“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[backfrmthebrink]

The only Bible’s the Church objected to were those that were shoddy or deliberately altered translations. (as you have a habit of doing when you posts verses). You really dont know very about about Catholicism do you?

Estesbob. You have not done your homework as others here have. For the sake of my time I cannot waste time on things you have not taken the time and tattention to study. Know your cc history before you make these and your other comments. You only serve to represent your fellow cc poorly and yourself…well!

 

[distracted]

Christ didn’t leave us with teachings from the cc. He left us with His teachings

You make a distinction where there is none.

 

[distracted]

Again you are totally misinformed here. Catholics are equally as ignornt of Protestants as they claim Protestants are of them. I do NOT have a lesbian bishop and in fact my bishop isn’t even a female. My bishop’s name is Archbishop Orombi and I am not Episcopalian. You obviously don’t get that. Oh yes, by the way, would you care to list the 33,000 denominations that you claim there to be and do list their proper names please.

one new church is started evey week in this country… Seems that would add up to 33,000 very quickly…

 

[distracted]

Estesbob. You have not done your homework as others here have. For the sake of my time I cannot waste time on things you have not taken the time and tattention to study. Know your cc history before you make these and your other comments. You only serve to represent your fellow cc poorly and yourself…well!

your presumption never ends, does it??

 

[backfrmthebrink]

Protest-ants claim to be so in love with the Bible, but there are parts they seem to skip over, like Matthew 16:18-19

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In other words, Christ left us with his Church, the Catholic Church. Christ never wrote anything, he never told any of his disciples to write anything. His teachings were passed on orally through the tradition of the Church, until they were (some of them) written down and codified in the Bible (by the Catholic Church). For the first 400 years of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, there was no Bible. Protest-ants think the Bible fell out of the sky, or was written by Jesus himself - their ignorance of how it came to be is partially what fuels their confusion over how Holy Scripture fits in with the Sacred Tradition of the Church and the Magisterium.

The Church is not so much interested in interpreting individual verses of the Bible as it is in instructing the faithful in how to prayerfully approach the study of the Bible. For Protest-ants who are interested in this authentic study of the Bible, I would suggest signing up for RCIA classes at your local parish and accepting the One True Faith. The Bible is an integral part of our Catholic Faith, but can only really be understood in the context of that Catholic Faith guided by the Sacred Tradition and Magisterium of the Church. To try to read and understand the Bible outside of that context can only lead to misunderstanding, misinterpretation, confusion, schism, and heresy (i.e., Protest-ant-ism).

First we all strive to know what we can about our Lord and God above.
Second your interpretation on Mat is just wrong. sorry but it is and I will address when I have more time. Even if you were correct in your absurd assumption that a church would be built on a human being, which, frankly I am at a loss to even ponder much, but…then you leap to a connection thqat this then becomes the cc. You guys all do the samething. insert cc here. that doesn’t work. I am tired of this.

 

[estesbob]

Estesbob. You have not done your homework as others here have. For the sake of my time I cannot waste time on things you have not taken the time and tattention to study. Know your cc history before you make these and your other comments. You only serve to represent your fellow cc poorly and yourself…well!

As he slinks off into the shadows…

 

[distracted]

Oh but I DO get it! Your three part test makes certain that no matter what Scripture verse it is, it must be interpreted in such a way that it squares with what the magisterium states

No, it must square with other scriptures… it must square with TRUTH… and Jesus gave us a Church that had the power to say what is truth and what is not… Jesus has this power, don’t you agree?? Don’t you agree that Jesus is Truth itself, Truth Incarnate?? and if He wanted to, He could give this Truth to His Church…

And oh joy…

He WANTED to…

 

[estesbob]

Estesbob. You have not done your homework as others here have. For the sake of my time I cannot waste time on things you have not taken the time and tattention to study. Know your cc history before you make these and your other comments. You only serve to represent your fellow cc poorly and yourself…well!

Translation:“I can’t refute what you said”

 

[distracted]

In other words, Christ left us with his Church, the Catholic Church. Christ never wrote anything, he never told any of his disciples to write anything. His teachings were passed on orally through the tradition of the Church… Protest-ants think the Bible fell out of the sky, or was written by Jesus himself - their ignorance of how it came to be is partially what fuels their confusion over how Holy Scripture fits in with the Sacred Tradition of the Church and the Magisterium.

If you are addressing Backfrmthebrink i dont believe you will get a response… anything that sounds too convincing for the Catholic position… well… he seems to ignore… i don’t believe he has any answer for this kind of thing…

The Church is not so much interested in interpreting individual verses of the Bible as it is in instructing the faithful in how to prayerfully approach the study of the Bible.

but we don’t need instruction, do we? Can’t we just say it says what we want it to say?? Oh darn… :whacky:

 

[estesbob]

First there is no interpretation of scripture for unregenerate people. This is a Biblical truth. But to address the question of John6 being challenging it is not. It clearly is metaphorically just as the Lords prayer, a kingdom prayer is an example of prayerr for we are to pry like that not that prayer. It was an example. The eating of the actual flesh and blood it lunacy when taken to mean a literal. It would be the calling down from heaven of Christ to an actual and rtitualistic partaking of the eating of him daily fo cc. Transubstantiation does not hold up to Hebrews clear message that Christ is appointed to die once. He shed His blood once and for all. There will be no second shedding of His blood yet the cc sheds His blood daily and equally absurd is the power that this ritual gives its Priests at that particular time of the mass. If ever there will be an accounting of ourselves for what we teach it will be here no matter how well meaning the participants would be. CLEAR: Christ is appointed to die once.

The above is shows such profound ignorance of the transubstantiation it boggles s the mind. Basically what you do is misstate Catholic Doctrine(or in many cases many cases just make something it and call it Catholic Doctrine) and then tell us why it is wrong. Of course since what you attacked isn’t Catholic Doctrine at all there is no way one can refute it.

How about you learn a little bit about Catholicism and then get back with us?

 

[distracted]

Translation:“I can’t refute what you said”

So True!!

 

[distracted]

First there is no interpretation of scripture for unregenerate people.

Huh? What??? No comprendo!!
Where is that in the Bible??? (or… Heaven forbid… is this just some “tradition” of yours??? )

But to address the question of John6 being challenging it is not. It clearly is metaphorically

Clearly??? Who says? Who SAYS it is metaphoric??? You?? But hey… you’re not God… (I know you’re not because God has better things to do than argue theology with a bunch of Catholics…).

. It was an example. The eating of the actual flesh and blood it lunacy when taken to mean a literal.

again, Who says??? You??? and you are…???

Transubstantiation does not hold up to Hebrews clear message that Christ is appointed to die once.

so you are saying that Jesus actually DIES at Mass??? Well, you are more Catholic than we Catholics!!

i knew the Mass was powerful… but i didn’t know it had the power to kill Christ all over again… Hmmm…

 

[distracted]

The above is shows such profound ignorance of the transubstantiation it boggles s the mind. Yeah, but you gotta give him a break… Most Protestants show forth the same ignorance… Nothin new… Ho hum… it gets so tiresome…

and once again… I’m bored… :yawn:

Basically what you do is misstate Catholic Doctrine

actually, you can refute nonsense… the nonsense of what he claims is Catholic doctrine… but you cannot refute true Catholic doctrine… which is why he always brings up the fake stuff…
How about you learn a little bit about Catholicism and then get back with us?

 

[AliciaCL]

I haven’t read all the thread but I’d like to interject a common sense question for those who believe in “once saved always saved.” If you’re saved, then why ever stop sinning? You essentially have a get-out-of-jail-card free. A non-Catholic once answered me that out of thankfulness for Christ dying and saving us, we stop sinning. The answer struck me as rather simplistic, nonsensical and impractical for God.

Doesn’t the whole Bible story from beginning to end constantly emphasis being good inorder to be transformed, which is ultimately pleasing to God and makes heaven ultimately able to accept you.

There’s a fundamental flaw in just believing and being saved forever. It makes no human or divine sense. Why have the game of life at all if you know you win in the end.

 

[Chris258]

First there is no interpretation of scripture for unregenerate people. This is a Biblical truth.

Wow…

So the Catholic Church should stop asserting that its conclusions drawn from the Scriptures (and Holy Tradition) are, in fact, the expressed Truth of a certain Scriptural passage…

…but the only people who are really fit to interpret Scripture and promulgate the Truth of Scripture are those of a select group of “regenerated” who happen to believe that “there is no interpretation of Scripture for [unsaved] people” (assuming, of course, to the criteria of OSAS).

Sounds like we’re trading the Magisterium of the Church for the Magisterium of Regenerated Me.

 

[Chris258]

Why have the game of life at all if you know you win in the end.

Aptly and succinctly put.

Of course, the first thing most OSAS adherents are going to do is blast you for suggesting that “life is a game” instead of actually addressing your point.

 

[Jimmy_B]

“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”.

These two beliefs came from man’s ego and and his own intellect and not from God. They are both anti-biblical and anti-Christian, they are nonsensical and they do not work in the real world. They are both a contradiction.

Many more beliefs that are false have arose from these first two false beliefs (OSAS and Personal interpretation) and they have cause much division and many, million individual cases, where people actually belong to the “religion of their own intellect and ego” and not to any Church that Jesus Christ founded and that God intended for all men.

I am a Roman Catholic, so obviously I disagree with these two fabricated, man-made errors; “OSAS” and “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”.

What are your thoughts?

I would like to here a non-Catholic, Protestant response.

 

[myredeemerlives]

The above is shows such profound ignorance of the transubstantiation it boggles s the mind. Basically what you do is misstate Catholic Doctrine(or in many cases many cases just make something it and call it Catholic Doctrine) and then tell us why it is wrong. Of course since what you attacked isn’t Catholic Doctrine at all there is no way one can refute it.

How about you learn a little bit about Catholicism and then get back with us?

So are you saying that he is wrong? That you don’t believe that Jesus is re-sacrificing Himself on the altar in the mass? I’d be very careful doing that or your own Church might have to ex-communicate you. Listen to the words of warning from the Church…

If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema” (Session 22, Canon 3).

]The mass is said to be something more than a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It is properly a “propitiatory sacrifice” - that is, a sacrifice offered “for sins.” “The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God…to appease Him, make Him due satisfaction for our sins, and to help the souls in Purgatory, and hence it is called Propitiatory” (Catechism of St Pius X).

Perhaps he understands what the Church believes more than you think.

 

[estesbob]

So are you saying that he is wrong? That you don’t believe that Jesus is re-sacrificing Himself on the altar in the mass? I’d be very careful doing that or your own Church might have to ex-communicate you. Listen to the words of warning from the Church…

If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema” (Session 22, Canon 3).

]The mass is said to be something more than a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It is properly a “propitiatory sacrifice” - that is, a sacrifice offered “for sins.” “The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God…to appease Him, make Him due satisfaction for our sins, and to help the souls in Purgatory, and hence it is called Propitiatory” (Catechism of St Pius X).

Perhaps he understands what the Church believes more than you think.

So show me where it say’s Jesus dies again every Mass?

 

[myredeemerlives]

The mass is said to be something more than a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It is properly a “propitiatory sacrifice” - that is, a sacrifice offered “for sins.” “The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God…to appease Him, make Him due satisfaction for our sins, and to help the souls in Purgatory, and hence it is called Propitiatory” (Catechism of St Pius X).

In case you still don’t see it… it says that the communion is a sacrifice for SINS. Meaning atonement for sins… which is what Jesus did on the cross. So basically it’s a sacrifice FOR SIN each time on the altar.

And I think we will both agree that only Jesus can offer Himself up to pay the price for sins. Unless of course you think there is some other way.