source of authority, not do any of them make such an assertion themselves. I'll demonstrate this later. But I want to ask you this question: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST? Show me from Scripture where Jesus uses the word "doctrine" and then establish a doctrine, please, or show me where any Apostles or New Testament writer CLEARLY defines the doctrine of Christ and calls it such. I'll address your verse separately below.
Matthew 15:1-9 does not show nor demonstrate the authority of scripture. The entire set of verses you utilize simply shows how the Pharisees were holding people accountable to man-made traditions that Jesus never gave them when they came out of Egypt. He even gives an example of TWO such traditions, none of which are or ever were recognized by the Catholic Church, which is something protestants CONSTANTLY attack the Church with, making claims that we are a religion of "made made traditions", which I would easily and Scripturally dispute. IF you would like to discuss this further and feel that Catholicism is based upon man-made traditions, I would be happy to dialogue with you regarding this.
It is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churches. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
Delete1 Corinthians 4:6 Jesse, do you realize the dilemma this verse poses to your argument? If not, let me give you some other verses FROM THE SAME LETTER that might shed a little light on what it is I'm trying to show you. (ALL CAPITAL letters mean emphasis). 1 Corinthians 15: 1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast--unless you believed in vain. 3* FOR I DELIVERED TO YOU AS OF FIRST IMPORTANT WHAT I ALSO RECEIVED, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4* that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5* and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8* Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9* For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. 11 WHETHER THEN IT WAS I OR THEY, SO WE PREACH AND SO YOU BELIEVED."
Had you read further beyond the 4th chapter you would also see St. Paul praising those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2). You are trying to separate Tradition from Sacred Scripture and that isn't even Scriptural to do so. This is a common tactic of protestants and I simply don't understand why it is they have a problem in confusing man-made traditions with Sacred Tradition. But alas, this idea is programmed into vulnerable minds who claim to be seeking the "truth".
The other MAJOR problem with your use of 1 Corinthians 4:6 is that Paul says "not to go beyond what is written". QUESTION: What is St. Paul referring to when he says "not to go beyond what is written" when it is a historical fact that this Letter to the Corinthians was written WELL BEFORE many other Books, Epistles, and Letters that make up the New Testament were even written?
Ahhhhhh, yes.....the good ole fashion use of 2 Timothy 3:15-16 being used to support sola scriptura, when it fact, it completely annihilates the belief. It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatsoever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. A good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this letter to Timothy! And none of the books of the New Testament were then placed within a Canon of "divinely inspired books" that make up the Scriptures as we know them today. St. Paul refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
DeleteFurthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
DeleteThis oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
If you want proof of what I type, then do a little research on St. Timothy, who died a Bishop of Ephesus in 97 A.D. He was stoned to death by pagans when he was in his early 80s. I'll even take a liberal approach and just use 80 for my evidence. If we take away 80 years from 97 A.D., we come to 17 A.D. as a rough estimate for when Timothy was born. Timothy was raised by his Mother who was a Jew, and therefore, he was raised with the knowledge and understandings of the Jewish Faith and culture. Within the Jewish culture, one is NOT considered an adult until they reach the age of 20 years. If we add 20 years to 17 A.D., we get 37 A.D., which is only a few years after the Crucifixion of Christ. Since St. Paul tells us how Timothy "from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings..." how is it possible that the Scriptures can be the sole source of authority regarding the Teachings of Jesus Christ, when NOT ONE of the New Testament books had even been written when Timothy became a man? How is it possible that the Old Testament books could instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus when NONE OF THE BOOKS, LETTERS, OR EPISTLES had even been written, nor had Jesus Christ even preached His Gospel?
Regarding Revelation 22:18-19. Why did you simply dismiss and ignore the previous verse? Take a look at what Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:17 says:" 17* The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let him who hears say, "Come." And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price." QUESTION: Jesse, who is the "Bride" that Jesus is referring to here in this verse?
DeleteAlso, you seem to be confusing the idea that when Jesus says: 22:19 "and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." that it somehow correlates with what we call the Bible today. It doesn't. In fact, that verse strictly says this "book of prophecy" and doesn't mention ANY OTHER BOOKS...none. Not all of what Jesus Christ spoke was prophecy, in fact, much of what he spoke in the New Testament were commands and ordinances. Verse 19 speaks STRICTLY to the Book of The Apocalypse (Revelation) because it references the plagues that were spoken of earlier in the very same book. The verse also does not say anything about Scripture being the sole and ultimate source of authority. It merely warns against altering the words in "this book" of prophecy. Book is singular, not plural.
YOU SAID: I sincerely hope that anyone who is seeking knowledge of the Truth studies the Scriptures fluently so that they can learn the foundational doctrines necessary for living a godly life (John 20:30-31). I say these things because I love everybody and want them to inherit perpetual salvation.
RESPONSE: And I see that you also attempt to utilize John 20:30-31 as another "proof text" to support the false doctrine of sola scriptura. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in THAT PARTICULAR book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient. Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that John's Gospel was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
All your Scriptural references do, is support what De Maria has been claiming in his article and what the Catholic Church has been teaching for nearly 2000 years.
In The Sacred Heart of Jesus
God Bless and Peace be with you.
Hi Mark,
ReplyDelete(Part 1)
You wrote so much that I do not even know where to start. In fact, I am pretty overwhelmed! Perhaps I misunderstood much of the discussion between Matt Slick and De Maria. I wish that I could see the whole thing in context.
You also addressed my "what if" question and demonstrated its fallacy. I really apologize for attempting to create a false dilemma.
I am a youth who is pretty new to this stuff! I quoted passages such as Hebrews 4:14-16, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, and Acts 4:12 to demonstrate that Christ is the ONLY way to salvation. He was the one who died for our sins (1 Peter 2:24). That is ALL I meant. We can approach Christ through prayer and worship. By the way, I interpreted the article to mean that the CHURCH GOVERNMENT is the only means of salvation.
I never even said that the Scriptures are the ONLY way to get to know Christ or that they are the ONLY authority in the church.
Concerning my argument from 2 Peter 2:5-9 and 2 Corinthians 5:20, I was only referring to those who love and follow Christ (John 14:15). You also asserted that I "conveniently" ignored the context of these two passages to prove my point. Mark, you act as if I PURPOSELY took Scripture out of context just to deceive people. That is certainly disrespectful.
Jessie
Howdy Jesse!
DeleteThank you for your response and I really appreciate the sincerity and honesty in which you have chose to approach this discussion.
First of all, Catholics DO BELIEVE AND ONLY BELIEVE that Jesus Christ is the ONLY one who died for our sins and Salvation can ONLY COME through him. But Christ established MULTIPLE WAYS that lead to him, and the "leads" are not what saves us, but they assist us in achieving Salvation. Thus, as St. Paul says, we are all "mediators" through Christ.
I think you are definitely misunderstanding what De Maria wrote and you are most likely misunderstanding what Catholicism teaches. That's okay, Jesse. MOST Catholics don't even understand their Faith. But the answer is "No.", the Catholic Government DOES NOT LEAD to Salvation. Only the FULLNESS of the Catholic Faith and her Teachings can help assure Salvation, not guarantee it.
Sorry, if I misconstrued your words to mean an idea of "sola scriptura". I probably jumped the gun in answering you because 99% of Protestants do believe in this concept. But such a doctrine is NOT found in the Bible.
Also, regarding 2 Peter 2:5-9 and 2 Corinthians 5:20. To be honest Jesse, if you feel I am being disrespectful, then I apologize. But I want you to go back and read over EVERYTHING you said previously and then come back and tell me that you have absolutely no implications within your prior responses of arguing for the concept of sola scriptura. Just because you didn't mention it, doesn't mean that you are not implying it within the context of your response. This is the SOLE reason I wrote so much because this is a CONSTANT argument that we Catholics hear from Protestants. So, to me, when I read your prior responses, I see very clearly an argument for sola scriptura. I think in the future you may want to be a bit more clear so as to avoid presenting the wrong perspective. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, Jesse. I'm simply responding to what is evident in your writings.
I hope this clarifies things.
Peace and God Bless