I’m not asking you to address non-canonical references. The Deuteros ARE canonical - for the historic Christian faith, that is.
That does not make a lick of sense. They are no more our problem that they are your problem. Different groups coming to different conclusions about what the Bible teaches (or tradition in your case) is not my problem. Since when are people who have it wrong proof that we have it wrong?
No hablo espanol.When you properly address the questions I have asked you ad nauseam - without your dodge tactics - then I will entertain the thought of answering your questions.
Quid pro quo, my spiritually pridefule friend - quid pro quo.
**I couldn’t agree with you more.
It’s Latin.
Rightlydivide:
I beg your pardon? It is a set canon? I’ll say it one more time,the quote is not about an established canon or reecently fixed canon.You want the quote from Josephus to say what it was not intended to say.
And how does that prove a fixed canon existed?
Josephus only mentions a number books…NOT a FIXED canon…big difference.
So am I,but I accept what history provides us,not what I ASSUME was or is a fact of history.
First of all, I never said the church at Corinth claimed it was canonical,but viewed it as scripture. Sure I’ll give a source to support my view.
Yes I did and told you that different Jews accepted different books. St.Paul never once says: Okay folks these specific books are ONLY considered legit scripture. What he considered scripture may have been questioned or rejected by others. The same applied with the process of the NT.
I think the issue is, though, which OT? Jesus and the Apostles used the Alexandrian Septuagint, which is why this was adopted by the Church (formally in 382)
It is that difference in understanding that changes the context and meaning of what God has said and thus you present a gospel that is not the Gospel according to Jesus or the Apostles.This is Catholic. The Latin Rite calls it “prevenient” or "calling.drawing"grace. He has fashioned us with the desire to seek him.
I am not sure if it will take the thread off topic, but I am really interested in how you are defining “meritorious works” and the source of your definition.
I am also confused why you would equate these with sacraments. Sacraments are a means of God’s grace, and we cannot “merit” His grace.
Imagine that God’s grace pours down like water. In the sacraments, we stand under the waterfall, so that we can be in the best spot to get the grace.
I guess if you consider moving under the waterfall a 'work" then we must place ourselves in a position/disposition to receive His grace. We are certainly rewarded for getting under the spout where the glory comes out!
Do you remember the man and the pool who said he wanted to be healed?
Pat, had you considered finding out what we believe, instead of telling us what you think we believe?
Had you considered that what you may have been taught, or used to believe, is not the same as what the Catholic Church teaches?
Of course we believe in the perseverance of the saints! We just believe it differently.
God is not obligated to do anything for us. He makes provisions by which we can receive his grace, and we can choose to avail ourselves of them.
While you are thinking about the man at the pool who said he wanted to be healed, I want to ask you another similar question. Do you remember the blind man that Jesus put mud on his eyes? Jesus told him to go wash in the pool. Was that a meritorious work?
Upon washing, do you think the man could have an expectation that he should be healed because he washed in the pool, as he was commanded? Was Jesus obligated to heal him?
what seems to speak is your level of hostility
You move in and out of states of grace because that s what your church teaches, which by no means makes it true since this is not taught in Scripture, No person I know of was ever able to receive the Holy Spirit, then kick Him out; how would one go about kicking or ridding oneself of such a powerful one especially given the fact one never had control to put in there in the first place?
I won’t take the time to give the proper context of what Paul is saying, but conditional resurrection is not one of them; Paul knew He was saved prior to writing that so it must have another contextual meaning.I wonder about Ananias and Sapphira in Acts.
however, I think it is a poor linguistic construction. One cannot “lose” what one does not yet posess. There are some aspects of salvation that are complete, some that are in process, and some that are not completed until we leave this life. For that reason, to speak of them all as past tense is misleading, or to say that one “loses” that which has not yet been attained is also misleading.
Phil.3
[10] that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
[11] that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
[12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
[13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
[14] I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
[15] Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you.
[16] Only let us hold true to what we have attained.
Clearly the Apostle here speaks of his resurrection in a conditional manner (“if possible”)
He knows that he has not yet obtained it, but presses on. He has not attained, but strives forward, pressing on. This is a good description of the perseverance of a saint.
He could be separated from His heavenly inheritance, and that might be considered “losing salvation”, but since it has not yet been attained, it can’t really be lost. It might be more appropriate to say that he might fail to be united to the treasure that is kept for him in heaven.
I am sure that there are some who have pride and are focused on earning their way to heaven. However, this is not necessarily the cause for rejecting the Calvanistic idea of perseverance.
Even a persons actions with regard to salvation are based upon grace, so there is no room for boasting. “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” is followed immediately by “for God is at work in you…”
We are in agreement, though that we must deny ourselves and follow him. Most of us find this quite a bit of “work”.
This should make things absolutely clear whether or not Ananias and Sapphira were ever saved:
No, Pat. We move out of right relationship with God when we sin. Sin separates us from God.
This may come as a shock to you, but Scripture does not “teach”. people “teach”. Teaching is an activity that can only be conducted by persons, not books, however holy.
Sin separates people from God. It is the nature of sin. When we choose sin, we choose a state of separation from God. No one who is in Christ continues in sin. If one continues in sin, one is not “in Christ”.
Hmmm. So, you are not willing to answer my question?
So what are you saying? You have time to drop in and send a few missiles, but not enough time to discuss the fallout of your bombing? why are you posting here if you won’t take the time to follow up on your messages?
I am ALL EARS! I don’t think it is 'conditional salvation" either. I think the text makes it quite clear that he did not expect his salvation to be completed in this life.
No, Pat. Maybe that is true for you, but not for many of us. Catholics know that Scripture does not teach. People teach. Scripture is “useful” for teaching. The authority for teaching was given by Jesus to the Apostles, and they passed this on to their successors, the bishops.
I am sure it seems different to you. You may never have received the Apostolic Gospel. Some people only have ever been exposed to the “reformed gospel” that was developed 1600 years after the Apostles.
Pat, you seem to have a number of misunderstandings about the Catholic faith. The fullest sign of baptism is considered to be immersion. If it is not possible to immerse, then pouring is used. Infants are not baptized by “sprinkling”. Sprinkling is used during the liturgical year to remind us of our baptismal vows.
The concept of “limbo” was a theological speculation, not a doctrine of the faith. The doctrines have not changed, and cannot change. They were delivered “once for all to the saints”. This is called the Deposit of Faith. This same principle, of not being allowed to change the doctrine, is what prevents us from accepting Calvin’s views.
There are several errors here. First of all, God is not bound by the commandments He gives to us. He can save whoever he wants, however He likes. He commanded us to get baptized. Baptism is the means by which His grace is poured out in our hearts. He is not “obligated” in any way to confer His grace upon us.
No, Pat, it is not. It appears that you do not understand the basic sacramental principle. yes, of course we prepare to receive His grace. Do you remember how the household of Cornelius prepared to receive His grace? Do you think God “owed” the house of Cornelius salvation?
I am glad that you have finally been able to understand and accept God’s grace. It was one of the things I had trouble with also. I thought that I was supposed to work “on” my salvation, instead of work “out” my salvation. there is a world of difference. In working "on’, there is a sense that we have to achieve some state of righteousness in order to get to heaven. In working “out” there is a recognition that we are saved by grace, through faith, and not of works. We are made to fulfill the works of righteousness that He has predestined for us from the beginning of time. The grace in which we are sealed at baptism is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure.
What a great blessing! And His commandments are not burdensome…
Yes, this is true. the more we are in His Word, the more our intentions will be brought into conformity with His intentions. We move away from selfishness toward selflessness.
Most people will corner themselves and say this speaks of a Christian, but it speaks of an apostate, a non-Christian.
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).
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.No, but we can jump out.
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.
If you are a Christian and do not believe in the “perseverance of the saints as a work of God in the believer”, then when the Christian dies He will then believe because he will see that truth.
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. Before you said one can “jump”, now I guess one can skip the “jump” and just “fall”? 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.
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.
You SAY That’s in the Bible. Here is the verse you speak of and PLEASE tell me where it refers to Paul’s writings as anything OTHER than “epistles.”
The rest of scriptures refers to the OT and to Paul’s writings. The words kai loipos would be unnecessary if that were not the case. Scripture is not called the “the rest of scriptures” when it stands alone.
Here are the verses in other translations so that some clarity can come from this followed by its cross reference verse.
JL: I think you corner yourself, believing a tradition of men made a doctrine of God, to nullify the Word of God. Ask yourself, how can one be an apostate if they never possessed what they apostatized from? Did Paul ever write letters to the Church of UNBELIEVERS? Aren’t all Paul’s letters addressed to BELIEVERS? Did those UNBELIEVERS preserve and give, to the Church of BELIEVERS, the letter to the Hebrews? How could we trust a letter preserved by UNBELIEVERS?
I think the first important thing to note is in v15 it is God who is directly inspiring Paul to authorship. Paul was not writing of his own will but at the prompting of God.
