“Once Saved Always Saved” #3

[Rightlydivide]

So you see if you take the verse in its context in English as well as Greek the subject is that of only the OT that was known by Paul at the time. Paul was a “pharisee of pharisees” so he would not write anything contrary to what had already been revealed in the OT. This is why the verse refers to Paul’s writings as “epistles” and NOT scripture as you have been attesting. The only commandment of Jesus was… Come on and **rightly **divide as your name suggests.

He referred to them as epistles because that is what they were. Some of scripture, as you well know, comes in the form of epistles. Some obviously does not. The two are not exclusive.
No, once again, the words “other” or rest of denote that Paul’s epistles are indeed scripture.
I am not sure of what you mean when you say Jesus issued a commandment to rightly divide. My user name comes from Paul’s writings.
But you never answered why you take that exegetical route? Peter calling Paul’s writings scripture speaks to the early nature of how quickly Paul’s writings were accepted by the other apostles. Does it violate some existing presupposition you hold?

 

[jericho777]

Peter calling Paul’s writings scripture speaks to the early nature of how quickly Paul’s writings were accepted by the other apostles.

You’re onto something but I think it’s even greater than that. Peter reveals that it was God who inspired Paul therefore his writings should be accepted on that merit alone. Good observation.

 

[RevJoeBonner]

He referred to them as epistles because that is what they were. Some of scripture, as you well know, comes in the form of epistles. Some obviously does not. The two are not exclusive.
No, once again, the words “other” or rest of denote that Paul’s epistles are indeed scripture.
I am not sure of what you mean when you say Jesus issued a commandment to rightly divide. My user name comes from Paul’s writings.
But you never answered why you take that exegetical route? Peter calling Paul’s writings scripture speaks to the early nature of how quickly Paul’s writings were accepted by the other apostles. Does it violate some existing presupposition you hold?

I as a Baptist pastor would have to also agree with Padrej that the “other scriptures” referred to in the passage cited ONLY referred to the Old Testament. The Epistles as part of the canon were not decided on until much later than Peter’s epistle. Do I believe he is saying that Paul’s writings are inspired? Yes I do. But the other scriptures mentioned can ONLY be the Old Testament.

I got what padrej was saying the only command of Jesus was “Love one another.” That is what he was trying to get you to say. Sorry you missed that.

BTW I also got that padrej’s exegetical route was by cross reference that he cited. I guess you missed that as well.

 

[FrJohnB]

Rightlydivide;6822275:

Peter calling Paul’s writings scripture speaks to the early nature of how quickly Paul’s writings were accepted by the other apostles.

You’re onto something but I think it’s even greater than that. Peter reveals that it was God who inspired Paul therefore his writings should be accepted on that merit alone. Good observation.

The canon of scripture was not decided till far later as Rev. Joe attests so why are you beating this dead horse when you and rightlydivide should be speaking of once saved always saved?
We have little to no evidence to back your claim that Paul’s writings were accepted as canonical as the church made that decision. I too am going to agree with Padrej and revjoebonner that the “other scriptures” cited in the passage in question are only the OLD Testament.

 

[Padrej]

He referred to them as epistles because that is what they were. Some of scripture, as you well know, comes in the form of epistles. Some obviously does not. The two are not exclusive.
No, once again, the words “other” or rest of denote that Paul’s epistles are indeed scripture.
I am not sure of what you mean when you say Jesus issued a commandment to rightly divide. My user name comes from Paul’s writings.
But you never answered why you take that exegetical route? Peter calling Paul’s writings scripture speaks to the early nature of how quickly Paul’s writings were accepted by the other apostles. Does it violate some existing presupposition you hold?

It violates NO presupposition that I might hold. I cited the proper cross reference as an exegesis to show that it can only the the OT that this passage was referring to. I do agree that Paul’s writings were accepted but the word epistle and scripture are 2 different words in Greek.
Sorry you missed my poke at you on Jesus’ command.

 

[jericho777]

jericho777;6822350:

Rightlydivide;6822275:

Peter calling Paul’s writings scripture speaks to the early nature of how quickly Paul’s writings were accepted by the other apostles.

The canon of scripture was not decided till far later as Rev. Joe attests so why are you beating this dead horse when you and rightlydivide should be speaking of once saved always saved?
We have little to no evidence to back your claim that Paul’s writings were accepted as canonical as the church made that decision. I too am going to agree with Padrej and revjoebonner that the “other scriptures” cited in the passage in question are only the OLD Testament.

If the Holy Spirit inspires all scripture then at its inception by definition it is scripture. It doesn’t have to wait for men to say so.

You are correct Peter’s reference to other scriptures appears to be OT.

 

[distracted]

“Once Saved Always Saved” or “OSAS” is an errant belief that many Protestant Christians hold to and there are many different “Protestant” definitions of what “OSAS” actually means.

Which leads us to the second errant Protestant belief, which allows for the “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”.

These two beliefs came from man’s ego and and his own intellect and not from God. They are both anti-biblical and anti-Christian, they are nonsensical and they do not work in the real world. They are both a contradiction.

Many more beliefs that are false have arose from these first two false beliefs (OSAS and Personal interpretation) and they have cause much division and many, million individual cases, where people actually belong to the “religion of their own intellect and ego” and not to any Church that Jesus Christ founded and that God intended for all men.

I am a Roman Catholic, so obviously I disagree with these two fabricated, man-made errors; “OSAS” and “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”.

What are your thoughts?

---

anyone who has time to read ALL the posts here… probably needs to get a life…

but anyhow… here are my comments:

OSAS is so un-biblical i don’t see how any intelligent, self-resepecting christian can claim to believe or adhere to it…

it seems to have come from someone who wanted to cut and paste the Bible according to his own whims… which… it did…

and it seems he did a whole lot more cutting than pasting…

anyway… its just like the devil to tell us to sin because its not big deal…

Jesus said that the way to Heaven is NARROW & there are few who find it… He also said that even those who do “mighty deeds in his Name” won’t make it… (not all who do mighty deeds, but those who neglect other things He said…)

anyway… too bad i am as “old” as i am… and yet just recently (few yrs ago) knew of these 'hard" passages in the Bible… shows that our pastors are NOT giving us the full Word…

they will be held accountable for that… They will be held to a higher standard than others… as the Word tells us… as common sense affirms…

 

[Pat_De]

This will not be possible, Pat, because the Bible does not “teach”. People teach. when people read the bible and draw conclusions, they are actually acting as their own teacher. Most of them believe they are taught by the HS.

All of us interpret the Scripture differently based upon our education and experiences (or lack thereof). We approach it with preconceived notions.

Yes in your world the Word of God is dead and not as it says, which is living and active, able to bring one to salvation, God-breathed etc.

Calvin invented an entire doctrine of the faith, writing volumes to contain his inventions. He was quite prolific and thorough. I am sure that his writings have lifted many souls, as I am one of them. I learned a lot, I can tell you! God is able to write straight with crooked lines.

I did not know that Calvin was an inventor, can you name something we use that he invented? For what he taught was learned from God and not of his own inventions, like that of purgatory.

I am also sure that he was very sincere in his efforts, and did strive to obey the Word as best he understood it.

You would do well to walk in his steps on the discipline he used in reading and studying the Scripture, then you would be able to give an account of the gospel, which if you were asked right now would fall outside of the pages of Scripture.

You seem quite passionate about your faith, and clearly you believe there is no distinction between the ideas of Calvin, and the Word of God. I can understand why you would conclude that rejecting it is a death wish.

Calvin is/was a man like all men, a sinner prone to make error, so like everyone he to made some errors, but when it comes to critical issues, such as getting the gospel correct, he enlightened others and brought glory to God. One must test the Word against that which is taught by man to see if it holds firm to the only truth given to man through His Holy Word; that includes Calvin, Luther, Edwards and anyone else.

 

[Pat_De]

**I will say this one last **time because I grow weary of repeating myself.
You - and other adherents to Calvinism simply do not understand what it means to be reborn (initial salvation) vs final salvation or Redemption vs final salvation. You think that because God’s grace you are saved forever when you are reborn and can never fall away. You therefore deny the very Scriptures that you claim to be our final Authority.

God’s grace gives us the MEANS to believe and to endure in faith. However - we must COOPERATE with his grace in order to faithfully endure.

Paul tells us in Rom. 8:28, "We know that in everything God works for good with (sunergei eis agathon) those who love him, who are called according to his purpose."
This illustrates a COOPERATION with God **- a synergism between the will of God and the will of man.

In 2 Corinthians 6:1**, he says, "Working together with (sunergountes) him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain" .
Again, we see the will of God working together with the will of man.

The following passages speak to those who were INITIALLY saved (they had a full, experiential knowledge of God) and fell away. They speak to the importance of faithful endurance:
******Matt. ******10:22, **Matt. **7:19-23, ****Matt. 24:13, ****Romans 11:22, **Heb. 10:26-27, ****2 Pet. 2:20-22, ****1 Cor. 9:27, ****1 Cor. 4:4, ****1 John 3:10, ****1 John 5:13, ********1 John 2:24, ******1 Tim. 4:1,

---

**Finally, **Rev. 3:5 says in no uncertain terms:
"He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels."
This is about people who were initially saved and LOST it. You cannot blot out a name was never there in the FIRST place.

Elvis, you will see the truth and the folly of your understanding of Scripture; I just pray!! You can’t even get the “Book of Life” right; the names were written before the foundation of the world and cannot be blotted out unless God is the God of change, which then makes Him no God at all.

What does Elvis do with Romans 8 or Romans 3 or Galatians 3 or Titus 3 or John 17 or Ephesians 2?

You exegesis of Romans 8:28 is the very opposite of what you impose. What would God do with a persons sin against Him given the context of Romans 8:28? While one is sinning against God the sinner is NOT cooperating; yet God is using it for their good according to His purpose. That is the exact opposite of what cooperation is and it is one of the purest definitions of sovereignty and security of the believer, which only a believer can comprehend.

 

[Pat_De]

Sorry Pat, but you are still having difficulties differentiating REDEMPTION from SALVATION.
The entire world - EVERYBODY has been redeemed (paid for/tetelestai) by the work of Christ on the cross.

On the other hand - only those who have accepted God’s grace and have cooperated with it by remaining faithful to the end will be SAVED (Matt. 7:21, Matt. 24:13).

As for your definition of "Real Christians" - you’re wrong again. The Bible says over and over again that you CAN fall away after having had not simply a knowledge (gnosis) of Christ - but a FULL, correct and experiential knowledge (epignosis) of him.

You cannot simply toss out the verses that disagree with your position (**Matt. 7:21, ****Matt. 24:13, ****1 Cor. 9:27, ****1 Cor. 4:4, ****1 John 5:13, ****Hebrews 10:26-27, ****2 Peter 2:20-22, ****Romans 11:20-22, **Revelation 3:5).

You will know one day who understood and who did not.

 

[Padrej]

FrJohnB;6822407:

jericho777;6822350:

If the Holy Spirit inspires all scripture then at its inception by definition it is scripture. It doesn’t have to wait for men to say so.

You are correct Peter’s reference to other scriptures appears to be OT.

I can agree to some degree with the Holy Spirit inspires all scripture. However there were some writings that NEVER made the cut; say like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Infancy Gospel. At some point the church had to decide what was part of the canon. Now there are some references to other writings say in Jude that never made the “cut” as well. I am quite sure that at one time the writer of Jude thought that these were inspired writings but it was the church who had the final say so. This is why I say I can agree to some degree. there was a wait on those writings that the church eventually said “no” to, so it stands that these scriptures by some EARLY Christian sects thought them to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Later the church thought differently.

Thank you for agreeing that the other scriptures appear to be the OT.

 

[Pat_De]

Boy you have alot written. I am impressed but I don’t understand at all what you are saying. I think I have an ideal. But I am afraid to tell you. You see I am a Greek Orthodox Christian and I think you may be a Protestant. Am I right? I do not know salvation in terms of what Protestants interpret scripture but I do know mine. We do not see Jesus as paying for our sins. Not exactly since we still have to go to Confession. We see salvation in terms of our relationship with Jesus as an onging process and not a momentary thing. We see the crucifixation in terms more of Jesus revealing or exposing the evil one. The act of calvary was to help us in recognizing evil so that we can change and follow the one who can help us defeat it. Protestant teaching is very foreign to me and to the Orthodox. We tend not to use words that you use at all. So it is difficult to know what you are saying. You are probably saying some truth in the matter but it is difficult for me to see all of it as true. You got some points right but the others is very difficult to understand. The Orthodox are more concern about the Communion of Saints and see Jesus as the head of the church. We see Jesus as feeding us with His Precious Body and Blood in Holy Communion, forgiving us in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, talking to us in the Holy Scriptures, healing us in the Sacrament of Holy Unction, hearing us when we say our daily prayers. This ongoing relationship with Him becomes our spiritual growth in redemption and helps us to receive daily the Holy Spirit. It is to this we see salvation and it is a daily journey for us and for all in our Communion. God Bless!

It is what caused the great schism and both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic make similar claims as to succession and who is the head; but so do the JW’s. This shows that the only truth is found in the word of God and not by traditions made by man. It is also why your Bibles are both inspired but contain different books and canons were completely closed at different times.

As far as your spiritual growth; Gods says that comes from reading His word (John 17:17, Psalm 19 and Psalm 119) and as far as your spiritual service and worship, God says it is your body and the way you live the Christian life in obedience or as a slave of Christ as the instruction are written in the Protestant Bible (Romans 12:1).

 

[Pat_De]

Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world on the cross. However, we know that the whole world will not benefit from His sacrifice, because they choose not to be covered by His cleansing blood.

How Calvin of you; atonment enough for all , but the reality is limited atonement!!

This is a very good question. Among other things, we are freed from the slavery to sin.

The nature of sin, though, has not changed. Sin still separates us from God. If we continue in sin, after having accepting His blood, there remains no way of salvation.

How very traditional of you!! Unfortunately the church provides no examples nor does the Catholic church. If this was such an important doctrine, then it must be plastered all over Scripture and tradition, but it is not. Why? I wonder?

I see what you are saying. However, the Apostles taught that this happens when we are joined with Him in His death through baptism. At that time, His blood sacrifice is applied to our individual soul, cleansing and regenerating us.

No, that is a Catholic teaching; the apostles taught that when one receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit (apart from water), this is the moment one is saved from the due penalty of sin.

Although I agree with this statement, I fail to see how it is relevant. Where do you get the idea that some sins are not paid?

You will have to confer with your mortal sin believing friends on that one.

It seems to me that this is consistent with Catholic teaching.

Then explain it to Elvis so he gets it.

I agree with what you are saying here also, except that the Apostles nor scripture distinguish between "real 'and “unreal” Christians. Those Christians that fall away from the faith are also “real”.

Consider the parable of the seeds. 75% of the seeds sprouted. Only 25% of those persevered. The word of God enters, regenerates, and transforms that other 50%, but they fail to persevere. They are choked out by weeds, or fail in persecution.

You better look at the rhetoric question in Mark’s version of the Parable of the Seeds; those questions Jesus asks are for you. Only one of the soils or hearts was prepared by God and is supernatural soil without imperfections and it is the only heart that both produces fruit and perseveres, none of the others do because none of the others were or ever were Christians. A very simple Parable to understand, but read what Jesus said about it in Mark 4, especially pay attention to Mark 4:13.

I am way behind and cannot keep up because I am limited on time and recovering from surgery as well. So if I do not catch up to everyone; I will some other time if that is what the Lord wants.

 

[guanophore]

Most people will corner themselves and say this speaks of a Christian, but it speaks of an apostate, a non-Christian.

No corners, Pat. The letter is written to the faithful. One cannot be an “apostate” unless one was first a believer. It is impossible to fall away from something to which one was never clinging.

The mark of the Christian is like the mark of circumcision, it is permanent. This is about a Christian who fell away from the faith.

The point of Hebrews 6 is the person had all the knowledge necessary to come to repentance and never did; that why there no longer remains a sacrifice, they denied the only Way and the Truth (John 3:16).

We are in agreement that those who deny Christ no longer have a sacrifice, but this is directed to people who had more than "knowledge:. They were partakers of His grace. They had tasted of theheavenly gift (Eucharist) which was not shared with unbelievers.

  Tell me how one jumps out and give a Scriptural references as to those who "jumped out"; this is one of the more ludicrous statements , in a humorous way, I have seen on CAF.

Since it is possible for a Christian to apostasize (fall away from the faith) and we know that no one can snatch them out, what other way is there to fall?

The Rich young ruler was not a Christian; so what did he walk away from?  Jesus tried to get Him to deal with his si issue and he refused and walked away unwilling to deny "self" in favor of Christ...Christianities biggest problem then and biggest problem today.

I agree, but the Jews were also saved by grace, through faith. My point is that Jesus loved Him, and let him walk away. His love for HIs own must not be confused with salvation.

 If you are a Christian and do not believe in the "perseverance of the saints as a work of God in the believer",

Oh, we believe in it. We just understand the meaning differently. We believe that God only preserves those that wish to be preserved. If we deny HIm, He will also deny us.

 It is the correct interpretation as Scripture interprets this same in other places.  The misunderstanding is from your lack of understanding from a Biblical world view what "fallen away" means.

I think you are right. We don’t view the meaning of scripture in the same way you do. We understand it from the point of view of the apostles and authors. You understand it through the lens of innovative doctrines created 500 years ago.

Before you said one can "jump", now I guess one can skip the "jump" and just "fall"?

Yes. But one would have to push off, because Jesus also said He would not drop us.

Generally when the term "fall way" is used in the sense of a non-believer; it is they were exposed and may have even participated in the true faith of Christianity, then for whatever reason(s) turn fro that faith they participated and never come back or start their own religion.

No, Pat. This is not “generally” the case. One has to be clinging to something in order to fall away from it. The participation described in Hebrews is complete. It is not someone who showed up and got the tips of their toes wet.

I had a doctor/surgeon I had faith in because I met him, spoke with others that had positive things to say about him, part of the faith was based on a false promise and at some point I lost my faith in him and he will not be performing the operation;   I fell away from the faith in him and have turned toward someone else.

I would say you never partook of him, then. Never tasted of his gift.

Likewise many have had a faith in Christianity, based on what they heard and may have even participated in those that have faith, but then turn from that faith in Christ; does this mean they were a Christian, then because they turned from the faith, they are no longer? No, it means what it says, they turned from a “faith” whether I jump or fall away.

No. If a person never became a believer, they cannot “crucify the son of God afresh”. We crucified Him with our sins. One who comes to Him in faith, then turns back (putting his hands to the plough) crucifies the son of God afresh. If he is an unbeliever, he is only guilty of the first crucifixion. Once a person has accepted the washing in the blood, to turn again and deny it is to commit the crucifixion all over again.

Thank God He inspired John to write 1John 2:19; so that the Christian does not get confused over this aspect of Scripture.

thank God that John and the other Apostles appointed successors, the bishops, to maintain the Apostolic faith in the church, so that we would not get confused about apostasy.

Paul knew he was saved the minute he regained his sight; so if you truly want to follow the apostle Paul as your mentor, then you should hold onto the things which he wrote. Salvation is both complete and incomplete in this life as Scripture teaches and from who’s perspective you are viewing it from. God determined before the foundation of the world who would be in heaven to glorify Him yet we are saved, being saved and will be saved.

Unless we run in vain.

 

[guanophore]

So you see if you take the verse in its context in English as well as Greek the subject is that of only the OT that was known by Paul at the time. Paul was a “pharisee of pharisees” so he would not write anything contrary to what had already been revealed in the OT. This is why the verse refers to Paul’s writings as “epistles” and NOT scripture as you have been attesting. The only commandment of Jesus was… Come on and **rightly **divide as your name suggests.

He has rightly discerned, Padrej. Peter attests that Paul’s epistles (scriptures) are hard to understand, and that sometimes they get misinterpreted, just like the OT.

 

[guanophore]

I as a Baptist pastor would have to also agree with Padrej that the “other scriptures” referred to in the passage cited ONLY referred to the Old Testament. The Epistles as part of the canon were not decided on until much later than Peter’s epistle. Do I believe he is saying that Paul’s writings are inspired? Yes I do. But the other scriptures mentioned can ONLY be the Old Testament.

I got what padrej was saying the only command of Jesus was “Love one another.” That is what he was trying to get you to say. Sorry you missed that.

BTW I also got that padrej’s exegetical route was by cross reference that he cited. I guess you missed that as well.

Welcome to CAF RevJoe!

We are all in agreement here that “the other scriptures” are the OT. The point we are making is that Peter is testifying that Paul’s letters are also scripture.

The Scriptures were inspired as soon as they were penned. Yes, the NT was formed much later.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It violates NO presupposition that I might hold. I cited the proper cross reference as an exegesis to show that it can only the the OT that this passage was referring to. I do agree that Paul’s writings were accepted but the word epistle and scripture are 2 different words in Greek.
Sorry you missed my poke at you on Jesus’ command.

Of course they are two seperate words. But Peter is including Paul’s writings as being scriptural or it makes no sense.
You also seem to, by your comment on Jude, believe that the writers of scripture are capable of believing something that was not inspired is. It is perfectly acceptable to reference noncanonical writings as occurs throughout the Bible. Jude never indicates those references are inspired.
I fully concur with the Catholic view about scripture in this particular matter. Scripture is scripture because it has God as its author and the council subsequently approved them. That is Catholic doctrine and I must say I agree with it!

 

[guanophore]

Yes in your world the Word of God is dead and not as it says, which is living and active, able to bring one to salvation, God-breathed etc.

I don’t think it is necessary to push out this calumny, Pat. It may be that you missed my response to this last time, so I will respond to it again. For Catholics, the Word of God is the second person of the Trinity, as described in chapter One of John’s gospel. He is alive, living, active, and His word cuts to the division of soul and spirit. He is not confined to the writings.

  I did not know that Calvin was an inventor, can you name something we use that he invented?  For what he taught was learned from God and not of his own inventions, like that of purgatory.

Actually, he was an attorney.

No, I cannot name anything he invented that I use, but I know that my Reformed brethren are quite fond of many of his inventions, OSAS being one of them. The TULIP is pretty popular here at CAF.

You have confirmed what I was saying above. Calvin believe he learned from God, because he read and interpreted the scriptures himself.

Purgatory is grist for another thread.

 You would do well to walk in his steps on the discipline he used in reading and studying the Scripture, then you would be able to give an account of the gospel, which if you were asked right now would fall outside of the pages of Scripture.

Yes, he did discipline himself to read and study. However, it would not be good for any Catholic to “walk in his steps” because he deliberately departed from the Apostolic faith and made up his own. I am sure he sincerely believed that he was “taught of God” through his reading of the scripture.

  Calvin is/was a man like all men, a sinner prone to make error, so like everyone he to made some errors, but when it comes to critical issues, such as getting the gospel correct, he enlightened others and brought glory to God.  One must test the Word against that which is taught by man to see if it holds firm to the only truth given to man through His Holy Word; that includes Calvin, Luther, Edwards and anyone else.

Ok, Pat. You have alread made it clear that you believe Calvin has the words of God. What brings you here to CAF? Do you really expect us to espouse this view?

 

[guanophore]

You can't even get the "Book of Life" right; the names were written before the foundation of the world and cannot be blotted out unless God is the God of change, which then makes Him no God at all.

If it cannot be blotted out, why did Jesus have to say “I will not blot out the names” of those who return to the faith?

God can write them, and He can blot them. What does not change is His omnipotence and sovereighty.

You exegesis of Romans 8:28 is the very opposite of what you impose. What would God do with a persons sin against Him given the context of Romans 8:28? While one is sinning against God the sinner is NOT cooperating; yet God is using it for their good according to His purpose. That is the exact opposite of what cooperation is and it is one of the purest definitions of sovereignty and security of the believer, which only a believer can comprehend.

No, Pat. Read the WHOLE passage. Those who love the Lord do not continue in sin. If they fall into sin, they repent and turn again to HIs mercy. Only then can God use everything to their good. You are right, when one is sinning against God, one is not cooperating. One is not “in Christ” anymore, and therefore, does not have the benefits of those who belong only to Christ.

Are you here on CAF because you consider us all unbelievers in need of evangelization?

You will know one day who understood and who did not.

This is the beauty of having the inheritance of His promise that He would guide us into ALL TRUTH. We do not need to wait until “one day” but know it right now.

You will know one day who understood and who did not.

 It is what caused the great schism

No, Pat, it is not.

and both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic make similar claims as to succession and who is the head; . This shows that the only truth is found in the word of God and not by traditions made by man. It is also why your Bibles are both inspired but contain different books and canons were completely closed at different times.

You are mistaken, Pat. It seems that you don’t know very much about where your bible came from. All of the Churches founded by the Apostles accept that Jesus is the only Head of the Church.

I agree that the Truth is found in the Word of God, but that Word is not confined to the Scriptures.

Not only do you seem to wish to drive a wedge between Catholics and Protestants, but between Catholic and orthodox as well!

What do your scriptures say about those who misrepresent the Truth, and sow discord among the brethren?

 

[elvisman]

Elvis, you will see the truth and the folly of your understanding of Scripture; I just pray!! You can’t even get the “Book of Life” right; the names were written before the foundation of the world and cannot be blotted out unless God is the God of change, which then makes Him no God at all.

What does Elvis do with Romans 8 or Romans 3 or Galatians 3 or Titus 3 or John 17 or Ephesians 2?

You exegesis of Romans 8:28 is the very opposite of what you impose. What would God do with a persons sin against Him given the context of Romans 8:28? While one is sinning against God the sinner is NOT cooperating; yet God is using it for their good according to His purpose. That is the exact opposite of what cooperation is and it is one of the purest definitions of sovereignty and security of the believer, which only a believer can comprehend.

**Your entire answer is based on your failure to understand - even the slightest bit - what eternity means. BUT, it brings up an interesting, if not hypocritical point on your part and the part of most Protestants. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS said that we re-poresent Christ in the Mass as the eternal Sacrifice before the Father (1 Pet. 1:19-20, Rev. 13:8) to the rejection of most Protestants. Now - you’re using that same argument (and verse) to debunk what Scripture itself says about the blotting out of names in the Book of Life… **

**As I already showed you, Rom. 8:28 and 2 Cor. 6:1 BOTH speak of working WITH God (cooperating) - not being sentenced to heaven against our will., **

---

AND - as I stated before (and you pridefully reject),** Rev. 3:5** says plainly that he will not blot out names in the Book of Life those who overcome - who endure. Your failure to understand that you cannot blot out a name was never there in the FIRST place is your folly.

---