“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[Pokedaughter]

Watch this and you will see where some protestants stand on this subject.
This speaker is an ordained Southern Baptist Minister.

youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8

(copy and paste.)

 

[cazayoux]

John 11:35 Jesus wept

I’m wondering just how many different or opposing interpretations there are of this. I or most anyone else who has ever wept can tell you what this means: it means that Jesus wept (bless God’s Jesus)

Ahhh … it’s funny that you chose such a simple quote that has had quite a bit of debate.
The interesting question is WHY did he weep?

michel

 

[Henning]

Ahhh … it’s funny that you chose such a simple quote that has had quite a bit of debate.
The interesting question is WHY did he weep?

michel

Why? Perhaps God wept because of their unbelief and/or a grieving with his friends…more reasons, dunno, am willing to learn though (any helpful threads?). But still the basic interpretation of John 11:35 before the compoundings of ‘why?’ is just that he wept…right? Is there another interpretation other than he wept?

H

 

[Jimmy_B]

Ahhh … it’s funny that you chose such a simple quote that has had quite a bit of debate.
The interesting question is WHY did he weep?

michel

Hello cazayoux,

What debate?

Christ was fully human, while at the same time, fully divine…

Jesus wept because he was fully man and fully divine and He loved his friend Lazarus. Jesus also loved those who were suffering and who were deeply sadden by Lazarus’ death.

Mary, was so upset that when she (Mary) came to where Jesus was and saw Him, she fell at His feet…

John 11:32-36

32 When Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

33 When Jesus saw her weeping and the Jews who had come with her weeping, he became perturbed
7 and deeply troubled,

34 and said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Sir, come and see.”

35 And Jesus wept.

36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him.”

 

[Jimmy_B]

Ahhh … it’s funny that you chose such a simple quote that has had quite a bit of debate.
The interesting question is WHY did he weep?

michel

Hello cazayoux,

What debate?

Christ was fully human, while at the same time, fully divine…

Jesus wept because he was fully man and fully divine and He loved his friend Lazarus. Jesus also loved those who were suffering and who were deeply sadden by Lazarus’ death.

Mary, was so upset that when she (Mary) came to where Jesus was and saw Him, she fell at His feet…

John 11:32-36

32 When Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

33 When Jesus saw her weeping and the Jews who had come with her weeping, he became perturbed
7 and deeply troubled,

34 and said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Sir, come and see.”

35 And Jesus wept.

36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him.”

 

[ckempston]

Please show me where the Church altered Scripture.

Gee, you picked an easy one: The Johannine Comma.

 

[ckempston]

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?

Let’s put it another way: Two Christians disagree. Either one, or both may be wrong. But one thing is for certain: God is right. This is where Faith comes in. You cannot honestly believe that you have perfect Faith, and perfect Obedience. If you did, you wouldn’t need Jesus.

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.

Why does there have to be an authority? What is left for man to do in your scenario except obey a Law, which is what Jesus came to do away with in the first place.

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).

Exactly! That authority is called the Holy Spirit. Just because there are disagreements among two people who claim to be Christians does not negate the authority of said Holy Spirit.

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.

You don’t have a choice. You can’t force anybody to do anything.

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.

I just proved that you can’t reject it. The Catholic church leaves its members at liberty to believe many things in regard to the Faith.

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.

Unless, of course, it changes its mind, such as when it was embarrassed by its defense of the geocentric model of the cosmos.

… 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

I never made this claim. On issues of salvation, there should be 100% agreement. I never said otherwise.

 

[ckempston]

No, that is not a matter of opinion… It happens to be historical and True… If you study history of the Catholic Church, you will see it goes all theway to Christ… No other church can claim that…

The Orthodox church can, as well as some ME churches (Syriac, I believe).

if that were true, everyone would find his way to the Catholic Church…

Ha ha. I found my way, most of the way, to the Catholic church, but then several large walls loomed up in front of me: Infallability of the Pope, Veneration, Intercession of the Saints, etc… Probably the typical list of Protestant protests to Catholic teaching, and since these things are all directly contradicted by the Bible, which the Catholic church claims is its Sacred Scripture, and which the Catholic church tried to keep out of lay-persons hands for 1500 years, they’re insurmountable offenses in my mind.

see, you are already mostly Catholic…

Not quite, not likely ever, but I never say never.

Huh? what?? no comprendo.

i.e. Jesus doesn’t mean cut of your hand or gouge out your eye.

and this is a good thing?? You are comparing Luther or Calvin to a Magesterium (of a Church that was around 1500 + years before either one??)… Hmmm…

But, for the record, I don’t agree with either of the three completely, and as far as Salvation issues, I’ll say it again, I think the Catholic church is the most Biblical. I am nearly 100% with the Catholic church on Salvation (the points of difference would be infant baptism - although I was infant baptized - and the mode - but those are entirely different conversations altogether), but other than that, I believe in Reptentance, confession, Baptism for the forgiveness of sins (using the Trinitarian formula from Matt 28), and immersion in water. I don’t find that I agree with Luther or Calvin on much of anything. Luther was a flip-flopping, drunken racist who likely had some serious mental issues, and Calvin was a murdering, pagan philosopher more so than he was a Christian.

 

[Chris258]

Why does there have to be an authority? What is left for man to do in your scenario except obey a Law, which is what Jesus came to do away with in the first place.

Exactly! That authority is called the Holy Spirit. Just because there are disagreements among two people who claim to be Christians does not negate the authority of said Holy Spirit.

You have not shown why there is no need for authority. The Holy Spirit’s authority is not the problem. The problem is, when you’re faced with the cacophony of contradicting declarations about faith essentials (all claimed to be promulgated by the Holy Spirit, no doubt), a Protestant has absolutely no way to objectively determine which of the thousands of Christian sects is promulgating the Truth that is really being given by the Holy Spirit from Scripture. One claim is just as good as the other.

And Jesus never came do ‘do away with’ the Law. He came to fulfill it. Neither did he come to ‘do away with’ spiritual authority on Earth:

“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you— but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

Unless, of course, it changes its mind, such as when it was embarrassed by its defense of the geocentric model of the cosmos.

It was never dogmatically defined that the geocentric model of the universe was true. The Church did get a nice slice of humble pie when they dealt with Galileo, but if they had dogmatically defined what he had proposed, they would have infallibly defined a clear error. Galileo’s conclusion was that the Sun was at the center of the universe, and this is clearly untrue.

All dogmatic declarations of the Magisterium are binding upon those who follow the Catholic faith. There is no ‘debate’ on these subjects, as in Protestantism. If you willfully deny the Truth of these dogmas (e.g. Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Immaculate Conception, Salvation by Grace Alone), then you are no longer Catholic. Simple as that.

I never made this claim. On issues of salvation, there should be 100% agreement. I never said otherwise.

And yet, the cacophony of voices from Protestantism on salvation continues to echo. Who among all the church assemblies is spreading the full Truth of the Holy Spirit-revealed revelation? Only one, and it isn’t Protestant.

 

[estesbob]

Gee, you picked an easy one: The Johannine Comma.

Its in the King James Bible so i guees “everybody” made that change. Funny but the only ones who sitll adhere to the comma are Sola Scriptura adherents trying to prove the Trinity is expilicity mentioned in Scripture.

Want to try again?

 

[ckempston]

You have not shown why there is no need for authority. The Holy Spirit’s authority is not the problem. The problem is, when you’re faced with the cacophony of contradicting declarations about faith essentials (all claimed to be promulgated by the Holy Spirit, no doubt), a Protestant has absolutely no way to objectively determine which of the thousands of Christian sects is promulgating the Truth that is really being given by the Holy Spirit from Scripture. One claim is just as good as the other.

And Jesus never came do ‘do away with’ the Law. He came to fulfill it. Neither did he come to ‘do away with’ spiritual authority on Earth:

“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you— but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

It was never dogmatically defined that the geocentric model of the universe was true. The Church did get a nice slice of humble pie when they dealt with Galileo, but if they had dogmatically defined what he had proposed, they would have infallibly defined a clear error. Galileo’s conclusion was that the Sun was at the center of the universe, and this is clearly untrue.

All dogmatic declarations of the Magisterium are binding upon those who follow the Catholic faith. There is no ‘debate’ on these subjects, as in Protestantism. If you willfully deny the Truth of these dogmas (e.g. Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Immaculate Conception, Salvation by Grace Alone), then you are no longer Catholic. Simple as that.

And yet, the cacophony of voices from Protestantism on salvation continues to echo. Who among all the church assemblies is spreading the full Truth of the Holy Spirit-revealed revelation? Only one, and it isn’t Protestant.

You just don’t get it. The same problem applies to the Catholic church. A person has to decide what Church is the true church. Making this determination is a matter of personal interpretation. All Catholics must, at some point, make this determination in their life. They therefore, ALSO use personal interpretation to determine truth. Just because you surrender your intellect to a 3rd party does not somehow mean you have the truth. On the contrary.

 

[ckempston]

Its in the King James Bible so i guees “everybody” made that change. Funny but the only ones who sitll adhere to the comma are Sola Scriptura adherents trying to prove the Trinity is expilicity mentioned in Scripture.

Want to try again?

What do you mean, “want to try again?” We were asked for an example of where Catholics changed the Bible. I provided it. You ignored it and threw up a straw man. You try again.

 

[Chris258]

You just don’t get it. The same problem applies to the Catholic church. A person has to decide what Church is the true church. Making this determination is a matter of personal interpretation. All Catholics must, at some point, make this determination in their life. They therefore, ALSO use personal interpretation to determine truth. Just because you surrender your intellect to a 3rd party does not somehow mean you have the truth. On the contrary.

You’re grasping for straws.

If you’re going to pull out this one, you might as well say that the fact that a person actually has to make a decision means that the Truth of the Holy Spirit is absolutely objectively unknowable.

The “Infallible Choice” tu quoque argument. Nice try.

In any case, you still have not shown why there is no need for authority.

 

[cazayoux]

Let’s put it another way: Two Christians disagree. Either one, or both may be wrong. But one thing is for certain: God is right. This is where Faith comes in. You cannot honestly believe that you have perfect Faith, and perfect Obedience. If you did, you wouldn’t need Jesus.

I agree that God is right, of course.
I agree that my Faith and Obedience can be lacking sometimes … I’m human. (pray for me)
I definitely need Jesus.
Nothing here tells me to ignore the church that Jesus established.

Why does there have to be an authority? What is left for man to do in your scenario except obey a Law, which is what Jesus came to do away with in the first place.

Your assumption is wrong to equate the teachings of the church with the OT law.
There is an authority, because keys were given.
Do you disagree that the keys have to do with authority?

Exactly! That authority is called the Holy Spirit. Just because there are disagreements among two people who claim to be Christians does not negate the authority of said Holy Spirit.

In no way would I negate the authority of the Holy Spirit (God himself).
Nor would I negate the authority that Jesus established to teach.

You don’t have a choice. You can’t force anybody to do anything.

Agreed. I am called to spread the word.
I can plant seeds by having active discussions about Jesus.
Only the Holy Spirit changes hearts.
Scripture says to bring that person to the church, not *force *them to listen.

I just proved that you can’t reject it. The Catholic church leaves its members at liberty to believe many things in regard to the Faith.

Agreed, but not all things.
I agree that the Church has not infallibly interpreted every bit of scripture.
There are actually very few cases in which the Church has exercised this authority on faith and morals.
But in the cases that is has, that interpretation has to be considered correct.
It doesn’t mean that there aren’t other interpretations, either, only that what the Church has stated ‘an’ interpretation must also be included.

Unless, of course, it changes its mind, such as when it was embarrassed by its defense of the geocentric model of the cosmos.

A cheap shot that shows your misunderstanding of the authority that the Church claims.
The church does not claim to be infallible in teaching biology, astronomy, baking, woodworking, or anything other than FAITH and MORALS.
Granted, there have been many Christians and even a small handful of popes that were not good at following the Church’s teachings, but it doesn’t negate the fact that the teachings are correct.
Jesus’ message is not invalid because of Peter’s denial, Thomas’ doubt, or Judas’ betrayal.

I never made this claim. On issues of salvation, there should be 100% agreement. I never said otherwise.
ckempston;3899406:

Originally Posted by ckempston (from previous post)
“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.

Your quote is above.
I’m really not trying to put words in your mouth.
I honestly read the above to say that you think we are at liberty to believe differently about salvation.
Scripture doesn’t say that we agree *just *on salvation.
You seem to be adding a word.

Now you say that we must agree on salvation.
However, so many have claimed to use the Holy Spirit alone to interpret scripture and have many differing ideas about salvation just within non-Catholic Christianity.
For example, does baptism save or is it symbolic?
If everyone relies on the same Holy Spirit to understand the Word of God, why is there such diversity in theology from the same book?
Are you sure that your interpretation is correct?
Are you an infallible interpreter of the bible?
Why should I listen to your interpretation as opposed to the interpretation of the opposing non-Catholic Christian’s interpretation?

This comes back to your earlier question.

Why does there have to be an authority?

This is precisely why there *has *to be an authority.
So that every person doesn’t become their own authority.
We cannot have the unity spoken of in the bible if everyone is their own authority.
Praying to the Holy Spirit before reading scripture is necessary, however, it doesn’t guarantee that you will correctly understand all that is in the bible.

Jesus founded *one *church that is authoritative, visible, apostolic, that will last until the end of times (requiring apostolic succession), led by the Holy Spirit FOR His people.
The Catholic Church is here *for *you, to *teach *you, not as the heirarchical governmental body to oppress you that I’m afraid you see it as.
The bishops, priests, and deacons are here for support, not to rule.
It is with love that I implore you to pray and open your heart to at least try to understand the Catholic take on these issues so important to you.
Pray for me as well.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Just because you surrender your intellect to a 3rd party does not somehow mean you have the truth. On the contrary.

I do see where you are coming from.
I’ve had my own faith journey to find out the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of the Catholic Church’s teachings.
What did it for me was to read the Church Fathers of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries. My goal to was to read about Christianity before the NT was even set.
These writings were the last straw.
They were all Catholic in their teachings on baptism, salvation, priestly ordination, the Eucharist, as well as other topics.
I sought history and found the Catholic Church.
The proof, in my view, was overwhelming that the Catholic Church of today is the church that Christ founded.

Salut!

michel

 

[Chris258]

I do see where you are coming from.
I’ve had my own faith journey to find out the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of the Catholic Church’s teachings.
What did it for me was to read the Church Fathers of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries. My goal to was to read about Christianity before the NT was even set.
These writings were the last straw.
They were all Catholic in their teachings on baptism, salvation, priestly ordination, the Eucharist, as well as other topics.
I sought history and found the Catholic Church.
The proof, in my view, was overwhelming that the Catholic Church of today is the church that Christ founded.

Salut!

michel

“To study [Church] history is to become Catholic.”

 

[Bwsherman]

“To study [Church] history is to become Catholic.”

Amen! Thank you Cardinal Newman…

 

[estesbob]

What do you mean, “want to try again?” We were asked for an example of where Catholics changed the Bible. I provided it. You ignored it and threw up a straw man. You try again.

I take it that means you can’t. I guess we could talk about them throwing several books out of Scripture. Oh wait a minute, that was a Protestants!

 

[ckempston]

You’re grasping for straws.

If you’re going to pull out this one, you might as well say that the fact that a person actually has to make a decision means that the Truth of the Holy Spirit is absolutely objectively unknowable.

The “Infallible Choice” tu quoque argument. Nice try.

In any case, you still have not shown why there is no need for authority.

Tu quoque is not always a fallacy. There are many valid uses. My use is quite valid.

I have never claimed there is no need for authority, you are still attacking a straw man. There is Authority, and it belongs to Jesus, ala Matthew 28:18-20.

 

[ckempston]

I take it that means you can’t. I guess we could talk about them throwing several books out of Scripture. Oh wait a minute, that was a Protestants!

I did provide an example, and you ignored it; what are you talking about? And can we stop with the straw men, please?