Book of Common Prayer: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi

Image by Rich Renomeron

I recently asked an Episcopalian friend of mine what exactly Anglican theology is. This question is significantly different than asking, say, what Presbyterian or Catholic theology is, because Anglicans are not confessional [1]. My friend could not just hand me a book or pamphlet with a list of doctrines, like a Presbyterian, Catholic, or even some Baptist groups could have. Anglicans have no equivalent to the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Instead, they are creedal; they adhere to the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. But how do they understand the creeds?

My friend's answer to my question was that if I wanted to know what Anglicans believe, read the Book of Common Prayer (BCP). This intrigues me for at least two reasons. One, the theology is far more implicit than explicit. It is somewhat difficult to nail down. Indeed, I posit that this may be what has led to some of the vast differences in the Anglican Communion. Two, all Anglican theology is directly intertwined into the prayers and worship of the Anglican Christians.  This is not necessarily so with Christian denominations (see below).

Thus, Anglican theology is a modern-day example of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, the law of prayer is the law of belief. This is exactly what my friend's answer to me means. The prayers that were picked to go into the BCP were picked because they reflect what the bishops and authors intended to teach. The prayers and rubrics are the theology. The same is typically true with all liturgies.

Image by D. G. Butcher

The same is not necessarily true with most extemporaneous prayers. Generally, people who pray - whether pastors, laymen, or worship leaders - do not explicitly think, "OK, I believe 'x', therefore I will pray such-and-such." Instead, extemporaneous prayers arise out of the current needs and situations, the feelings of the one praying, and the purpose of the prayer (confession, requests, praise, etc.). Indeed, it is not unheard of for someone praying in an extemporaneous way to make a minor theological "blunder." By "blunder," I mean a statement or request that is technically out of accord with the official beliefs of one's church or confession. Oftentimes, these are nit-picky, but they do happen. In fact, one of my former elders has pointed out some of my blunders in the past.

This is not to say that extemporaneous prayers do not follow Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. Indeed, if you want to find out what a person really believes about God's sovereignty, the nature of sin, the abilities of man, and so forth, pay attention to his or her prayers over the course of time. One's prayers say a lot about one's theology and theological priorities. In fact, The Lord's Prayer tells us a lot about Jesus' theology and priorities, but that's a subject for another time.

My point here is that extemporaneous prayers rarely give us an accurate picture of what one's church or denomination believes, whereas the BCP and all other liturgies do just that [2]. By studying what is said, theorizing what could have been said instead, and examining the order in which these things are said, one can get a good idea about the Anglican Church "officially" believes, despite the incredible variety and multifaceted beliefs held within Canterbury's walls.

In light of all this, as I start blogging yet once again, I want to begin to examine the BCP and write a detailed commentary on the BCP [3]. I hope over the course of time to write a rather comprehensive and "systematic" treatise on Anglican theology. Lord willing, it will help me and others understand exactly what the Anglican Communion does and ought to believe by their own standards. I think this should be interesting; I hope you do too.

Notes

1.Technically, I suppose that Catholics aren't confessional either. However, their extensive CCC functions more-or-less as just a very large confession. If you want to know what the Catholic Church officially teaches, that is the place to go.

2.This does not imply that everyone who uses a liturgical prayer means what the BCP authors intended.  One can certainly mouth the words without understanding or intending the meaning of the prayer.

3. I will be using the 1979 edition published by The Church Hymnal Corporation in New York. You can get one here.

Jason Engwar on Free Time

Jason Engwar has a really interesting article on Free Time. It's not very long; I suggest reading it in full.

I know that I feel as if I never have any free time, but to be honest, I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that I have more than I think I do. I blog, read, watch TV, play with my friends 2 sons, hang out with my wife, and talk to friends on a regular basis.

Let me suggest that you keep a time diary, like John Stossel, quoted in the article extensively, suggests. Try it for a week. Make sure to note, every break from "work" you take, even if just for 5 or 10 mins.

Then, let me know your results. I would be quite curious, indeed.

Engwar is right that how we spend our time is important to God. He gives many directives about time, and there is a lot in the Proverbs about diligence, laziness, and the wise use of our days.

A good, although far too introspective (read: convicting) for my tastes, question is, "Do I honor God with me time during the day?"

As an aid to answering that question, let me pose three more:
1. Do I do more for other people than I do for myself?
2. Do I finish my obligations to family, work, and others, before extended breaks?
3. Do I leave adequate time - free or otherwise - for reflection on God, life, and the future?

Well, now that I've spent all my free time for the day writing this, perhaps I should get back to work... doh!

A Response to Michael Spencer Concerning Christian Art

Michael Spencer has recently written a post concerning Christian art. It's worth taking a look at.

In short, he's tired of images of Jesus, which portray Him as peaceful, comforting, and always ready to meet your needs. He likens it to a cross between Thomas Kincaid and Precious Moments, and he even calls it "Mountain Dew" spirituality. Hehe. I kinda like that.

Thus, he's decorating his classroom with more images of Christ on the cross. That way, he can preach Christ and him crucified. A noble intent, indeed! He summarizes:

I intend to make the point that this is what God is like. Not some trite admonition to smile and have a nice day, but the suffering of Jesus at the hands of religious and political thugs in a world that is broken, bleeding and full of constant contradiction and despair.

I think Spencer raises a great point! Too often we make our Christianity and our God too soft and cheerful. The concepts of God as King, Judge, or even Boss are far removed from our everyday thinking. I think this has turned many people away from Christianity. Why follow a God who is designed to serve us and brighten our day? Seems rather self-centered and pointless to me.

Thus, I think Spencer is bang on, when he says: A Jesus shaped faith values Jesus and his kingdom in all his different manifestations and accomplishments for us, but it remembers that the REASON the kingdom of God can come into one life or into all of history is because of the cross (emphasis added).

The problem is, however, that pictures of Christ solely on the cross don't tell the whole picture either. This is the biggest problem of Christian art, in general. Photographs and portraits can't grasp the essence of what it means to be human, or even the full the experience of a single human event, no matter how mundane.

How then can an image of Christ capture the essence of Divinity, or even the meaning and emotion of something as graphic, horrendous, and important as the Crucifixion?

This is one of the reasons that the Reformers rejected icons and statues. By attempting to capture divinity with a man-made representation, we inevitably lose divinity in the process. God and His works can't be reduced into something man can understand, let alone replicate.

Thus, replacing pictures that reduce Christianity to "Happy-clappy Christianity of moralism, political rhetoric and cultural conformity," with pictures only of the Crucifixion, doesn't solve the problem. It simply substitutes one form of incomplete Christianity with another.

Indeed, the cross is not the whole story, which Rev. Spencer seems to understand. He wants to use pictures that retell the same story that the Bible tells. Good motivation.

However, the Bible's story includes God's Creation, expulsion of Adam and Eve, judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah, deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, long suffering with the kings of Israel, resurrection of Lazarus, the final judgment, and eternal life in paradise. Why no pictures of these mighty works of God or even an attempt to include some?

Also, why no pictures of Christ as the Good Shepherd, Prince of Peace, or our closest friend? While these may be overemphasized in our culture, they are still part of the story that the Bible tells. That is our God, as much as the crucified Jesus is.

Therefore, while we need to recover an understanding of the horrific and gruesome aspects of Christ's suffering, I suggest that we should neither forget nor abandon our understanding of Christ as gentle, merciful, and compassionate. He is not just those things, as our modern Christianity sometimes suggests, but He is those things, nonetheless.

Thus, a full orbed understanding of our God needs to save room for the happy-clappy, joyous, exciting aspects of God's work throughout history, as much as it needs to rediscover room for the convicting, sorrowful, introspective aspects. This is our God. There is none else. There is certainly more than one facet on this heavenly Gem.

I hope that Rev. Spencer doesn't substitute one unbalanced, incomplete concept of God for another. I know that is NOT his intention, but it may be an inadvertent consequence of his well intended decorations.

All images courtesy of Morguefile.com.

Pat Condell on Scripture

Christians, this is what many people think of you, your God, and your Bible. How do you respond?



Clearly, I disagree with Mr. Condell's position, but I truly think it worthwhile to listen to, understand, and interact with such views.

I'd be interested in any of your input, so drop me a comment.

"We Still Pray!"

Today, on my drive back up to MD from NC, I noticed a bumper sticker that read, "We Still Pray."

This is a very encouraging bumper sticker, since there appear to be fewer and fewer people standing up for Christian principles nowadays. Actually, I guess these people may not have been Christians necessarily, but I assume that if they had been Muslim or Jewish, there would have been something to distinguish the sticker as such.

Nevertheless, it is good to see "emblems" of Christianity every now and again. Knowing that people are praying for their families, churches, friends, and even their country, is a good thing. In fact, if these folks are truly faithful in their prayers for this country, then they are de facto praying for me! For that, I am truly thankful.

However - and there is always a "However" isn't there - I really wonder if such a display of one's religious piety ruins the point. It's like the Kindergartner who received a sticker for humility on Monday but had it taken away when he wore it on Tuesday. In showcasing our "holiness", don't we lose, or at least diminish, that holiness?

Indeed, Jesus warns against broadcasting our "humble" devotion to God. In Matthew 6:1, our Lord says, "Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven" (ESV). He then discusses how the hypocrites, while faithful to give to the poor, to fast, and to pray, miss the mark by proving their holiness.

Instead of such arrogant displays, Christ calls us to give, pray, and fast, in secret, so that God, the One we should aim to please, would be the only one to witness our righteous deeds.

Perhaps you could argue that the persons who put that bumper sticker on their car were not trying to garner the attention of others. Christians carry Bibles that can be seen by others, and many of us wear crosses, crucifixes, fish, or other Christian symbols. What's the difference?

Well, necklaces are personal reminders of our God, our place in the universe, and the work of Christ. Most Christians I know wear their crosses under their shirts, and if someone else were to see it, well then that person is simply staring a bit too closely.

Bumper stickers, on the other hand, are designed to be seen, noticed, and read, by other people. That's the point! You don't put something on the outside of your car so you can admire it while you drive. You put it there so that others will admire it.

In fact, I'd suggest that these particular people put the sticker on their car for one of two reaons, and perhaps both.
a. To win the praise of fellow believers.
b. To antagonize unbelievers.

Umm... That doesn't sound too holy to me.

Rather than displaying a sign telling me that these folks pray, I'd prefer them to just pray. I don't need to know that they pray, and neither do other people. We need them to pray. We need them to give their time, money, and energy to the poor and hurting. We need them to fast and worship the One True God.

In other words, we need these folks, as well as ourselves and others, to do exactly what our blessed Savior commands: to practice our righteousness in secret. Notice, too, the result: "Your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Matt. 6:4).

To me, that sounds much better than the praise of men or antagonism...

Anglican Division Problems Continue

I haven't been able to follow the Lambeth Conference like I wanted, and their website is terrible for giving news. However, I have heard that a new proposal has been given that suggests several things:

1. All homosexual marriages cease.
2. Ordination of homosexual and women bishops cease.
3. Clergy return to their proper, geographic diocese.

On paper this looks great. Liberal practices would be curbed, while conservative schismatics would be forced to reunite, as it were.

However, Fr. Dwight Longenecker has given a great commentary on the problems this will face and why in the long run it is just a farce. Check it out here.

In the end, I fail to see how the Anglican Communion will continue to stay unified. I am still convinced that within the next 2-3 years at the latest, we will see the Anglican Church cease to exist in the form we know it today.

Don't forget to pray.

Rt. Rev. Michael Curry on Evangelism

I don't much (or anything really) about Bishop Michael Curry. He might be solid or not; I don't know, but this is good. This was from Tuesday's press conference at the Lambeth Conference. I only wish all church leaders and laymen, including myself, were this passionate about Evangelism.

Anne, thanks for sending me this link. I really appreciate it.

Christ Our Comfort

Having counseled folks in the past, whether as a youth director or just as a friend, I've heard a lot of people say things like, "I'd talk to so-and-so, but they just can't relate to me. They don't understand." This is oftentimes followed up with, "I want to talk to someone who won't judge me."

People deal with significant problems, frequently incredibly embarrassing and shameful, almost every day. Sometimes these problems are habitual, and people wish to stop. They need help, and they want the best they can find. Others are simply unsure whether or not action, 'x' is wrong. It might be somewhat socially taboo, but they know that doesn't make it "wrong." They too want help.

Thus, they seek out people who will relate to them without judging them. This makes a lot of sense. When we need help, we want to find a friend, parent, pastor, counselor, who can understand what we're dealing with - emotionally, mentally, physically, even spiritually and socially - without gossiping about us, ostracizing us, or holding our mistakes against us.

However, I've seen problems in the way many people define "relate" and "judge." Many people, when they say, "I need someone who can relate to my situation," mean, "I want someone who has done that, is doing it, or has come really close." In other words, they want someone who has failed or is failing in just the same way. They want a peer, not a superior.

Furthermore, in saying, "I don't want to be judged," people tend to mean, "I don't want to be told I'm wrong, or at the most, I want the news sugarcoated." They want whatever the incident is to be defined more as an inconvenience or shortcoming, rather than a wrongdoing or -gasp! - sin.

These poor definitions seem to have two flawed presuppositions underlining them. First is the assumption that a "superior" (i.e. one who has not succumbed to the same problem) cannot "relate" to me. While not everyone struggles and fails in the same way, we are "all made of the same dirt," as my mother is keen to say. I do not hold a monopoly on problems, failures, or even sins. While my experience will inevitably be different from whoever I seek for counsel, it will not be entirely foreign to them.

Plus, "perfection" by no means implies inability to relate, either. I will show you what I mean in a minute.

The second presupposition is that we tend to assume that overall, what we do is OK. We have an amazing ability to justify our own failures that we would quickly condemn in others. Thus, when someone tells us that we are wrong in doing something, this cuts to our soul. It rattles our very worldview and self-understanding. This causes us to throw around the term, "Judging," where it does not apply at all. It is not judgmental to say that, 'x', is wrong. It is judgmental to say that you ought to be ostracized, flogged, or immediately condemned to Hell, because you have done, 'x.'

The biggest problem with all of this, however, is what these presuppositions say about Christ. Jesus our Lord is the ultimate counselor and comforter, and He often brings us peace and hope through the Counselor Himself, the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 4:5 says, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses." In other words, Jesus can relate to us. Notice the end of the verse, however. "... but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin."

Thus, Jesus is the ultimate counselor, but He is also the ultimate superior. Jesus has not been there, done that. However, He has been tempted. He understands our trials and struggles, but He has never succumbed to sin. Therefore, the best counselor and helper of all time, is also one who has never failed in the ways we do. If we think that we can only be helped by those who have walked in our shoes, then will we even go to Christ for help?

Furthermore, Jesus is the Judge (James 5:9). As the Creed says, "He [Jesus] sits at the right hand of the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the quick [living] and the dead." Not only does He have the right to say that action, 'x', is wrong, He has the authority to condemn us or pardon us. In fact, He has been very clear about many actions, thoughts, motives, and even feelings, being wrong and sinful, and one day, He will separate the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:31-46).

The point of all this is to show that Divine Counselor and Helper is the complete opposite of what we seem to ask for, when we seek counsel. If we only look for someone who has walked in our shoes or who will not say we're wrong, then will we ever go to Jesus at all? Christ hasn't sinned like we have, and He will never excuse our sinful behavior.

And yet, He is the only one who can give us true peace (Philippians 4:6-7), deliverance and forgiveness (1 John 1:9).

How intriguing and counterintuitive!

I think this is worth pondering next time we need help. We need more than what we think. Praise the Lord that He was the wonderful tendency to give us more than what we ask for!

Choosing a New Church

In just a month's time, I'll need to begin looking for a new church for my family. This isn't because we're disillusioned with the church we're in now; we actually quite like where we are now. Rather, it's because we'll be moving back to the States, Washington, D.C., to be exact.

This has caused me to wonder how we'll go about picking a new church in which to worship. I find myself divided amongst myself. What criteria will we use? The division manifests itself on two fronts:

First, is the theological/philosophical level. This is by far most important. I refuse to take my family to worship in a church that plays down the importance of the Bible or key Christian concepts. Furthermore, I will want to make sure that the pastor/priest/minister/elders uphold traditional doctrines, and key Reformed tenants. Plus, it is very important to me to proclaim the death and resurrection of Christ on weekly basis through the Sacrament. These things are of primary importance.

Second, is the practical level. I tend to ignore this facet, but it cannot be poo-poo'ed. I recognize that things like small groups, Sunday school classes, youth groups, etc. are not Scriptural, i.e. they are not mentioned in the Bible. Thus, they cannot be ultimate criteria for determining where to worship. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine away the fact that these things can be very spiritually beneficial, and they will certainly become incredibly important once we have kids. Plus, they mean a lot to my bride.

Hence the dilemma. What will I do, if I find a church that offers great ministries, but is soft on doctrine? What will I do, if I find a church that celebrates the Sacrament weekly, but has no opportunity for us to serve or grow outside of Sunday? Tough questions, these.

I think about what it would have been like for someone in the 6th century, who would have been in my position. How would Joe Christian have picked a church, if he had moved to a new country? My guess, is that he'd just go to the one that was there, or at least the closest.

Indeed, even within the past 100 years, the parish system was still thriving, but that implied great denominational loyalty; you would have simply joined the closest Anglican, Presbyterian, or Methodist parish, whichever denomination you belonged to.

But such loyalty is long gone. Indeed, even I don't consider myself closely linked with any one particular Protestant sect. I'm probably too "Catholic" for the PCA, but too "conservative" for Anglicanism. I'm certainly not Baptist or Methodist. What about Lutheranism? Perhaps, but their Law/Gospel difference and stance on Predestination are concerning. Pentecostal? Not unless I have a vision. Catholic? Not really ready to take a swim yet.

So please be praying for me and my family. I'm honestly not sure what to do here. This decision is incredibly important. While I understand that there is no "perfect" church, I do not wish to settle. My soul, as well as my wife's and future children, will be affected by this decision. I don't take that lightly.

Also, please feel free to give whatever feedback you might have. What do you do? How would you decide? What do you see as most important? Any suggestions/criticisms are more than welcome here. Thanks!

Does the PCA Believe that Baptism is Necessary for Salvation?

For my Reformed readers, this may seem like an absolutely bizarre question. However, it has developed out of a fascinating and enjoyable conversation I've been having with Oso Famoso and Peter Sean Bradley, here. In light of this, Oso posted a new article here. Both interesting reads. Make sure to check out the comments to the first one. I really appreciate the way these two have treated me with respect. I'm clearly the one that doesn't belong there, but I'm treated as if I do.

So anyways, Oso, following Peter, cites two sections out of the Westminster Confession of Faith (henceforth, "WCF"). I reprint them below with Oso's emphasis included.

First, on the Visible Church:

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (Chapter 25, Paragraph 2)

Second, on Baptism:

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. (Chapter 28, Paragraph 1)

Oso then asks: If being in the visible Church is necessary for salvation and baptism brings one into the visible Church isn't it the case that the WCOF is saying that baptism is necessary for salvation and thus...gulp...a "work" is necessary for salvation?

Peter also connects this with the Catholic notion of extra ecclesiam, nulla salus (outside the church, there is no salvation).

These are great questions that come out of a desire to understand what the PCA believes. I appreciate the fact that neither Oso nor Peter accused the PCA of anything here. Rather, they questioned whether or not they were reading things correctly.

So let us address the issue at hand. There are several things to be said here. I'll first address Oso's question.

First, the WCF does not say that membership in the visible church is necessary for salvation. Rather, it says that there is no other ordinary possibility of salvation. What this means is that the vast majority of truly saved believers are members of the visible church. It is very difficult for us to imagine a group of saved believers who shun Christ's Body and do not put themselves in submission of church leadership. This is the general, usual, and ordinary rule.

However, we, as Reformed Christians, are aware that there are exceptions to the rule. The thief on the cross beside Christ is the cliched example. Others who convert, but don't have an official, established church nearby (for instance, in foreign lands, where a Christian Church has not yet been planted) are other exceptions. Perhaps new Christians who die before the day of their baptism are yet more exceptions. The important thing to realize is that these are exceptions, not the rule.

Second, this means that Baptism cannot be required for salvation either. Yes, Baptism is required to be a member of the visible church, but as we have shown, being a member of the visible church is not required to go Heaven. There are exceptions here too.

Still, like with church membership, the ordinary process towards Heaven includes Baptism, and it would be very difficult to imagine a true believer refusing to be baptized.

Hence, we would tell "Christians" who refuse to join the visible through Baptism that they should seriously doubt their salvation, for they refuse to adhere to Christ's clear command (Matthew 28:16-20, et al.).

Third, and this is perhaps most important, is that we need to understand the Reformed understanding of the Ordo Salutis, order of salvation. People are not saved because they are Baptized or join churches. Rather, Christians will join churches and seek Baptism, because they are saved. This is why Justification (ch 11) precedes faith (ch 14), good works (ch 16), and the Sacraments (chs 27-29) in the WCF.

The only true requirement of salvation, in the sense that it causes salvation and that salvation is impossible without it, is God's grace. We are saved because God has shown us grace, and if He does not do so, then we are condemned already. This conduit for the grace of justification is faith alone. But as the WCF says, in chapter 11, paragraph 1, "... which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God." Thus, even faith is a grace.

Therefore, I must answer Oso's question in the negative. That Baptism is required for entrance into the visible church, and that being a member of the visible church is the ordinary way towards salvation, does not deny the Reformed doctrine of Sola Fide or make salvation dependent upon the "work" of Baptism.

We now turn to Peter's observation that the WCF teaches, "Outside the Church, there is no salvation." As we have shown above, church membership is not necessary for salvation, so we have to deny this connection.... at least in part.

As we've stated, we allow for certain exceptions that we listed above (under point 1). However, the Catholic doctrine of extra ecclesiam, nulla salus allows for these as well. In this sense we are in complete agreement with Catholicism here.

The disagreement is how this Catholic doctrine is interpreted and applied. The Reformers vehemently opposed the idea that Church = Catholicism. This is how the phrase has been interpreted by many Catholics, and it is there that we have strict disagreements.

For instance, Pope Pius IX said in an Encyclical dated Aug. 10, 1863 (emphasis added): 7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff... (source)

The PCA denies that the Church of Christ is limited to the Catholic Church, or that salvation comes through Catholicism alone. (Sadly, many within the PCA are convinced that the Church of Christ excludes the Catholic Church.)

Also, the PCA denies that the Church of Christ is limited to the PCA. This is seen in the quote above on the visible church: The visible Church..., consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion. Thus, there is not even a PCA parallel to this doctrine, in this sense.

As an aside, we need to point out that the official position of the Catholic Church does not demand that everyone who is saved be a member of the Catholic Church. This also goes beyond the exceptions I presented above. Members of the PCA can be saved, as can Methodist, etc. I point this out because this is often not understood by many Protestants. See The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 836-856, or if you have the time, read Lumen Gentium, a major document from the Second Vatican Council. See especially chapter 2, paragraphs 14-16.

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church believes that the reason those outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church are saved is because they are in some way connected with the Catholic Church, through Baptism, etc (CCC, 838). Of course, the PCA denies this. We don't see ourselves as a subset of the Catholic Church at all.

Therefore, before I give my answer as to whether or not the PCA teaches, extra ecclesium, nulla salus, I would have to ask Peter what he means by that. There is a good chance that we do hold some overlap with Catholicism here. The disagreements that the Reformers and others have had with this doctrine is when it has been interpreted narrowly to narrow the definition of the "Church."

I think that just about covers everything that needs to be said here. These are good questions, which are important to know and understand well. It is always important for us, as those who are Reformed and always reforming, to make sure that our beliefs are consistent and reasonable. Once again, I want to express my appreciation to Oso and Peter for their thought-provoking and respectful observations, questions, and even criticisms of my home denomination. The peace of Christ be with you!