“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[TriuneUnity]

If you do not trust that the Catholic Church authoritatively made this decision, how do you know that your bible is correct?
It may be missing one of those writing that many thought were inspired that are not part of the Catholic canon.
How do you know that your bible doesn’t have NT writings in it that are not inspired.
Who told you that those specific books in our NT were inspired?

michel

I do not argue that the Church defined the texts of the canon to be used in worship, read, preached, etc. They submitted themselves to what the Spirit gave to the Church corporately.

 

[distracted]

distracted: You are so far from being able to understand anything scripturally. All I see is the enemy having a hold on you. Truth. It is in Gods Word not your church. I cannot help you to understand what only the Holy Spirit can choose to enlighten you about. Open your Bible and study to show yourself approved. I am saddened that you cannot yet see the truth. What is certian is that someday you will from one side or the other. I happen to know what side I will be on as the Bible has taught me that. Praise God fro His word.

backfrmthebrink: You are so far from being able to understand anythign scirpturally. All i see is the enemy having a hold on you. Truth. It is in God’s Word and the Church. I cannot help you to understand what only the Holy Spriit can choose to enlighten you about. Open your Bible and attend Mass and study to show yourself approved (and go to RCIA). I am saddened that you cannot yet see the turth. What is certain is that someday you will from one side or the other. I happen to know what side i will be on as the Bible and Christ’s Church has taught me that…

 

[cazayoux]

I do not argue that the Church defined the texts of the canon to be used in worship, read, preached, etc. They submitted themselves to what the Spirit gave to the Church corporately.

Exactly! … okay we are in line here.

The Church was led by the Holy Spirit himself.
Do you think that this is not the case today?

michel

 

[Chris258]

He did leave us with a visible authority in the form of the Church. However, due to the direct revelatory nature of the ministry of the Apostles which has now ceased, the Church is not on the same level of authority. The authority it possesses is derivative in nature and must be in submission to the authority that God revealed in the Sacred Scriptures. As long as the Church is using its authority in submission to the Sacred writings and not placing itself either in contradiction to them or on the same plane of inspiration…then the Church is truly practicing apostolic authority.

Was it only the Apostles themselves that had this direct teaching Authority or was this Authority also bequeathed to their successors? The Apostles died long before the whole of Scripture was fully identified. Many believed some documents outside of our Canon were inspired. Some believed that books within our Canon were not inspired. It seems that this teaching Authority had to continue somehow. Tell me if you disagree here.

If it did continue on without drawing the Church into apostasy, then at what point in history did the Scriptures become the sole infallible rule of faith? Is it not notably arbitrary to say that ‘right at this point in history, Scriptures became the sole infallible rule of faith’?

 

[cazayoux]

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.

This is exactly it.
I don’t believe Jesus wept because he was grieving for Lazarus.
Like the previous poster stated, it may have been because he was frustrated that they just didn’t ‘get it’ yet.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

I follow somewhat, but I have an objection with Judas. His replacement was a result of prophecy fulfillment as stated by Luke. **This would have been a perfect opportunity for God to clear up any misconceptions about his intentions for Apostolic Succession, but he didn’t. **He could have said: “We have maintain this office in the Church forever, so let another take his place.” Unfortunately, that’s not what he said.

following from our earlier conversation … where to we go to ‘clear up any misconceptions’?
You tend to believe that it’s up to the individual to decide what is ‘right’ or ‘the truth’.
I don’t believe God left us to blow in the wind like this.
Blowing in the wind like this is what gives us the multitude of denominations we see in Christendom today. This just isn’t God’s plan for our unity.

I had mention a step 4 which was ordination.
Would you agree that men were ordained to teach? teach the truth? with authority?

michel

 

[ckempston]

backfrmthebrink: You are so far from being able to understand anythign scirpturally. All i see is the enemy having a hold on you. Truth. It is in God’s Word and the Church. I cannot help you to understand what only the Holy Spriit can choose to enlighten you about. Open your Bible and attend Mass and study to show yourself approved (and go to RCIA). I am saddened that you cannot yet see the turth. What is certain is that someday you will from one side or the other. I happen to know what side i will be on as the Bible and Christ’s Church has taught me that…

Good response. While posts like backfrmthebrink’s may give people a warm fuzzy, they don’t really accomplish anything. You demonstrated that nicely.

 

[ckempston]

following from our earlier conversation … where to we go to ‘clear up any misconceptions’?
You tend to believe that it’s up to the individual to decide what is ‘right’ or ‘the truth’.
I don’t believe God left us to blow in the wind like this.
Blowing in the wind like this is what gives us the multitude of denominations we see in Christendom today. This just isn’t God’s plan for our unity.

I had mention a step 4 which was ordination.
Would you agree that men were ordained to teach? teach the truth? with authority?

michel

I tend to think that people clear up misconceptions by portraying the fruits of the spirit. The “I’m RIGHT and you’re WRONG” approach does not work. I believe Jesus when he says “seek and you shall find.” If you think you know it all, then you cannot be seeking. The “Let’s be humble and try to understand each other” approach is Biblical and shows evidence of the fruits of the Spirit.

Edit to answer your other questions:

I do believe men were ordained to teach by other qualified teachers. A break in this ordination does seem to create a problem for a church outside of the Apostolic Succession, but I’m not on board with that yet anyway.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Exactly! … okay we are in line here.

The Church was led by the Holy Spirit himself.
Do you think that this is not the case today?

michel

First I would argue that the modern Roman Catholic Church is not the same entity that decided the canon. Mainly because there were no divisions between East and West at that point in time and it would be a historical anachronism to try to read the modern Church back in time.

Given that, however…there is no question that it is the purpose of the Spirit to lead all Christians into the truth. However, the Holy Spirit’s witness in Scripture can be resisted. So if a Church teaches in opposition to what the Spirit revealed through the writings of the Apostles then no, I cannot claim they are following the Spirit.

 

[distracted]

Good response. While posts like backfrmthebrink’s may give people a warm fuzzy, they don’t really accomplish anything. You demonstrated that nicely.

thanks… but i think the thanks go to the Holy Spirit…

that Person Poster implies I am so in need of for enlightenment…

 

[Chris258]

First I would argue that the modern Roman Catholic Church is not the same entity that decided the canon. Mainly because there were no divisions between East and West at that point in time and it would be a historical anachronism to try to read the modern Church back in time.

Do you believe that this entity that authoritatively identified the Canon of Scriptures continued to exist after that point? If so, where is it today? It seems to follow that if it did continue to exist, its Authority rests in one of the two resulting communions following the Great Schism, yes?

If it did not continue to subsist after that point in history, where did it go?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Do you believe that this entity that authoritatively identified the Canon of Scriptures continued to exist after that point? If so, where is it today? It seems to follow that if it did continue to exist, its Authority rests in one of the two resulting communions following the Great Schism, yes?

If it did not continue to subsist after that point in history, where did it go?

Only as long as that communion preaches the gospel purely and adminsters the sacraments rightly can it claim apostolic authority. No, I don’t believe that the Western Roman led Church slunk into apostasy at any point in history; but it’s doctrines no longer comport with that of Scripture in several important areas.

 

[cazayoux]

First I would argue that the modern Roman Catholic Church is not the same entity that decided the canon. Mainly because there were no divisions between East and West at that point in time and it would be a historical anachronism to try to read the modern Church back in time.

So up until 1054, you’d agree that the Catholic Church is the same that Jesus had founded, that the Holy Spirit guides, that authoritatively decided the canon of scripture?
At the split, do you think Jesus church was (1) the Catholic Church, (2) the Eastern Orthodox, (3) neither/both [we are left with the scriptures at this point to follow Christ in the way we discern from scripture]

We can see what Christians (Catholics) in the 1st through 11th Century thought, doctrinally speaking, and it hasn’t changed even till today.
How is this anachronistic?

Given that, however…there is no question that it is the purpose of the Spirit to lead all Christians into the truth. However, the Holy Spirit’s witness in Scripture can be resisted. So **if **a Church teaches in opposition to what the Spirit revealed through the writings of the Apostles then no, I cannot claim they are following the Spirit.

Help me with this by laying out the ‘ifs’.
What does the Catholic Church teach in opposition to what the Spirit revealed through the writings of the Apostles?

michel

 

[Chris258]

Help me with this by laying out the ‘ifs’.
What does the Catholic Church teach in opposition to what the Spirit revealed through the writings of the Apostles?

michel

These differences of understanding whether someone has departed from the Scriptures may have quite a lot to do with the differences between the material sufficiency and formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture.

TriuneUnity adheres (I assume) to the formal sufficiency of Scripture whereas the Catholic believes in the material sufficiency of Scripture. Could be worth exploring if it is the source of a lot of the disagreements.

We’ve pretty much hijacked this thread anyway.

 

[cazayoux]

I tend to think that people clear up misconceptions by portraying the fruits of the spirit.

Portraying the fruits of the Spirit is a good and wholesome pursuit we are all called to because we are given the gifts of the Spirit.
(Charity, Joy, Peace, Patience, Benignity, Goodness, Long-suffering, Mildness, Faith, Modesty, Continency, Chastity)

None of this, however, means that we might make a mistake in interpreting scripture.

The “I’m RIGHT and you’re WRONG” approach does not work.
:
If you think you know it all, then you cannot be seeking. The “Let’s be humble and try to understand each other” approach is Biblical and shows evidence of the fruits of the Spirit.

I’m not saying that I’m right.
I’m saying that the church that Jesus founded is right.
And I’m not saying it’s right in every single thing it pronounces.
I’m saying that it’s right in pronouncements regarding faith and morals.
I’m not saying that the Catholic pronouncement is the ONLY answer, either.
I’m saying that the Catholic pronouncement must be included as a CORRECT pronouncement.

I’ll never stop seeking.
I’ll never stop reading.
I’ll never stop developing my faith.
It doesn’t mean that I stay quiet, but to actively participate.
I am absolutely looking for the common ground.

I believe Jesus when he says “seek and you shall find.”

AMEN!!

Edit to answer your other questions:

I do believe men were ordained to teach by other qualified teachers. A *break in this ordination *does seem to create a problem for a church outside of the Apostolic Succession, but I’m not on board with that yet anyway.

You’ve mentioned that you are, on many topics, in line with Catholic teachings.
Would you say you lean more toward the Catholic Church or the Easter Orthodox Church?

Salut!

michel

 

[backfrmthebrink]

once again. I will give plenty of scripture to syuppor everything I have said. I have to run now but will devote my time to that task tonight. Please email me a list of questions you want scriptural references for and I will try to be thorough. BTW I agree with your statement that christianity is a faith based on a living Word. Christ Jesus. It is not a religion. Christ hated religion. dispised it and corrected and rebuked it whenevcer He could

 

[Chris258]

BTW I agree with your statement that christianity is a faith based on a living Word. Christ Jesus. It is not a religion. Christ hated religion. dispised it and corrected and rebuked it whenevcer He could

This is a bit off-topic, but I don’t believe Christ hated religion in the proper definition of it. If you assume religion is a bunch of hypocritical people adhering to blind, extreme legalism to obtain some sort of salvation, then of course he would hate that.

I think it’s disingenuous to non-Christians to try to proclaim that Christianity is not a religion. It is. We just happen to have the whole Truth by the Grace of God.

 

[estesbob]

once again. I will give plenty of scripture to syuppor everything I have said. I have to run now but will devote my time to that task tonight. Please email me a list of questions you want scriptural references for and I will try to be thorough. BTW I agree with your statement that christianity is a faith based on a living Word. Christ Jesus. It is not a religion. Christ hated religion. dispised it and corrected and rebuked it whenevcer He could

You and I differ on what is necessary for salvation. How do we resolve that? You and I differ on the nature of the Eucharist. How do we resolve that? You and I differ on the necessity of confession. How do we resolve that? You and I differ on the status of Mary. How do we resolve that?

I hope you are not going to insist we accept your personal interpretation of Scripture-unless you can show us you have the authority to do so it would be a waste of time.

 

[ckempston]

Portraying the fruits of the Spirit is a good and wholesome pursuit we are all called to because we are given the gifts of the Spirit.
(Charity, Joy, Peace, Patience, Benignity, Goodness, Long-suffering, Mildness, Faith, Modesty, Continency, Chastity)

None of this, however, means that we might make a mistake in interpreting scripture.

If we were capable of never being wrong, never maing mistakes, and had a perfect life and doctrine, we wouldn’t need Jesus.

I’m not saying that I’m right.
I’m saying that the church that Jesus founded is right.
And I’m not saying it’s right in every single thing it pronounces.
I’m saying that it’s right in pronouncements regarding faith and morals.
I’m not saying that the Catholic pronouncement is the ONLY answer, either.
I’m saying that the Catholic pronouncement must be included as a CORRECT pronouncement.

I’ll never stop seeking.
I’ll never stop reading.
I’ll never stop developing my faith.
It doesn’t mean that I stay quiet, but to actively participate.
I am absolutely looking for the common ground.

I’m pretty satisfied, and Faithful, in relying on the statement that whatever I believe God is right. “Let God be true, and ever man a liar.” I can’t possibly be 100% sure that what I believe is right. If that were the case, it would nullify Faith.

AMEN!!

You’ve mentioned that you are, on many topics, in line with Catholic teachings.
Would you say you lean more toward the Catholic Church or the Easter Orthodox Church?

Salut!

michel

I’d say I lean more toward Roman Catholicism if I had to pick one or the other. Jesus gave the keys to Peter alone, and it seems obvious to me that he had some primacy among the Apostles. The Orthodox objections to the Primacy of Rome aren’t intellectually satisfying to me.

 

[cazayoux]

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 agree that the Pope did not just stand up and, divinely inspired, say, “These are the books to be included in the Canon.”
The council, through much study, made the final decision.
After the decision was made, those with opposing opinions were silent.
Why were they silent?

I would say that the decision was guided by the Holy Spirit and not *just *human reasoning.

Whenever a pope speaks excathedra on an issue, it is never just a whim. There is always extensive study that goes on before a pronouncement is made.

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.).

Well … I only looked at two sites that claimed to list the NT quotes of the Septuagint just to get an idea of how close it might be.

One site catalogs only 16 OT books being quoted.
Another site, claimed to do the same with the allusions, only 27 OT books are quoted or alluded to in the NT.

While I cannot vouch for the veracity of these sites, it’s a far cry from ‘almost every book in the OT’, Catholic version or otherwise.

michel