“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[ellammcg]

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.

That is exactly what my (Baptist) church believes- if any of us interpret the Bible in any way other than proscribed Baptist doctrine, we are told we are just wrong.

 

[estesbob]

I find some of this squabbling amazing…particularly about Billy Graham. Frankly, I think some of you are very unawares of where Billy Graham was coming from… You might want to read about him, and see where he really stood.

Google these three words… Billy Graham Catholics. Start reading and then see how you feel. If you do the reading it will more than likely change opinions on both sides of the fence.

Here’s a good one to start with… feasite.org/Foundation/fbcbill1.htm

You should really read the article and some of the others before you pass judgment on Mr. Graham.

I hate it when people destroy my preconceptions with facts Thanks for the link.

 

[estesbob]

That is exactly what my (Baptist) church believes- if any of us interpret the Bible in any way other than proscribed Baptist doctrine, we are told we are just wrong.

And where did Baptist doctrine come from?

 

[ellammcg]

Our sermon last night was about OSAS and then about how we have to live holy and righteous lives. Why? If OSAS is correct, then there is no eternal reason I (or anyone else) has to live a holy life. Our sins, past, present, future are covered.

I do not want to offend my Lord but I know many who felt the same way and have fallen away (including pastors) because of difficult circumstances in their lives. None of my teenage Sunday school class students has a biological mother in his/her life and some have no father either. ALL of their parents have made professions of faith and almost all had lived like they believed. Now they have abandoned their families, church and faith. IAW OSAS, they are still good to go (to heaven that is). The only response I have heard about the “backsliders” is that “they must not have been saved”. And, guess what, even though I am saved by the definition of OSAS, if I (or anyone else) join the Catholic church, I will be believed (by my church) to have never been saved, no matter the evidence to the contrary.

 

[ellammcg]

And where did Baptist doctrine come from?

They will tell you that it is directly from the Bible and has descended in an unbroken chain from the shores of Galilee through all sorts of churches that the Catholic church considers heretical. (aka Landmark or “Trail of Blood”)

 

[estesbob]

They will tell you that it is directly from the Bible and has descended in an unbroken chain from the shores of Galilee through all sorts of churches that the Catholic church considers heretical. (aka Landmark or “Trail of Blood”)

Ah-the infamous trail of blood. What is interesting about that is that many of the groups trace their lineage through have beleifs that are in no way compatible with what Baptists believe today.

 

[MrS]

Originally Posted by ellammcg forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
They will tell you that it is directly from the Bible and has descended in an unbroken chain from the shores of Galilee through all sorts of churches that the Catholic church considers heretical. (aka Landmark or “Trail of Blood”)

You realize of course that the author has since refuted his take on “history”??

Originally Posted by ellammcg forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
That is exactly what my (Baptist) church believes- if any of us interpret the Bible in any way other than proscribed Baptist doctrine, we are told we are just wrong.

*And you realize too, that the authority to “…feed my Sheep… tend my flock…” was given to Peter, and never abrogated to future Baptists. *

 

[ellammcg]

You realize of course that the author has since refuted his take on “history”??

No, I have not. I have done quite a bit of research on the various groups mentioned in Trail of Blood, but never the author. I will definately look into that.

I concur with your assessment of Peter. Ironically, the KJV (which is all we use), is particularly clear about that because of the Old English thee/thou/thy et al.

 

[SyCarl]

“

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

What are your thoughts?

Personal interpretation is an inevitable thing that everybody, including Catholics, must apply to get where they are. You have beliefs about the Catholic Church. Without dealing with whether those beliefs are true, we can look at how you arrived at those beliefs.

You could read the Bible and conclude that what the Catholic Church says is true. That would be a personal interpretation of Scripture.

You could look at history and conclude that historical evidence shows that the Catholic Church is true. That would be a personal interpretation of history.

You could listen to what the Church teaches and conclude that what it says is true. That would be your interpretation of whatever evidence you used to reach that conclusion.

At some point you decided that the Catholic Church is right and that others do not have the whole truth. That belief is based on your personal interpretation of the evidence you had.

You have decided that private interpretation of Scripture is wrong. That conclusion is a result of the private interpretation of whatever evidence or grounds you base that belief on.

Being human, others can look at the same evidence and reach a different conclusion. However as all beliefs come down to a personal interpretation of the evidence, there is nothing wrong with Protestants using personal interpretation.

 

[MrS]

Being human, others can look at the same evidence and reach a different conclusion. However as all beliefs come down to a personal interpretation of the evidence, there is nothing wrong with Protestants using personal interpretation.

Good circular argument…not.

I think God foresaw the situation… that is why He left us the guidance of His One Church, and the protection of the Holy Spirit from the Church’s birthday (Pentecost) forward.

I interpret that as His plan being better than yours.

.

 

[ckempston]

Good circular argument…not.

I think God foresaw the situation… that is why He left us the guidance of His One Church, and the protection of the Holy Spirit from the Church’s birthday (Pentecost) forward.

I interpret that as His plan being better than yours.

.

Actually, I believe he was pointing out that the Catholic argument is circular (because it is), and Catholics lose serious credibility when they say Protestants cannot do something that they do themselves.

 

[SyCarl]

Good circular argument…not.

I think God foresaw the situation… that is why He left us the guidance of His One Church, and the protection of the Holy Spirit from the Church’s birthday (Pentecost) forward.

I interpret that as His plan being better than yours.

.

And how did you reach the conclusion that God left us the guidance of His one Church and that it is protected by the Holy Spirit? Is that not your interpretation of the evidence?

 

[guanophore]

I Where does scripture say she is given power?

Does scripture say that God gives any Christian power? Why should His mother be excluded from the empowerment of the HS?

I To say that because Jesus was helpful to His mother means that same kind of thing is to be applied to Mary now who has been dead for 2000 years goes far beyond what this and other texts are saying.

That is because you read the text with a limited mind, and because Catholics are not limited to the text by the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is not a problem to “go far beyond the text”.

God is WAY too big to be confined to a page.

Many times

Secondly, since God is all-powerful it is not necessary to ask anyone else in the next world to pray for me. This is the responsiblity of our Great High Priest i.e. the Lord Jesus.

First, you admit that you have asked for the prayers of others many times. But, in the very next sentence, you say it is not necessary to have any one pray for you.

Why are you engaged in the useless activity of asking for the intercession of others.

The problem is that you are assuming that those who no longer have physical bodies and not part of this world can hear your requests either audibly or mentally. The Scriptures never say such things about those who have died. The only One Who can hear our prayers and thoughts is God. Only He alone has such knowledge and power.

Such a small conception of God, and of His plan for mankind. He became man so that we might partake of His divine nature. He is generous and it is His good pleasure to share His knowledge and power with us.

To back up an assertion like this, you would have to find a way to explain away the appearance of Samuel to Saul, and of Moses and Elijah to Jesus.

 

[MrS]

And how did you reach the conclusion that God left us the guidance of His one Church and that it is protected by the Holy Spirit? Is that not your interpretation of the evidence?

Catholicism is not an either/or religion. It is both/and.

Faith and reason go hand in hand and compliment each other.

The reasonableness of the language in the Scriptures goes hand in hand with the faith that they are inerrant.

.,

 

[estesbob]

And how did you reach the conclusion that God left us the guidance of His one Church and that it is protected by the Holy Spirit? Is that not your interpretation of the evidence?

It is the interpreation of just about everyone for at least a thousand years after Chirst acended to heaven. God did not leave it up for everyone to figure things out on their own using a book that wasnt avaialble for 400 years after Chirst died and wasnt availabe to the general populace for at least 1,400 years after Christ.

 

[ckempston]

It is the interpreation of just about everyone for at least a thousand years after Chirst acended to heaven. God did not leave it up for everyone to figure things out on their own using a book that wasnt avaialble for 400 years after Chirst died and wasnt availabe to the general populace for at least 1,400 years after Christ.

To your first statement: those living during those first thousand years may very well have looked back today with puzzlement on their faces, scratching their heads, and reconsidering their belief that the church is miraculously protected by the Holy Spirit.

The Old Testament was available, and the letters and Gospels were in circulation. While you have a point in saying that there was no Bible, as it exists in its current form, for 400 years, that point is loses some of its strength when you consider that the church claims that it just took what was already commonly held belief, with a few exceptions and disagreement, and “canonized” it. They didn’t just pull a Josiah/Hilkiah and produce the Word of God out of a dusty bin.

Now, to your point about the Bible not being available for at least 1400 years: I find that switch astounding. There was another conversation on this board where it was claimed by Catholics that the church never discouraged or prevented laypersons from reading the Bible. If it wasn’t available for 1400 years, then that would indeed be a good argument that the Catholic church kept the masses from reading the Bible.

 

[SyCarl]

It is the interpreation of just about everyone for at least a thousand years after Chirst acended to heaven. God did not leave it up for everyone to figure things out on their own using a book that wasnt avaialble for 400 years after Chirst died and wasnt availabe to the general populace for at least 1,400 years after Christ.

When it comes to being judged according to our works, if it going to get us anywhere to say “but nearly everybody did the same things that I did”?

Similarly that a majority of people may have held a certain belief does not mean that it is the correct belief.

 

[MrS]

When it comes to being judged according to our works, if it going to get us anywhere to say “but nearly everybody did the same things that I did”?

Similarly that a majority of people may have held a certain belief does not mean that it is the correct belief.

Is that by chance how things are addressed in your faith community??

 

[estesbob]

Now, to your point about the Bible not being available for at least 1400 years: I find that switch astounding. There was another conversation on this board where it was claimed by Catholics that the church never discouraged or prevented laypersons from reading the Bible. If it wasn’t available for 1400 years, then that would indeed be a good argument that the Catholic church kept the masses from reading the Bible.

For 1,400 years the only Bibles were laboriously hand copied and very, very rare. Since most of the populace was illiterate they couldnt have read Scripture even if it was avaiblable . The ONLY place people had exposure to Scripture was in the Catholic Church.

 

[justasking4]

ellammcg;3996222]Our sermon last night was about OSAS and then about how we have to live holy and righteous lives. Why? If OSAS is correct, then there is no eternal reason I (or anyone else) has to live a holy life. Our sins, past, present, future are covered.

There are excellent reasons to live a holy life since OSAS is correct. In fact the Scriptures exhort us in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 to no longer live for ourselves but for Him:
14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;
15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

In this passage Paul is exhorting the Corinthians who have been saved by Christ to now live not for themselves but for Christ. That is their calling and ours who profess Christ. It does not mean we do this to earn salvation but it is a result of our understanding of what Christ has done for us who are in Christ.

I do not want to offend my Lord but I know many who felt the same way and have fallen away (including pastors) because of difficult circumstances in their lives. None of my teenage Sunday school class students has a biological mother in his/her life and some have no father either. ALL of their parents have made professions of faith and almost all had lived like they believed. Now they have abandoned their families, church and faith. IAW OSAS, they are still good to go (to heaven that is). The only response I have heard about the “backsliders” is that “they must not have been saved”. And, guess what, even though I am saved by the definition of OSAS, if I (or anyone else) join the Catholic church, I will be believed (by my church) to have never been saved, no matter the evidence to the contrary

.

What do you think are the characteristics of a person who is saved?