“Once Saved Always Saved” #3

[Rightlydivide]

In Heb 11:35 - Paul the ONLY other place you will see this in ALL of the Bible is when it is described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42. The Holy Spirit (GOD) inspired Paul to write about this truth - and GOD doesn’t lie

This has come up before and Elvisman believes it is some form of proof. I also think it is proof but in another way. The author of Hebrews has a very specific way of referencing scripture. I will show that in a minute. Hebrews 11:35 is referencing an event found in the Deuterocanonical books of 2nd Macc. but they do not treat it like they do scripture. A reference is not proof something is scripture. The NT has a lot of references to noncanonical books. The author of Hebrews knew that this book was not inspired and the way they treat it is evidence. Lets look at how he treats scripture. The following are passages right before he quotes scripture
Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angles did He ever say
Hebrews 1:7 and of the angels He says
Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son He says
Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels has He ever said
Hebrews 2: 11 He is not ashamed to call them brethren saying
Hebrews 4:3 He has said
Hebrews 5:5 He who said to Him
Hebrews 7:20 He waith an oath by Him who said to Him
Hebrews 10:8 He said
Hebrews 12:5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which He speaks to you as as to sons

This does not occur in Hebrews 11:35. It is indeed a reference to a noncanonical book. The writer of Hebrews clearly shows us through how he treated this noncanonical book.
Your challenge is taken and answered.

 

[jericho777]

Pretty much the same thing as God allowing Satan to do what he did to Job! Judas was a part of God’s plan to get Jesus to Calvary, whether he knew it ahead of time or not! I don believe that Judas cooked up this idea,“all on his own”. With Satan inside of him, Judas proceeded to hatch his evil plan; and thank God he did!

Good point we should remember the anti christ to come is predestined by God. He even tells us the number of his name so he can be identified.

 

[1beleevr]

I just edited my post to request book, chapter, and verse, and also Bible used. Sorry about the late edition.

If you’re wondering about where Satan enters Judas, look at Luke 22:3-6!

 

[LittleSoldier]

If you’re wondering about where Satan enters Judas, look at Luke 22:3-6!

You don’t read very well, do you? I’m looking specifically for the passage which contains the words (or words indicating) “ALLOWED Satan to enter Judas.” That’s why I asked for the Bible used. In my Bible (Douay-Rheims), Satan entering is actually mentioned at least three times in reference to Judas:

Now the feast of unleavened bread, which is called the pasch, was at hand. And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might put Jesus to death: but they feared the people. And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. And he went and discoursed with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to listen. [Luke 22:1-4, Douay-Rheims]

But it is also mentioned here:

When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, one of you shall betray me. The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke. Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh? He therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, saith to him: Lord, who is it? Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly. [John 13:21-27, Douay-Rheims]

And here:

And when supper was done (the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him), Knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands and that he came from God and goeth to God, [John 13:2-3, Douay-Rheims]

In none of those passages does it say or indicate that Jesus ALLOWED Satan to enter Judas. I would also like to submit that, even if were so, there can be more than one interpretation given to the saying “Allowed Satan to enter Judas.” It could be exactly that - a saying, such as we would say “Head for the hills!” or something like that. It could mean that Satan physically entered Judas which is quite interesting as Jesus removed the demons from those who were possessed and did not allow them to go off and hang themselves for it would not be their fault if Satan possessed them; hence, it would not be Judas’ fault.

It could also mean something such as Satan whispered words of temptation to Judas and the words entered into him. It could mean a lot of different things. But what it means is not up to you to decide. It is up to the learned members of the Catholic Church who can truly interpret Holy Scripture - those who know Jesus spoke Aramaic and that the NT was translated from Greek and that we are not to take modern, western English and pretend that we know what was meant 2,000 years ago.

 

[1beleevr]

You don’t read very well, do you? I’m looking specifically for the passage which contains the words (or words indicating) “ALLOWED Satan to enter Judas.” That’s why I asked for the Bible used. In my Bible (Douay-Rheims), Satan entering is actually mentioned at least three times in reference to Judas:

But it is also mentioned here:

And here:

In none of those passages does it say or indicate that Jesus ALLOWED Satan to enter Judas. I would also like to submit that, even if were so, there can be more than one interpretation given to the saying “Allowed Satan to enter Judas.” It could be exactly that - a saying, such as we would say “Head for the hills!” or something like that. It could mean that Satan physically entered Judas which is quite interesting as Jesus removed the demons from those who were possessed and did not allow them to go off and hang themselves for it would not be their fault if Satan possessed them; hence, it would not be Judas’ fault.

It could also mean something such as Satan whispered words of temptation to Judas and the words entered into him. It could mean a lot of different things. But what it means is not up to you to decide. It is up to the learned members of the Catholic Church who can truly interpret Holy Scripture - those who know Jesus spoke Aramaic and that the NT was translated from Greek and that we are not to take modern, western English and pretend that we know what was meant 2,000 years ago.

Why do you believe that Satan had to ask God for permission to torment Job? Have you ever rebuked Satan in the name of Jesus? I never said God ALLOWED was in the Bible, Mister "I’m reading shallenged; you just assumed I did Did Judas allow Satan in? Did he know what he was in for? Enough with the word semantics, already! I pitched a theory, based on what I believe to be good evidence, and you and elvisman go ballistic with it!

 

[Nicea325]

It isn’t? He states

Josephus clearly states their is no disagreement about them? Who do you have that states there was a disagreement

Cleary states? Where does Josephus provide that the canon was already in PLACE in stone? NO WHERE! You assume it was because he mentions 22 books? How is that a validation of a SET canon? If it were set as you claim,then funny how the majority of scholars state there is no concensus as to when it was set? Who should I believe? You or scholars?

And you still have not shown me ONE SINGLE SHRED of evidence when the canon was SET? NOTHING! What year? Where? By whom? Name of the Council? You are simply interpoaltating something that the text does not say.

Quote:
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, (8) which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.

U-huh…and the above is not referring to a recently ratified canon is it? Again,schoalrs do not agree as to when the canon was set.

Do tell me what you have specifically or I will be left to conclude you are parroting what you have been told without investigating it? Give me a source that says it was open. A primary source please. I provided one that said there was not disagreement. Now, give one that refutes it please.

Look who is talking? You sound like a broken record insisting the canon was SET,yet you parrot nothing new and nothing conclusive. Second, if it was NOT OPEN,then why haven’t you given me that important information when it was set? You are accusing me of not providing evidence for an open canon,yet you fail to provide when it was set?

Here if it makes you happy:

Canon Indicators

Ideas about the earliest organization of the canon remain purely hypothetical. Some suggest that Ezra and/or Nehemiah were responsible for the first true organization, with Judas Maccabeaus being the one who put an “official” deposit of the sacred writings in the Temple. [Mill.OrB, 128, 135; Leim.CHS, 27-9]

The earliest “hard” indication we have of any sort of classification or categorization of OT books - aside from internal OT references to the books of Moses, and assuming that the reference is not a late interpolation, as some do - comes from the Wisdom of Sirach, a book dated to approximately 130 BC and written by Sirach’s grandson [Mill.OrB, 18; Beck.OTNT, 110-1]. The classifcation scheme refers to the law, the prophets, and the “other” ancestral books.

This does not reflect a “fixed” canon of books, merely a basic classification scheme, although it is known that most of what we call the OT today was indeed put into one of these three classes - indicating what Campenhausen calls, at this time, a “normative collection of sacred writings” [VonCamp.FCB, 2] as settled. The suggestion in Sirach is that the “law” and “prophets” were recognized bodies of literature, whereas “other ancestral books” seems to have been more fluid. In particular, the books of Moses are recognized as Scripture as early as the 2nd century BC, being named as such in the Letter of Aristeas. [MacD.FormCB, 29]

Of the “prophets,” MacDonald asserts that there "seems to be little doubt that by ca. 200 BCE most of the Jewish people had recognized in some sense a collection of writings called the ‘Prophets,’ " that probably consisted of most of our OT prophetic writings, along with Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and the Kings books, although we cannot be certain of the exact content of the collection. (MacDonald diverges from the traditional view and dates some of the OT books, such as Daniel, quite late.)

The third class, which Sirach calls “other,” is to be equated with what was later called the “Writings” or “Hagiographa,” and was not as restricted in content as the first two categories until after the time of the Council of Jamnia in the late first century. [ibid., 34-5]

Our next evidence of a threefold division comes from the work of the Jewish historian Philo. In his Contemplative Life, written early in the first century, Philo writes of “the laws and the sacred oracles of God enunciated by the holy prophets, and hymns, and psalms, and all kinds of other things” - perhaps a rough equivalence of Sirach’s law, prophets and “other” categories.

Again, however, we have no specific catalog of books to work with, nor even a number of books. [ibid., 38-40]

 

[MariaG]

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.

Yes, God does use godly men and women. He promised the Holy Spirit would lead aand guide His Church. Do you really think no one read the bible or learned those same teaching written down from the men who the Holy Spirit inspired to speak them until Calvin and Luther? Who disagree with each other? Did the Holy Spirit guide them to separate truths?

 

[Pitcharan]

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

Crystal clarity can be inferred from John 5 (Healing at thr pool). The paralytic, a sinner had suuffered for 38 years. After being healed had no gratitude to either to thank or know Jesus. Was quick to sin again by revealing his healer’s (Jesus’) identity to those who were seeking to persecute Him. This in spite of Jesus warning him saying “See, you are well again. Sin no more. lest greater evil befall you”.

My point is that, a saved person can delay his ultimate destination and add misery upon misery on him/her self. But God will not forsake him but wait till he repents and returns.

A macro case is the nation of Israel, which suffered for 200 years in Egypt, 400 years in the desert of Sin, 400 years in Babylon and similarly in Assyria, Medo-Persia, then under Greece and then Romans and finally under Germany. Will God ever give up on Israel? NEVER.

Throughout the Bible we will come across warnings like “You will surely die!”. These are warnings and not damnations.

Even when our Lord said that people from the east and west will enter His kingdom, while its original citizens will be thrown out into hell (Matt 8:10-12), it is only a severe warning-cum-call for repentence. Not a condemnation.

Recall Israel’s last warning and prophecy of consequeces if not heeded:
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” (Matt23:37-39; also Lk 13:34-35) and They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you." (Lk 19:44)

A SAVED PERSON CAN MAKE EARTH A HELL FOR HIM/HER SELF IF HE/SHE DOES NOT RESPOND POSITIVELY.

 

[Pitcharan]

Pitcharan: what case according to the scriptures do you have to prove that you get aa 2nd chance to reconcile with God? God bless Jerry Kelso

Dear Jerry,
not one but several proofs are availabale in the scriptures. See my this post (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6805719#poststop), where I have referred to some:

regards
Pitcharan

 

[Pitcharan]

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

Hi Elvis,
this debate is not at all about the stages of salvation. The question being hotly debated in every branch of this thread is:

1. CAN A SAVED PERSON FALL AGAIN?
2. IF HE FALLS WILL HE RISE AGAIN?

Do see my post on another branch of this thread. here’s the link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6805719#poststop

Regards
Pitcharan

 

[Pitcharan]

That is very true elvisman. People tend forget Jesus’ did not speak English. First of all, the Bible is about ancient cultures,ancient langauges,ancient beliefs;moreover, it is all about a culture in the EASTERN part of the world,not the west.

I hope we are not digressing into a East-Vs-West interpretation debate.

Let us recollect what we were debating about:

1. Jimmy said that OSAS is a Calvin doctrine popular among Protestants.
2. It is unacceptable to catholics as it renders all teachings meaningless and the very quest for salvation futile.

I offer an explanation, which I believe should be acceptable to Calvinists, Protestants, Western catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians. It is:already posted on this thread on another branch. Please check out this link and let me know your views too
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6805719#poststop

Regards
Pitcharan

 

[Rightlydivide]

Nicea325;6805617]Cleary states? Where does Josephus provide that the canon was already in PLACE in stone? NO WHERE! You assume it was because he mentions 22 books?

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, (8) which contain the records of all the past times;

No because he says that they do not have a multitude of books or disagreements. And they “only” have 22. That is as clear as it gets.

How is that a validation of a SET canon? If it were set as you claim,then funny how the majority of scholars state there is no concensus as to when it was set? Who should I believe? You or scholars?

You should investigate why they say that. I have not even used the biblical arguments yet. Most scholars do not believe in the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, the innerancy of scripture and I could go on. So you should believe what is true based upon your investigation.

And you still have not shown me ONE SINGLE SHRED of evidence when the canon was SET? NOTHING! What year? Where? By whom? Name of the Council? You are simply interpoaltating something that the text does not say.

God did not set his OT canon with a council. And that is going to be a valuable thing to remember when investigating this. By the way, that is an incorrect use of the word interpolation. Do you mean extrapolation? Because ironically we can talk about interpolations!

U-huh…and the above is not referring to a recently ratified canon is it? Again,schoalrs do not agree as to when the canon was set.

Based upon what…

Look who is talking? You sound like a broken record insisting the canon was SET,yet you parrot nothing new and nothing conclusive. Second, if it was NOT OPEN,then why haven’t you given me that important information when it was set? You are accusing me of not providing evidence for an open canon,yet you fail to provide when it was set?

The exact date is not known because it was not a formal process or a council. It occured. It was agreed upon. IF this is hard to accept, lets back up. Take any Ante-Nicene Father you actually have a writing of. Do any of them claim there is more than four gospels? Anywhere? No. You see contrary to this belief that many existing gospels were competing, the actual evidence is not there at all. The church agreed and it was a general consensus that the gospels were numbered four. Prior to any council and with no set date

Ideas about the earliest organization of the canon remain purely hypothetical. Some suggest that Ezra and/or Nehemiah were responsible for the first true organization, with Judas Maccabeaus being the one who put an “official” deposit of the sacred writings in the Temple. [Mill.OrB, 128, 135; Leim.CHS, 27-9]

This agrees with me. This states that the canon being in flux is only hypothetical as well.

The earliest “hard” indication we have of any sort of classification or categorization of OT books - aside from internal OT references to the books of Moses, and assuming that the reference is not a late interpolation, as some do - comes from the Wisdom of Sirach, a book dated to approximately 130 BC and written by Sirach’s grandson [Mill.OrB, 18; Beck.OTNT, 110-1]. The classifcation scheme refers to the law, the prophets, and the “other” ancestral books

.

And this supports my view as well! I agree that they lack solid support for their hypothesis of an open canon but the three divisions were in place 130 BC based upon your scholar. You see, in examing the data, we reach different conclusions.

This does not reflect a “fixed” canon of books, merely a basic classification scheme, although it is known that most of what we call the OT today was indeed put into one of these three classes - indicating what Campenhausen calls, at this time, a “normative collection of sacred writings” [VonCamp.FCB, 2] as settled. The suggestion in Sirach is that the “law” and “prophets” were recognized bodies of literature, whereas “other ancestral books” seems to have been more fluid. In particular, the books of Moses are recognized as Scripture as early as the 2nd century BC, being named as such in the Letter of Aristeas. [MacD.FormCB, 29]

Well first of all google the Letter of Aristeas because McDonald is also of the opinion that it lacks historical value. I own the book in which this occurs. But essentially this only states that Moses was recognized as scripture, it does not prove an open canon. What part of it does?

Of the “prophets,” MacDonald asserts that there "seems to be little doubt that by ca. 200 BCE most of the Jewish people had recognized in some sense a collection of writings called the ‘Prophets,’ " that probably consisted of most of our OT prophetic writings, along with Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and the Kings books, although we cannot be certain of the exact content of the collection. (MacDonald diverges from the traditional view and dates some of the OT books, such as Daniel, quite late.)

Great. So MacDonald believes Daniel is a fake and Nicea buys his view based upon…primary sources? No.

The third class, which Sirach calls “other,” is to be equated with what was later called the “Writings” or “Hagiographa,” and was not as restricted in content as the first two categories until after the time of the Council of Jamnia in the late first century. [ibid., 34-5]

Council of Jamnia did not set the canon. I can provide Catholic sources that support that.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Our next evidence of a threefold division comes from the work of the Jewish historian Philo. In his Contemplative Life, written early in the first century, Philo writes of “the laws and the sacred oracles of God enunciated by the holy prophets, and hymns, and psalms, and all kinds of other things” - perhaps a rough equivalence of Sirach’s law, prophets and “other” categories.

Again, however, we have no specific catalog of books to work with, nor even a number of books. [ibid., 38-40]

This does not prove that a set canon does not exist! It simply asserts that a list did not exist in the writers estimation. Listen, if you are not going to go to primary sources that support an open canon, and absolutely none of the sources cited by the scholars you used actually said that, then just admit it. Look again Nicea. Not one, not one of the scholars cited actual proof of an open canon. None.
Now let me go to my next round of questions for you.
Did Paul believe the OT was not settled and uncertain?

 

[jericho777]

Hi Elvis,
this debate is not at all about the stages of salvation. The question being hotly debated in every branch of this thread is:

1. CAN A SAVED PERSON FALL AGAIN?
2. IF HE FALLS WILL HE RISE AGAIN?

Do see my post on another branch of this thread. here’s the link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6805719#poststop

Regards
Pitcharan

HI Pitcharan
Prov 24:16 for though a righteous man falls seven times (seven is the number of completion meaning totally or completely), he rises again (God’s grace upon the elect allows them to rise again), but the wicked are brought down by calamity. (they have no hope in God)

 

[Pitcharan]

HI Pitcharan
Prov 24:16 for though a righteous man falls seven times (seven is the number of completion meaning totally or completely), he rises again (God’s grace upon the elect allows them to rise again), but the wicked are brought down by calamity. (they have no hope in God)

Thank you very much Jericho! U r the first person in the thread to concur with me.

Regards
Pitcharan

 

[elvisman]

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

And this goes back to your failure to discern between Initial Salvation (rebirth) and Final Salvation (sanctification after death).

**Do a little reasearch on the subject - and then we’ll talk . . .

 

[elvisman]

We have proven nothing! All together now,“WE do not aaccept Prince Valiant, i mean polyvalent references!”

**I truly apologize for my use of multi-syllabic words.
From now on, when dealing with you, I will try to keep them down to no more than 3 syllables . . .

 

[elvisman]

That’s clear to me. God is omniscient. He knows everything. He has also given us a great gift - that of free will. If predistination meant what they mean free will would be meaningless. What does free will matter if one’s fate is predetermined? Do these people not believe in free will at all?

Omniscience does not mean predetermination. And you’re right about “time” - not one of us here, with our human brains, can really conceive of eternity. Time as we humans measure it is not the same as time is to God.

Absoloutely, my friend.
Calvinism rejects free will and therein lies the problem.

According to Calvinism, every sin ever committed was caused by God. This is the only logical conclusion one can arrive at when embracing this false doctrine of men.

 

[elvisman]

Any specific scripture, where Jesus quoted from these six"books?"

**Go back and read the posts. I have already listed them ad nauseam.

 

[elvisman]

Actually, I think it’s rather cute, and clever how you use colors! Boy, you are a hard sell on this Judas argument; but then I must consider the source And I’m still trying to figure out what Al Gore’s divorce has to do with anything on this thread(or any thread for that matter).Eternity is a concept that no mortal man can fathom! God is not now, nor has He ever been constrained by time! We however, have set timelines and schedules, etc. Also, God does and can use situations and events(and people) to accomplish a purpose and to bring glory to His name! Jesus fulfilled well over 600 prophecies(amazing!) including the one which just happened to involve one Judas Iscariot! You do believe that God ALLOWED Satan to enter Judas, right? Just like he had to ask permission to do what he did to Job.We all remember how God continually hardened Pharoah’s heart in Exodus; and how he used Rahab, David, and countless other to bring His plans to fruition! I do believe that my argument has some merit, in spite of what Mr elvisman says!

Do you honestly believe God had to ask Satan permission for what happened to Job??? That is not only ludicrous - it’s heresy!**

*As for what God ordains or “preordains” - that is up to him. This nonsense that he causes some to sin is simply ignorance on your part. You are trying to apply your limited understanding of linguistics and modern culture on anthropomorphistic language. * Sorry about the big word - I know I promised you I’d try to keep those down to 3 syllables . . .

As for the Al Gore reference - I was trying to “dumb-down” a point so that you could understand. You seem to have a difficult time with linguistics ans multi-syllabic words . . .

Finally - your comment about the colors I use once again proves my point that when somebody is losing the debate and running out of things to say - they *always* refer to my use of colors . . .**