Can You Lose Your Salvation? (Debate)

[BrianC]

Let's discuss once saved always saved. Give arguments for it or against it, depending on what you believe. I'll post my belief in the next post.

[BrianC]

Catholics believe you can lose your salvation. I'm gonna' lay out a little bit of my argument for not being able to lose your salvation. I want to see if you can disprove it. I'm posting an e-mail I typed to a friend not long ago...here it is:

The Impossibility of Losing Your Salvation

For some background, Paul was the person in the Bible who was picked by Jesus to interpret the gospel, according to Paul himself. After He rose from the dead, Jesus taught Paul in person for years, according to Paul himself. Paul said that he was taugth by Jesus alone so that no man could take credit for teaching him or corrupting Jesus' gospel (Galatians 1:11-2:21). Paul has the perfect gospel of Jesus interpreted in his apistles.

Take note of who’s speaking in these verses. It’s usually Jesus in anything that’s from the four gospels, and if it’s not in the gospels, it’s probably Paul speaking (except in the one verse from 1st Peter).

John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; (This is a present tense "has")

John 5:24
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. (again, present tense "has")

John 6:47
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. (HAS eternal life. You HAVE eternal life right now since you accepted Jesus)

1 John 5:13
[ This Is Written That You May Know ] These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

So, as you can see, the second you believe in Christ, you HAVE eternal life (present tense). If the life He's given you can be lost, then it is not eternal. So, if Christ could take that life away from you, the life was not eternal to begin with, and that would make Jesus Christ a liar. That's not possible.

John 11:26
and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die.

Once again, we see that if we could die (spiritually) after having believed in Christ, Jesus would be a liar (and we know it is impossible for Jesus to lie).

Not only do we have eternal life, but we are also already seated in heaven as citizens of heaven. Check this out:

Ephesians 2:5-7
Even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Philippians 3:20
For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;

So, our spirit man (we are three parts, mind, body and spirit) that has been fully sanctified is seated in heaven right now. Let me show you how sanctified our spirit man (woman, in your case) is:

John 3:5, 6
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

We see here that we are born of the HOLY SPIRIT now, not of mankind or of flesh. And if you are born of the Holy Spirit, then you have an incorruptible spirit, because the Holy Spirit is incorruptible/imperishable.

1 Peter 1:23
For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

Our spirit self, spirit man, spirit woman (whatever you want to call it) is imperishable. The Bible says sin brought death into the world. Death means perishable. No death (eternal life) means imperishable. Our new spirit is IMPERISHABLE! It cannot be corrupted by sin, period, because we have been made holy by God's holiness vested in us by the Holy Spirit who birthed in us a new spirit man.

Galatians 4:29
But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.

This is speaking of our old sinful body that fights against our new born again perfect spirit. Sin is still present in our fleshly bodies and it works against our spirit. But we have to whip our body into the submission of our spirit and mind. Our mind even has sin in it, but it cannot corrupt our perfect spirit. That's like saying you can corrupt God or make Him sin. That's impossible! And we have HIS spirit now, so it's impossible to corrupt HIS spirit.

Salvation is by faith:

Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

According to the verse above, salvation is by faith, and not by works. This means that the way you get salvation is just by believing (through faith). So, it doesn't say that you have to keep your salvation by working for it (anything you can do to retain your salvation is classified as work, so even not sinning is work). It says salvation is by faith alone. Not only that, but we have things He's set aside JUST for us to do to help in the future. He knows exactly where we'll be at what time and that we will need to help someone in His power.

This is how secure we are:

John 10:28, 29
And I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

Here's how secure Paul says we are:

Romans 8:37-39
But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So, Paul just said that NOTHING can separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus. In other words, if you are "in Christ" (saved/born again), you cannot be separated from God/Christ/Holy Spirit.

Sin has been dealt with COMPLETELY. It is no longer a problem to God. Reconciled means that an account has been settled and no more payment is required. When you purchase a pair of $70 pants and you pay $70 for them, you receive a receipt for those pants. By law, that store cannot come to you and say, "Pay us some more for those pants." Why? Because you have a receipt showing that you've already paid the price for the pants. Same with God. We're reconciled through Jesus, and no more price needs to be paid. We see this here:

Romans 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

2 Corinthians 5:18
And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,

Now, here's some more really good news. We already know now that it's impossible to lose our salvation. But let me show you the one sin that cannot be forgiven and why it cannot be forgiven. Since sin is no longer a problem for God, being that we have been reconciled to Him through Christ, there's only one way to sin now. And that one sin is the only way to not be forgiven. If you accept Christ, you are forgiven, right? But if you reject Christ, you are not forgiven. Christ says that when you accept Him:


Mark 3:28, 29
"Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"

Alright, here's what this means. The only way to be forgiven of sin is to accept Jesus' gift of the Holy Spirit who births us a new incorruptible Spirit of God and forgives us our sins. Our new spirit is incorruptible and is literally the offspring of God Himself. This means it's impossible to corrupt it. It's Holy, and Holy means that you cannot be corrupted by sin, and you cannot even sin. This new spirit we have cannot sin. But let's say you don't want this new spirit. Let's say that you reject the Holy Spirit and His gift of salvation from sins. How, then, can you be forgiven of sins? You've just rejected the only means of salvation.

So, when it says that the only unforgiveable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit, blaspheme means to reject. It means you've rejected the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It’s important to know that in the Old Testament Mosaic Law, the Jews could disown their own biological son if he was horrible and was defacing the family name. However, if they adopted a son, by Law, they could never disown him. He was permanently part of the family. It’s much the same with God, because we are told that God adopt us so that we can call Him “abba, father.” He cannot get rid of us at that point.

Now, remember... once you accept Jesus, NOTHING can separate you from Him. In other words, it's impossible to reject the Holy Spirit and separate Him from yourself once you have accepted Him and His forgiveness of sins and His new spirit that is birthed in you. It is impossible. You cannot reject Him at this point, because you have eternal life. I know a guy that was born again and has now completely turned away from God and claims there is no God and hates anything to do with God. But on the last day, God will say, "You accepted Jesus, and nothing can separate you from Jesus. I know you were deceived into hating me and not believing I exist, but I'm here to tell you...I have already forgiven all your sins 2,000 years ago, so come on home, son. You're welcome here." And he will accept, because all of the sin and deception that was in him causing him to not believe in God anymore will be gone! No more delusions. Only truth.

There is no way to lose your salvation. It's impossible, or Jesus would be a liar if you could lose it.

Besides, imagine this conversation: If you were to die and walk up to Jesus and say, “I did horrible things, and I even rejected you after I had accepted your free gift of salvation. I know you’re going to cast me into hell.” Jesus would answer, “You don’t think my sacrifice was good enough to cover those particular sins? I got rid of ALL sin, once and for all. There is nothing I have not overcome. You are saved regardless of your sins. My sacrifice was complete and eternal.”

Even if you blaspheme the Holy Spirit all your life, if you accept Jesus on your death bed, then you have just accepted the Holy Spirit. The only reason you weren't forgiven for this sin before is because you had refused the gift of salvation from sins. Now, you've accepted it right before death, and you're saved.

[BlackSnake1996]

No, you cannot loose your salvation. Once you have been excepted into the "family", and he as your father, no matter how much you run or denounce, he will always see you as his son.

[flashstang04]

No you cannot lose it.....



If they are (sins) truly as far as east is from the west and remembered no more, then it is impossible to think that you can lose it. If it is temporary, and we have the power to lose it, then we ..as man, also have the power to gain it. This belief is works based and is symptomatic of cults.

All that being said, you CAN affect your reward.... there are scriptural reason to believe that there is a rewards system in Heaven.

[Fastback]

Unless you blaspheme the Holy Spirit.... I think that is where the split comes from. So what does it mean to blaspheme the Holy Spirt? From straight Bible reading I believe it means that you say/believe that the miracles of Jesus are powered by Satan. Charles Stanley said that it is impossible to blaspheme the Holy Spirit unless you are standing in front of Jesus while He is performing miracles and then believe that He's doing it by the power of Satan...You would have to have been there then, during Mark 3:

24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

[Fastback]

Matthew Chapter 12
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Why would Jesus say this if blasphemy of the Holy Spirit meant to merely reject God until you accept Him?

[BlackSnake1996]

Matthew Chapter 12
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Why would Jesus say this if blasphemy of the Holy Spirit meant to merely reject God until you accept Him?
I see where you are trying to go, but your question really doesn't make since. What is being said here is that the only sin unforgiven is the nonexceptance of the savior.

[Phillystang]

No, you cannot loose your salvation. It was not earned by you by acts of righteousness in the first place and so therefore it cannot be lost by you from acts of disobedience in the end.

That said, the problem is, many people think they are saved because at one point in time you said a prayer and asked Jesus into your life. A one time prayer cannot be your basis of salvation. You must examine yourself:

2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

Is there fruit in your life, do you desire God, are you concerned for the lost, do you esteem His Word, are you growing in obedience, do you love other Christians, is your nature changed, have we been born again, do we hate sin and love righteousness or can we wallow in sin and it doesn't effect us? These are things we must ask ourselves. Has God really done a work in my life?

The book of 1 John goes in depth on the tests for the marks of a Christian.

If someone we know starts out on fire for God and then seems to turn and for the rest of their life lives in total disobedience, then they have no assurance.

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

[Fastback]

There is no way that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the rejection of Jesus. First off, the Holy Spirit is a separate person of the Holy Trinity. In fact, Jesus Himself said blasphemy against Him would be forgiven as well as the Father in the above verse. Jesus clearly was saying that this blasphemy was something all together different.
The example of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit listed above is a form of lying about the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees lied about the miracle power of the Holy Spirit and said that the power was Beelzebub. There is another example in the Bible about it too:

Acts 5
Ananias and Sapphira
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.
3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.



So, two instances of lying declared unforgivable.

[turboSHO]

Brian, sorry I have not gotten your email out, I will work on it today.

As far as this topic is concerned, have you ever given any thought to the rebellious angels, Satan first and foremost? Created perfect, certainly they were 'in the family'. Can they do anything to 'gain' salvation? Of course not, neither can Adam or Eve. But they certainly did something to LOSE favor with God. The demons believe in Jesus, and they realize the saving power of his shed blood. Knowing a thing is not enough. You must act upon that which you know. Of course, the argument can be made that any and all that are found wanting come judgement day were never really 'saved' at any point in their life. This is semantics, and only clouds the issue. The real issue is this, can anyone truly be in a 'saved' state? Can anyone truly be considered 'saved' before the final judgement? The Bible has this answered quite squarely.

[Fastback]

The demons believe in Jesus, they know his power, and they realize the saving power of his shed blood.

I think you hit the nail on the head! They knew and rejected. Truly knew.

[Brain_Mach1]

The problem is people making an assumption that they are "saved".

Even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4). Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27). Of course, for a spiritual giant such as Paul, it would be quite unexpected and out of character for him to fall from God’s grace.

"Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: "As the Bible says, I am already saved,
Rom. 8:24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees?

Eph. 2:5–8 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of the great love he had for us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ (by grace you have been saved), raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;

but I’m also being saved
Cor. 2:15 For we are the aroma of Christ for God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing,
Phil. 2:12 So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

and I have the hope that I will be saved
Rom. 5:9–10 How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath. Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life.

Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

BrianC, if it is not in a Catholic document it needs something like below to be quotable as "Catholics Believe"

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

http://catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp

[Fastback]

The problem is people making an assumption that they are "saved".




This is a fair statement. But, in order to stay balanced I must ask what if they are already saved? Satan used to be favored by God as the description indicates, "bright and morning star"....

however, the footnote in my wonderful Life Application NIV Bible by Tyndale says this about Mark 3:28,29:

Christians somethimes worry if they have committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Christians need not worry about this sin because this sin is attributing to the devil what is the work of the Holy Spirit. It reveals a heart attitude of unbelief and unrepentance. Deliberate, ongoing rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit is blasphemy because it is rejecting God Himself. The religious leaders accused Jesus of blasphemy, but ironically they were the guilty ones when they looked Jesus in the face and accused Him of being possessed by Satan.

[mikeb]

What about the unpardonable sin?

Matthew 12:31-32 says, "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Luke 12:10 says, "And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

Perhaps outright rejection of Christ after accepting him could land you in the hot seat?

But then again Peter denied Jesus three times.

[BrianC]

Unless you blaspheme the Holy Spirit.... I think that is where the split comes from. So what does it mean to blaspheme the Holy Spirt? From straight Bible reading I believe it means that you say/believe that the miracles of Jesus are powered by Satan. Charles Stanley said that it is impossible to blaspheme the Holy Spirit unless you are standing in front of Jesus while He is performing miracles and then believe that He's doing it by the power of Satan...You would have to have been there then, during Mark 3:

24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

I addressed blaspheming the Holy Spirit in my post about Once Saved Always Saved. But the post was so long, I don't blame you for not reading it. LOL

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is rejecting the gift of redemption from sins. How can one be forgiven if they do not accept the gift of salvation? They're basically saying, "Holy Spirit, I don't want you to come into my life and birth a new spirit from God in me." We are told that the Holy Spirit (whom is God) literally births a new spirit in us that is perfect and unstainable by sin. If we reject (blaspheme) the Holy Spirit, we are openly rejecting salvation. Jesus sends us the Holy Spirit when we're saved, and we're told in scripture that the Holy Spirit is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance to come. So, yeah, if you reject salvation, of course you can't be forgiven. This is the only way this unforgiveable sin makes sense.

It is a sin to reject the Holy Spirit. If you have been saved, then you have already accepted the Holy Spirit and the gift of salvation from sin. Therefore, you have a perfect spirit. And in your spirit, you can no longer sin, and thus, you can no longer reject the Holy Spirit (especially since your new spirit man was birthed by Him). You're permanently in the family. No possibility of losing salvation even by blaspheming the Holy Spirit once you've accepted Him.

[BrianC]

Brian, sorry I have not gotten your email out, I will work on it today.

No problem. I'm patient. :)


As far as this topic is concerned, have you ever given any thought to the rebellious angels, Satan first and foremost? Created perfect, certainly they were 'in the family'. Can they do anything to 'gain' salvation? Of course not, neither can Adam or Eve. But they certainly did something to LOSE favor with God. The demons believe in Jesus, and they realize the saving power of his shed blood. Knowing a thing is not enough. You must act upon that which you know. Of course, the argument can be made that any and all that are found wanting come judgement day were never really 'saved' at any point in their life. This is semantics, and only clouds the issue. The real issue is this, can anyone truly be in a 'saved' state? Can anyone truly be considered 'saved' before the final judgement? The Bible has this answered quite squarely.

We are not angels. We were not born into a sinless state like us. We were not fully instilled with all knowledge of good and evil nor did we know the consequences at our birth. Angels knew good and evil. Satan knew there were consequences to rebelling against God. But Satan hadn't experienced what it's like once you've rebelled against God until he actually rebelled. I wonder if Satan would've chosen to rebel against God had he known the horrific nature of being separated from God? There's a difference between knowing a consequence and experiencing the consequence.

Let's say the rule was, if you hit your friend, you will have a blow-torch taken to your hand. I could know that the consequence is bad, but unless I experience it first hand, I don't really understand how horrible that consequence is.

Humans are not really comparible to angels. When we fall down at the feet of an angel in the Bible, the angel says, "Get up! Do not do that! I am a servant like you." Angels were created to serve God and protect humans protect God's honor/name. While we are servants, we are a different type of servant than angels. We both have very different existences and cannot be compared with one another. Jesus was made "a little lower than the angels" while human, but then rose above ALL things and was given a name higher than any other name in existence according to scripture, at which point He was the "all-in-all." Jesus is not an angel, though, as some religions believe. He is clearly God, so this comparison is not really useable.

In regard to "the family" and angels. In the Mosaic Law, the Jews could disown their own son if he were unruly and bringind dishonor to the family, and he would no longer be part of the family. However, if they were to adopt a son, by law, they could NEVER disown that son, no matter what. We are said to be adopted by God in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit "births us" a new spirit that is of God's nature, holiness (the impossibility of sinning), perfection. He does this to fully secure us so that we cannot be separated from God. Hense the term, "born again."

[BrianC]

Brian, sorry I have not gotten your email out, I will work on it today.

As far as this topic is concerned, have you ever given any thought to the rebellious angels, Satan first and foremost? Created perfect, certainly they were 'in the family'. Can they do anything to 'gain' salvation? Of course not, neither can Adam or Eve. But they certainly did something to LOSE favor with God. The demons believe in Jesus, and they realize the saving power of his shed blood. Knowing a thing is not enough. You must act upon that which you know. Of course, the argument can be made that any and all that are found wanting come judgement day were never really 'saved' at any point in their life. This is semantics, and only clouds the issue. The real issue is this, can anyone truly be in a 'saved' state? Can anyone truly be considered 'saved' before the final judgement? The Bible has this answered quite squarely.

I'm making no judgements on you by making this statement I'm about to make. This isn't pointing the finger at anyone.

If one has not experienced what it is to be born again, one cannot understand what being born again is. It's like my last explanation for knowing the consequences and experiencing the consequences being two different things.

For me, I went to church, thought I was saved and thought I believed in Jesus. But when I was 16, I had buried myself in compulsive lies about who I really was and my past. I had told everyone a bunch of lies about who I was. There was always the fear of someone finding out! I was completely trapped and didn't understand it at all. It would take me about 4 hours to go to sleep at night because my mind was racing. Didn't know it was sin causing this. Had no clue. I had lost my virginity at age 14 and hidden that from my parents. I went out with not-so-good friends to places I shouldn't have and lied about it. Had no idea I wasn't saved...

One night I'm on vacation in Austin visiting family and it's late at night and I'm BORED OUT OF MY MIND!!! My uncle is showing my mom something in the Bible and says, "Can you figure out what this verse means?" I heard him say that and thought to myself, "Maybe I can figure it out." I'm a guy, and guys like to figure things out. But mainly I was thinking, "I'm bored out of my mind, and anything's better than what I'm doing now."

I look at the verse and it's nothing of significance. Easy to understand too, except that to understand what the verse fully means, I need to know who the saints are. So I ask, who are the saints? My uncle says, "The saints are us." (meaning Christians). When he said that, all of the sudden, I felt all of my sin, shame and guilt fall off of me and it was replaced by love, joy, peace, happiness and contentment! I went from rock bottom to cloud nine in the span of 1 split second! God gave me salvation, knowing that I was going to accept it, and I did. Yet the verse I read had nothing to do with salvation or anything important. That verse wasn't responsible for my being saved. I didn't even ask for it. In fact, I didn't even quite understand fully what had happened to me until a few months later when God sent a kid to me that said, "Are you born again?" I asked what that was, and he explained. I said, "OH YEAH!! That's what happened to me a few months ago!!"

The night I was born again, I felt true untainted love for the first time in my life, directly from God. I felt it wash over me and live in me. That night, I told my mom everything I'd ever done that was wrong. She didn't mind one bit. She knew I had changed for the better suddenly. That night I went to bed and when my head hit the pillow, I fell alseep immediately. No 4 hour struggle to go to sleep. I had not guilt or shame anymore. All gone! The emotional high that resulted from the spiritual purity (new spirit birthed in me) caused me to be super happy for 1-2 years. It started fading after 1 year, because I gave in to some sins again. As I let some sins back in (not the lying, but other stuff), it started to put up a wall between my spirit self and I became deceived about who I was in Christ. It blocked my blessings, like the joy and happiness I had received. That's always there, but sin blocks it over time. Pride is a big one, too. I had it bad!!! lol

Anyway, as I started getting the sins back out of my life, that joy, peace, happiness and contenment started to come through again.

There is no explanation except that I was born again. I wasn't seeking to be born again. Didn't even know that's what happened. Nothing prompted me to suddenly have this change of mindset and become super happy and feel love and joy and relief from shame and sin and guilt. I know what it is to be saved. After I read through a lot of the New Testament, I started to see exactly what happened to me that day in my spirit and how it all worked. That day, it was like the lights had suddenly been turned on in the world and I saw good and evil for what they really were. I understood them on a whole new level. And I had NO desire to do evil anymore.

Unless one experiences this, one cannot understand what it is to be born again. Not everyone's "born again" experience is the same as mine, though. Not everyone has the same feelings either. I was corrupt enough to feel a huge change. Some are not nearly as corrupt as me, so there isn't as much of a huge difference when the change occurs, because they weren't as dragged down as I was by sin. And some just think they were born again, but in their spirit they never really accepted Christ or understood how to do so. Just depends on the person, I guess...

[flashstang04]

I'm making no judgements on you by making this statement I'm about to make. This isn't pointing the finger at anyone.

If one has not experienced what it is to be born again, one cannot understand what being born again is. It's like my last explanation for knowing the consequences and experiencing the consequences being two different things.

For me, I went to church, thought I was saved and thought I believed in Jesus. But when I was 16, I had buried myself in compulsive lies about who I really was and my past. I had told everyone a bunch of lies about who I was. There was always the fear of someone finding out! I was completely trapped and didn't understand it at all. It would take me about 4 hours to go to sleep at night because my mind was racing. Didn't know it was sin causing this. Had no clue. I had lost my virginity at age 14 and hidden that from my parents. I went out with not-so-good friends to places I shouldn't have and lied about it. Had no idea I wasn't saved...

One night I'm on vacation in Austin visiting family and it's late at night and I'm BORED OUT OF MY MIND!!! My uncle is showing my mom something in the Bible and says, "Can you figure out what this verse means?" I heard him say that and thought to myself, "Maybe I can figure it out." I'm a guy, and guys like to figure things out. But mainly I was thinking, "I'm bored out of my mind, and anything's better than what I'm doing now."

I look at the verse and it's nothing of significance. Easy to understand too, except that to understand what the verse fully means, I need to know who the saints are. So I ask, who are the saints? My uncle says, "The saints are us." (meaning Christians). When he said that, all of the sudden, I felt all of my sin, shame and guilt fall off of me and it was replaced by love, joy, peace, happiness and contentment! I went from rock bottom to cloud nine in the span of 1 split second! God gave me salvation, knowing that I was going to accept it, and I did. Yet the verse I read had nothing to do with salvation or anything important. That verse wasn't responsible for my being saved. I didn't even ask for it. In fact, I didn't even quite understand fully what had happened to me until a few months later when God sent a kid to me that said, "Are you born again?" I asked what that was, and he explained. I said, "OH YEAH!! That's what happened to me a few months ago!!"

The night I was born again, I felt true untainted love for the first time in my life, directly from God. I felt it wash over me and live in me. That night, I told my mom everything I'd ever done that was wrong. She didn't mind one bit. She knew I had changed for the better suddenly. That night I went to bed and when my head hit the pillow, I fell alseep immediately. No 4 hour struggle to go to sleep. I had not guilt or shame anymore. All gone! The emotional high that resulted from the spiritual purity (new spirit birthed in me) caused me to be super happy for 1-2 years. It started fading after 1 year, because I gave in to some sins again. As I let some sins back in (not the lying, but other stuff), it started to put up a wall between my spirit self and I became deceived about who I was in Christ. It blocked my blessings, like the joy and happiness I had received. That's always there, but sin blocks it over time. Pride is a big one, too. I had it bad!!! lol

Anyway, as I started getting the sins back out of my life, that joy, peace, happiness and contenment started to come through again.

There is no explanation except that I was born again. I wasn't seeking to be born again. Didn't even know that's what happened. Nothing prompted me to suddenly have this change of mindset and become super happy and feel love and joy and relief from shame and sin and guilt. I know what it is to be saved. After I read through a lot of the New Testament, I started to see exactly what happened to me that day in my spirit and how it all worked. That day, it was like the lights had suddenly been turned on in the world and I saw good and evil for what they really were. I understood them on a whole new level. And I had NO desire to do evil anymore.

Unless one experiences this, one cannot understand what it is to be born again. Not everyone's "born again" experience is the same as mine, though. Not everyone has the same feelings either. I was corrupt enough to feel a huge change. Some are not nearly as corrupt as me, so there isn't as much of a huge difference when the change occurs, because they weren't as dragged down as I was by sin. And some just think they were born again, but in their spirit they never really accepted Christ or understood how to do so. Just depends on the person, I guess...



That is a good story Brian, it is really sad that many churches are full of people that will end up in hell.

[BrianC]

I started this thread because a Catholic came in a made some bold statements about works being required in salvation. I asked him to come to this thread and debate it, but he didn't take up the challenge.

No one wants to try and justify that you can lose your salvation?

[Brain_Mach1]

I started this thread because a Catholic came in a made some bold statements about works being required in salvation. I asked him to come to this thread and debate it, but he didn't take up the challenge.

No one wants to try and justify that you can lose your salvation?


Um, look at post 12. :rolleyes:

[BrianC]

The problem is people making an assumption that they are "saved".

Even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4). Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27). Of course, for a spiritual giant such as Paul, it would be quite unexpected and out of character for him to fall from God’s grace.

"Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: "As the Bible says, I am already saved,
Rom. 8:24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees?

Eph. 2:5–8 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of the great love he had for us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ (by grace you have been saved), raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;

but I’m also being saved
Cor. 2:15 For we are the aroma of Christ for God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing,
Phil. 2:12 So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

and I have the hope that I will be saved
Rom. 5:9–10 How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath. Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life.

Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

BrianC, if it is not in a Catholic document it needs something like below to be quotable as "Catholics Believe"

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

http://catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp
Sorry, missed your post.

It's all about how you interpret the verses you just quoted. And if you want to make Jesus a liar, that's fine. Jesus says WHEN you believe in him (that instant) you have eternal life (that instant), and He said if you believe in me, you will NEVER die (spiritually). So, no, it's impossible to lose your salvation. Now, let's interpret your scriptures a different way.

Unbelief is a strong oppressor among people. If you are unsure in your faith after you're saved, it's because you are believing lies or don't understand the truth fully, and so you have a fear about what is to come. Just like with salvation and the possibility of losing it. If you think you can lose it, you will think you have the power to keep it through works. So, are you saying Christ doesn't have the power to fully save you? Or, are you saying that you're more powerful than Christ that you can cause your salvation to be lost? Because Pual & Christ both said that it's impossible to snatch you from the Father's hand or to remove us from His love that is in Christ.

Here's your first verse:

Eph. 2:5–8
But God, who is rich in mercy, because of the great love he had for us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ (by grace you have been saved), raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;

So, you're saying that we are saved by Christ and presently seated in Heaven with him, but Christ can throw us out at any time? And we're told that salvation is by faith, and is a gift from God. You have to accept a gift. So we accept our salvation and it's ours. No work involved. Thanks for proving that with your first verse. :)

You used this verse next:

but I’m also being saved
Cor. 2:15
For we are the aroma of Christ for God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing,

In the original Greek, past, present and future tense of words must be determined by context. The context in this verse could very well mean, "For we are the aroma of Christ for God among those who are saved and among those who perish." Let's see how Tindell properly translated this verse in the King James Bible:

2 Corinthians 2:15 (KJV)
15For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

See what I mean? Word tense is very tricky. Just killed that argument for ya'. Sorry. But it was a nice try. :) And, let's argue it as if the translation were "being saved." There is a key to understanding these verses that most people don't understand. It's the make-up of the body and what part of us are saved. I will get into this after I look at your other verses.

Phil. 2:12
So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your OWN salvation with fear and trembling. (added that "own" word from the KJV translation)

Ok, unbelief is what causes the fear and trembling. The people didn't understand they were eternally secure and they were raised believing that they needed to earn everything. The sin nature makes us want to earn things. But salvation, as we read before, is a gift from God through faith alone and not by works. Not sinning is "work." These people are used to the law and thinking that you need to earn salvation. Or the laws of men about earning things. Paul is telling them to work out their salvation (figure it out). He's saying to figure out that you're eternally secure and get rid of the unbelief and false doctrines. Even if Paul were saying that you have to "work out" your salvation, this says nothing of being able to lose it.

Here's what must be understood to properly understand salvation.

We are three parts: mind, body and spirit. There's only one verse in the Bible that tells these three parts.

1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Alright, here, Paul's saying that he's praying that the people are "wholly" sanctified. Then he defines what "wholly" means. It means your soul, body and spirit. We know we have a mind, will and emotions. Those are our soul. Our spirit and body are the other two things.

When we're born again, as I showed in the verses in post #2, we have a spirit birthed in us from God (the Holy Spirit) and it is unstainable by sin. So, ONLY our spirit has been saved and made perfect. But our body is still corrupted with sin, like Paul expresses. Paul says that he battles with his flesh. Obviously, the body still has sin and is not perfect. Why? Because it dies. Sin brought death into the world. God said we'd die when we ate the fruit, and though Adam and Eve lived 900+ years, they still died. So, if we actually were sin-free in our bodies, we would love forever. God threw Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden so they wouldn't eat from the tree of life and live forever in their physical bodies. God was saving them from that life. Because you know Satan knew about that tree and would've tempted Adam and Eve to eat from it to fix the whole death thing.

God wasn't throwing them out of paradise to be mean. It was an act of love. Paradise was already corrupted when sin cursed the earth anyway. Besides, the earth at that time was all kind of like a paradise. Gotta' study creation theory, though, to understand scientifically just how sweet that world was.

Back on topic. Paul's spirit man was sanctified and in heaven with Christ and has eternal life that is impossible to lose, because he was 'birthed' by the Holy Spirit as is "of God" now. Permanently in the family. God gave the law to the Jews that you can disown your own son if he rebels and disgraces the family name, but you cannot disown an adopted son. God is the same way. We are now sons and daughters of God. Our spirits are incorruptible. And what Paul was saying was that we have to work our salvation into our body and mind so we could be completely blameless on the last day. This would cause you to have a super blessed life too.

But here's how Satan works. We're told that the battle is not for flesh and blood, but of powers and principalities. The battle is for our minds, not our flesh. The mind dictates what the body does. The body doesn't do anything unless the mind first commands it. Sure, the body can hurt and protest, but the mind trumps it, though. What you believe about yourself is what you manifest in your body.

Our spirit is perfect and unstainable. Paul wanted everyone to work the truth about our spirit man into our mind so that it would transfer into our body and we could be blameless and completely blessed. When you realize who you are in Christ, you realize how powerful He can be through you and what kind of authority you have.

We are told that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. That's why we must be changed on the last day into a perfect resurrection body. That's the day when Jesus saves the other two parts of us: mind and body. He makes them perfect so that they can enter heaven where the spirit already resides with Him.

When you view those verses through the three parts of man, the New Testament and Paul's arguments make complete sense and there's no confusion. Our spirit's saved, but our bodies and minds won't catch up with it till we're resurrected/raptured.

[Fastback]

Matthew Chapter 12
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Why would Jesus say this if blasphemy of the Holy Spirit meant to merely reject God until you accept Him?

I'm quoting myself here, BrianC ;) This is still the verse I am hung up on b/c of my understanding of the Trinity, I guess. BTW did you get my pm?

[Brain_Mach1]

BrianC, it is obvious you study and believe what you have been taught, just as I have. What supprises me is when you contridict yourself solely for the point of try to prove yourself over someone else (the purpose of this is to debate a topic which does not exist in Catholic teaching).

This whole post is about wether some one can lose salvation. Catholics don't use the phrase "saved" just as most Protestants don't use phrases like Eucharist. Once you are saved, you can't lose your salvation. The Catholic and some Prtotestants (since there is no single doctrine) differ because we use different language. Catholics don't assume they are saved. You countered the Catholic argument with a different translation (again, no concensis among translations, at one point you use the phrase "faith alone" which was in Luther's translation but then you used other quotes because it is in no other Protestant translation).

Your points of contridiction are that in the post about Mary (post #12), you said that Catholics pray to the dead. With a statement like that, you just declared that Mary is dead i.e. "no eternal life", i.e. "not saved." Is this what your words mean?

What does it mean to be "saved" if Mary is dead? I know you have answers, but I wonder if you even understand the scope of the question (Catholics have things called mysteries which can not be fully grasped). If you know you are saved, what difference does it make in your life? Why would Jesus even teach (the serman on the mount, etc) if it ends with belief (as Satan also believes)?

You can debate this one all you like because a volcabulary was created about "saved" which does not exist in Catholic doctrine. I will continue to confess my sins as James tells me to do and I will eat the flesh and drink the blood (so I will have life in me) just as Jesus says in John 6:53. Why? Because I have Faith and accept the Graces given to me. I will act upon what I have been taught and........

Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

[Phillystang]

Maybe he means, can there be an assurance of salvation or is it just a life filled with "I sure hope I am saved."

[shrp88lx's]

I started this thread because a Catholic came in a made some bold statements about works being required in salvation. I asked him to come to this thread and debate it, but he didn't take up the challenge.

No one wants to try and justify that you can lose your salvation?well true faith will result in "works of faith"...as the bible says "Faith WITHOUT works is a dead faith".....

On the question of whether or not someone is saved we can only go to the source..Gods Word...we are told of several things that "Save" us..my only contention is that since its Gods Word we must obey all those things not just 1 or 2 of them. How many times does God have to tell us to do something before we should do it??


as to answer your question:


Obviously, Paul thought that it was possible.

Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:12-14).


In other letter, Paul wrote, Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified (I Corinthians 9:24-27). Paul understood that if he did not give God is all, it was possible to be disqualified from inheriting eternal life.Paul not only had concerns about retaining his own salvation, he also told us about those who had lost their right to eternal life. Paul told Timothy that having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme (I Timothy 1:19-20). Hymenaeus and Alexander were sailing the seas of faith, but they suffered a shipwreck they had lost their faith.

Peter warned that false prophets would arise from among the people of God in II Peter 2. He did not say they would enter from the outside, but that they would come from within the family of God. In II Peter 2:15, Peter states, They have forsaken the right way and gone astray. You cannot forsake a path that on which you were never walked. Concerning these people and those they lead astray Peter warns, For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them (II Peter 2:20-21).

Often people will say about a fallen brother, Well, he never was really saved in the first place. Yet, it is clear that a person can know the way of righteousness and escape the pollutions of the world and then become entangled in the world of sin once again. This is why Christians must never let their guard down. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour (I Peter 5:8). If a Christian could not become lost, there would be no danger from Satan. But while we remain in this world, we must always strive to serve our Lord. We must not become complacent nor arrogant. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall (I Corinthians 10:12).

[shrp88lx's]

John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; (This is a present tense "has")


John 3:36 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.




Consider the consequences if we used this reasoning on passages that describe the lost. John 3:36 says unbelievers shall not see life. Shall we conclude this too cannot change (like people argue on the first part of the verse)? If a person is lost, does this prove he can never change and be saved? "Once lost, always lost"? [Cf. John 5:24; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26ff]

If we can see how unsaved people can change their state and become saved, despite such verses as this, then in the same way we can understand how saved people can change their state and become lost.

This same approach works with most other arguments for "once saved always saved." Consistently applied to passages about lost people, the same arguments would prove "once lost, always lost."

[Phillystang]

John 3:36 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.




Consider the consequences if we used this reasoning on passages that describe the lost. John 3:36 says unbelievers shall not see life. Shall we conclude this too cannot change (like people argue on the first part of the verse)? If a person is lost, does this prove he can never change and be saved? "Once lost, always lost"? [Cf. John 5:24; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26ff]

If we can see how unsaved people can change their state and become saved, despite such verses as this, then in the same way we can understand how saved people can change their state and become lost.

This same approach works with most other arguments for "once saved always saved." Consistently applied to passages about lost people, the same arguments would prove "once lost, always lost."

Man does not procure his salvation and therefore cannot lose his salvation.

[Phillystang]

Peter warned that false prophets would arise from among the people of God in II Peter 2. He did not say they would enter from the outside, but that they would come from within the family of God. In II Peter 2:15, Peter states, They have forsaken the right way and gone astray. You cannot forsake a path that on which you were never walked. Concerning these people and those they lead astray Peter warns, For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them (II Peter 2:20-21).

Often people will say about a fallen brother, Well, he never was really saved in the first place. Yet, it is clear that a person can know the way of righteousness and escape the pollutions of the world and then become entangled in the world of sin once again. This is why Christians must never let their guard down. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour (I Peter 5:8). If a Christian could not become lost, there would be no danger from Satan. But while we remain in this world, we must always strive to serve our Lord. We must not become complacent nor arrogant. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall (I Corinthians 10:12).
1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

[shrp88lx's]

Man does not procure his salvation and therefore cannot lose his salvation.how does one procure his salvation?

[shrp88lx's]

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. so Peter was lying?

[Phillystang]

how does one procure his salvation?

By the work of the Holy Spirit under the preaching of the Gospel in convicting men of their sins along with the giving of faith in Christ's work on the cross and repentance from sins. God opens hearts to believe.

Acts 16:14
One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

1 Thessalonians 1:4-6
4For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. 6You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit.

[Phillystang]

so Peter was lying?
Well, there is either a misinterpretation in the specific meaning or there are contradictions in the book.

[shrp88lx's]

By the work of the Holy Spirit under the preaching of the Gospel in convicting men of their sins along with the giving of faith in Christ's work on the cross and repentance from sins. God opens hearts to believe.

Acts 16:14
One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

1 Thessalonians 1:4-6
4For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. 6You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit.not following you on this? I think anyone who becomes a believer has to have opened their heart.....but free will clearly makes this a choice of man.

[shrp88lx's]

Well, there is either a misinterpretation in the specific meaning or there are contradictions in the book.one of us is misinterpreting! Id start with looking at the context of the passages.

[shrp88lx's]

By the work of the Holy Spirit under the preaching of the Gospel in convicting men of their sins along with the giving of faith in Christ's work on the cross and repentance from sins. God opens hearts to believe.

Acts 16:14
One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

well she was a believer before, her heart was opened to respond to Pauls message:

Acts 16:15
15And when she and (A)her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.


So by her actions what was Pauls message??

[Phillystang]

well she was a believer before, her heart was opened to respond to Pauls message:

Acts 16:15
15And when she and (A)her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.


So by her actions what was Pauls message??

She believed in God but had not heard about Jesus or the Gospel.

[Phillystang]

one of us is misinterpreting! Id start with looking at the context of the passages.
good idea

[Phillystang]

not following you on this? I think anyone who becomes a believer has to have opened their heart.....but free will clearly makes this a choice of man.
heh heh, see other threads ;)

[shrp88lx's]

heh heh, see other threads ;)i Lurk here and usually dont post, maybe I will just keep it that way. LOL

[shrp88lx's]

She believed in God but had not heard about Jesus or the Gospel.was Pauls message about Jesus and the Gospel the same as Philips in Acts 8:35-38

[BrianC]

I'm quoting myself here, BrianC ;) This is still the verse I am hung up on b/c of my understanding of the Trinity, I guess. BTW did you get my pm?

When you accept Jesus, He sends the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit birth's a new, perfect spirit from God's own Holy nature that cannot be corrupted by sin. If you blaspheme (reject) the Holy Spirit, you are rejecting the forgiveness of sin and the new spirit that is unstainable by sin. If you reject forgiveness of sins, you cannot be forgiven. You're basically saying, "I don't need the Holy Spirit's new spirit that's unstainable by sin. I'll take the punishment for my sins on my own."

It's pretty simple... You either accept the salvation or reject it. That's what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is. It's the only logical explanation.

As for losing your salvation after you've already accepted the Holy Spirit, you've given up your right to blaspheme Him. The only reason you'd blaspheme Him is if Satan deceived you again. But God's not gonna' let that stop Him, though, because He gave you His word that you will never die once you believe in Jesus. Jesus cannot be made a liar. And eternal life is just that...eternal. It can't be lost. Your spirit's position is said to have moved from the domain of darkness into the kingdom of our Christ, which is an eternal kingdom. Unless you are also eternal, you cannot enter into it. Unless you are in the family, you cannot enter into it.

The Bible says God "adopts" us. By God's law to the Jews, the Jews could disown their own son, but could not disown an adopted son; he was permenantly in the family. God's the same way. That's why Paul and Jesus both say that nothing can snatch you from the Father's hand (that includes blaspheming the Holy Spirit) and that nothing can separate you from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ.

[BrianC]

Your points of contridiction are that in the post about Mary (post #12), you said that Catholics pray to the dead. With a statement like that, you just declared that Mary is dead i.e. "no eternal life", i.e. "not saved." Is this what your words mean?

What does it mean to be "saved" if Mary is dead? I know you have answers, but I wonder if you even understand the scope of the question (Catholics have things called mysteries which can not be fully grasped). If you know you are saved, what difference does it make in your life? Why would Jesus even teach (the serman on the mount, etc) if it ends with belief (as Satan also believes)?

Mary's body is dead, and we're told in the Old Testament not to communicate with the dead. I'd say that praying is communicating. Even though Mary's spirit woman is alive, her body is dead and will not be raised until the last day. Therefore, she's still considered dead by physical standards. Those are the ones we're told not to communicate with. We are only told to pray for God anyway. Can you show me anywhere in the Bible it says we should pray to someone else besides God?


You can debate this one all you like because a volcabulary was created about "saved" which does not exist in Catholic doctrine. I will continue to confess my sins as James tells me to do and I will eat the flesh and drink the blood (so I will have life in me) just as Jesus says in John 6:53. Why? Because I have Faith and accept the Graces given to me. I will act upon what I have been taught and........

Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

You have three parts:

1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So, our three parts are spirit, soul (mind/emotions/will), and body.

When we are saved, we are told that the Holy Spirit literally births a new, perfect, unstainable, holy spirit for us. That one single part of us is sanctified. Nothing else. Therefore, when Paul says to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, first, he's talking about making sure you are saved, and then figuring out that you're eternally saved. Secondly, he is talking about working your salvation into your other parts, the mind and the body.

We are to work our perfect nature in our spirit into our imperfect body that still houses sin. Our mind is the gateway, and we are told to renew our mind daily with the truth. The truth about who we are in Christ.

I am very sad to hear that Catholics assume they're not saved. That would mean that you're never born again, which would mean you never receive the Holy Spirit. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit is a deposite GUARANTEEING our inheritance to come. Unless you are born again of the Holy Spirit, you are not entering Heaven. I have known Catholics who know they're saved and do not go to confession, because they confess directly to Jesus Christ. One of my friend's fathers, on his death bed, right before he died, said that he could see Jesus and was about to go home. He was talking to Jesus, actually, right before he died. Yet, an atheist woman I read an account of told her family she wanted nothing to do with God or Jesus and their names were not to be spoken in the room. Right before she died, she was having a conversation with someone (I would assume Jesus), and she said, "You never knew me?" Funny that Jesus said that He would say to many that He never knew them. And that comes out of the lips of this lady who doesn't read the Bible and is adimently against God.

So, as a Catholic, could you tell me what happened to me when I was "born again?" Because you're saying that I shouldn't assume I'm born again.

Let's see...what do you call it when you didn't even ask for Jesus, but you're at just the right point in your life where He can come in and save you and turn your life around, and He does so? I wasn't looking for Him. I was just bored as can be. I'd been in church my whole life and thought I was saved and had accepted Jesus, but I hadn't been. I stopped going to this church I was in (which was a bit cult-like, actually), and I did so because I was getting a little bit depressed for the first time in my life. Didn't know why. Turns out, it was because I had been lying about my past for 6 years. I didn't like myself or think I was interesting, so I made up stuff about my past to seem interesting. Did this from ages 10-16.

I'm bored one night and my uncle asks my mom if she can figure out what a verse in the Bible means. I overheard that and said to myself, "I'm bored as can be. Anything's better than what I'm doing. Maybe I can figure out that verse." I asked, "Can I see it?" He says yes and shows it to me. I read it, and it means nothing special. To understand the verse, I just needed to know who the saints were. He says, "The saints are us (the saved)." When he said that, instantly, it was like a light came on, as if I had been walking in the dark my entire life, and suddenly I could see everything for what it was. Immediately, my sin, shame and guilt fell off of me. I knew right from wrong in a whole knew way, and saw the world in a new light. I had absolutely NO desire to sin anymore. I felt the love of God come over me and stay on me, I felt what it is to have a clean spirit man, and I felt joy, happiness, peace and trainquility all in a split second. I didn't ask for. But Jesus knew I would accept it already, so He gave it to me at just the right time in my life.

It would usually take me 2-4 hours to fall asleep at night due to my mind racing, which I assume was worry about the lies, but I wasn't thinking about that stuff. The sin just had my mind going haywire, I guess. That night, I went to sleep as soon as my head hit the pillow. That's how it was from then on out.

Now, I had no desire to lie and I went to the people I'd lied to and told them about it and they had no problem with it. I never lied after that. But I will admit I did over exaggerate a few years later when I had sort of let some sins back in. The sin stole my joy away. Pride welled up inside badly and caused me many spiritual problems. Then I figured out I needed to overcome the sins one by one over time. As I did, the joy of my salvation started to slowly come back, because the wall I'd built by deception and not realizing who I really was in Christ had been built between me and my spirit man.

Satan's lost the battle against a saved person, so he works on the deception level of our minds, trying to convince us we're not perfect in spirit. If he can do so, the perfection of our spirit will not transfer into our mind and then our body. It's a battle for our minds in order to stop us from renewing our minds daily and letting our perfect spirit's holy nature transfer over into our flesh. Satan needs our mind and flesh to be couched in sin so we are bad examples for God that will turn people away from Christianity, and as we do that, our lives become crappy also. Been there, done that, have the T-shirt. Not going back again...

If you want to believe you haven't been saved yet, then you go right ahead and believe that. That's your perogative. But I see no place in the Bible that indicates that. I see Paul talking to people that are saved and telling them that they're no longer under the law of sin and death now, but under the law of grace. How do you get under the law of grace? By receiving the grace of salvation. What does "grace" mean? It means your sin isn't counted against you anymore.

[BrianC]

well true faith will result in "works of faith"...as the bible says "Faith WITHOUT works is a dead faith".....

On the question of whether or not someone is saved we can only go to the source..Gods Word...we are told of several things that "Save" us..my only contention is that since its Gods Word we must obey all those things not just 1 or 2 of them. How many times does God have to tell us to do something before we should do it??


Please show me these verses that tell us all of these different things that "save" us.

[BrianC]

not following you on this? I think anyone who becomes a believer has to have opened their heart.....but free will clearly makes this a choice of man.

Don't bring up free will. That's a whole other can of worms and has been discussed at length in two or three other threads. You should read them if you want to go into free will. I believe in it, Phillystang doesn't...we'll leave it at that.

[BrianC]

how does one procure his salvation?

Jesus says, "When you believe in me, I give you eternal life" and also, "If you believe in me, you will never die." (spiritual death, not physical)

So, you simply believe in Jesus and receive His salvation from sins. Pretty simple.

What Phillystang was saying is that we are told that salvation is a free gift from God, and it is received through faith, and not through works, so that no man may boast. Therefore, there is nothing we can do (works) to earn salvation. It is a free gift from God that we must receive freely.

Again, don't go into the free will thing. I would say we choose to receive it, and Philly would say we have no choice in the matter. But again, just go to the free will and predestination threads that are easily found on the first page of threads and post there about this stuff. Read the arguments too. It'll give you an idea of what the scriptural foundations of this stuff is.

[BrianC]

John 3:36 (King James Version)
36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Consider the consequences if we used this reasoning on passages that describe the lost. John 3:36 says unbelievers shall not see life. Shall we conclude this too cannot change (like people argue on the first part of the verse)? If a person is lost, does this prove he can never change and be saved? "Once lost, always lost"? [Cf. John 5:24; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26ff]

If we can see how unsaved people can change their state and become saved, despite such verses as this, then in the same way we can understand how saved people can change their state and become lost.

This same approach works with most other arguments for "once saved always saved." Consistently applied to passages about lost people, the same arguments would prove "once lost, always lost."

I think the key here is God's word. Jesus is God. It is impossible for God to tell a lie because God's holy nature does not permit it. It's impossible for Him to sin by lying or breaking His word.

Therefore, if Jesus said, "When you believe in me, I give you eternal life," and "If you believe in me, you will never die," then He means it. It's an impossibility to lose your salvation, because losing it would mean Jesus broke His word or lied, and that's not possible. Period. End of story. God can NEVER be wrong or commit sin. This isn't about us...it's about Him. It's about His name. It's about His perfect Holy nature that does not permit Him to sin. If He tells us we cannot die spiritually after believing in Jesus, then He means it. It's an impossibility.

And the whole "faith without works is dead faith" speaks nothing of salvation. All that means is that if you're a born again Christian, and you're not ACTING on your faith by doing good works, then your faith is dead and of no use. It doesn't mean you lost your salvation, though. That must be assumed when reading this verse, and is a very bad assumption. It's important not to add to verses things that aren't there, but rather, just take EXACTLY what they say and try not to go outside of that. It turns into a whole big battle of theories at that point, and then you don't know what to believe. Better to just stay with exactly what's stated in a verse and not try to place extra meaning on it. But you can do whatever you like...that's just my 2 cents.

[shrp88lx's]

Better to just stay with exactly what's stated in a verse and not try to place extra meaning on it. But you can do whatever you like...that's just my 2 cents.which IMHO is exactly what you are doing.


Please show me these verses that tell us all of these different things that "save" us.

Consider for a moment a situation where you have decided to build your perfect dream home. You deliver the perfect plans to a qualified builder with the instructions to build it according to the plans. While constructing your home, the contractor decides you should have 1 bathroom rather than 2 ½ , 2 huge bedrooms rather than 4, and a two story “doll house” with no basement rather than a one level “ranch” with a basement. You would find such a blatant disregard for your plans and instructions completely unacceptable.

However, many today do the exact same thing with respect to God’s plan of salvation. It is nothing short of a complete arrogance on the part of the creature (man) to think they can alter the creator’s (God’s) divine plan and still be acceptable to Him. Before the world was formed, God determined His plan of salvation and it is up to us to “build” our spiritual lives accordingly.

It is understood that for one to follow a plan one must first hear such. This is also the case in God’s plan. One begins by Hearing His word. In Acts 18:8, we find “…and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.” John also states that Christ performed many other signs “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; that that believing ye might have life through His name.” (John 20:30-31). In Romans 10:17, Paul emphasizes the need for hearing in that “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” We can also view the 1st century examples of such hearing in Acts 2:22, 37, 8:30-31, and 15:7.

When one hears God’s word with a sincere heart, they begin the second step in God pan of salvation by Believing. “I (Christ) said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins; for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). Christ further stated the all familiar passage in “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) Without belief, we can expect no greater than damnation on the final judgment day. (Also see Mark 16:16 and Acts 8:36-37)

The belief that we begin to form in following God’s plan of salvation will lead us to the understanding that we have sinned and separated ourselves from God (Rom. 3:23, I John 3:4, 5:17, James 1:13-15). This will cause a remorse within our hearts and a desire to turn away from sinning against Him. We will desire to be pleasing in His sight and therefore we will Repent. Those on the day of Pentecost were convicted by hearing the words spoken by the apostles and desired to know “…what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized…” (Acts 2:37-38). When Simon sinned in Acts 8, Peter told him “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness…” (Acts 8:22). Our turning away for sin is not an option. The scriptures state that God “ now commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30) (Also see Luke 15:21, Acts 2:38)

Once we have heard, believed and repented of our sins, we find that God’s plan of salvation further includes Confession. As has been stated in an earlier issue, this confession is not that one is a sinner, but rather the confession stated by Peter in Matt. 16:16 in that “…Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Christ stated that we must confess Him before men (Matt. 10:32, Luke 12:8) This is exactly what the Ethiopian eunuch did as recorded in Acts 8. “And Phillip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8:37) Paul admonishes us that “ “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10) It is impossible to leave this step out of Gods plan of salvation and yet be acceptable.

Although many would like to stop the plan at this point, a common requirement running through God’s steps in His plan of salvation is the fifth step of Baptism. Although many may deny, the Bible reveals the fact that baptism is a vital part of salvation. Peter instructed those on the day of Pentecost “…Repent, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 2:38) It is through a watery burial and “resurrection” (baptism) that we crucify our old sinful self. (Rom. 6:3-18, Col. 2:12). The necessity of baptism in God’s plan of salvation is made very clear in that “…whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…” (I Peter 3:21) (Also see examples found in Acts 2:41, 8:12, 8:38, 9:18, 16:15 & 33)

For one to attempt to alter ANY part of God’s plan of salvation will find no more pleasure with Him than our example of the contractors alteration of the dream house plans

[Brain_Mach1]

I am very sad to hear that Catholics assume they're not saved.
I am sitting at work so I don't have time to repond to all, but where do you come up with this from? I have come to believe you make up what you want.

[flashstang04]

I am sitting at work so I don't have time to repond to all, but where do you come up with this from? I have come to believe you make up what you want.


It think he was referring to the traditional beliefs that if you failed at any one of the 7 sacraments, then you would not make it to heaven. the catechism has a LOT of things that the catholic church has changed. One can even find out of body experiences in it.

[Brain_Mach1]

It think he was referring to the traditional beliefs that if you failed at any one of the 7 sacraments, then you would not make it to heaven. the catechism has a LOT of things that the catholic church has changed. One can even find out of body experiences in it.
Since I said Catholics do not assume they are saved, he took that to mean that Catholics assume they are not saved. I am not assuming that I will spend Christmas day at my mother's house. By default, this does not mean that I assume we are not spending Christams day at my mother's house. I just don't know if I will be at my mother's or my sister's house.

For the record, two of the sacraments are completely optional (Holy Orders and Matrimony) so the the above is confussing. A sister or brother is not ordained and is not married so they only participate on 5 of the sacraments.

The Catholic never changes doctrine but they do define doctrine, make it more detailed. There are Catholics who are in error that believe they can pick and choose certain items from the faith, but they are in error. My mother recently learned that she was in error for almost 20 years from some bad advice she got from a priest. There are also Catholics who do not practice their faith (Rudy Giuliani and John Kerry are perfect examples). None of this has anything to do with doctrine changing.

The permanence of doctrine is a must of there could be no claim of following Jesus "the way, the truth, and the life." People make mistakes in their interpretation or adherence.

[BrianC]

I am sitting at work so I don't have time to repond to all, but where do you come up with this from? I have come to believe you make up what you want.

I think it was you that said Catholics don't assume they're saved, and otherwise, they assume they're "being saved." Being saved means that God is working on you in order to save you at some point in your life or He is working on you so that when you die, He can save you. Kind of like you don't reach salvation until you're about to die. I didn't know how to take your comment exactly, so I assumed you meant something like this. Could you specify what you meant? I don't make anything up. I have just heard a lot of crap over the years, and Catholic Doctrine has changed over the years, so it's hard to know where they stand now with all of the past doctrines and new doctrines.

For instance, I watched a video that showed the Pope giving a speech in India, if I remember correctly, in which He said "Mother God." There were two instances where he says this. Pope John Paul, I mean. I've heard of some crazy things happening with the Vatican since the United Religions Initiative started in the late 90's and signed their decloration in 2001. I heard Pope John Paul once say in a speech that everyone on the planet has the Holy Spirit. That's blatantly not true. But this is exactly a statement you would hear out of someone that's trying to work with the entity that wants to combine all the religions of the world. Go to their website sometime. www.uri.org

They are the sister organization to the United Nations. The United Nations decided that three things cause war: money, governments and religion

So, their stated goals are to make one government, one money system, and one religion. The URI is the mechanism by which they're attempting to united all of the world's religions. Many protestant religions signed on to it at the signing of their decloration in 2001, as well as most of the major religious leaders around the world. Japan's religious leader hadn't left the island for something like 60 years, but he attended this and signed the decloration.

Anyway, I'm sure I've gotten catholic doctrine all messed up over the years because I've never studied it closely. That's my mistake. I'm not making stuff up...just need to go study it more closely. I'm trying to go off what you're telling me, though, as well.

[BrianC]

Since I said Catholics do not assume they are saved, he took that to mean that Catholics assume they are not saved. I am not assuming that I will spend Christmas day at my mother's house. By default, this does not mean that I assume we are not spending Christams day at my mother's house. I just don't know if I will be at my mother's or my sister's house.

For the record, two of the sacraments are completely optional (Holy Orders and Matrimony) so the the above is confussing. A sister or brother is not ordained and is not married so they only participate on 5 of the sacraments.

The Catholic never changes doctrine but they do define doctrine, make it more detailed. There are Catholics who are in error that believe they can pick and choose certain items from the faith, but they are in error. My mother recently learned that she was in error for almost 20 years from some bad advice she got from a priest. There are also Catholics who do not practice their faith (Rudy Giuliani and John Kerry are perfect examples). None of this has anything to do with doctrine changing.

The permanence of doctrine is a must of there could be no claim of following Jesus "the way, the truth, and the life." People make mistakes in their interpretation or adherence.

I don't mean this in a bad way, but I have heard, like you said, that Catholics don't change their doctrine. And I have heard that they still have the same doctrines they used during the Spanish Inquisition to torture and murder Christians that did not agree with them. Why would they keep those doctrines on the books but not adhear to them? You should read up on this. You'd be suprized on what doctrines they sort of pushed by the wayside over the years. Wish I could recommend a book for ya', but I can't at the moment. Don't remember what book investigated that stuff...

Just out of curiosity, were you aware that a St. Malachi, about 1100-1200AD, supposedly prophecied that the 111th pope, of the line of the Olive Branch, would be an evil pope? The prophecy supposedly was hidden by the king for 300+ years and brought to light around the 1500's where supposedly some say that it changed to the 112th pope being the evil pope. Now, I don't take prophecies past the Bible's prophecy concerning future events. But, I was just curious if you'd heard about this one, because the current pope is number 111. And his chosen name is Benedict, which is a name denoting the line of the Olive Branch, and he was previously the head of the deparment of the inqusition. That department changed the name from "inquisition" to something else in the 30's, though. Has to do with dealing out punishment, I think. You might know more about this. I didn't do much research on it, and it's been a while since I did.

[Brain_Mach1]

I don't mean this in a bad way, but I have heard, like you said, that Catholics don't change their doctrine. And I have heard that they still have the same doctrines they used during the Spanish Inquisition to torture and murder Christians that did not agree with them. Why would they keep those doctrines on the books but not adhear to them? You should read up on this. You'd be suprized on what doctrines they sort of pushed by the wayside over the years. Wish I could recommend a book for ya', but I can't at the moment. Don't remember what book investigated that stuff...

This is where things get real interesting. Did the Church have doctrine calling for these tortures than change them? Or did people in the Church or the Secular Authorities (the Church is pure but people are not) commit offenses falsely in the name of the Church? The things that happened in Spain did not happen in Italy or Germany. They also happened under the control of the Spanish Monarchy.

The question is "Was it Church policy to torture?" From the 4th Laterin Council (1215):

No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out. If anyone, however, under cover of this statute, dares to inflict injury on churches or ecclesiastical persons, let him be restrained by ecclesiastical censure. A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics. Moreover no cleric may be put in command of mercenaries or crossbowmen or suchlike men of blood; nor may a subdeacon, deacon or priest practise the art of surgery, which involves cauterizing and making incisions; nor may anyone confer a rite of blessing or consecration on a purgation by ordeal of boiling or cold water or of the red-hot iron, saving nevertheless the previously promulgated prohibitions regarding single combats and duels.

The Church prevents Clergy from torturing, passing sentence, or being present in sentence which draws blood, boiling, red-hot iron, etc.

I guess this mean that the Church officials was supposed to use the rack, which did happen. That is creative interpretation, that is not doctrine.

Was the Spanish Inquisition a Church doctrine? If so, why was it not the same in other kingdoms?

I am not justifying the actions, get that straight. When looking at the big picture, it doesn't look too much like Church doctrine, it looks like the Civil Authorities.

It is also estimated that more witches were executed in Protestant Scotland than all the people put to death during the Spanish Inquisition. This doesn't justify the Catholic Church, but it does paint a picture of Europe at the time.

[BrianC]

This is where things get real interesting. Did the Church have doctrine calling for these tortures than change them? Or did people in the Church or the Secular Authorities (the Church is pure but people are not) commit offenses falsely in the name of the Church? The things that happened in Spain did not happen in Italy or Germany. They also happened under the control of the Spanish Monarchy.

The question is "Was it Church policy to torture?" From the 4th Laterin Council (1215):

No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out. If anyone, however, under cover of this statute, dares to inflict injury on churches or ecclesiastical persons, let him be restrained by ecclesiastical censure. A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics. Moreover no cleric may be put in command of mercenaries or crossbowmen or suchlike men of blood; nor may a subdeacon, deacon or priest practise the art of surgery, which involves cauterizing and making incisions; nor may anyone confer a rite of blessing or consecration on a purgation by ordeal of boiling or cold water or of the red-hot iron, saving nevertheless the previously promulgated prohibitions regarding single combats and duels.

The Church prevents Clergy from torturing, passing sentence, or being present in sentence which draws blood, boiling, red-hot iron, etc.

I guess this mean that the Church officials was supposed to use the rack, which did happen. That is creative interpretation, that is not doctrine.

Was the Spanish Inquisition a Church doctrine? If so, why was it not the same in other kingdoms?

I am not justifying the actions, get that straight. When looking at the big picture, it doesn't look too much like Church doctrine, it looks like the Civil Authorities.

It is also estimated that more witches were executed in Protestant Scotland than all the people put to death during the Spanish Inquisition. This doesn't justify the Catholic Church, but it does paint a picture of Europe at the time.

I think the Dark Ages were much much worse as attrocities go. No one could read hardly before the printing press in 999AD was invented by Guttenberg, at which time He printed the first Bible. Once this happened, people began to learn to read and they started to find out that the Catholic church was lying to them about what the Bible said. I think lots of documentation was destroyed during this time as well, but I forget. I want to say that historians call it the dark ages because of the lack of historical evidence at this time because it was destroyed by the church. If there were no Bible and no one could read, the church could just make up doctrines, because the people would not know any better.

God says, "My people suffer for lack of knowledge." Who's to say that verse wasn't meant for that time? Who knows? What do you think about the Dark Ages? And the crusades?

[Brain_Mach1]

Wow. This covers way too much for an internet discussion. The Dark Ages were brought by the fall of Rome and the rise of Barbarians. I know you are aware that it was Catholic institutions such as monasteries which preserved the only writing of the time. Most all record keeping was from the parish Church as other central government disappeared. True this would make it possible for the Church to “re-write” history, but that is conspiracy theory stuff not fact.

Once the Roman Empire fell, it was church schools which preserved the only education systems. It was the Church which created the Universities of Paris, Prague, Oxford, Bologna and the others which followed after the Dark Ages. It was monasteries which preserved Greek and Latin texts until more text were brought home from the crusades.

The Forth Lateran Council (1215) dutifully decreed that "in each cathedral church there should be provided a suitable benefice for a master who shall instruct without charge the clerics of the cathedral church and other poor scholars, thus at once satisfying the teacher's needs and opening up the way of knowledge to learners". The Church provided for education because the governments didn't exist in a form which could.

The Crusades definitely had atrocities, but why were they called and were the actions of the crusaders with or against Papal orders? The Christian Byzantine Empire lost all the large cities in the Middle East by 1092 and the Moors were in Spain. The First Crusade was called in 1095 to rescue the Holy Sepulchre. The Crusades were necessary or we would all be Muslim right now.

“The idea of quelling all dissensions among Christians, of uniting them under the same standard and sending them forth against the Mohammedans, was conceived in the eleventh century, that is to say, at a time when there were as yet no organized states in Europe, and when the pope was the only potentate in a position to know and understand the common interests of Christendom. At this time the Turks threatened to invade Europe, and the Byzantine Empire seemed unable to withstand the enemies by whom it was surrounded.”

The First Lateran Council (1123) had such decrees as protection for all pilgrims to Rome or any other shrine, “sanctuary” for anyone in a Church, confirmation of the Peace of God (days you are prevented from fighting each other). Christians were in the business of killing each other. If the Pope can’t stop fighting, he could redirect it to saving Christendom.

The Second Lateran Council (1139) included more definition on Peace of God: “We decree that the truce {11} is to be inviolably observed by all from sunset on Wednesday until sunrise on Monday, and from Advent until the octave of the Epiphany, and from Quinquagesima until the octave of Easter.” They forbid jousts: “We entirely forbid, moreover, those abominable jousts and tournaments in which knights come together by agreement and rashly engage in showing off their physical prowess and daring, and which often result in human deaths and danger to souls.” If the Pope can’t stop fighting, he could redirect it to saving Christendom.

This is a nice bit from the council: “Priests and other clerics who will be in the Christian army, both those under authority and prelates, shall diligently devote themselves to prayer and exhortation, teaching the crusaders by word and example to have the fear and love of God always before their eyes, so that they say or do nothing that might offend the divine majesty. If they ever fall into sin, let them quickly rise up again through true penitence. Let them be humble in heart and in body, keeping to moderation both in food and in dress, avoiding altogether dissensions and rivalries, and putting aside entirely any bitterness or envy, so that thus armed with spiritual and material weapons they may the more fearlessly fight against the enemies of the faith, relying not on their own power but rather trusting in the strength of God.” Look, you soldiers need to act right (doesn't mean they did).

“Essentially the work of the popes, these Holy Wars first of all helped to strengthen pontifical authority; they afforded the popes an opportunity to interfere in the wars between Christian princes, .... From the outset the Crusades were defensive wars and checked the advance of the Mohammedans who, for two centuries, concentrated their forces in a struggle against the Christian settlements in Syria; hence Europe is largely indebted to the Crusades for the maintenance of its independence.”

Aside from nobles and the Papacy, what was happening in other areas of Christian life? St. Francis of Assisi is the perfect example of how to deal with corrupt church officials. He testified, provided an example, and served his fellow man. He caused many corrupt officials to reform their lives as opposed to splitting the Church. He was a force for unity while reforming. The Reformation caused the lack of formation. Francis and Luther were both concerned with reform. The Reformation did force Rome to reform (Council of Trent) but non-Catholic Christians are anything but united are continue to splitting today.

Catherine of Siena called for Papal reforms and convinced the Pope to return to Rome from Avignon. A woman had the courage and strength to correct the Pope i.e., Galatians 2:11-14.

There are plenty of examples of saints who pushed reforms in different manners. The thing about them is that they expressed themselves without separating from their brothers. There are too many different Christian churches in the USA for a nonbeliever to believe in any real "Truth".

Interesting comment about people learning the Church lied about what the Bible says (there is only one time the Bible says FAITH ALONE and it is in James and not in any Pauline Letter). I heard Faith Alone on the radio again last night. NOT BY FAITH ALONE is in the Bible.

My question is before printing press, how does Sola Scruptura work?
When people couldn't read, how does Sola Scruptura work?
Before all the books were written, how does Sola Scruptura work?

[BrianC]

Wow. This covers way too much for an internet discussion. The Dark Ages were brought by the fall of Rome and the rise of Barbarians. I know you are aware that it was Catholic institutions such as monasteries which preserved the only writing of the time. Most all record keeping was from the parish Church as other central government disappeared. True this would make it possible for the Church to “re-write” history, but that is conspiracy theory stuff not fact.

Once the Roman Empire fell, it was church schools which preserved the only education systems. It was the Church which created the Universities of Paris, Prague, Oxford, Bologna and the others which followed after the Dark Ages. It was monasteries which preserved Greek and Latin texts until more text were brought home from the crusades.

The Forth Lateran Council (1215) dutifully decreed that "in each cathedral church there should be provided a suitable benefice for a master who shall instruct without charge the clerics of the cathedral church and other poor scholars, thus at once satisfying the teacher's needs and opening up the way of knowledge to learners". The Church provided for education because the governments didn't exist in a form which could.

The Crusades definitely had atrocities, but why were they called and were the actions of the crusaders with or against Papal orders? The Christian Byzantine Empire lost all the large cities in the Middle East by 1092 and the Moors were in Spain. The First Crusade was called in 1095 to rescue the Holy Sepulchre. The Crusades were necessary or we would all be Muslim right now.

“The idea of quelling all dissensions among Christians, of uniting them under the same standard and sending them forth against the Mohammedans, was conceived in the eleventh century, that is to say, at a time when there were as yet no organized states in Europe, and when the pope was the only potentate in a position to know and understand the common interests of Christendom. At this time the Turks threatened to invade Europe, and the Byzantine Empire seemed unable to withstand the enemies by whom it was surrounded.”

The First Lateran Council (1123) had such decrees as protection for all pilgrims to Rome or any other shrine, “sanctuary” for anyone in a Church, confirmation of the Peace of God (days you are prevented from fighting each other). Christians were in the business of killing each other. If the Pope can’t stop fighting, he could redirect it to saving Christendom.

The Second Lateran Council (1139) included more definition on Peace of God: “We decree that the truce {11} is to be inviolably observed by all from sunset on Wednesday until sunrise on Monday, and from Advent until the octave of the Epiphany, and from Quinquagesima until the octave of Easter.” They forbid jousts: “We entirely forbid, moreover, those abominable jousts and tournaments in which knights come together by agreement and rashly engage in showing off their physical prowess and daring, and which often result in human deaths and danger to souls.” If the Pope can’t stop fighting, he could redirect it to saving Christendom.

This is a nice bit from the council: “Priests and other clerics who will be in the Christian army, both those under authority and prelates, shall diligently devote themselves to prayer and exhortation, teaching the crusaders by word and example to have the fear and love of God always before their eyes, so that they say or do nothing that might offend the divine majesty. If they ever fall into sin, let them quickly rise up again through true penitence. Let them be humble in heart and in body, keeping to moderation both in food and in dress, avoiding altogether dissensions and rivalries, and putting aside entirely any bitterness or envy, so that thus armed with spiritual and material weapons they may the more fearlessly fight against the enemies of the faith, relying not on their own power but rather trusting in the strength of God.” Look, you soldiers need to act right (doesn't mean they did).

“Essentially the work of the popes, these Holy Wars first of all helped to strengthen pontifical authority; they afforded the popes an opportunity to interfere in the wars between Christian princes, .... From the outset the Crusades were defensive wars and checked the advance of the Mohammedans who, for two centuries, concentrated their forces in a struggle against the Christian settlements in Syria; hence Europe is largely indebted to the Crusades for the maintenance of its independence.”

Aside from nobles and the Papacy, what was happening in other areas of Christian life? St. Francis of Assisi is the perfect example of how to deal with corrupt church officials. He testified, provided an example, and served his fellow man. He caused many corrupt officials to reform their lives as opposed to splitting the Church. He was a force for unity while reforming. The Reformation caused the lack of formation. Francis and Luther were both concerned with reform. The Reformation did force Rome to reform (Council of Trent) but non-Catholic Christians are anything but united are continue to splitting today.

Catherine of Siena called for Papal reforms and convinced the Pope to return to Rome from Avignon. A woman had the courage and strength to correct the Pope i.e., Galatians 2:11-14.

There are plenty of examples of saints who pushed reforms in different manners. The thing about them is that they expressed themselves without separating from their brothers. There are too many different Christian churches in the USA for a nonbeliever to believe in any real "Truth".

Interesting comment about people learning the Church lied about what the Bible says (there is only one time the Bible says FAITH ALONE and it is in James and not in any Pauline Letter). I heard Faith Alone on the radio again last night. NOT BY FAITH ALONE is in the Bible.

My question is before printing press, how does Sola Scruptura work?
When people couldn't read, how does Sola Scruptura work?
Before all the books were written, how does Sola Scruptura work?

What does the Sola Scriptura have to do with anything? The movement away from the Catholic Church was the important thing that happened. I don't believe in all of the things in the Sola Scriptura. Sure, there are some truths in there. But I don't get my doctrine from some church or a guy telling me what true doctrine is. Sorry, I'm just a bit confused as to why you're questioning me about something that doesn't have any bearing on the conversation.

My main concern is the Catholic Bible and how it adds books that were not approved by the 7 churches of Asia, and how it takes away certain scriptures blatantly because they do not agree with Catholic doctrine. That, to me, is pretty messed up.

As for once saved always saved, I think tons of scripture is taken to mean salvation when it certainly doesn't say "salvation" and that's why so many people project salvation into words like deliverance or deliver or mercy. Sometimes they are in reference to salvation, and other times they mean something completely different.

The key is that Jesus says He GIVES us eternal life WHEN we believe in Him (present tense), and He says that we will NEVER die IF we believe in Him. Therefore, if you are given eternal life, then you lose it, it would mean that the life you had was never eternal to begin with, and Jesus is a liar. He said we would "never die," which implies eternal life. If we DO die after we accept Jesus, then it means He is a liar, and that's not possible.

So, explain how you can not have eternal life (die spiritually) after accepting Christ and not make Christ a liar.

You can forget the "faith alone" thing. That's not the argument. It doesn't have to say "alone." The fact that salvation is called a "gift" means that it is something which is received without work or conditions. We are told it is the "free gift" of God. Where in there does it say that this free gift is not actually a free gift and we have to work for it or to maintain it?

[Phillystang]

Alistair Begg has some good messages on the perseverance of the saints that you can stream online here. (http://www.truthforlife.org/site/PageServer?pagename=lst_daily)

[Brain_Mach1]

My main concern is the Catholic Bible and how it adds books that were not approved by the 7 churches of Asia, and how it takes away certain scriptures blatantly because they do not agree with Catholic doctrine. That, to me, is pretty messed up.The coucil of Hippo contain the books of the Catholic bible, the protestant Bible does not. The Protestants chose to use Masoretic books instead of the Septuagint. Make no mistakem, the Catholics did not add books (usually during Trent) as I have heard people say.

Infact, the Orthodox Church has even more books than the Catholic Bible. :eek:

The original King James had the same books as the Catholic Bible.
The key is that Jesus says He GIVES us eternal life WHEN we believe in Him (present tense), and He says that we will NEVER die IF we believe in Him. Therefore, if you are given eternal life, then you lose it, it would mean that the life you had was never eternal to begin with, and Jesus is a liar. He said we would "never die," which implies eternal life. If we DO die after we accept Jesus, then it means He is a liar, and that's not possible.

So, explain how you can not have eternal life (die spiritually) after accepting Christ and not make Christ a liar.The Bible also says in John 6 (3 times) "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.Unless you eat of my flesh and drink my blood you will not have life in you." Catholics believe in the Real Presence. I will assume that you do not. How can you have eternal life if you do not partake in the Eucharist? Is Jesus a liar here? I must believe in Jesus, I must eat his flesh and drink His blood, I must follow His commandments. These are all parts of scripture.

Yes, Catholics see some Protestants as being too simplistic. Luther wanted simplicity but he still believed in the Real Presense.

You can forget the "faith alone" thing. That's not the argument. It doesn't have to say "alone." That was me pointing a finger at you for posting false information such as your comments about:

1. Catholics Assuming they are not saved. (this thread)
2. You lack of understanding about Catholic and Protestant history in this thread. (this thread)
3. A previous post where I caught you misquoting scripture about Faith Alone (which you just brushed aside).

Here is a word for you exegesis. Before you can get critical on an interpretation, you must fully understand each little part. You can morf history, scripture, or other peoples responses and expect to be respected.

Or try this one on for size, If you don't know don't respond? There are several discussions in which I don't post! I either don't know or have no opinion.

I mostly follow these threads to correct peoples' mistakes about Catholics or about History and I use the topics here to help me determine what I will read next. I just finished re-reading some old stuff about the Crusades saving Europe from the Arabs then the Turks (no Protestant armies involved). I found some interesting information about the Franciscans converting the Mongols (which plays in to the Tradition that Francis had converted the Caliph of Bagdad).

You created this post to "debate" an issue which does not exist in Catholic Theology then you were flustered that it is a non-topic for Catholics so you created your own interpretation of my response followed by ignorant comments about the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Feel free to flex your ability to quote scripture (you and Phillystang are very good at it, and this is a compliment) but be carefull that your ego does not get in the way and you don't CREATE theology or history.

[BrianC]

The original King James had the same books as the Catholic Bible.


Prove it. Show the first 1611AD publication of King James Version and show me the appocrapha in it. I don't take hearsay for granted. I've heard your theory before and never once have I found this mysterious King James Version with the apocrypha in it. Then again, I may not have searched long and hard enough.

Either way, though, you must understand...even if the first 1611 KJV did have these in it, the reason they were taken out could've been due to findings that prove those books were added by the Catholics instead of the 7 churches of Asia. I would also need proof on that claim.


The Bible also says in John 6 (3 times) "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.Unless you eat of my flesh and drink my blood you will not have life in you." Catholics believe in the Real Presence. I will assume that you do not. How can you have eternal life if you do not partake in the Eucharist? Is Jesus a liar here? I must believe in Jesus, I must eat his flesh and drink His blood, I must follow His commandments. These are all parts of scripture.

That's called taking Him far too literally. Jesus is called "The WORD" for a reason. And the Bible is called THE WORD for a reason. And we are told that Man cannot live off of BREAD ALONE but by every word from the Father's mouth by Jesus Himself. And Jesus says He is the way, the truth and the life. So, Jesus never once had the disciples eating His flesh, not even after He was born again. What He was saying is obvious... He was saying that He is the WORD, and the Bible is the WORD also, and you gain SPIRITUAL life (eternal life in heaven) through reading and living by His words. Your SPIRITUAL man will be fed through reading the Bible (Jesus' word, which is also the Holy Spirit's word, and we are told that the Bible is God breathed and that no one wrote the Bible without the Holy Spirit). Jesus said He was only doing what the Fathe was doing in Him, and that He did the Father's will, not His own. So Jesus was saying that He could survive strictly on living IN His Father's will, just like we survive strictly on living in Jesus' will, which is the will of the Father. Jesus, had He not sinned, would not have even died in the flesh. Because you only die in the flesh, according to the Bible, if you sin, and Jesus never sinned nor had sin passed down to Him.

Communion by eating the body of Christ is simply representation. Just like the Jews used to slay a lamb to have their sins forgiven. You think that saved them? Of course not! It was all representation to show that Jesus was coming to die for their sins. The Catholics do the same thing the Jews did, but in reverse order. The Catholics say that you must eat the body of Christ and drink His blood to be saved. However, Christ says flat out to do it "in rememberence of Him." That's the purpose right there....to remember He died for you. It's just another symbolic thing to remind you what you have. For the Jews, they sacrificed to be reminded of their coming Messiah. The sacrifices didn't save them, just like eating your symbolic flesh and blood doesn't save you. You REALLY believe that eating a waffer and drinking some wine can save you? The Jews thought that sacrifice was what saved them too, and God showed them differently...


Yes, Catholics see some Protestants as being too simplistic. Luther wanted simplicity but he still believed in the Real Presense.

Can you stop referencing old church forefathers and speak of your own believes and back them up with the Bible? I couldn't care less about what an old church father believed, because he's a man and is fallible. I trust God and allow the Holy Spirit to teach me in my spirit and via the Bible, not a man. We're not arguing men here. We're arguing doctrine, which is only Bible based. Men and their beliefs don't matter.


That was me pointing a finger at you for posting false information such as your comments about:

1. Catholics Assuming they are not saved. (this thread)
2. You lack of understanding about Catholic and Protestant history in this thread. (this thread)
3. A previous post where I caught you misquoting scripture about Faith Alone (which you just brushed aside).


1. You said "Catholics don't assume they are saved" in this thread. Or maybe you said Catholics are "being saved" which means they don't feel they are fully saved yet, which means they aren't 100% saved, which means they are not saved. I was just simplifying your belief. That's the truth of it, really. You just put a pretty little spin on it. I can't control your beliefs so don't tell me I'm wrong when I rephrase them back to you.

2. Oh, of course I lack understand. I was too busy studying the Bible to be concerned with some church fathers that gave their opinions on their beliefs. Who ever thought it was a good idea to go outside of the Bible to find THE TRUTH about the Bible? Oh, wait...that would be Catholics and Mormons. I'm not grouping you together, but you're referencing old church fathers as if they say something that the Bible doesn't say. Sorry, but if I can find the answer the Bible without outside interference of someone else's beliefs, I'm going to do that. I don't want to be influenced by someone else's possibly false beliefs.

I openly admitted that I don't know the exact history of it all, because I'm smart enough to know that the history of a church doesn't define my beliefs. My beliefs didn't come from a church. They came from tons and tons of study on my own time to search for truth. I don't trust mankind for my doctrines. I trust the Bible and God. That's it. Man is fallible, so I figure I'd better find and prove my own beliefs for myself so I don't have to stand before God and say, "Well, I believed this guy and this guy, and assumed they were correct. You're saying I'm wrong, so guess that means I didn't trust you enough or study enough on my own trusting you to teach me. Sorry about that."

Though, I won't be judged according to Jesus. He says He won't judge us and that we have escaped judgement, and we are also told that there is no condemnation for us, and we are told that we

3. Yes, you're exactly right: I did brush aside my misquoting scripture, because I paraphrase scripture all the time. The verse is very much saying that salvation is by faith, and not works. That's all you need to know. Saying "faith ALONE" doesn't make it anything novel. Works are anything you do besides making the choice to believe in faith. What doesn't compute about that in your head? Works is anything you must do to qualify. It's work. But if you simply have to have faith, that's not work at all, and that's why it's called a free gift. FREE gift, requiring NO qualifications except that you accept (receive) the gift. If you reject a gift, you cannot have it, obviously. That's all the verse is saying. If I want to paraphrase by saying faith alone, I'm simply showing more of what the verse is saying. However, in the future, I will refrain from saying "alone," just because I'm completely aware that it's inaccurate now. Some bad translations say "alone" if I'm not mistaken, and I was stupid to remember the "alone" part. But again, doesn't matter. The context of the verses say it for themselves. You don't have to say "alone" for the context to make sense. It does not say, "Salvation is by faith plus some works to prove it." You're saying that James (or Peter? I forget now) is saying we MUST have works with our faith to be saved. But the truth is that it never uses the word salvation in there. It also says that your faith is dead. Where does that openly say your salvation and spirit man is also dead?? No where! You must imply something that's not there in the texts. Sorry, but you have no argument here...


Here is a word for you exegesis. Before you can get critical on an interpretation, you must fully understand each little part. You can morf history, scripture, or other peoples responses and expect to be respected.

Oh, don't belittle me as if your knowledge makes you superior to me. If you haven't noticed, I'm extremely lazy when I post because I hate going and referencing scripture when I get on a typing roll... so I just paraphrase it. I'm a lazy typer. Yes, I know what exegesis is.

And the teacher says to the little boy: "Here's a word for you, little boy: Hermenutics. Have you ever heard this big word before?"

Wow, how belittling can you get? Yes, I understand exegesis. It's understanding texts only using the texts themselves. You're not very good at this, because you seem to like to reference church fathers opinions. I like Hermenutics better. The method being that you read a verse. Then, if that verse isn't clear, you read the chapter in which the verse is in. If it's still not clear, you read the book it's found in. If it's still not clear, you take the entire canon into consideration. Then you take both old and new testament canons into account in order to fit it into the big picture properly.

Exegesis is short-sighted, as you have displayed. You have taken just a few little verses and never applied it to the overall Bible message. For instance, you forget that Jesus says He gives us eternal life WHEN we accept Him, and He says, "IF you accept me, you WILL NEVER DIE," obviously a spiritual death. Paul says nothing can separate you from Jesus' love, and Jesus says nothing can separate you from the Father's hand. Yet again, you keep trying to separate me and other believers from the Father's hand through doctrine, just like the Pharasees and Saducees did. Good job. You're a very good Pharasee and I applaud you on this. I assume that's your goal by enslaving people to the law. :)

See, two can play this poking fun at each other game and pointing out mistakes. But I prefer to stick to the facts instead of quoting everyone under the sun in order to amaze and overwhelm with my vast knowledge in an effort to belittle the ones I automatically assume are not as smart as I am and have infereor knowledge to my own. Because we all know that pride, and leveling people by their amount of knowledge, is how you get to heaven, right? :) Fun times, eh?


Or try this one on for size, If you don't know don't respond? There are several discussions in which I don't post! I either don't know or have no opinion.

I know and I respond. But, when I don't know something for sure, I usually either say that I am not certain or I don't know much about that subject. When it's past church fathers and things like that, I try not to say much about it and try to remind people that I don't know or care much about that part of history. The Bible is my area, not the doctrines of fallible men.


I mostly follow these threads to correct peoples' mistakes about Catholics or about History and I use the topics here to help me determine what I will read next. I just finished re-reading some old stuff about the Crusades saving Europe from the Arabs then the Turks (no Protestant armies involved). I found some interesting information about the Franciscans converting the Mongols (which plays in to the Tradition that Francis had converted the Caliph of Bagdad).

If that's your gig, then that's fine. I have nothing against that. But I'm not hear to debate that stuff. I couldn't care less about church history doctrines. Sure, I care a little bit about how people conducted themselves. But I don't care much to learn the entire history of it. Maybe sometimes, but at the moment, it's not too important. The Bible's usually the most important thing to me and I want to keep learning more and more deep truths rather than recount history that doesn't have a baring on my faith or beliefs. You're free to do as you wish, though. Doesn't matter to me. If you'll share Catholic doctrine with me, that's fine. But I want proof of their current beliefs, not old beliefs. John Paul II put out a book regarding the new Catholic beliefs in the mid-90's. I don't remember what you call it. Either way, that's more recent. And and when you hear the speeches he's given in other countries from time to time, it's a little disturbing to hear him say mother God and that everyone on the earth has the holy spirit. That's heracy. Maybe I can see where those quotes are and you can check them out for yourself sometime. Wish I had taken better care with those memories so they didn't get misplaced...


You created this post to "debate" an issue which does not exist in Catholic Theology then you were flustered that it is a non-topic for Catholics so you created your own interpretation of my response followed by ignorant comments about the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Feel free to flex your ability to quote scripture (you and Phillystang are very good at it, and this is a compliment) but be carefull that your ego does not get in the way and you don't CREATE theology or history.

My apologies for misquoting Catholic theology. I'll go study up. I do know that you don't believe in once saved always saved. That was my main topic of debate. And I was just simplifying what you said about Catholics in the process of being saved, which would mean not yet saved. Then again, you do believe in purgatory, so I suppose that works with not being fully saved. Guess God's gotta' burn that evil out of you. You'd think a loving God would have a much simpler way of doing that. What is your belief on purgatory and salvation and the rapture? Just curious from a Catholic standpoint.

Hope you didn't think I was being prideful with my comments. You seemed smug and arrogant and I was just playing that game with you. I'm not prideful in my knowledge at all. I share what I know and go on with it. If someone wants to debate, I'll debate. I learn through debates. It also teaches me to defend my beliefs. It's just an excersize to me. My fault for referencing the crusades and inquisition. Was just giving a little incorrect church history there to spice up things. I'll have to learn those events a little better before I go telling about them again. I use those as guages for where there spirit of the Catholic church used to be, and how you have to come out of that kind of bondage over the years. But the question is what beliefs lead to that in the first place and are they still around in Catholic doctrine? If they are, why don't we have more inquisitions where heretics are killed? I'm just confused by the change in doctrinal actions.

The Protestants have the excuse that we were coming out of the Catholic church, and had to get over the crappy example the Catholic church set with it's inquisitions and things like that. The protestant forefathers were pretty messed up too, because they learned from the best. I think it took the Baptists coming along to say it was wrong to torture and kill people for believing differently than you. lol Though my history is not that great. I'm not expert in church history.

Again, I sensed a lot of pride in your comments and thought I'd play with that pride by giving it right back to you. That's all. I was just messin' with you. I apologize for messing with you like that. I never meant to imply I was smarter than you or that you were stupid or wrong. I just wanted to share my view and see what yours was and your ability to explain and defend your view properly. No disrespect meant by that. It's all in good fun. I don't get offended by this stuff. It's just sharing views... I have fun with it. Rehashing the same thing, though...that is what frustrates me. lol That's my problem, though...I'll get over it and learn not to fall for rehashing. hahaha

[Brain_Mach1]

I am at work today and will go home to family when everything is done, so I will respond only to the Bible history right now.

This company which sells reprints of the early bibles http://www.greatsite.com/index.html

If you want a copy, they sells reprints of old bibles. If you read their history, they surely are not Catholic sympathizers. But they have this to say about the Bible....

It was not really until the 1880’s that England’s own planned replacement for their King James Bible, the English Revised Version(E.R.V.) would become the first English language Bible to gain popular acceptance as a post-King James Version modern-English Bible. The widespread popularity of this modern-English translation brought with it another curious characteristic: the absence of the 14 Apocryphal books.

Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.

Go glance through the book "Bible for Dummies" and it says the Apocrypha was in the early Bible.

http://www.allabouttruth.org/king-james-bible.htm (Protestant website)

By June of 1604, fifty-four of England's foremost scholars and linguists were formed into six panels to translate particular groups of Old Testament and New Testament books and the Aprocrypha (the Aprocrypha was dropped from later editions) into English.

So what does this mean? It means that every Protestant that says the Catholics added these books is wrong (usually added during Council of Trent). This says nothing about wether the books belong or not, but the basic concept of Catholics manipulating the Bible is wrong. But this is taught to the point of being Common Knowledge. Who had the authority to make the change and why did everyone else (besides Catholics and Orthodox) follow.

What other basic beliefs about Catholics and Protestants are wrong?

History is important to understanding the Bible because we can see that the Truth has been pushed aside by Myth in this case. Studying history reveals when myths have replaced Truth. We hear (even from the site linked above) that Catholics manipulated the Bible, but the Catholic Bible is the one which did not change the list of books. This does not make sense.

I will get to Real Presence later (Tuesday?) when I have more time. This existed in history from the beginning like the Apocrypha.

Jews ate the flesh of the passover lamb. This may be a symbol, but it was required..... In the Old and New Testament Writings.