“Once Saved Always Saved” #3

[Pat_De]

Hello Pat De,

You wrote -

“Hebrews 6 shuts the door completely on those that would say they can move in and out of God’s salvation”

Sin separates us from God…

Which verse in Hebrews 6 are your referring to?

Hebrews 6:10
For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones.

Hebrews 6:11
We earnestly desire each of you to demonstrate the same eagerness for the fulfillment of hope until the end,

Hebrews 6:12
so that you may not become sluggish, but imitators of those who, through faith and patience, are inheriting the promises.

Hebrews 6:18
so that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to hold fast to the hope that lies before us.

*_____________________________________ *

Hebrew 6 supports Catholic doctrine. This is what happens when someone uses a Catholic book, the Bible, to try to disprove a Catholic truth, a Bible verse, book, or chapter is taken out of context.

Which verse in Hebrews 6 are your referring to?

Sin separates the non-Christian from God; the Christian has had all of their sins nailed to the cross as the Bible teaches. Current sin will lead the Christian astray and out of His grace and we will miss blessing and the Good Shepherd will bring back that sheep that strays too far. If you are a parent, then you should understated the concept.

 

[Pat_De]

“Salvation is not an event but a continuing process which concludes when a soul finally attains eternal union with God.”

“And the Bible says it’s so…”

It is both; ask the thief on the cross and look at at the times Jesus said “your faith has either made you well, healed or saved you” The fullness of salvation is what the saved are waiting for, full redemption at the Christian’s physical death.

 

[elvisman]

I understand, its easy to mix up major prophets and books written 500 years later.

We are not done with the example I cited first. You do not tell me what to do. I can see you are used to telling people what to do. Wrong guy.
When we are done with my topic, I will answer your questions.
So Judith does quote an earlier work. Which of course I knew. Do any of the rest of your list also quote earlier works? Do you need me to tell you which ones do?

So - you’re not going to address this?
That PROVES me right.

A couple of months ago I issued this challenge to any and all Protestants - and NONE of them wold take the challenge. You have ALL proven the Catholic position by your failure to address the issue.

Your stipulation about my answering whether or not anything on my list quoted earlier works is moot because you reject polyvalent references.

 

[elvisman]

It is both; ask the thief on the cross and look at at the times Jesus said “your faith has either made you well, healed or saved you” The fullness of salvation is what the saved are waiting for, full redemption at the Christian’s physical death.

**JimmyB is correct because you fail to understand Initial Salvation (rebirth) with Final Salvation (through enduring faith - Matt. 24:13)

 

[Pat_De]

Hi Pitcharan,

I disagree and I think that he is taking the Bible out of context, to try to prove the errant Calvin belief in “Predestination” and in the errant Protestant, Calvin belief in “Once Saved Always Saved” (OSAS).

Thank you for your post.

I’ve referred to the specific passages Heb 6:1-8 in a previous post. How you say one is out of context and at the same time do not know what passages we are talking about is a foolish statement to make. If you do not see predestination ALL OVER the NT, then you gravely error on the very obvious teaching of the NT. There is not one example of a person having, then lost salvation.

 

[Pat_De]

Dear Pat, Jimmy and other members who I believe are genuinely seeking the truth, I think the answer to this long debate can be inferred from Matt 12:43-45 (or Lk11:24-26) and 2Peter 2:22.

The entire 2Peter 2 is the main topic.yes The problem is the veil issue.

 

[onenow1]

And here I thought that only catholics had suspicious renderings of scripture Why did the Sanhedrin need Judas to betray Jesus, if they could handle it themselves? They had no authority to execute, so they had to convince the Romans that Jesus was a threat! So you also have a very vivid imagination to believe that Judas was not prt of this whole situation. God ALLOWED Satan to enter Judas, enabling him to betray! Sorry you can’t see that!

=onenow1. What did Judas have to do with convincing the Romans ?

Matt. 27: 3, When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders,
4 saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.”
5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.

Quote=onenow1 Don’t you see it #1 Jesus forsaw that Judas would despair in his sin; unlike Peter who wept and repented and had hope. Luke 22: 42, and Peter went outside and wept bitterly. Mark 14: 72, and he burst into tears. Matt 26 Ditto.

Hope this helps #1.
Peace and God bless

 

[Pat_De]

WRONG.
You guys like to run around telling us Catholics that Sola Scriptura is the truth, yet you make up these false distinctions of “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge” - yet NONE of these passages says anything about that.
They are speaking to real believers who fell/fall away and the consequences for their actions.

Remember this: God wills the salvation of ALL - not just some (1 Tim. 2:3-4). The doctrine of OSAS is nothing but prideful arrogance. Some stay and some turn away from his grace.
That is the doctrine of Free Will that has been taught since the time of Adam and Eve and was rejected by Calvin.

As for your question - I was baptized into the Christian family when I was a month old, according to the baptismal formula prescribed by Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19).

I’m very sorry to hear that Elvis; my heart and prayers go out to you. Denying the truth in the correct understanding of the perseverance of the saints is an issue with those that are chuck full of pride because in essence they are saying they have merit before God, that God owes them based on some act or performance when it comes to salvation; it is the person that knows it is all of God that gives up on "self’. Why do you think Jesus said “deny yourself”,& follow Me?

You surely can see the difference here

 

[Rightlydivide]

**So - you’re not **going to address this?
That PROVES me right.

A couple of months ago I issued this challenge to any and all Protestants - and NONE of them wold take the challenge. You have ALL proven the Catholic position by your failure to address the issue.

**Your stipulation about my answering whether or not anything on my list quoted earlier **works is moot because you reject polyvalent references.

So you do not think Mark is quoting Isaiah directly? I certainly do. What other verses in your list are first found in earlier works? What challenge did you issue? I do not usually read your posts because you have the need to use bright colors to gain attention. I will also now remember that you mixed up a major prophet and Judith. Which, rest assured, is still very funny to me.

I will answer the first part of your question. The Wisdom of Solomon has a range of 2nd century BC to the 1st century. There are similiarities between the two although not exact wording. Hebrews has a range of late 30’s to 80 AD. First, it cannot be asserted with certainity that Hebrews is not written first. However, nothing precludes both from using similiar terminology in that particular era. It is important to realize that Hebrews of all of the NT books contains parts that are reflective of Hellenistic Judaism as possibly being the background. In genral however, it is certainly also possible that NT works have a reference base in some DC works. I have seen that list as ranging from a few to up to a dozen. However none are directly cited as being the word of God while the NT is filled with that from non-DC books; although no one is arguing that all OT are directly referenced. Does Hebrews reference Wisdom? We cannot know. The dating for both is imprecise making conclusions difficult. They certainly reflect similiar thoughts and neither one are directly using an earlier OT work. So your assertion cannot be proven. On the other hand, it cannot be disproven either although it is not a direct quote or directly cited as being scripture.

 

[Pat_De]

I have never truly understood how someone can rely on commentary and interpretation of scripture of those who came 1500 years after the fact rather than those who were taught by the apostles.

Scripture warns of those who will come along twisting scripture to their own ends. And it amazes me the blindness that rejects the teaching of those taught directly from the apostles yet embraces teachings of those who came along and contradict that which was taught earlier.

I know there is a huge number of people who never even heard of church fathers like ignatious, but those who post here know yet still cling to those who have come along instead of returning to the apostolic teaching and interpretation, sadden me greatly.

As for studying Calvin, the words of an evangelical minister come to my mind. When asked whether Christians should learn about the occult so as to better recognize it, he related how those in the US treasury learn to spot the fakes. They spend hours studying the real thing. if one wants to read commentary and interpretation of scripture, go to the those taught by the apostles, and not those who have come along

That just means you do not know that interpretation is not from man, but from the Holy Spirit of truth which the Bible teaches. He uses godly men and women to expose those truths to build and equip others to do the same. You have no idea how much time both Luther & Calvin spent in reading & studying the Scriptures…do you? This is why they have had such a wonderful impact on Christianity.

 

[elvisman]

I’m very sorry to hear that Elvis; my heart and prayers go out to you. Denying the truth in the correct understanding of the perseverance of the saints is an issue with those that are chuck full of pride because in essence they are saying they have merit before God, that God owes them based on some act or performance when it comes to salvation; it is the person that knows it is all of God that gives up on "self’. Why do you think Jesus said “deny yourself”,& follow Me?

You surely can see the difference here

What you fail to understand is that we are saved by God’s grace alone - BUT we must cooperate with that grace inorder to be saved **(Luke 13:24, Mt. 25:31-46). **It is not any work of ours - but a cooperation with the grace of redemption won for us on the cross.

The Calvinist position is that we have no choice in the matter. God will save us whether we want it or not. THAT is heresy, friend.

 

[Pat_De]

“Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”(Matt 24:45-51)

A servant of the Lord was sent to hell (weeping and gnashing of teeth in the Bible ALWAYS indicates hell.) Baptists and Evangelicals, at least, indentify the servant indicated in this and other passages as being “saved” yet stipulate he merely loses rewards which is clearly (at least to me) not indicated in the above verse.

“While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled”.(John 17:12)

Judas became lost by his choice.

On a purely experiential note, I have several young Baptist ladies with which I am friends. All of them have “made a profession of faith” and all but one is living lives of willful and deliberate disobedience to God (and their parents). They all are certain they will go to heaven because they prayed the sinner’s prayer and nothing will convice them otherwise. I am aware of the Reformed position that if Jesus is not your Lord, he is not your Savior (very wise) and have informed them but they are steadfast in clinging to OSAS even though one could argue that they were never saved in the first place. They have effectively “been innoculated” against Jesus as Lord.

Perhaps teaching them perseverance of the saints produces the fruits of righteousness which God preordained that the true Christian would walk in them would help. God is the one who does any inoculation if it is to be done. There are only two types of people, the saved and the unsaved

 

[Pat_De]

**Ummm, *not ***so fast.

---

Judas was one of the one’s sent out to preach, heal the sick and cast out demons in Jesus’ name (Matt. 10:5). He had a not only a knowledge (gnosis) of Jesus but a full experiential knowledge (epignosis) of him. This is the type of person that Peter spoke of in 2 Pet. 2:20 who are real believers and fall away from God’s grace by their own choice.

---

Judas was a genuine believer in Christ who fell away. God didn’t make him do what he did and neither did Satan. Judas surrendered to Satan’s will.

So the answer to your question as to whether Judas was saved - his life is a PERFECT example of why OSAS and Calvinism in general is a farse.

Judas Iscariot saved? He was prophesied to be the son of perdition, an unbeliever. :banghead:

 

[Pat_De]

So, lets stick with your Judith example before we move on to others, who is Mark quoting, Judith or Isaiah?

Here is what you said

Well…that does SEEM pretty convincing on the surface I suppose

Here is Judith 16:17

Here is Mark

Here is Isaiah

Now explain polyvan…poli…that big word you used.
Does that mean Mark quotes Isaiah but Judith uses a few similiar words? Because if THAT is what it means, I would agree that sometimes DC authors do indeed use some of the same words…well like worm for example.

All one has to do is look at the timelines, not to mention the errors.

 

[elvisman]

So you do not think Mark is quoting Isaiah directly? I certainly do. What other verses in your list are first found in earlier works? What challenge did you issue? I do not usually read your posts because you have the need to use bright colors to gain attention. I will also now remember that you mixed up a major prophet and Judith. Which, rest assured, is still very funny to me.

I will answer the first part of your question. The Wisdom of Solomon has a range of 2nd century BC to the 1st century. There are similiarities between the two although not exact wording. Hebrews has a range of late 30’s to 80 AD. First, it cannot be asserted with certainity that Hebrews is not written first. However, nothing precludes both from using similiar terminology in that particular era. It is important to realize that Hebrews of all of the NT books contains parts that are reflective of Hellenistic Judaism as possibly being the background. In genral however, it is certainly also possible that NT works have a reference base in some DC works. I have seen that list as ranging from a few to up to a dozen. However none are directly cited as being the word of God while the NT is filled with that from non-DC books; although no one is arguing that all OT are directly referenced. Does Hebrews reference Wisdom? We cannot know. The dating for both is imprecise making conclusions difficult. They certainly reflect similiar thoughts and neither one are directly using an earlier OT work. So your assertion cannot be proven. On the other hand, it cannot be disproven either although it is not a direct quote or directly cited as being scripture.

What’s funny is the complaint about the colors I use.
I have noted time and again how those who are losing the debate usually - if not always - allude to the colors being annoying.

That being said - your answer is utter hogwash. You’re actually implying that Wisdom might have been written AFTER Hebrews? That’s the most ludicrous claim you’ve made yet.

I was speaking about Hebrews and Maccabees when I issued the challenge: Explain the Heb 11:35 reference to the martyrdom of the mother and her sons from 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

The challenge I issued about Wisdom was in comarison to Ephesians:
Show me an OT reference to Eph. 6:13-17 (the armour of God) OTHER than the Deuterocanonicals - specifically, Wis. 5:17-20.

As for Mark and Isaiah - READ my definition of “polyvalent references” a few posts back.
It’s getting annoying having to repeat myself . . .

 

[Rightlydivide]

What’s funny is the complaint about the colors I use.
I have noted time and again how those who are losing the debate usually - if not always - allude to the colors being annoying.

That being said - your answer is utter hogwash. You’re actually implying that Wisdom might have been written AFTER Hebrews? That’s the most ludicrous claim you’ve made yet.

I was speaking about Hebrews and Maccabees when I issued the challenge: Explain the Heb 11:35 reference to the martyrdom of the mother and her sons from 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

The challenge I issued about Wisdom was in comarison to Ephesians:
**Show me an OT reference to **Eph. 6:13-17 (the armour of God) OTHER than the Deuterocanonicals - specifically, Wis. 5:17-20.

As for Mark and Isaiah - READ my definition of “polyvalent references” a few posts back.
It’s getting annoying having to repeat myself . . .

Elvis
You are not winning the debate. You mixed up Isaiah and Judith. No one does that. In the history of CAF, I believe that has never occured. If any Catholic is still reading, I am sure they did a giant doh and slap to the head when they read that. I do like giving you grief about colors but I am not intolerant about what colors you choose. Its your business. I just say its rather hard to take you very seriously. A man in a bunny suit might be a brillant man…but he is still in a bunny suit.
So the challenge is the one you just mentioned? You say that there are 100 but the hill you are standing on is this one? I want to be sure before I do answer that. It will make it all the more satisfying. You can understand that surely.

Its not at all improbable.

•From the third century BC through the first century AD

That is the range. No one can prove when it was written or finally complied and some do think it has stages; like the Psalms but certainly that is not absolutely the case.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
BTW: There was no set OT canon during Jesus lifetime,so explain why he would only stick to the 39 OT book canon,if it did not exist?

But you see, I do not believe that is the case. It is a theory. A very popular theory to be sure based on…do you know? sources from that era (100 BC to 100 AD)? Nope.Its based upon presupposotions.

So you claming a set canon did exist during Jesus’ lifetime? Sources please…

The theory that the canon was not set for Jews is similar to the theory that there existed an Alexandrian canon and others.

U-huh? The issue here is whether there was a set canon of the 39 OT books before Jesus’ lifetime,which give us a hint that he in fact NEVER used the 7 books.

But you see, it has no basis in ACTUAL history. I am sure you will not believe me. Heck, I would not believe me if I were you.

History has shown the the OT grew over time,hence books added. I am sure you are aware the Sadducees rejected anything outside the 5 Book of Moses and the Pharisees accepted more the 5 books.

So you will go looking. Looking for some kind of list or evidence about what the canon looked like in the time of Jesus. I am glad you will go look. Do tell me first hand sources that you find

Look? If it did exist then we should have it somewhere. I will call the Smithsonian Institute…

 

[Rightlydivide]

Nicea
Do you or do you not, have primary sources proving the canon was open at this time.
I have Josephus and 2nd Esdras that support my view that are roughly contemporary. What do you have?

 

[Rightlydivide]

That being said, the dating was only one component of my answer Elvisman. You did not interact with the content of what I said. While hogwash conveys strong feelings, its devoid of anything I can really seek to clarify or defend.
My only retort would have to be nu-uh or something equally useless.
Lets keep it focused on content. Better that way.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis
You are not winning the debate. You mixed up Isaiah and Judith. No one does that. In the history of CAF, I believe that has never occured. If any Catholic is still reading, I am sure they did a giant doh and slap to the head when they read that. I do like giving you grief about colors but I am not intolerant about what colors you choose. Its your business. I just say its rather hard to take you very seriously. A man in a bunny suit might be a brillant man…but he is still in a bunny suit.
So the challenge is the one you just mentioned? You say that there are 100 but the hill you are standing on is this one? I want to be sure before I do answer that. It will make it all the more satisfying. You can understand that surely.

Its not at all improbable.

That is the range. No one can prove when it was written or finally complied and some do think it has stages; like the Psalms but certainly that is not absolutely the case.

So - you’re STILL refusing to answer?
Then the debate is over. You can’t have a debate when only one party (me) is bringing anything to the table.

You stir up a good kettle but you just don’t know how to serve what your stirring . . .