That’s exactly right:Pretty straightforward here.
Do this, you’re a sheep and go to heaven.
Don’t do this, you’re a goat and go to hell.
Seems the whole passage is about heaven, hell, and an verbs deciding the way.
michel
You will “fit” into the Catholic Church. I will pray for you. All people were meant to be Catholic, just some don’t realize it…yet.Very thoughtful post. Thanks for the reminder about humility. I certainly want God on his terms, not mine, whether it’s Catholic or otherwise. I obviously still have doubts and am undecided about what to do, since I don’t really fit in anywhere.
I’m finding it less and less likely. I started out with the very basic theology, which I largely agree with, and it made me seriously consider returning to the Catholic church: Salvation, Justification, Works, Grace, etc., are all things I agree on. But then comes Mary, the Papacy, Infallability, Veneration, etc…ya’all lost me on those.You will “fit” into the Catholic Church. I will pray for you. All people were meant to be Catholic, just some don’t realize it…yet.
Peace.
Paul answers your question directly in Romans 6. If a person is in Christ he is not to allow sin to have dominion over him. Verses 12-15 makes this point.AliciaCL;3922553]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.
Not really. No man can be good enough to be transformed. Rather we are to repent and believe in Christ Who died and rose again. The only way to be pleasing to God is to be in Christ i.e. recognizing Him as Lord and Savior.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.
Huh? Who would not want to know that they are saved from hell and destined for heaven?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.
What you present here is not the what the Scriptures teach. If a person has the attitude that you speak of above that person is demonstrating that he was not saved to begin with if he has this kind of shallow attitude. A WSAS person is a person who seeks to be righteous and follow Christ.Communication is semantics. It is hardly nitpicking.
Once Saved Always Saved is not a ticket to a buffet were once you are in you are in forever. You must actually DO something. You must grow as an individual, set spiritual goals, study,learn and read. You must make decisions in your day to day life based upon the precepts we are taught and actualy "go in peace to serve the Lord. Once saved always saved sounds nice but is a very very ever so dangerous teaching that will damn many people to a hell they casually walk right by due to the teachings. A person can say I just murdered someone, I just slept with another mans wife, …but I am saved. It negates the repentance, a proper and correct confession. Where is the action that corrects the act, where is the reparation, the confiator…
Sorry bro, WSAS is bologna made up by someone because they did a lot of wrong things and were not willing to do the right thing.
Don in Vegas
Isn’t it wrong for a catholic to interpret the Bible personally as the title of this topic suggests? For you to claim there are any essentials in the Bible requires you to personally interpret.The essentials are found in the bible here:
Genesis 1:1 to Revelations 22:21
michel
It is not wrong for a Catholic to interpret the Bible as I pointed out in a post with a referenced link to a Catholic teacher/apologist. It is only wrong if an intperetation conflicts with a dogmatic view of the church. Otherwise, Catholics have the freedom to interpret scripture on their own. In other words, the Catholics that defended, for several pages, that “personal interpretation” is wrong, were wrong themselves.Isn’t it wrong for a catholic to interpret the Bible personally as the title of this topic suggests? For you to claim there are any essentials in the Bible requires you to personally interpret.
Catholics can interpet the bible all they want. And if we come up with an interpretation that contradicts catholic Doctrine we know we have interpreted it wrong.Isn’t it wrong for a catholic to interpret the Bible personally as the title of this topic suggests? For you to claim there are any essentials in the Bible requires you to personally interpret.
What if we should take a gander at the faith of the early Church fathers for some clarity? It seems many who hold to OSAS will not give any Scriptural arguments against it much weight.If a person has the attitude that you speak of above that person is demonstrating that he was not saved to begin with if he has this kind of shallow attitude. A WSAS person is a person who seeks to be righteous and follow Christ.
Therefore, dearly beloved, we too have received of the Spirit of Christ; and Christ dwells in us, accordingly as it is written that the Spirit said through the mouth of the prophet as follows: “I will dwell among them, and will walk about among them.” Let us, therefore, prepare our temples for the Spirit of Christ; and let us not grieve Him, so that He will not depart from us. Remember the word of the Apostle, when he warns us, “Grieve not the Holy Spirit, in whom you have been signed unto the day of redemption.” For from Baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and He descends and rests upon the waters; and those who are baptized are clothed in Him. For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of re-birth; and then they receive the Holy Spirit.
…From that man, however, who received the Spirit from the water and then grieved Him, – He departs from him until the man dies; and then in accord with His nature He returns to Christ and accuses the man of having grieved Him.
–Aphraates, Treatises, 336-345 AD
Therefore, when someone falls from the Spirit through any wickedness – that grace indeed remains irrevocably with those who are willing to repent after such a fall. Otherwise, the one who has fallen is no longer in God, because that Holy Spirit and Advocate who is in God has deserted him.
–St. Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, 358-362 AD
These Church fathers certainly didn’t believe that true saving grace could not be lost. In fact, as you can see, St. Augustine condemns the attitude of “Oh, he willfully turned back to sin, I guess he wasn’t saved in the first place” that is often chimed by adherents of OSAS.But if someone already regenerate and justified should, of his own will, relapse into his evil life, certainly that man cannot say: “I have not received”; because he lost the grace he received from God and by his own free choice went into evil.
–St. Augustine, Admonition and Grace, 426-427 AD
What?? How can you possibly interpret this passage as having the meaning you say?? :hypno:You need to read the passage again. He never says that it’s essential to feed or clothe anyone in order to be saved.
Yes, I’m telling you that it isn’t necessary.
if you don;'t see it in scirpture… you, who probably only (supposedly) go by Scirpture… than it is hopeless…The problem, of course is that you can’t just pick out people who weren’t saved. You have to show the link between salvation and doing good works.
Jesus established ONE Church…I’m finding it less and less likely. I started out with the very basic theology, which I largely agree with, and it made me seriously consider returning to the Catholic church: Salvation, Justification, Works, Grace, etc., are all things I agree on. But then comes Mary, the Papacy, Infallability, Veneration, etc…ya’all lost me on those.
No, I’m convinced that Jesus meant what he said when he told the Apostles they would be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was not a liar. Truth was complete in the first century by the time the last Apostle died. Doctrines added by the Catholic church subsequent to this are teachings of men.Jesus established ONE Church…
If we can trust him on “salvation, justification, works, grace, etc…”…
We can trust him on Mary, etc… and everything…
that doesn’t make sense… implying that only the Apostles were given Truth… Jesus came to save ALL of us…No, I’m convinced that Jesus meant what he said when he told the Apostles they would be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was not a liar. Truth was complete in the first century by the time the last Apostle died. Doctrines added by the Catholic church subsequent to this are teachings of men.
So why, among are seperated bretheren, are there so many different versions of the truth? Was Christ the author of confusion?No, I’m convinced that Jesus meant what he said when he told the Apostles they would be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was not a liar. Truth was complete in the first century by the time the last Apostle died. Doctrines added by the Catholic church subsequent to this are teachings of men.
Chris258;3966767]What if we should take a gander at the faith of the early Church fathers for some clarity? It seems many who hold to OSAS will not give any Scriptural arguments against it much weight.
These Church fathers certainly didn’t believe that true saving grace could not be lost. In fact, as you can see, St. Augustine condemns the attitude of “Oh, he willfully turned back to sin, I guess he wasn’t saved in the first place” that is often chimed by adherents of OSAS.
It is ironic that the very same St. Augustine is so heavily relied upon in Calvinist theology. Calvin took Augustine’s ideas and ran them into the ground, creating innovations like OSAS.
Depends what you mean by “grave” error. It is true that we can see even in the early centuries the church adopting unbilical concepts and doctrines.So if you’re saying Christians should believe “Once Saved, Always Saved” because that is God’s Truth, and yet the early Church believed in no such thing – and even some of its rhetoric is condemned by Augustine – are you saying that God’s Church within the space of a few centuries or even less fell into grave error on the matter of Christian salvation?
Don’t believe it becasue i say so but what do the Scriptures say?Why should I believe you over the Church fathers?
There are different understandings of various doctrines in protestant churches. This is also true in the Catholic church.So why, among are seperated bretheren, are there so many different versions of the truth? Was Christ the author of confusion?
Lookie there … you actually agree with the Catholic Church on something.Truth was complete in the first century by the time the last Apostle died.
Thanks. That’s all I needed to know.It is true that we can see even in the early centuries the church I assume you’re referring to the Church] adopting unbilical concepts and doctrines.