“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[ckempston]

Interesting question … who defined the canon of the old testament?
The Catholic Church did!

Jews didn’t have a canon for scripture.
They defined one in the 90’s, after Christ established his church and after the destruction of the temple.
As Christians we do not believe the Jews had any authority to define a table of contents for the old testament.

michel

You are seriously misunderstanding the Jewish mindset toward scriptures in Jesus’ day.

In any event, if the Jews had no authority to establish their own canon, why did the church appeal to their authority in establishing said canon? Kind of odd, don’t you think?

And, not to mention, Paul AND Jesus Christ himself declared that the Jews indeed DID have this authority:

Matthew 23:3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Romans 3:2 Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

 

[cazayoux]

Never, in the whole New Testament, does “church” mean Magesterium. Ekklesia means gathering of the body or those called out. It never denotes the leaders of the church.

‘Church’ means ‘community’, not a ‘building’.
To think that Christ’s church didn’t have leaders is to ignore scripture.

We can see Paul sending Timothy to appoint teachers, those that might appoint others to teach.

In Acts 1, we see Judas’ spot filled. This spot was called a ‘bishopric’.

Christ’s church is a teaching church and we see people being appointed to teach.

Where does scripture say that we teach ourselves and ignore those teachers?

Obviously you don’t like the word “Magesterium”, but this only means a teaching body.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Simply by the fact that Paul wrote how to be saved means he expected his audience to understand what he was writing.

Matt 18:17 has nothing to do with the context of Paul’s writings on salvation.

Why is Paul writing to Christian churches about how to be saved?
If they are Christian, aren’t they already saved (once and always)?

michel

 

[Filius99993]

The author of a book defines his canon, not the audience. Only God can decide what is canonical simply by the fact that He has authored it. The Jews had the canonical writings and KNEW they had the Word of God without an infallible body proclaiming it to be so. And most importantly, Jesus expected them to abide by that canon.

Oh no, they did not. Surely, you know about the Septuagint? The Jews had too many writing than what the knew what to do with, so they had to gather around seventy scholarly folks to determine which they should use and which they should not. There are a whole lot of Jewish holy books outside of the Septuagint, but they were left out.

So it’s not as if the Jews knew which books to use right off of the bat…

 

[cazayoux]

You are seriously misunderstanding the Jewish mindset toward scriptures in Jesus’ day.

The Jews in Jesus day did NOT have a defined canon because each group of Jews saw it differently. (Pharisees, Sadducces, Essenes, and the more general group of Jews)
Jesus spoke to each using what each group’s different idea of scripture was.

In any event, if the Jews had no authority to establish their own canon, why did the church appeal to their authority in establishing said canon? Kind of odd, don’t you think?

When did the Christian Church ask the Jews to define what books were ‘inspired’? Jesus (God) gave authority to His church. His church defined the canon of the bible, not the Jews. In fact we see a difference between the OT canon defined by Jesus’ Church and the canon used by the Jews today. All Christians followed this canon until ML.

And, not to mention, Paul AND Jesus Christ himself declared that the Jews indeed DID have this authority:

Matthew 23:3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

The Catholic says ‘AMEN’ to this scripture, but I disagree that this means that today a Christian listens to the Pharisees for God’s truth.
Once Jesus founded his church at Pentecost and gave it authority, His church was the ONLY authority.

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

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

Do the Jews have authority over Christians?

Romans 3:2 Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

… and what did they do with it?
Those that had eyes, saw … and became Christian!
Those that didn’t … you say they still have authority over those in Christ’s Church?
I don’t see it.

michel

 

[ckempston]

‘Church’ means ‘community’, not a ‘building’.
To think that Christ’s church didn’t have leaders is to ignore scripture.

We can see Paul sending Timothy to appoint teachers, those that might appoint others to teach.

In Acts 1, we see Judas’ spot filled. This spot was called a ‘bishopric’.

Christ’s church is a teaching church and we see people being appointed to teach.

Where does scripture say that we teach ourselves and ignore those teachers?

Obviously you don’t like the word “Magesterium”, but this only means a teaching body.

michel

Straw men. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. In one statement, you just repeat what I said. In another, you bring up a whole different issue. Jesus said being him before the church. He did not say bring him before the leaders. That’s all I said. Are you contesting this? Why the distractions?

 

[cazayoux]

Straw men. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. In one statement, you just repeat what I said. In another, you bring up a whole different issue.

No distraction intended.
Trying to clarify.
I may have mistakenly read into your post that you think Catholics define ‘church’ as something other than ‘community’.
We do believe this community has authority as well as leaders.

Jesus said being him before the church. He did not say bring him before the leaders. That’s all I said. Are you contesting this? Why the distractions?

If we ‘bring it to the church’, who would you bring it to?
Your pastor?
Your whole community?
Mine?
My whole community?
Another?
Who represents the church that we would bring him to?

If your church and my church differ on what answer might be given (on perhaps abortion or euthanasia), which is true?
How do we know?

michel

 

[ckempston]

The Jews in Jesus day did NOT have a defined canon because each group of Jews saw it differently. (Pharisees, Sadducces, Essenes, and the more general group of Jews)
Jesus spoke to each using what each group’s different idea of scripture was.

Actually, they very likely had the same canon, with perhaps some slight differences in emphasis - the Sadducees took a very literal view of the Penteteuch, while the Pharisees were the ones to develop all the “extra-biblical” (for lack of a better term) writings (e.g. Talmud).

When did the Christian Church ask the Jews to define what books were ‘inspired’? Jesus (God) gave authority to His church. His church defined the canon of the bible, not the Jews. In fact we see a difference between the OT canon defined by Jesus’ Church and the canon used by the Jews today. All Christians followed this canon until ML.

Well, I was talking about the Old Testament. The early church certainly relied on Jewish tradition, along with other things such as what Old Testament books were quoted by New Testament authors to determine what belonged. The Latin Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint, so I can’t see how you can possibly deny that the Jews were relied upon for the Old Testament canon.

The Catholic says ‘AMEN’ to this scripture, but I disagree that this means that today a Christian listens to the Pharisees for God’s truth.
Once Jesus founded his church at Pentecost and gave it authority, His church was the ONLY authority.

I didn’t say that Christians listen to Pharisees. You are severely distorting my point. My point was that the Jews, at the time of Jesus, had the authority to determine what the Jewish scriptures were (i.e. the Old Testament), and they did.

You can claim that it wasn’t set until Jamnia, but this is just as much a falsehood as claiming that the Christian Canon wasn’t set until the Council of Trent. That would just be ridiculous.

Do the Jews have authority over Christians?

No.

… and what did they do with it?
Those that had eyes, saw … and became Christian!
Those that didn’t … you say they still have authority over those in Christ’s Church?
I don’t see it.
michel

No. You are totally missing the point here.

 

[ckempston]

No distraction intended.
Trying to clarify.
I may have mistakenly read into your post that you think Catholics define ‘church’ as something other than ‘community’.
We do believe this community has authority as well as leaders.

Ok, forgive me if that came across harshly. I certainly agree that it refers to a community, but was emphasizing that the word “ekklesia” means “called out.” This would be any assembly of believers. I also agree that the community has authority, as well as leaders.

If we ‘bring it to the church’, who would you bring it to?
Your pastor?
Your whole community?
Mine?
My whole community?
Another?
Who represents the church that we would bring him to?

An assembly of Christians.

If your church and my church differ on what answer might be given (on perhaps abortion or euthanasia), which is true?
How do we know?
michel

We make as good an argument as we can for believing what we do, and we leave it at that. We do not consign others to hell for disagreeing. I can confidently say that whoever is right, it is whoever God agrees with. Paul said there would be differences and they are OK, just don’t let them distract you from living up to what you “already have attained.”

 

[TriuneUnity]

Oh no, they did not. Surely, you know about the Septuagint? The Jews had too many writing than what the knew what to do with, so they had to gather around seventy scholarly folks to determine which they should use and which they should not. There are a whole lot of Jewish holy books outside of the Septuagint, but they were left out.

So it’s not as if the Jews knew which books to use right off of the bat…

The issue is not which books certain sects of Jews may have used or not used. The point I am making is that Jesus knew which books to use; His disciples knew which books to use; Jesus expected His hearers to know what the Word of God was. He read, studied and preached from the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets; the people understood that these books were the Word of God without an infallible magisterium to define them.

 

[ckempston]

The issue is not which books certain sects of Jews may have used or not used. The point I am making is that Jesus knew which books to use; His disciples knew which books to use; Jesus expected His hearers to know what the Word of God was. He read, studied and preached from the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets; the people understood that these books were the Word of God without an infallible magisterium to define them.

Agreed. That’s a succinct way to put it.

One can also agree with the reasoning that the Catholic church used to determine the canon without actually submitting to its authority. The development of the canon is not exactly shrouded in mystery.

 

[cazayoux]

We make as good an argument as we can for believing what we do, and we leave it at that. We do not consign others to hell for disagreeing. I can confidently say that whoever is right, it is whoever God agrees with. Paul said there would be differences and they are OK, just don’t let them distract you from living up to what you “already have attained.”

For me, I see the discussion of ‘truth’ in scripture as very important.
'As good … as we can" doesn’t seem to be enough.
Jesus is truth.
It is the truth that shall set you free.
The pillar and foundation of the truth is the church.
Where do we go to know the truth?
If there are different ideas in Christendom of what the truth is on particular topics, we cannot know.

John 17 discusses how the church is to be one.

[11] And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
[21] that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
[22] The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

These verses show to me that His church will not disagree.

If you and I have a difference of opinion about faith, we should be able to find the truth by going to the church.
How is this possible if you believe we do our best to figure it out and leave it at that.

We do not consign others to hell for disagreeing.
With love, we try to bring others to the truth by bringing them to the church.

Salut!

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Actually, they very likely had the same canon, with perhaps some slight differences in emphasis - the Sadducees took a very literal view of the Penteteuch, while the Pharisees were the ones to develop all the “extra-biblical” (for lack of a better term) writings (e.g. Talmud).

In other words, the Pharisees did not agree with the Sadducees on what was considered inspired scripture.
The Essenes had more writings.
Jesus quoted different scriptures depending on what that group he spoke to thought was scripture.

Well, I was talking about the Old Testament. The early church certainly relied on Jewish tradition, along with other things such as what Old Testament books were quoted by New Testament authors to determine what belonged. The Latin Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint, so I can’t see how you can possibly deny that the Jews were relied upon for the Old Testament canon.

Did we depend on the Jewish tradition remembered by the (mostly) Pharisaic Jews or those Jews that were now Christian?
Not baiting or rhetorical, I’m genuinely curious.
Of course we relied on those that knew what we now call the OT, but I don’t know if we looked at the Jewish leaders to define this or those Jewish converts.
I do know that in the fourth century, the OT and NT canon was defined after much discussion. Once the definition was set, the arguments stopped.
We at least agree on this decision for the NT canon.
The authority was with the church here, and not any Jewish party.

… along with other things such as what Old Testament books were quoted by New Testament authors to determine what belonged.

I would say that we cannot define the OT based on what was quoted by the NT writers. Most books of the OT are not quoted in the NT. Using this criterion would mean a much shallower OT that either of us have today.
I see by your statement ‘along with’ that you agree that this alone would not be enough to determine the canon.

Salut!

michel

 

[ckempston]

For me, I see the discussion of ‘truth’ in scripture as very important.
'As good … as we can" doesn’t seem to be enough.
Jesus is truth.
It is the truth that shall set you free.
The pillar and foundation of the truth is the church.
Where do we go to know the truth?
If there are different ideas in Christendom of what the truth is on particular topics, we cannot know.

John 17 discusses how the church is to be one.

These verses show to me that His church will not disagree.

If you and I have a difference of opinion about faith, we should be able to find the truth by going to the church.
How is this possible if you believe we do our best to figure it out and leave it at that.

We do not consign others to hell for disagreeing.
With love, we try to bring others to the truth by bringing them to the church.

Salut!

michel

You keep changing the subject. My comments were in reference to issues like Abortion and Euthanasia, and now you change over to the “truth of scripture,” in which neither of these issues appear (at least explicitly). That’s what I was saying “as good as we can” in reference to. I cannot point to a passage of scripture and say, “Jesus condemned abortion right here.” He doesn’t. What I can do is explain to someone, based on principles found in the Bible, why I find abortion to be wrong (it’s the taking of an innocent life, etc.), but the rest is up to that person’s conscience, and is between him/her and God. I’m not sure how you could object to this when the Catholic church does the same thing (leaves room for the individual’s conscience).

You can’t really claim that everyone in your church thinks exactly the same way in all things. I can prove that they don’t:

From catholic.com/library/creation_and_genesis.asp:

“Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37).”

“Catholics are at liberty to believe”? Sounds a lot like what I’ve been saying regarding differences of opinion on certain matters. We are at liberty to believe differently about many things, just not those issues involving salvation. Those, the Apostles make quite clear.

 

[ckempston]

In other words, the Pharisees did not agree with the Sadducees on what was considered inspired scripture.
The Essenes had more writings.
Jesus quoted different scriptures depending on what that group he spoke to thought was scripture.

Actually, I think they agreed on what was inspired. They differed on what amounts to commentaries.

Did we depend on the Jewish tradition remembered by the (mostly) Pharisaic Jews or those Jews that were now Christian?
Not baiting or rhetorical, I’m genuinely curious.
Of course we relied on those that knew what we now call the OT, but I don’t know if we looked at the Jewish leaders to define this or those Jewish converts.
I do know that in the fourth century, the OT and NT canon was defined after much discussion. Once the definition was set, the arguments stopped.
We at least agree on this decision for the NT canon.
The authority was with the church here, and not any Jewish party.

It’s not a question of authority, but of processing data and making a conclusion. The Pope did not just stand up and, divinely inspired, say, “These are the books to be included in the Canon.” No, they looked at facts, support, data, and made a logical conclusion. Any human with reasoning capabilities could do the same.

I would say that we cannot define the OT based on what was quoted by the NT writers. Most books of the OT are not quoted in the NT. Using this criterion would mean a much shallower OT that either of us have today.
I see by your statement ‘along with’ that you agree that this alone would not be enough to determine the canon.

Salut!

michel

I’m going to strongly disagree with you there. Almost every book in the Old Testament is quoted in the New; and that doesn’t even include allusions which probably number in the hundreds. Approaching this another way: considering how the Jews separated the books of the Old Testament (Torah/Prophets/Writings), in many cases, quoting one is as good as quoting all of them (i.e. if you quote Kings, you’ve implied Chronicles, etc.).

 

[Bwsherman]

Michel,

It seems that both of these gentlemen have trouble defining what truth is. Scripture does have different levels on which we may disagree. I would call that truth a subjective truth in which God may be dealing with me on a very specific issue, but that truth is not meant to be applied universally in the Church. The other truth is objective truth in which all Christianity can(must, depending on your opinion) agree. The trinity, the hypostatic union, the Virgin birth, etc. Without the Magesiterium these truths would not have been available as the Body of Christ has them now. One could say that they can ‘easily’ be found in scripture. I say tell that to the Arianists and Gnostics, and numerous other heresies taken on by the early Church.
As far as St. Paul is concerned if he was so sure of the salvation of Christians why did he have this to say to the Philippians:

“Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.”

St. Paul understood this as a process and not an instance. Justification and Sanctification, one having already taken place and the other continuing to be worked.

 

[cazayoux]

You keep changing the subject.

Not changing the subject, just getting to the heart of the matter.
Two Christians disagree. Which is right? Who has the final say?
If the ‘authority’ says it’s up to the individual, then so be it.
If the ‘authority’ says it’s not and give a definitive answer, then so be it.
What is the ‘truth’ of the matter? Who says it is?

My comments were in reference to issues like Abortion and Euthanasia, and now you change over to the “truth of scripture,” in which neither of these issues appear (at least explicitly).

Abortion and Euthenasia are only examples of topics that Christians disagree on.
The issue is who the church is and what authority it has to teach on such topics.

That’s what I was saying “as good as we can” in reference to. I cannot point to a passage of scripture and say, “Jesus condemned abortion right here.” He doesn’t.

Exactly!
So we should listen to the authority Jesus left on Earth to know what the truth is regarding Abortion.
How do your feelings change if, for example, the topic is the Eucharist and the Real Presence or any other topic (birth control).

What I can do is explain to someone, based on principles found in the Bible, why I find abortion to be wrong (it’s the taking of an innocent life, etc.), but the rest is up to that person’s conscience, and is between him/her and God.

I agree that this it is a wholesome and right thing to do to try and correct something that this person wrongly believes. If that doesn’t work then scripture says to bring others that believe as you do to help this wrong-thinking person to understand the error. If he still doesn’t believe, we bring him to the church.
We do not leave it “up to that person’s conscience” and resign them to deal with God.

I’m not sure how you could object to this when the Catholic church does the same thing (leaves room for the individual’s conscience).

I can absolutely object to it.
In your description you say that you can do your best to teach that person that abortion is wrong, but if they don’t believe you then what they do is not a sin.
This is making ‘truth’ subjective for that person.

You can’t really claim that everyone in your church thinks exactly the same way in all things. I can prove that they don’t:

From catholic.com/library/creation_and_genesis.asp:

“Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37).”

Ahh … but what the Catholic Church teaches definitively, is believed, definitively, by all Catholics.
Nobody said that the Catholic Church has a definitive teaching for every topic on the face of the planet.
However, what it has defined, it has defined as truth with the authority given the church by Christ himself.

“Catholics are at liberty to believe”? Sounds a lot like what I’ve been saying regarding differences of opinion on certain matters. We are at liberty to believe differently about many things, just not those issues involving salvation. Those, the Apostles make quite clear.

… and to bring this back to one of your first posts …
It is not correct to say that we are at liberty to believe differently on issues involving salvation. Nowhere do the Apostles make quite clear that you and I can have different ideas on salvation. Please cite examples.

michel

 

[backfrmthebrink]

The bible is perhaps clearest on the topis of salvation than that of anyother topic. Paul is know as the great Aposatle. The great grace teacher, Paul NEVER taught that you can loose your salvation. In fact he made it painfully clear that there is nothing that can seperate you from the love of hte Father. The key word being seperate and nothing. Paul corrected everyone on works whne they tried to complicate grace. The first apostacy of the church was that of trying to combine works and grace. Grace can in no way be tied to your works nor can works lose salvation. The prodical son always remained a son and always remained with the father though his sin seperated him from the fellowship of the father.
The is no private interpretation of scripture but individually interpreting scripture as the Holy spirit leads you is obvious If you cannot intrepret then why read the Word. OR can you honmestly say you are not interpreting anything when you read??? The answer is obvious and the argument is silly.

 

[Henning]

“Once Saved Always Saved” or “OSAS” is an errant belief that many Protestant Christians hold to and there are many different “Protestant” definitions of what “OSAS” actually means.

Which leads us to the second errant Protestant belief, which allows for the “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”.

What are your thoughts?

2 Peter 3:16
“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are **some things **hard to be understood…”

but arent there also **some things **that are not hard to understand?? eg,

John 11:35 “Jesus wept”
1 John 4:8 *"…God is love"
etc…

 

[cazayoux]

The bible is perhaps clearest on the topis of salvation than that of anyother topic. Paul is know as the great Aposatle. The great grace teacher, Paul NEVER taught that you can loose your salvation. In fact he made it painfully clear that there is nothing that can seperate you from the love of hte Father. The key word being seperate and nothing. Paul corrected everyone on works whne they tried to complicate grace. The first apostacy of the church was that of trying to combine works and grace. Grace can in no way be tied to your works nor can works lose salvation. The prodical son always remained a son and always remained with the father though his sin seperated him from the fellowship of the father.
The is no private interpretation of scripture but individually interpreting scripture as the Holy spirit leads you is obvious If you cannot intrepret then why read the Word. OR can you honmestly say you are not interpreting anything when you read??? The answer is obvious and the argument is silly.

Philemon 2 seems to have hit on a couple of your points.

[12] Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, **work **out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
[13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to **work **for his good pleasure.
[14] **Do **all things without grumbling or questioning,
[15] that you *may *be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,
[16] holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I *may *be proud that I did not run in vain or **labor **in vain.

This is Paul writing.
Explain why they must work out their salvation in ‘fear and trembling’.
He’s writing to Christians that a OSAS person would think that are *already *saved.
… and he’s telling them to ‘work out their salvation in fear and trembling’.
Please tell me why is he telling this to Christians?
Other underlined text shows anything but certainty.

… and I’m also curious for you to tell me where works DO fit into the equation.
Bold text indicate work.
Also, what is your view of how Catholics thinks works fit into the equation?

michel