“Once Saved Always Saved” #3

[Pat_De]

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?

[Hb6:4 For it is impossible for those who were ONCE ENLIGHTENED, and have TASTED of THE HEAVENLY GIFT, and were made PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, 5 And have TASTED the good WORD OF GOD, AND THE POWERS OF THE WORLD TO COME, 6 IF THEY SHALL FALL AWAY, TO RENEW THEM AGAIN unto repentance; SEEING THEY CRUCIFY to themselves THE SON of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.]

Paul is addressing a Christian community of those who have been ENLIGHTENED. They are not on the brink of being enlightened they are ENLIGHTENED and HAVE TASTED OF THE HEAVENLY GIFT, MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, They have the indwelling Holy Ghost.

Paul warns believers, with the indwelling Holy Spirit, of the danger of apostasy, alluding to those once Christian Jews, who left the Christian community and returned to Judaism. Having rejected Christ’s sacrifice, returning and placing their faith in animal sacrifice, which can never renew them again to repentance, taking away sin. It is impossible for them to repent and be renewed, apart from Christ and the Christian Community. As long as they remain hostile to the Gospel, it is impossible to renew them unto repentance. They are separated from Christ and his people, by choice and crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, as long as they remain obstinate.

If OSAS, why warn believing Christians against falling away if it can’t happen? How can non-believers, fall away from something they don’t have? Could non-believers be RESTORED to something they haven’t first possessed? The point is when a believer falls away from Christ, they will not find salvation in anyone other than Christ, it is impossible, as there is no other sacrifice or name under heaven by which men can be saved.

2Pt2:20 For if after they have ESCAPED the POLLUTIONS OF THE WORLD THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ, they ARE AGAIN ENTANGLED THEREIN, and overcome, THE LATTER END IS WORSE WITH THEM THAN THE BEGINNING. 21 For it had been better for them not to have KNOWN THE WAY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, than, after they have known it, TO TURN FROM THE HOLY COMMANDMENT delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Sources: RSV, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, Commentary and Notes by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. Douay-Rheims Bible, footnotes, Loreto Publications. NAB, The Catholic Answer Bible footnotes, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division. And a Protestant source, David Guzik’s Commentaries on the Bible, on line @ studylight.org/com/guz/view.cgi?book=heb&chapter=006

I can say i have faith in a rock and turn away and never visit a rock again just as easily as I can say i have faith in Jesus, then walk away from Jesus. Was that faith genuine? No An apostate is one who makes an outward claim of “faith” in something or someone, then turns around and walks away or in some cases begin their own faith. The faith is not real which is why John wrote the following for people just like you to get a handle on the concept:
**1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not {really} of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but {they went out,} so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. ** They went away from us and proved they were not of us (Christians)

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rightlydivide
You need to deal with the content of it. Which part in particular do you disagree with?

He won’t answer the question; he’ll just add some distraction because he does not being confronted with having to deal with real truth - so expect nothing.

The ‘real’ truth? Care to tell me which non-Catholic church out of thousands has the ‘real’ truth?

 

[Pat_De]

So, how is it the word of God sprouted and grew in the other two cases? Can you explain what it was that sprouted and grew? How is it that the Word of God can sprout and grow when one is not a Christian?

It is no different than when Paul said that some preach Christ out of love and some for money; he was glad that Christ was being preached. Was that preacher a Christian or taking advantage of something? Like Jesus said; if you can’t understand that parable, then how will you understand the rest? Answer you won’t. The parable is very simple. It always come back to a false faith or a genuine faith; 3 of 4 have a false faith and only the supernatural one prepared and pruned by God have the genuine faith, which is why because of the work and only because of the work of God the true and genuine faith will persevere and why Calvin is right.

You know the second soil or heart where the seed falls and spouts up fast and furious but because it has not depth of soil, no real heart of faith that God prepared; they get bored and move on to the next exciting thing and so on. The 3rd soil is the one that plays church on Sunday and helps out here and there (a form of godliness but their hearts are far from Him as shown by their lives), but the heart is not with the Lord for the UK basketball game will come before going to church (I actually witnessed this as the preacher cut the service ASAP after seeing the time and knowing the game was starting at noon); I was beside myself. What is sad is that the congregation was happy for what the preacher did and I was flabbergasted.

I think it is time to move on to a different topic; i think we have shown Scripture teaches that God is the one that provides the perseverance, since He explicitly said so and we you have show that the traditions of the Catholic church disagree; so what more is there to really say on this?

You asked why am I here; I don’t know why I am here. Do you know why you are here since you play in two different courts? Maybe I am here just to see what Catholics are up to these days and of all the web forums this appears to be the most active I could find, which is somewhat surprising there are not more like this one in all denominations. In some ways I have the urge to send a donation, but I don’t have much money and i don’t think a little contribution would do much to help.

 

[Pat_De]

The ‘real’ truth? Care to tell me which non-Catholic church out of thousands has the ‘real’ truth?

Ask your Eastern Orthodox friends the same question…LOL God gave us the only truth and that is in His Word. How one rightly divides that truth is the work of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit isn’t guiding most that claim Him; just as the Scripture teaches.

 

[Pat_De]

I know now.
You know why? Because I listened to the "Pillar and Foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15) - Christ’s only Church. The same Church he identified his very self with in Acts 9:4-5.

You, on the 0ther hand, chose to listen to flawed, sinful men and follow the legacy of constantly splintering, constantly changing “truths” . . .

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

 

[Pat_De]

The scriptures you mentioned(1Peter 1:19-20, Rev 13:8), do not talk bout “eternal sacrifice,” by Christ before the Father This would trump Hebrews 10: 10-14, which says that He made ONE sacrifice for all time!!! Hebrews 10:11 sounds more like what cathoics do at mass!

Scripture also said there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood; so a bloodless sacrifice is not even recognized by Scripture to begin with…ever thought of that?

 

[Pat_De]

As your post that I originally quoted states, you seem to believe the Jewish canon was set before Christ.

I then stated the two views that are most common, and why they are wrong, but am still interested in when you believe the canon was set and the support for your view.

Respectfully,
Maria

According to Jesus own words; He implicitly said as much.

John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

What Scriptures was He speaking of; none of the NT was in effect or written at the time.

 

[Pat_De]

That is correct for you. You are right about yourself. However what you have said is not correct for me or for the Orthodox or for the Catholics. We will never accept protestant teachings. For us many of your teachings are heresy. In fact many of your teachings we can trace back to the olden days back to the early Church when we had to struggle what you Protestants are struggling now with. We too had our heretical teachings and struggled to correct them. So please anything you guys say I have already rehashed it centuries ago. My Church has already been through them. We in fact look at you as babies of the faith and if you check the history of the Catholic and Orthodox Church you will soon find out that we had gone through the same teachings you guys are going through now yet we had the fortune to have Saints to help us through it and to correct the Church. God Bless!

There is a reason there is but one truth and it is true whether you or I believe it or not. You can say you don’t believe getting hit by a bus will hurt you, but as soon as one hits you, the truth surfaces. If you were true to history you would look at the true emergence of your church and you would also take notice of the early church fathers and who they said the vicar of Christ was, which was the Holy Spirit and some 1100 plus years later it went from being the holy Spirit to the Pope.

Ask why your church who has the correct interpretation does not compile a commentary on the entire bible so all can have the truth. Ask why there is no one place or book where one can study what is ecumenical from the Bulls and the councils and any other area and what is not so one can study and understand the faith better. The answers are quite simple; but no one dares ask the questions. It would be cool if they would do one or both and certainly eliminate a bunch of confusion within the church and help others outside the church; so there must be a good reason why this has never been done.

 

[Pat_De]

**Seems like this topic is worn out; the cords on the tires are showing. I am going to check back and answer any remaining posts, then get out of you hair.

I want to start a new thread on the Vicar of Christ; any suggestions as to the best place to start such a thread. I figure Apologetics, but what should be the sub-topical field? Suggestions please…thanks.**

 

[Rightlydivide]

As your post that I originally quoted states, you seem to believe the Jewish canon was set before Christ.

I then stated the two views that are most common, and why they are wrong, but am still interested in when you believe the canon was set and the support for your view.

Respectfully,
Maria

Sure. The Ante-Nicene and a few from a later date will reflect the support for the Jewish canon up until around the year 400 when, in my estimation, your church changed it. First of all, let me give a couple of these.

There is the quote from Melito of Sardis from around the year 170 AD

Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also ἣ καὶ Σοφία: i.e. the Book of Proverbs (see above, p. 200)], Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books

Next is that Origen states that the canonical books were handed down by the Hebrews. He then gives the list of the Jewish canon. He then states besides these are the Maccabees. This denoted that these were considered outside of sacred scripture but also given by the Hebrews. In other words, they were valued but his list supports the Jewish canon.

Next is the quote from Josephus saying the Jews did not have a variety of books.This is from the 1st century obviously.

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

 

[Rightlydivide]

Next is the Festal letter often cited as the first direct evidence of the NT canon (whether I agree or not is immaterial for this conversation. It is from the year 367 AD

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second45444544 i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah. are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and45454545 i.e. Baruch vi.—The Syriac has the conjunction, which is rejected by the Benedictine editors. the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

Now we turn to Cyril, a bishop in Jerusalem, writing around the year 350 AD

Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench 6 thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, 7 and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings 8 are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth 8b one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras 8c are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; 9 then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.

Next we have Gregory of Nazianzus prior to 400 AD

The divine oracles should always on the tongue and in the mind
be rehearsed. For God will indeed give a reward for this labor,
so that you may obtain light from anything hidden, or, what is far better,
that you may be spurred by God to greater purity,
and thirdly, be called away from the cares of the world by such study.
But let not extraneous books seduce your mind.
For many malignant writings have been disseminated.
Accept, o friend, this my approved number.
These are all twelve of the historical books,
of the most ancient Hebrew wisdom:
First there is Genesis, then Exodus, Leviticus too.
Then Numbers, and the Second Law.
Then Joshua and Judges. Ruth is eighth.
The ninth and tenth books [are] the acts of Kings,
and [the eleventh is] Chronicles. Last you have Ezra. ·
The poetic books are five: Job being first,
then [the Psalms of] David; and three of Solomon,
Ecclesiastes, Canticles and Proverbs.
And similarly five of prophetic inspiration.
There are the Twelve written in one book:
Hosea and Amos, and Micah the third;
then Joel, and Jonah, Obadiah,
Nahum also, and Habakkuk, and Zephaniah,
Haggai, then Zechariah, and Malachi.
All these are one. The second is of Isaiah.
Then the one called as an infant, Jeremiah,
Then Ezekiel, and the gift of Daniel.
I count therefore, twenty-two of the ancient books,
corresponding to the number of the Hebrew letters

 

[jericho777]

Rev. 13:8
“All the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, all whose names were not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life, which belongs to the Lamb who was slain.”

This verse truly speaks to OSAS because those whose names were not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life will worship the beast and be damned to hell. While those whose names are in Lamb’s Book of Life are predestined to heaven.

 

[1beleevr]

**I *might ***be - if I were ignorant. Too bad for you - I’m not.

**Unlike you and some others - I don’t *invent ***the things I am saying. I’m simply parroting the same teachings of the Church for 2000 years.

You (and others) have chosen to follow in the footsteps of your original rebellious, prideful Protestant Fathers by your constant splintering, bickering sects . . .

You can’t have 30,000 different versions of "truth" - there is only ONE (1 Tim. 3:15).
Sorry, pal.

Not only are you ignorant, but also transparent!

 

[1beleevr]

They have everything to do with Christ’s eternal sacrifice.
Again – you fail to understand even an inkling of the concept of the reality of ETERNITY of Heaven. In Heaven, there is no past or future – there is only the eternal now (2 Pet. 3:8, Rev 21:23). Jesus is present in Heaven – in ETERNITY – as a slain Lamb.

Your frustration with the Catholic position is that you just don’t see the reality of the Scriptures.
In short - you just don’t get it . . .

1 Pet. 1:19-20
***“…but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb. ***
He was known before the foundation of the world but revealed in the final time for you, who through him believe in God who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.”

Rev. 5:6
“Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the (seven) spirits of God sent out into the whole world.”

Rev. 13:8
“All the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, all whose names were not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life, which belongs to the Lamb who was slain.”

So, if the scriptures don’t specifically say that you are representing Christ’s eternal sacrifice before God, then it is your interpretation of Holy Scripture to fit your agenda; sort of like John 20:20-23 justifying going to confession! The verses all use the past tense of slay; slain means died, murdered, etc, so you don’t have to keep killing Him over and over again!

 

[Nicea325]

Sure. The Ante-Nicene and a few from a later date will reflect the support for the Jewish canon up until around the year 400 when, in my estimation, your church changed it. First of all, let me give a couple of these.

There is the quote from Melito of Sardis from around the year 170 AD

Next is that Origen states that the canonical books were handed down by the Hebrews. He then gives the list of the Jewish canon. He then states besides these are the Maccabees. This denoted that these were considered outside of sacred scripture but also given by the Hebrews. In other words, they were valued but his list supports the Jewish canon.

Next is the quote from Josephus saying the Jews did not have a variety of books.This is from the 1st century obviously.

Nothing new! Read and heard it all!

The Ante-Nicene and a few from a later date will reflect the support for the Jewish canon up until around the year 400…

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?

 

[Nicea325]

Ask your Eastern Orthodox friends the same question…LOL God gave us the only truth and that is in His Word. How one rightly divides that truth is the work of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit isn’t guiding most that claim Him; just as the Scripture teaches.

No need to ask my Eastern friends the same question because they are the REAL TRUTH…LOL

Yep! And God also gave us ONE church,not thousands of conflicting ones just as scripture teaches.

 

[RevJoeBonner]

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

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.

 

[DavidKays]

There is a reason there is but one truth and it is true whether you or I believe it or not. You can say you don’t believe getting hit by a bus will hurt you, but as soon as one hits you, the truth surfaces. If you were true to history you would look at the true emergence of your church and you would also take notice of the early church fathers and who they said the vicar of Christ was, which was the Holy Spirit and some 1100 plus years later it went from being the holy Spirit to the Pope.

Ask why your church who has the correct interpretation does not compile a commentary on the entire bible so all can have the truth. Ask why there is no one place or book where one can study what is ecumenical from the Bulls and the councils and any other area and what is not so one can study and understand the faith better. The answers are quite simple; but no one dares ask the questions. It would be cool if they would do one or both and certainly eliminate a bunch of confusion within the church and help others outside the church; so there must be a good reason why this has never been done.

Pat are you a Protestant for I do not know what former means? By the way if you check out my posts you will get a clearer messsage of what is wrong in the Church, what caused it and what measures are needed to heal it. I see from your post that you do not see the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. I quite agree. I realize that the Popes today are probably embarras from this and are trying to correct it. We do not see the Pope as the Vicar of Christ either I mean the Orthodox. We see him as the representative of the See of St.Peter. He is then Peter! You are Petros! You are Peter! He is not another Christ or representative of Christ but of Peter. Therefore he is a man like Peter and has weaknesses as any other man just like Peter. He needs to see himself like Peter. He needs the support of his collegues just as Peter depended on them. In fact the other 11 apostles helped formed Peter. We the Eastern Church are the successors of the other 11 apostles have helped Peter in the formation and government of the Church. But 1000 years ago that changed. Rome insisted on too much authority. This angered the East the successors of the other 11. Why will the 11 submit to 1? This caused what we call the Great Shiscm or what I call the great friction. The 11 or the successors of the other 11 apostles were shocked! The Church of Rome has decided to go against what she was called to do so from the beginning. She has made a wrong turn and hopefully through much dialogue and prayers we will see Rome make the right turn and see Rome and the East returning to that original relationship they had enjoyed from the beginning. By the way we do have a Bible with study notes but you must understand that the english language is new to the Orthodox and it is only now that we are getting Bibles in english with our Study notes in them. Most of our Bibles with commentaries are in other languages. But today we do have the Orthodox Study Bible completed I believe 7 years ago and you can pick up a copy at Amazon or Conciliar Press. Very well done yet you can get other commentaries soon when they translate them into english. I know how you feel because the Orthodox too experienced this long before you or the Protestants. Now the Popes have apologized and this is the beginning to the re-establishments of our Communions to its original design. God Bless!

 

[MariaG]

Sure. The Ante-Nicene and a few from a later date will reflect the support for the Jewish canon up until around the year 400 when, in my estimation, your church changed it. First of all, let me give a couple of these.

There is the quote from Melito of Sardis from around the year 170 AD

Next is that Origen states that the canonical books were handed down by the Hebrews. He then gives the list of the Jewish canon. He then states besides these are the Maccabees. This denoted that these were considered outside of sacred scripture but also given by the Hebrews. In other words, they were valued but his list supports the Jewish canon.

Next is the quote from Josephus saying the Jews did not have a variety of books.This is from the 1st century obviously.

Thank you so much for your detailed answer!

I can see why you may find your position compelling. I would try to give a detailed rebuttal, but sadly, most of my time on the forums is via my smart phone and sadly, I am not smarter than the phone. I find detailed responses with the proper research almost impossibleto do.

Also, from your detailed response, I would venture to say you may already aware of the rebuttal, but do not find it as compelling.

If I have the opportunity, and the thread has not progressed too far, and no one else does, I will try to give as detailed response as you gave me.

In any case, I had never heard your particular response before and appreciate you detailing it for me

God Bless
Maria

 

[Rightlydivide]

Thank you so much for your detailed answer!

I can see why you may find your position compelling. I would try to give a detailed rebuttal, but sadly, most of my time on the forums is via my smart phone and sadly, I am not smarter than the phone. I find detailed responses with the proper research almost impossibleto do.

Also, from your detailed response, I would venture to say you may already aware of the rebuttal, but do not find it as compelling.

If I have the opportunity, and the thread has not progressed too far, and no one else does, I will try to give as detailed response as you gave me.

In any case, I had never heard your particular response before and appreciate you detailing it for me

God Bless
Maria

There are other parts to the answer to your question that I did not delve into yet. One is what we call the intertestamental period. The other is the one you are more familiar with; the clues we find from the New Testament.
Essentially there exists information that shows the OT canon of the Ante-Nicene (and shortly afterwards) matches that of the Jews.
But you do understand, I know you do, that for a Catholic the point is moot. Your church set your OT canon. That is the bottom line.
But really it did not have much of an impact outside of your church. The Eastern Orthodox have a different Old Testament canon. The Oriental Orthodox have a larger OT canon. Protestants have a smaller one. The four groups have four different OT canons. So if you are not bound by Catholic authority, as the reformers were not, they examined the evidence. As a person new to Christianity, one of the things I did look at was the historical evidence. Like I said, I certainly do not expect any Catholic to find my arguments particularly compelling because if I were correct, that would be rejecting Catholic authority. But we do have reasons for believing what we do. I contend it matches the beliefs of the early church as well as other points that are important.
Thanks again
RD