“Once Saved Always Saved” #3

[Rightlydivide]

So because they were not considered “inspired” at the time of writing why were they quoted? They had to have some credence as Jude mentions the names “Janes and Jombres” as standing up against Moses. The Talmud lists those names as Pharaoh’s chief magicians, so are you saying that the Jewish Talmud that Jude is quoting would not be considered “inspired” to Peter or Paul or the writer of Jude? I just want to be clear on this.

Because the writers of the Bible, OT and NT, frequently quote from sources that were not inspired. Not being inspired does not denote a lack of “credence”.
I have never really encountered people who believe that all quoted writings were inspired. Is there a reason you believe this? I see you are a Rev. What school did you attend because I would like to know what NT book or hermeneutics text you used?
Thanks

 

[Rightlydivide]

Nothing new! Read and heard it all!

And yet you still have not provided a single SHRED of evidence WHEN THE CANON WAS FIXED!

KEY WORD: FIXED

One more time: When? Where? By Whom?

Nicea
When trying to do some historical enquiry, there are a number of things that must be examined. The first thing I have to do is present a basis to even have some credibility. The exact time and date of the fixing of the OT is lost to history. What we CAN examine are those who claimed it was set. That is what we have. The whom I believe we can make some educated guesses.
What we DO NOT have is anyone saying anything about different canons from primary sources of that era. It simply does not exist. We do have people claiming it was set. I have quoted several and I can and will do more. Listen, you have your view but know something. I have many many people and quotes that show otherwise. But like I told Maria, and does not even matter to you. You have your canon. And is also immaterial really. NT Christians recognize that the OT finds its completion in the NT. Take for example how inadequate certain beliefs, eschatology for example, are in the OT. Only in the NT do we find the complete picture. So its almost funny because a larger canon would never effect a dispensationalist fundamentalist anyway…would it?

 

[guanophore]

It is easy to find for good reason

There are many perspectives that are “easy to find for good reason”. For example, slavery is justified by Scripture, as is the subjugation of women. When one approaches the scriptures with a “good reason” as Calvin did, one can sometimes find what one wishes to see.

and is nothing new like that of many doctrines taught by other churches.

Ok, let me get this right. Even though these doctrines were not present for 1600 years, they are more reliable than those that are only 200 years old, as opposed to 500?

Or the Catholic church strayed like Israel did and broke any "so-called" unity that was remotely visible; the true unity has yet to be revealed.

I believe this assertion is foundational to the Reformation, and all the doctrines that were invented during it. It is the same position the Mormon’s use to justify the “restoration”.

It requires that Jesus did not keep His promises to lead the Church into all Truth. It requres that he failed in his promise and also left them orphaned. It means that the gates of hell prevailed (teaching error causes people to pass through the gates of hell). It means that the HS did not show them all that He said would be revealed.

The reason for that verse is because it is crystal clear as to the teaching of the perseverance of the saints and from Whom it comes from.  Catholics have a distorted view on unity due to a lack of understanding what kind of unity the Bible generally speaks in terms of, which is not the visible, but the invisible that Jesus so clearly talks about in John 17.  Visible unity is always spoken in the local sense and never a national sense like that of Israel.

Perhaps you can show where you get this idea in the bible? How is it that Jesus set up one church, and told the disciples to go to that one church when a dispute had to be settled, but it is not possible to find that one church because it is invisible?

 What is this newly invented claim you make and cannot support?

The TULIP is not found in the history of the Church, nor the Apostolic Tradition. It is a fairly modern innovation that is about 500 years old.

 Yes and no; the Bible teaches both and how God works this out is not understandable to the human, which is why we walk by faith - knowing God is Holy , Just and good!!

I am glad we can agree that there is a significant degree of mystery involved in our faith. I think one of the problems Calvin suffered is that he was unable to allow mystery. He seemed to want to explain everything. Maybe because he was an attorney?

At the same time who is responsible for rejecting the Son of God and His Gospel?  You see it is both.

Do you mean to say that God causes certain people to reject Him?

Do you believe it is possible for people to reject the purpose of God for themselves?

  Wrong again; the letter is written to a geographical area in which Paul knows it will be read to all sorts of people, which will include the saved, unsaved and yet to be saved.

The NT letters were not shared with unbelievers. They were highly cherished and protected, and if they were discovered by outsiders they would be burned and the people in custody of them put to death. This is a modern myth based upon the lack of understanding of the degree of persecution in the latter half of the first century.

  Notice starting in verse 3 Paul makes a general statement as is common to His writings and is stating a fact and magnifying God, a small doxology, if you will and he could also be speaking about those in verse 2 "all the brethren who are with me".  He could have both in mind.

All of Paul’s letters are addressed to believers, not “mixed” communities. There is nothing in any of his greetings or content that indicate unbelievers will read or hear them.

Nevertheless verse 22 is the key to the entire section and it also nullifies the tradition of men and shows that salvation comes by faith in Christ alone.

I think I am lost on the “tradition of men” you are referring to about salvation. The book of Hebrews was written by Catholics, for Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

I notice that you avoided my question with regard to this passage:

ARe you suggesting it is possible to “put on Christ” or be baptized into Him if one is not a believer?

To answer the specific part regarding verses 25 to the end; again without verse 22 the rest has no meaning to those who do not believe based on faith and believe based on law; those will perish. If you read carefully you will see the conditionals and Paul uses these because Paul does not know everyone who will hear or read this letter. Those that have put on Christ and immersed into Christ are Christ’s; given to Him by the Father as John 17 clearly states.

Paul knows that he is writing to the Church,a nd that all who hear it have been baptized, and put on Christ (are Christians). Paul uses conditionals because it is possible to enter salvation yet not persevere until the end. He even says this about himself.

 

[guanophore]

I have no idea what point, if any, you are making so I cannot comment other than this comment. Mixing in the Camel gate was interesting though.

It does appear that you are in over your head here. Perhaps you did not expect to find Catholics who are evangelical, educated, and well versed in Scripture?

 

[guanophore]

The Jews don't recognize them for good reason

I agree. There is far too much Christian teaching in them, and since they were used by Jesus and the Apostels, it seems best for the Jews who rejected Jesus to reject these too.

What is puzzling is that modern day Christians prefer to follow the lead of Jews that rejected Christ, rather than the successors of the Apostles.

and neither do anyone who believes the Word of God contains no error and is preserved from error.

Youa re again revealing your ignorance of your own family history, Pat. All the Christians prior to the Reformation believed this.

Perhaps sticking to what is known as Truth, the Holy Scriptures is more than enough revelation to bring people into the Kingdom, which in the end is what counts.

I will agree that this does “count”, but is insufficient. Just getting into the Kingdom will not ascertain that one remains in it. In fact, the reason Jesus established the Church was to show people how to live here and now, and how to attain eternity with Himself. If reading scripture were sufficient for this, what cause would He have to create the Church?

 

[Jimmy_B]

I’m glad for you, but that is the sin of presumption…

No it’s not…

"sin of presumption"

I don’t know if using a Catholic term on a Catholic, “*sin of presumption”, *by a former Catholic or non-Catholic, works… I thought Christians weren’t suppose to judge one another (Matthew 7:4,5). How is a Catholic, who is defending his own Catholic Faith, committing the “Catholic sin” of “presumption”?

Would you please explain your comment?

Catechism of the Catholic Church -

“presumption”

**2091 **The first commandment is also concerned with sins against hope, namely, despair and presumption:
By despair, man ceases to hope for his personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins. Despair is contrary to God’s goodness, to his justice - for the Lord is faithful to his promises - and to his mercy.
　
**2092 **There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).

Facing temptations in prayer
2732 The most common yet most hidden temptation is our lack of faith. It expresses itself less by declared incredulity than by our actual preferences. When we begin to pray, a thousand labors or cares thought to be urgent vie for priority; once again, it is the moment of truth for the heart: what is its real love? Sometimes we turn to the Lord as a last resort, but do we really believe he is? Sometimes we enlist the Lord as an ally, but our heart remains presumptuous. In each case, our lack of faith reveals that we do not yet share in the disposition of a humble heart: "Apart from me, you can do nothing."20
2733 Another temptation, to which **presumption **opens the gate, is acedia. The spiritual writers understand by this a form of depression due to lax ascetical practice, decreasing vigilance, carelessness of heart. "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."21 The greater the height, the harder the fall. Painful as discouragement is, it is the reverse of presumption. The humble are not surprised by their distress; it leads them to trust more, to hold fast in constancy.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Catholic, on-line Encyclopedia (New Advent)

**Presumption **-

(Latin praesumere, “to take before”, “to take for granted”).

Presumption is here considered as a vice opposed to the theological virtue of hope. It may also be regarded as a product of pride. It may be defined as the condition of a soul which, because of a badly regulated reliance on God’s mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them. Presumption is said to offend against hope by excess, as despair by defect. It will be obvious, however, to one who ponders what is meant by hope, that this statement is not exact. There is only a certain analogy which justifies it. As a matter of fact we could not hope too much, assuming that it is really the supernatural habit which is in question.
Suarez (“De spe”, disp. 2a, sect. 3, n. 2) enumerates five ways in which one may be guilty of presumption, as follows:
*by hoping to obtain by one’s natural powers, unaided, what is definitely supernatural, viz. eternal bliss or the recovery of God’s friendship after grievous sin (this would involve a Pelagian frame of mind);
a person might look to have his sins forgiven without adequate penance (this, likewise, if it were based on a seriously entertained conviction, would seem to carry with it the taint of heresy);
a man might expect some special assistance from Almighty God for the perpetration of crime (this would be blasphemous as well as presumptuous);
one might aspire to certain extraordinary supernatural excellencies, but without any conformity to the determinations of God’s providence. Thus one might aspire to equal in blessedness the Mother of God;
finally, there is the transgression of those who, whilst they continue to lead a life of sin, are as confident of a happy issue as if they had not lost their baptismal innocence.
*The root-malice of presumption is that it denies the supernatural order, as in the first instance, or travesties the conception of the Divine attributes, as in the others. **Theologians draw a sharp distinction between the attitude of one who goes on in a vicious career, precisely because he counts upon pardon, and one whose persistence in wrongdoing is accompanied, but not motivated, by the hope of forgiveness. **The first they impeach as presumption of a very heinous kind; the other is not such specifically. In practice it happens for the most part that the expectation of ultimate reconciliation with God is not the cause, but only the occasion, of a person’s continuing in sinful indulgence. Thus the particular guilt of presumption is not contracted.

 

[Jimmy_B]

…Which brings me to my next question, on this topic… Is a belief in “Once Saved Always Saved” (OSAS) or a belief in, some sort of “guaranteed” salvation, the sin of “presumption”? If so, then why? If not, then why not?

 

[jericho777]

Would it be a sin to rest in the promises of God that are yea and amen? To take Him at His word? To trust that His is able to bring to completion His work? He is after all the author and finisher of our faith. It is He who initiates and completes our salvation. Or would the sin be do reject His promise and deny Him and His word in the first place? Just a thought.

 

[RevJoeBonner]

Because the writers of the Bible, OT and NT, frequently quote from sources that were not inspired. Not being inspired does not denote a lack of “credence”.
I have never really encountered people who believe that all quoted writings were inspired. Is there a reason you believe this? I see you are a Rev. What school did you attend because I would like to know what NT book or hermeneutics text you used?
Thanks

I never said ALL quoted writings were inspired. I asked YOU because Jude quotes the Talmud if you are saying that the Jews believe that the Talmud is not inspired. Peter and Paul also reference the Talmud and Mishna. Kindly answer the question I posed if you believe the Talmud as inspired and I will answer yours on school and textbooks.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I never said ALL quoted writings were inspired. I asked YOU because Jude quotes the Talmud if you are saying that the Jews believe that the Talmud is not inspired. Peter and Paul also reference the Talmud and Mishna. Kindly answer the question I posed if you believe the Talmud as inspired and I will answer yours on school and textbooks.

There is no Talmud 65 AD. It is always dated much later than that. So no, Jude, Peter, and Paul would not have had a formal, or informal, “Talmud” to think it was inspired. Did some of the things that would eventually find themselves in it exist in oral form? Yes, but that is two seperate things. Now you really have me curious.

 

[Rightlydivide]

…Which brings me to my next question, on this topic… Is a belief in “Once Saved Always Saved” (OSAS) or a belief in, some sort of “guaranteed” salvation, the sin of “presumption”? If so, then why? If not, then why not?

No of course not.

1Jo 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life

 

[jerry_kelso]

It is speaking of the characteristics that identify non-believers; a llitttle different than you statement.

You do not know what you are reading; Paul states that those who practice, make it a habit, the list are not Christians or “people who will not inherit the Kingdom”, which are non-Christians. There is no indication that there are some who move in and out of such practices, thus implying they were Christians and now they are not, but you will never convince people who believe they must work to earn and to maintain their salvation thus nullifying God’s grace and Jesus finished work on the cross. It is what the Bible describes as “people having a form of godliness but their hearts are from from Him”. What you claim is is akin to saying there will be Christians in hell; that is not even funny and you won’t find a single example in Scripture to support your position beause you are in error.

Now you impose on the text to fit your error; no where does Paul say you will become like them…he just warns them not to “hang around” such people. LOL You have much to learn and understand concerning the Word of God and I wish you the best as you travel down the “heavy rapids” you are flowing on.

You cannot disprove that which comes from God and the Truth of TULIP is in the written word; so just because you said it is disproved has no bearing on the Truth. Truth is truth because it is true for you and for me whether we existed or not.

Pat De: for the lack of knowledge you have about context and even simple reasoning and deduction shows you are not handling the word with wisdom. This subject has been debated for ages by many brilliant men on both sides.
I know if you believe in OSAS that it is a hot button issue and most end up like Calvin legalistic and act that way.
The whole book of Galatians deal with christians who were going back to legalism. Whether you’re a jew or gentile if you go back to a way of living that is contrary to the way God intended you to live then you will run the risk of losing your salvation. You can argue at what point you think a person goes apostate but all I stated is what the scripture said; which was a plain statement of fact that if a christian walks in the spirit he won’t fulfill the things of the flesh. The deduction of that is; if he doesn’t walk in the spirit he will fulfill the things of the flesh.
If he lives to the flesh he will not inherit the kingdom of God. It’s that simple! Most calvinists understand this cause most calvinist believe they can’t help but sin. For those extremists I wonder why God’s sovereignty doesn’t prevail in their daily lives? If his sovereignty prevails in election and perseverance why not everyday living?
Pat de you said that I believe christians would be in hell which I didn’t say, which is really your deduction from what I was saying and because you don’t believe a christian can lose their salvation. The truth is when they backslide and stay that way they are not a christian. Jesus said, sorry I never knew you depart from me.
The T-U-L-I-P is only right in its own context but’s not the bible context. There is not one scripture that supports that man is predestined to go to hell. If there is, then show it. The context of Romans 8:29 says Christians are predestinated to be conformed to the image of his son. They are already christians so being conformed to his image has to do with sanctification.
Limited atonement is not right for as Adam was responsible for the whole human race God died for the whole human race. There is no scripture about irresistable grace for some choose and some reject and many christians are carnal and grace is not irresistable to want to live right. The Bible gives plenty of cases where people didn’t persevere and God didn’t spare them. Look. At the ezekiel passages when the jew thought they were in the club and God told them he would not remember there righteousness anymore.
The bible says without holiness no man shall see the lord. Whether calvanist persuasion or armeniast persuasion you will be judged on a life of obedience as far as salvation is concerned. There is no covenant in the bible that deals with man’s soul that is not conditioned by obedience. If OSAS is right then I have nothing to worry about. If OSAS is wrong then you are in a hot hell and that is a true fact of deduction and I didn’t accuse you falsely. God Bless! Jerry kelso

 

[Pat_De]

Pat De: for the lack of knowledge you have about context and even simple reasoning and deduction shows you are not handling the word with wisdom. This subject has been debated for ages by many brilliant men on both sides.
I know if you believe in OSAS that it is a hot button issue and most end up like Calvin legalistic and act that way.
The whole book of Galatians deal with christians who were going back to legalism. Whether you’re a jew or gentile if you go back to a way of living that is contrary to the way God intended you to live then you will run the risk of losing your salvation. You can argue at what point you think a person goes apostate but all I stated is what the scripture said; which was a plain statement of fact that if a christian walks in the spirit he won’t fulfill the things of the flesh. The deduction of that is; if he doesn’t walk in the spirit he will fulfill the things of the flesh.
If he lives to the flesh he will not inherit the kingdom of God. It’s that simple! Most calvinists understand this cause most calvinist believe they can’t help but sin. For those extremists I wonder why God’s sovereignty doesn’t prevail in their daily lives? If his sovereignty prevails in election and perseverance why not everyday living?
Pat de you said that I believe christians would be in hell which I didn’t say, which is really your deduction from what I was saying and because you don’t believe a christian can lose their salvation. The truth is when they backslide and stay that way they are not a christian. Jesus said, sorry I never knew you depart from me.
The T-U-L-I-P is only right in its own context but’s not the bible context. There is not one scripture that supports that man is predestined to go to hell. If there is, then show it. The context of Romans 8:29 says Christians are predestinated to be conformed to the image of his son. They are already christians so being conformed to his image has to do with sanctification.
Limited atonement is not right for as Adam was responsible for the whole human race God died for the whole human race. There is no scripture about irresistable grace for some choose and some reject and many christians are carnal and grace is not irresistable to want to live right. The Bible gives plenty of cases where people didn’t persevere and God didn’t spare them. Look. At the ezekiel passages when the jew thought they were in the club and God told them he would not remember there righteousness anymore.
The bible says without holiness no man shall see the lord. Whether calvanist persuasion or armeniast persuasion you will be judged on a life of obedience as far as salvation is concerned. There is no covenant in the bible that deals with man’s soul that is not conditioned by obedience. If OSAS is right then I have nothing to worry about. If OSAS is wrong then you are in a hot hell and that is a true fact of deduction and I didn’t accuse you falsely. God Bless! Jerry kelso

John 17:12
"While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and **not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. **

Romans 9:14-24
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, **“I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16 So then it {does} not {depend} on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? **23 And {He did so} to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 {even} us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

There are many more to this effect. I will assume you do not believe in predestination or election or the security of the believer. For if God predetermined before the foundation of the world whom He would give to the Son, then by default He also predetermined who would not and yet at the same time it is mans responsibility for rejecting the One Way. How God works this out and is just in doing so cannot be understood by the human mind, but it is what Scripture teaches whether you agree or disagree; it is God you must argue with.

Irresistible grace is in their to, but I’ll leave you to find it since I have already shown you a couple of things you said was not in Scripture but are. Although the rhetoric question above “who can resist His will?”, which the answer is no one can gives a hint, but must be put together with another passage or so to see irresistible grace.

You will never understand or see these truths as long as you believe God’s main purpose for sending Jesus was to save man, which was not His main purpose.

May I ask who are the preacher-teachers you like to listen to?

 

[Pat_De]

There are many perspectives that are “easy to find for good reason”. For example, slavery is justified by Scripture, as is the subjugation of women. When one approaches the scriptures with a “good reason” as Calvin did, one can sometimes find what one wishes to see.

Show a verse where God justifies slavery in the way you have implied. He justifies slavery and in fact the only way one will be saved is becoming a slave to Christ; in that sense God justifies slavery.

Ok, let me get this right. Even though these doctrines were not present for 1600 years, they are more reliable than those that are only 200 years old, as opposed to 500?

So can we throw out the Catholic inventions that appeared centuries later then on the same basis?

It requires that Jesus did not keep His promises to lead the Church into all Truth. It requres that he failed in his promise and also left them orphaned. It means that the gates of hell prevailed (teaching error causes people to pass through the gates of hell). It means that the HS did not show them all that He said would be revealed.

You have no Biblical understanding of church so we cannot compare apple to apples. The Bible is clear that the entire creations waits for the revealing of the church, which are the “sons of God”. But like I said, you have a view of what the church is that differs from God definition of His bride so we have no grounds for debate in this area.

I am glad we can agree that there is a significant degree of mystery involved in our faith. I think one of the problems Calvin suffered is that he was unable to allow mystery. He seemed to want to explain everything. Maybe because he was an attorney?

What made Calvin so great is that he dedicated His life to God and the study and exposition of His Word to lift people up to a high degree of worship of God, just as a preacher is commanded and He lived it out after he was converted and God used him in great ways, which is why we are still talking about him and Luther, and Spurgeon et al.

Do you mean to say that God causes certain people to reject Him?

No He hardens their hearts, like Pharaoh for example, which means he simply did not reveal himself to him in any manner, shape or form to which the person could see His majesty and thus desire him. Judas Iscariot is probably the best example; he was prophesied and part of the plan of redemption; yet he never believed in Jesus or had genuine faith, he was in it for material gain and even after that he had remorse and hung himself unlike Peter who had remorse and repented, but then again God gave Satan permission to sift Peter and Jesus prayed for Peter that what wouldn’t fail? His faith, there is a true faith and a false faith.

Do you believe it is possible for people to reject the purpose of God for themselves?

What God has purposed will always come to pass, that is what the Bible teaches.

The NT letters were not shared with unbelievers. They were highly cherished and protected, and if they were discovered by outsiders they would be burned and the people in custody of them put to death. This is a modern myth based upon the lack of understanding of the degree of persecution in the latter half of the first century.

Here you are just wrong; that would be like saying that every congregation or gathering where the letters were read had no non-believers and that somehow the people that read them had some special ability to identify the elect of God - a foolish remark. Especially considering how many here have read the same letters and are not believers. I will agree the bible is for Christians only just as the church is for the unbeliever cannot understand the Bible and the Church is the gathering of believers to be equipped and edified to go out into the world to share the good news; unfortunately church discipline is at an all-time low tares have infiltrated almost all churches to one degree or another.

I think I am lost on the “tradition of men” you are referring to about salvation. The book of Hebrews was written by Catholics, for Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

I have no opinion as to your salvation and if I did it would be just that an opinion. What God’s knows is what will count.

 

[Pat_De]

It does appear that you are in over your head here. Perhaps you did not expect to find Catholics who are evangelical, educated, and well versed in Scripture?

 

[Pat_De]

I agree. There is far too much Christian teaching in them, and since they were used by Jesus and the Apostels, it seems best for the Jews who rejected Jesus to reject these too.

What is puzzling is that modern day Christians prefer to follow the lead of Jews that rejected Christ, rather than the successors of the Apostles.

Youa re again revealing your ignorance of your own family history, Pat. All the Christians prior to the Reformation believed this.

I will agree that this does “count”, but is insufficient. Just getting into the Kingdom will not ascertain that one remains in it. In fact, the reason Jesus established the Church was to show people how to live here and now, and how to attain eternity with Himself. If reading scripture were sufficient for this, what cause would He have to create the Church?

:hypno: :banghead:

 

[distracted]

hmmm… this is a new one for me…

posters using icons only to … supposedly make a point…

just can’t figure out what the point is… except that poster has no point…

no argument…

or… and/or … needs time to find an argument(?)

hmm…

 

[jlhargus]

Pat De: 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.

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.

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.

JL: So all those faith groups are wrong who don’t accept Calvin’s gospel teachings, such as infant baptism? So Luther was wrong, claiming the real presents of Christ in the bread and wine, because Calvin said otherwise? Yes he did make errors, such as purgatory and he did invent his own gospel.

How can anyone do well following the teachings of any man who’s best is HIT and MISS TURTH. How can anyone know which teaching is HIT and which is MISS, since according to you, “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,”. If Calvin whom you claim was such a example in studing scripture, yet he could only give HIT and MISS TRUTH, why wouldn’t you also? Are you more knowledgeable or spiritual than he?

What you are teaching, TRUTH is relative to the individuals own interpretation of scripture? Therefore Calvin’s TRUTH is his truth only and he is in ERROR when he does not agree with your “TRUTH”, interpretation of scripture. You are always right because IT’S YOUR TRUTH. Sorta like everyone is infallible in their own TRUTH interpretation. With OSAS, you can’t lose even if you are wrong, so what makes the difference if you believe a lie, you can’t be damned.

Christ gave us ONE FELLOWSHIP the Church the pillar and ground of TRUTH, 1Tm3:15, so we can know TRUTH from ERROR.

[1Cor 1:9 God is faithful you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT.

1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR] Belonging to that ONE FELLOWSHIP is how we know with assurance TRUTH from ERROR]

 

[jlhargus]

Pat De: 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.

JL: Yes it is a Catholic and scriptural teaching. We receive remission of sins and the Holy Spirit, born again by water AND of the Spirit, in baptism, just as Christ said all MUST be born again by water and of the Spirit. I notice you produce NO evidence for your tradition of men, “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”. Following that tradition of men, would mean on Pentecost the apostles and the rest, of the one hundred twenty in the upper room, were still DEAD in their sins and lost.

What did Peter tell the crowd at Pentecost, after he preached the gospel and they were pricked in their hearts and asked, WHAT MUST WE DO, [Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, **REPENT, and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE THE gift of the HOLY GHOST.] With your theory, Peter should have said, since you now believe you have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and now saved from the due penalty of sin. If you want, you can be baptized as a sign of that already accomplished event, but it’s not necessary. Yet Peter said, REPENT, BE BAPTIZED, FOR REMISSION OF SINS, RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST.

Pat De: 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.

JL: Yet his sins were not washed away and he did not receive the Holy Spirit till he was baptized. Where does scripture tell us, “Paul knew he was saved the minute he regained his sight”?

Act9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, WHAT WILT THOU HAVE ME TO DO? And THE LORD SAID unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and IT SHALL BE TOLD THEE WHAT THOU MUST DO

Acts9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, AND be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and HE RECEIVED SIGHT forthwith, AND arose, and WAS BAPTIZED.

[Acts22:12 And one **Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 16 AND now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.]

Paul received the Holy Spirit when he was baptized, as Peter said, REPENT, BE BAPTIZED, FOR REMISSION OF SINS, RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT. I could go on, but this is off topic. If you want to discuss baptism, purgatory, Tradition or any other topic start another line and let me know.

Pat De: 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.

JL: I am not sure if I understand you correctly here. I know, God KNEW who would freely CHOOSE and accept salvation before the foundation of the world and who would reject salvation. Yet you seem to imply God determined whom HE would save and whom HE would condemn to hell without either the saved or unsaved having an oportunity to CHOSE, to accept or reject God’s grace. Am I understanding you correctly?