“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[ckempston]

Everything is not in the bible. The bible says so.
You are using the bible as the ONLY authority and we’ve been down the road of what was the ‘authority’ before the bible.
Jesus didn’t command the apostles to go out, write a book, and put in every hotel room.

But every doctrine must be supported by the Bible, according to your own church’s methods of interpetation, is that not true? Isn’t it something like:

Must be attested to in the Bible.
Must be attested to by the Fathers
Cannot contradict other teachings.

This comes back down to whether or not Jesus founded an authoritative church.
We believe the bible is inerrant and inspired … from God.
So the bible is authoritative, we agree.
Nothing that the Catholic Church teaches is in opposition to the bible.

I’ve been pointing out for several days now that bowing to the Pope and kissing his ring is certainly in opposition to the Bible.

Hardly.
He calls for us to follow the narrow path.
He even calls for us to suffer in his name.

Let me ask what you make of this scripture.

Does this mean Christ’s suffering wasn’t enough?
Of course that isn’t what it means.
Jesus showed us the way.
WE are to suffer for Him and His Church to connect ourselves to Christ and His suffering.

Ok, no real disagreement here.

Keep with the great discussions and logic and I think you’ll find your way into the Catholic Church.
I know it may be hard to let go of some prejudice against the church.
Many do.
It’s logic, history, and doctrine that actually bring people into the Catholic Church.

I am finding it doubtful.

What Jesus condemned was the actions of the Pharisees, not their teachings.
He supported their teachings.
Told the people to do what they say, but not what they do.
So if members of the magesterium were acting in a way against their own teachings, Jesus would tell you to listen to their teachings, but do not follow their actions.

I’d actually think “tying up heavy loads,” could only be understood as doctrines.

What actions from those in the magesterium would you say are against the teachings of the Catholic Church or against the bible?

michel

I’ll just stick to one: bowing to anyone/anything on earth, but we’ve already got this topic in several other threads. Maybe we should start a new one so I don’t get in trouble.

 

[cazayoux]

I think it exists as a result of Christians obeying God’s commands together. That is very visible, and it is not “underground.”

Was it authoritative? hierarchical? Were there teachers in charge (bishops)?

I’d disagree with you here. The earliest writings, say 200 years after Christ, say little more than what is found in the Bible, say, for instance, regarding Mary.

Like the trinity?
Not clear in the bible at all.
A huge heresy arose because of this not being clear in the bible.
When defined as an official teaching, even though not clear in the bible, was not in opposition to the bible.
The Church authoritatively defined something due to misunderstanding of the teaching.
This is what the Church does.

However, go 300 years after Christ, and you find a HUGE difference in what people are writing. They’re no longer just asserting what is already in the gospels and epistles and what can be directly inferred from them, they’re saying all kinds of extra stuff …

As misunderstandings about teachings arise, the Church clarifies. None of it against the apostolic teachings.

…that was **never part **of the Apostolic Tradition.

… so how do we know what the Apostolic Tradition is?
You admit an authority outside of the bible.

What happened between 200 and 300 years after Christ?

Christians were being killed for entertainment.
You assert that the bishops of Church that Christ founded, and said would be with us always, and would not fail, failed… but the Church itself did not.
Where, today, is the authority that Jesus left on earth?

I mean no offense, but there’s no nice way to say it: the church was Romanized and Paganized.

Not true.
What Catholic teaching is actually pagan and not focused on God?
If there is something we do that resembles *something *pagan, it doesn’t mean that we treat it the same way a pagan did.
Take the wedding ring for example.
This has pagan origins.
Does it mean that my wife and I are pagans.
Of course not.
We entered into covenant with each other as God as our witness.
We’ve taken something that used to be pagan and use it today for Jesus. We have effectively eliminated the pagan meaning behind that item.

…because Christianity was preserved for later generations, albeit, in a **watered down **and corrupted form, in my personal opinion.

So have we added too much to the early teachings or have we removed too much?
Have we removed *anything *at all?

michel

 

[ckempston]

Was it authoritative? hierarchical? Were there teachers in charge (bishops)?

Of course. And when it’s supposed “authority” contradicts that of God himself, “we obey God rather than man.”

Like the trinity?
Not clear in the bible at all.
A huge heresy arose because of this not being clear in the bible.
When defined as an official teaching, even though not clear in the bible, was not in opposition to the bible.
The Church authoritatively defined something due to misunderstanding of the teaching.
This is what the Church does.

The heresy was not about the Trinity but the nature of Jesus and the nature of the Spirit. THESE things ARE clear in the Bible.

As misunderstandings about teachings arise, the Church clarifies. None of it against the apostolic teachings.

So you keep claiming, and I keep pointing out:

Jesus, Peter, Angels: don’t bow before men/images/created things
CC: bow before men/images/created things

… so how do we know what the Apostolic Tradition is?
You admit an authority outside of the bible.

Sure. His name is Jesus.

Unlike many Protestants, I have not made the Bible a fourth person of the Godhead.

Christians were being killed for entertainment.
You assert that the bishops of Church that Christ founded, and said would be with us always, and would not fail, failed… but the Church itself did not.
Where, today, is the authority that Jesus left on earth?

Jesus has the authority still. Matt 28:18. I suppose I can’t really answer the question definitively. It would seem to me that the Word should certainly be viewed as authoritative, and those “over us in the Lord” have authority.

Not true.
What Catholic teaching is actually pagan and not focused on God?
If there is something we do that resembles *something *pagan, it doesn’t mean that we treat it the same way a pagan did.
Take the wedding ring for example.
This has pagan origins.
Does it mean that my wife and I are pagans.
Of course not.
We entered into covenant with each other as God as our witness.
We’ve taken something that used to be pagan and use it today for Jesus. We have effectively eliminated the pagan meaning behind that item.

I’m talking about idol worship, mostly. Call it iconography if you like, but the reason it rose in prominence is because people were so used to worshiping images. They just traded Mary for Ishtar. Just as bad in my view.

So have we added too much to the early teachings or have we removed too much?
Have we removed *anything *at all?
michel

You seem to have removed the teaching not to bow before men/angels/images.

 

[cazayoux]

The heresy was not about the Trinity but the nature of Jesus and the nature of the Spirit. THESE things ARE clear in the Bible.

Not clear, which is why there was such a huge heresy.
We see it as clear because we read into it what we understanding to be correct.
However, many looked at the same scriptural writings and interpreted something different.

So you keep claiming, and I keep pointing out:

Jesus, Peter, Angels: don’t bow before men/images/created things
CC: bow before men/images/created things

You can’t think that we worship man, images, created things, Mary.
We do not.
God alone do we worship.
If I see a man whose lost his wife kiss a photo of her, I do not think he is worshiping the picture, but remember the love for his wife.

Sure. His name is Jesus.

I agree. So let’s listen to Him.

Matt 28:18
[18] And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

John 20:21
[21] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

The church isn’t of man.
The church is of Christ.
His authority, not man’s.

Jesus has the authority still. Matt 28:18. I suppose I can’t really answer the question definitively. It would seem to me that the Word should certainly be viewed as authoritative, and those “over us in the Lord” have authority.

Exactly why I added John 20:21 above.

I’m talking about idol worship, mostly. Call it iconography if you like, but the reason it rose in prominence is because people were so used to worshiping images. They just traded Mary for Ishtar. Just as bad in my view.

You seem to have removed the teaching not to bow before men/angels/images.

As stated above.
We do not worship anything created, only the creator.
I can see, though, how this ‘looks’ contradictory.
You see someone kissing the feet of a crucifix.
But that person doesn’t actually think that the material their lips touch have any ‘powers’ or ‘consciousness’.
Their mind is on Jesus.
Their worship is toward Jesus.
We are commanded not to WORSHIP anyone other than God.
Catholics worship is completely in the direction of God.

Please do not think that we worship stuff or other people.
It’s simply not true.

michel

 

[ckempston]

Not clear, which is why there was such a huge heresy.
We see it as clear because we read into it what we understanding to be correct.
However, many looked at the same scriptural writings and interpreted something different.

Let’s get specific on this. Maybe on another thread. Which heresy are you talking about?

You can’t think that we worship man, images, created things, Mary.
We do not.
God alone do we worship.
If I see a man whose lost his wife kiss a photo of her, I do not think he is worshiping the picture, but remember the love for his wife.

I’m not saying it’s the intention of most Catholics to worship. Bowing before a statue or person is wrong. Period. Don’t do it, whatever your intention is.

I agree. So let’s listen to Him.

The church isn’t of man.
The church is of Christ.
His authority, not man’s.

OK.

Exactly why I added John 20:21 above.

So, what Jesus could do, Peter, the other Apostles, and all his successors could do, eh? I find it a bit convenient that the “successors” of Peter can only “do” the unverifiable things that Peter and the other Apostles could do. If the Pope is sent in the same way Jesus sent the Apostles, he should be able to do all that they could to verify his authority to speak on God’s behalf. He can’t, so he doesn’t.

As stated above.
We do not worship anything created, only the creator.
I can see, though, how this ‘looks’ contradictory.
You see someone kissing the feet of a crucifix.
But that person doesn’t actually think that the material their lips touch have any ‘powers’ or ‘consciousness’.
Their mind is on Jesus.
Their worship is toward Jesus.
We are commanded not to WORSHIP anyone other than God.
Catholics worship is completely in the direction of God.

I don’t think it matters. John, the Apostle, “bowed” before an angel. I would think it pretty obvious that John knew not to worship any but God. The angel told John not to even bow (proskuneo) before him, even if he didn’t intend worship.

Please do not think that we worship stuff or other people.
It’s simply not true.

michel

It’s not about intentions. If you bow before anything, you are breaking a Biblical command. Examples, exceptions, and excuses do not make it ok.

 

[estesbob]

I’ve been pointing out for several days now that bowing to the Pope and kissing his ring is certainly in opposition to the Bible.

Can you show me in the Cathecism where Catholics are required to bow to the Pope and kiss his ring? Perhaps in the protestant cathecism-right between “we get to make it up as we go along” and the sinners prayer.

 

[ckempston]

Can you show me in the Cathecism where Catholics are required to bow to the Pope and kiss his ring? Perhaps in the protestant cathecism-right between “we get to make it up as we go along” and the sinners prayer.

How ridiculous. I don’t make anything up as I go along, and I certainly don’t believe in the sinner’s prayer.

Is the Catechism the only place that defines what a Catholic must and must not do? What if a Catholic goes before the Pope and refuses to bow, kiss the ring, etc.? I’m asking in all seriousness.

 

[estesbob]

How ridiculous. I don’t make anything up as I go along, and I certainly don’t believe in the sinner’s prayer.

Sorry I thought you believed in Sola Scriptura.

Is the Catechism the only place that defines what a Catholic must and must not do? What if a Catholic goes before the Pope and refuses to bow, kiss the ring, etc.? I’m asking in all seriousness.

Nothing.

 

[Strevel]

The difference is that what the Church teaches is not based on any one person or one parish “understanding”. The Teaching is based on what was handed down by the Apostles. Those who refuse to embrace this are not Catholic.

The Catholic Church does not “condemn” anyone. Those outside the Faith of the Church are, by definition anathema. There is no salvation outside of Christ, and Christ is One with His Body, the church.

It is also important to not make enemies along the way. We all know what we believe, but we must be Christlike, ur, uh, polite that is.

Ora pro nobis (Pray for us)

Don in Vegas

 

[ckempston]

Sorry I thought you believed in Sola Scriptura.

And everyone who believes in sola scriptura believes in the sinners prayer? Catholics are always pointing out how Protestants misunderstand them and misrepresent them. Let’s watch those planks.

Nothing.

I find it doubtful, but OK.

 

[cazayoux]

Let’s get specific on this. Maybe on another thread. Which heresy are you talking about?

Arianism.

Some believe that He was the Son of God but not really equal with God the Father. This is the heresy of the **Arianists **(the heresy that the Nicene Council addressed). **Arianists **believe that God the Father created God the Son. That is to say that God the Father existed before God the Son and made God the Son as he made the earth and everything else. They assign the role of creator solely to God the Father while others believe in.

From wikipedia…

The controversy over Arianism began to rise in the late third century and extended over the greater part of the fourth century and involved most church members, simple believers, priests and monks as well as bishops, emperors and members of Rome’s imperial family. Yet, such a deep controversy within the Church could not have materialized in the third and fourth centuries without some significant historical influences providing the basis for the Arian doctrines. Most orthodox or mainstream Christian historians define and minimize the Arian conflict as the exclusive construct of Arius and a handful of rogue bishops engaging in heresy. Of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicea, only three bishops did not sign the Nicene Creed.

 

[ckempston]

Arianism.

Some believe that He was the Son of God but not really equal with God the Father. This is the heresy of the **Arianists **(the heresy that the Nicene Council addressed). **Arianists **believe that God the Father created God the Son. That is to say that God the Father existed before God the Son and made God the Son as he made the earth and everything else. They assign the role of creator solely to God the Father while others believe in.

John 1, John 10. Problem solved. We would have had a lot fewer problems in Christian history if men had just appealed to God’s word rather than votes.

 

[cfrancis]

John 1, John 10. Problem solved. We would have had a lot fewer problems in Christian history if men had just appealed to God’s word rather than votes.

It is poor scholarship indeed when those in the present impose upon those in the past the weight of knowledge gained in the interceding years.
Your statement is built upon nearly 1700 years of theological and linguistic development.
I know, I know…I can hear your reply: “No it’s not, it’s built upon Scripture.”
Which proves my point…

 

[ckempston]

It is poor scholarship indeed when those in the present impose upon those in the past the weight of knowledge gained in the interceding years.
Your statement is built upon nearly 1700 years of theological and linguistic development.
I know, I know…I can hear your reply: “No it’s not, it’s built upon Scripture.”
Which proves my point…

So, John 1 and John 10 don’t support the divinity, pre-existence, and equality of Christ with God? Is that what you’re saying? Nice way to skirt the issue and throw up a red herring.

 

[cfrancis]

So, John 1 and John 10 don’t support the divinity, pre-existence, and equality of Christ with God? Is that what you’re saying? Nice way to skirt the issue and throw up a red herring.

Not what I’m saying at all - and just as I misread your reply in another thread, you appear to have misread mine.
If all one needed was Scripture, then none of the heresies would have been an issue. One could simply provide the Scripture verses that supported one’s argument, and the issue would be settled.
Also, no council would have been needed, as the attendees would ahve simply replied with Scripture that supports their argument.

 

[cazayoux]

Bowing before a statue or person is wrong. Period. Don’t do it, whatever your intention is.

All glory is to God.
This does not mean we are banned from honoring people.
In fact, the 10 commandments even tell us to HONOR our mother and father.
Not that we bow to them, but this at least shows attention that is not specifically to God is still of God and in line with His teaching.

Are there any examples of bowing in scripture that wasn’t chastised?

Luke 24:1-5
[1] But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared.
[2] And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb,
[3] but when they went in they did not find the body.
[4] While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel;
[4] While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel;
[5] and as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead?

They were bowing in front of these two men in dazzling apparel.
They didn’t think these men were God, but correctly assessed they were of(from) God and respected them.
They were not fussed at for this.
The ‘men’ (angels) knew their intent was respect/honor, not worship.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

John 1, John 10. Problem solved. We would have had a lot fewer problems in Christian history if men had just appealed to God’s word rather than votes.

You’ll find the Arianists were very adept at scripture… and still came to the wrong conclusion.

To say “John 1, John 10. Problem solved.” means that this discussion could have been solved quickly and easily.
I do not believe this is the case.

Why do *you *think this heresy lasted so long and became such an issue that a council had to be called to settle it?
Do you contend that the Arianists just didn’t know scripture well?

michel

 

[ckempston]

You’ll find the Arianists were very adept at scripture… and still came to the wrong conclusion.

To say “John 1, John 10. Problem solved.” means that this discussion could have been solved quickly and easily.
I do not believe this is the case.

Why do *you *think this heresy lasted so long and became such an issue that a council had to be called to settle it?
Do you contend that the Arianists just didn’t know scripture well?

michel

Actually, I find it to be very good evidence that there was no “Sacred Tradition” on the nature of Christ. If there was, they would have known about it, and the other Bishops would have appealed to it. Instead, they had a vote.

 

[cfrancis]

Actually, I find it to be very good evidence that there was no “Sacred Tradition” on the nature of Christ. If there was, they would have known about it, and the other Bishops would have appealed to it. Instead, they had a vote.

And upon what did they base their vote?

 

[cazayoux]

Actually, I find it to be very good evidence that there was no “Sacred Tradition” on the nature of Christ. If there was, they would have known about it, and the other Bishops would have appealed to it. Instead, they had a vote.

:clapping:
EXACTLY !!!

You’ve made my point for me.
The Trinity was not yet a part of the TRADITION clearly taught.
The Magesterium, with the authority of the apostles, settled the matter and defined the doctrine of the divinity.
NOW it is a part of TRADITION.

Now … was the Trinity true before it was defined at this council?
Yes, it has always been the truth, but the understanding of it was clarified by the Church.

In other words, the Church didn’t *make *new rules or doctrines, but clarified the teaching.

michel