“Once Saved Always Saved” #3

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rightlydivide said:
You have to remember how doctrinally messed up the early church was. In Rome, Galatia, and especially the churches in Revelation we learn about all the errors when people abandoned the true teachings of Christ. Of course it got much worse over time. Thats why it is so important to trust the inspired Bible to find out what he taught. This is much preferable to speculative myths with hundreds of years of development (if that is the proper word).
Click to expand...
The Church was "doctrinally messed up"? I would say that this dynamic occured in the Protestant splintering of the 16th century - and continues today as is evidenced by your constant, almost daily splintering.**

Granted, the Church was in its infancy and was weeding out heretics (Arias, Nestorius, Gnosticism, etc.) but the doctrines were solid.
 
elvisman said:
WRONG.
I have already proven that Jesus and the Apostels studied from and quoted the Deuterocanonicals. I suppplied at least 2 NT references to them that nobody in 3 threads has been able to refute. There are at least 100 references in all but some have* multiple* sources that Protestants reject.

Like I’ve said on multiple occasions - the onus is on YOU to prove the Catholic Church wrong because objections to the canon came during the Protestant Revolt some* 1200 *years later.
Click to expand...
No. The author of Hebrews alluded to one of these books but not as scripture. There may be a few other references but Catholic scholars know that no direct quotes exist. I am sure you are aware that several quotes of Jesus line up with the LXX, MT, and then not to either one. I am sure you do Elvisman.
No you are entitled to have your canon as only accepted by your church. I do not begrudge you, or the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox having different canons…unable to decide. If you had followed the teachings of the original church, which clearly was the Jewish canon, it would simplify things.
You also know that someone thinking something was right for a long time means nothing as well. The story of scripture is a very small group of people being right and everyone else being wrong. Broad is the path that leads to destruction and narrow is the path that leads to everlasting life. I will stick to the narrow path.
 
elvisman said:
The Church was "doctrinally messed up"? I would say that this dynamic occured in the Protestant splintering of the 16th century - and continues today as is evidenced by your constant, almost* daily* splintering.

Granted, the Church was in its infancy and was weeding out heretics (Arias, Nestorius, Gnosticism, etc.) but the doctrines were solid.
Click to expand...
Really…someone forgot to tell the Apostle John that…he says several of the churches had incorrect doctrine. I think I will go with his view not yours.
 
So…let me see if I get your logic straight…everyone agreed on the canon before the Protestant revolt.
Sounds simple.
So that means that the groups that Catholics recognize as having valid apostolic succession all agree on the canon because they precede the revolt.
Wow, I did not know that the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox churches all had the same OT canon…
WAIT…they do not.
Elvisman, that is simple history. Your contention that everyone had the same canon from 400 to 1600 AD is not true. Take it back.
We follow the canon of the Christian church from 33 AD to around 400 AD when your church changed it. Look at all of the patristic evidence prior to 400 AD
 
Rightlydivide said:
No. You did not. The OT canon of Christ was the OT canon we currently use. The early church until around the year 400 AD used the same canon as we do-for the most part. There were a few exceptions to be sure. However, the very earliest lists match our canon.
Click to expand...
JL: Can you give you source for that list, who made it and what date it was made?
 
Rightlydivide said:
So…let me see if I get your logic straight…everyone agreed on the canon before the Protestant revolt.
Sounds simple.
So that means that the groups that Catholics recognize as having valid apostolic succession all agree on the canon because they precede the revolt.
Wow, I did not know that the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox churches all had the same OT canon…
WAIT…they do not.
Elvisman, that is simple history. Your contention that everyone had the same canon from 400 to 1600 AD is not true. Take it back.
We follow the canon of the Christian church from 33 AD to around 400 AD when your church changed it. Look at all of the patristic evidence prior to 400 AD
Click to expand...
Again - you read but you do not understand. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox have Apostolic succession does not mean that their canon and our canon has to be the same. The EOC split from the Catholic Church in the 11th century. This would not nullify their Apostolic Succession, which is an entirely separate issue. If they decided that they should stand on their heads during their services - that STILL wouldn’t nullify their Succession.

**Your so-called “Patristic Evidence” is no evidence at all. You simply do not understand the Early Church. Some of the Fathers disagreed with each other regarding the canon of Scripture but MANY of them included several of the Deuteros. You simply cannot escape that fact. **

I can have an opposite opinion from another Catholic regarding a matter of faith and morals or Biblical canon but it is the Church that has authority over those decisions. The Fathers would be the FIRST ones to tell you that.
 
elvisman said:
Again - you read but you do not understand. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox have Apostolic succession does not mean that their canon and our canon has to be the same. The EOC split from the Catholic Church in the 11th century. This would not nullify their Apostolic Succession, which is an entirely separate issue. If they decided that they should stand on their heads during their services - that STILL wouldn’t nullify their Succession.

Your so-called “Patristic Evidence” is no evidence at all. You simply do not understand the Early Church. Some of the Fathers disagreed with each other regarding the canon of Scripture but MANY of them included several of the Deuteros. You simply cannot escape that fact.

I can have an opposite opinion from another Catholic regarding a matter of faith and morals or Biblical canon but it is the Church that has authority over those decisions. The Fathers would be the FIRST ones to tell you that.
Click to expand...
Your church has authority for Catholics when it comes to YOUR canon. Not us. Not the Eastern Orthodox. Not the Oriental Orthodox. Simply put, no one cares Elvisman. The early church supported the canon we use. I will go with that one.
 
Rightlydivide said:
No. The author of Hebrews alluded to one of these books but not as scripture. There may be a few other references but Catholic scholars know that no direct quotes exist. I am sure you are aware that several quotes of Jesus line up with the LXX, MT, and then not to either one. I am sure you do Elvisman.
No you are entitled to have your canon as only accepted by your church. I do not begrudge you, or the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox having different canons…unable to decide. If you had followed the teachings of the original church, which clearly was the Jewish canon, it would simplify things.
You also know that someone thinking something was right for a long time means nothing as well. The story of scripture is a very small group of people being right and everyone else being wrong. Broad is the path that leads to destruction and narrow is the path that leads to everlasting life. I will stick to the narrow path.
Click to expand...
This is a classic example of denial.

Most scholars agree that the passage in Hebrews 11 is a direct reference to those who were tortured and slain in Maccabbees. Maccabbees 1 & 2 were both in the Septuagint which Jewish rabbis later rejected because of its Hellenistic influence on the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews).
Get your history straight.

As I’ve stated before - t****he Church doesn’t hold to this post-Christ, post-temple canon because the mantle of authority under the New Covenant had been passed from Judaism to Christianity. The old wine and wineskin (Judaism) was now replaced by new wine (the Gospel) and new wineskins (the Church). Over and over, Christ told the Jews that he was taking away their authority and giving it to the Church.

This is why Paul admonishes the Colossians:
Col. 2:16-17
***"Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath. ***
These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ."

As for which path you’re on - you’ve chosen the broad path of Rebellion.
**I’ll stick with the narrow path that leads to righteousnous and salvation . . .
 
Rightlydivide said:
Your church has authority for Catholics when it comes to YOUR canon. Not us. Not the Eastern Orthodox. Not the Oriental Orthodox. Simply put, no one cares Elvisman. The early church supported the canon we use. I will go with that one.
Click to expand...
You can spew that out ALL day long but unless you have proof that the Early Church - NOT individuals - rejected the canon we have now, you’re just blowing hot air.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Really…someone forgot to tell the Apostle John that…he says several of the churches had incorrect doctrine. I think I will go with his view not yours.
Click to expand...
The Letters in Revelation 1 were written to some churches - parishes, if you will - that had gone astray. This does NOT mean that the entire Church was “doctrinally messed up”.

You really have a flair for the artificially dramatic . . . :rolleyes:
 
elvisman said:
**This is a classic **example of denial.

Most scholars agree that the passage in Hebrews 11 is a direct reference to those who were tortured and slain in Maccabbees. Maccabbees 1 & 2 were both in the Septuagint which Jewish rabbis later rejected because of its Hellenistic influence on the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews).
Get your history straight.

As I’ve stated before - t****he Church doesn’t hold to this post-Christ, post-temple canon because the mantle of authority under the New Covenant had been passed from Judaism to Christianity. The old wine and wineskin (Judaism) was now replaced by new wine (the Gospel) and new wineskins (the Church). Over and over, Christ told the Jews that he was taking away their authority and giving it to the Church.

This is why Paul admonishes the Colossians:
Col. 2:16-17
***“Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath. ***
These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.”

As for which path you’re on - you’ve chosen the broad path of Rebellion.
I’ll stick with the narrow path that leads to righteousnous and *salvation *. . .
Click to expand...
Oh no you do not. There is no proof when you guys added those to the LXX. Go look that one up. Nice try asserting something that has never been proven.
Your canon was invented around the year 400 AD. The church did support the Jewish canon early on. Thats just a fact. Your church supports your **post Ante-Nicene **canon, that is true. Oh those facts Elvisman. You assert what has never been proven. I think you know that.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Man, I have to go back and find that…well you did ask nicely. Let me look and then edit.

509 and 510​

Click to expand...
Like I said before - some of the Early Fathers having differences of opinion doe NOT affect the Canon of Scripture as declared by the Church.
You’re simply ignorant about how the Church has dealt with this sort of thing since Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Oh no you do not. There is no proof when you guys added those to the LXX. Go look that one up. Nice try asserting something that has never been proven.
Your canon was invented around the year 400 AD. The church did support the Jewish canon early on. Thats just a fact. Your church supports your **post Ante-Nicene **canon, that is true. Oh those facts Elvisman. You assert what has never been proven. I think you know that.
Click to expand...
PROVE it.
PROVE that we invented the canon around 400 A.D.
**While you’re at it - PROVE that the Early Church went by the Jewish OT canon of today. **
Don’t give me any more quotes from individuals.
Give me Church Documents or official declarations.
 
elvisman said:
The Letters in Revelation 1 were written to some churches - parishes, if you will - that had gone astray. This does NOT mean that the entire Church was “doctrinally messed up”.

You really have a flair for the artificially dramatic . . . :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Really? What church “parish” are you saying was doing well? Corinth? Galatia? Uh…who exactly?
But to be accurate I said “several” and you changed that to “entire”. Nice try. I bet that works on most people. I however know the difference between the two words due to my public school education.
 
elvisman said:
PROVE it.
PROVE that we invented the canon around 400 A.D.
While you’re at it - PROVE that the Early Church went by the Jewish OT canon of today.
Don’t give me any more quotes from individuals.
Give me Church Documents or official declarations.
Click to expand...
I have proved it. Those are church documents. What, oh know they are not church documents when they do not suppport your view. The Festal letter was not an official declaration?! Tell THAT to the good Bishop who issued it!
You have absolutely squat in the way of support for your view. You trot out hundreds of lines of so called quotes and ultimately, you acknowledge, hey 2 or 3 of these are not complete garbage. Which is true Elvisman. Two or three possible references, not identified as scripture like the true OT quotes, are in the NT. Big deal. So are other NONCANONICAL writings.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Really? What church “parish” are you saying was doing well? Corinth? Galatia? Uh…who exactly?
But to be accurate I said “several” and you changed that to “entire”. Nice try. I bet that works on most people. I however know the difference between the two words due to my public school education.
Click to expand...
Your quote:
"You have to remember how doctrinally messed up the early church was."
That, my confused friend is what is known as a "sweeping generalization".
As for which Church was doing well - read Revelation. Whereas the other parishes were being admonished, the church at Philadelphia was being praised for their faithfulness.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I have proved it. Those are church documents. What, oh know they are not church documents when they do not suppport your view. The Festal letter was not an official declaration?! Tell THAT to the good Bishop who issued it!
You have absolutely squat in the way of support for your view. You trot out hundreds of lines of so called quotes and ultimately, you acknowledge, hey 2 or 3 of these are not complete garbage. Which is true Elvisman. Two or three possible references, not identified as scripture like the true OT quotes, are in the NT. Big deal. So are other NONCANONICAL writings.
Click to expand...
**NONE of what you supplied are official Church Declarations. A single Bishop cannot declare the canon of Scripture. That’s NOT the way Jesus set it up. **
THAT is why the Apostles - at the Council of Jerusalem stated, "It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities…"
Do your homework my spiritually-prideful friend.
 
elvisman said:
Your quote:
"You have to remember how doctrinally messed up the early church was."
That, my confused friend is what is known as a "sweeping generalization".
As for which Church was doing well - read Revelation. Whereas the other parishes were being admonished, the church at Philadelphia was being praised for their faithfulness.
Click to expand...
Yes Philadelphia was doing well. But lets not drop the biggies. Corinth. Rome. Man Paul just complimented those churches and never admonished them for problems…oh wait…HE DID.
Listen you guys love Matthew but you forget to read the rest of the book to find out how bad things were getting. Same old story. Like Noah’s Ark, only a handful in the end. Thats what happened several hundreds of years later too. Same old story but God never allows His Truth to be completely supressed. That is also the same OLD but good story.
Is this a good time to bring out the early church father from around 125 AD who says the same thing I am saying?
 
elvisman said:
NONE of what you supplied are official Church Declarations. A single Bishop cannot declare the canon of Scripture. That’s NOT the way Jesus set it up.
THAT is why the Apostles - at the Council of Jerusalem stated, "It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities…"
Do your homework my spiritually-prideful friend.
Click to expand...
Oh, so a bishop is not official. Or well, official enough. Listen Elvisman, you guys can stick to your canon. No one else in Christianity happens to agree with you including the other “apostolic” churches but hey thats okay.
You know, you could reply a lot faster if you would not spend as much time working on presentation…just saying…I am okay with just black. I will not be insulted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top