“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[KingAlfred]

OSAS comes from Paul and Martin Luther, and most respectfully, their theologies are *not *the sum total of Christianity. Paul was invaluable, of course. Nonetheless, he is not the final word on the Christian religion. We must look to the *Catholic Church *for that.

 

[mikeledes]

OSAS comes from Paul and Martin Luther, and most respectfully, their theologies are *not *the sum total of Christianity. Paul was invaluable, of course. Nonetheless, he is not the final word on the Christian religion. We must look to the *Catholic Church *for that.

Neither Paul nor Martin Luther taught OSAS. Both taught that salvation could be lost.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[guanophore]

Paul said let us reason together. Indeed faith in the unseen is in itself not logical from an empirical standpoint. However, God is not the author of confusion. The Bible is logical if we have faith. It cannot be understood as saying things it does not mean.

I agree that we are to reason with our faith, and that God is not the author of confusion, however, you are wrong that the bible cannot be understood as saying things it does not mean. There are members right here in CAF who have championed the notion that Baptism has nothing to do with water, an that Christians are under no obligation to love those who are not part of their own faith community.

There have been Mormons on here that biblically defend that Jesus is not God. Clearly they understand the Bible to say things it does not mean. Once the Holy Writing is separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it, all manner of erroneous interpretations result. On another thread, there is a vigorous debate that John 6 has nothing to do with eucharist.

Moreover, it must be understood as a perfectly consistent document. The logic is not faith argument therefore cannot win the day. To the faithful it is perfectly logical. To the reprobate it’s stupidity.

I agree, but I don’t think it is possible to understand it in a perfectly consistent manner when the contents of it are separated from the Apostolic Teaching that produced the writings.

 

[guanophore]

I do not think the prodigal son could have been lost. This is a message to the elect that if you’ve slipped and fallen, even if you left fellowship with God, you will be welcomed upon your return. However, this really doesn’t speak to election per se. The prodigal sons will all return to the Lord:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day (John 6:37-39).

I agree that the parable is about restoring one to right standing. However, Jesus is describing the attitude of humility and repentance that makes this restoration possible. Not all who have tasted of the heavenly gift or become partakers of the divine grace, after falling away, accomplish this attitude of repentance.

Although He does not drive them away, they can surely run away. He will not lose them, but they can surely hide themselves from Him. This is the freedom He has granted us, when He made us in HIs likeness and image.

you have to elaborate on this. In essence yes the Israelites were chosen by God, called by Him, but very few were (a remnant) were ultimately retained by God. That remnant were the elect, not the general Jewish population.

God chose them as a people, prepared them as a people. Jesus grieved over them as a chosen people.

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal” (Romans 11:1-4).

Those that were chosen were those who were called and responded to the call. They were obedient, so they were reserved.

In fact the others who stumbled over the stumbling stone were not predestined for salvation, but rather for something else:

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory (Romans 9:22-23).

If they had chosen obedience, they would have been spared HIs wrath.

I have to disagree here. I do not think the “elect” can fail. The very idea would seem to abrogate divine omniscience.

I agree that it is a mystery. However, to be created in the image and likeness of God means (among other things) that we have the freedom to reject Him.

He desires all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. Yet, we see that all do not. How is it that God desires something He does not get?

For many years I felt we were responsible for responding to grace. However, if our response to grace is a prerequisite for salvation then it seems as if grace is no longer grace – but something wrought through our own endeavor.

This is simply a misperception of responding to grace. We cannot respond to grace without grace. The fact that human will is a factor in salvation does not change the fact that it is based on grace. We are saved by grace, through faith. Faith is the human capacity (gifted to us by God) to place our trust and confidence in something outside ourselves. Faith requires not only an act of the will, but other actions that demonstrate it’s presence (obedience). These are human actions. They are part of God’s plan of salvation. Yet, they are not the basis of salvation, which is by grace.

We are saved for the purpose of good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Those works are not the basis of our salvation, yet neither are they separated from it. The good works are part and parcel of salvation, and the reason we are saved.

In a practical sense yes we become holy, we are fervent in worship, study, love, humility, charity, and all these things. How can we not be – we’re the elect. It is said if we are to boast then boast about God, not about ourselves.

This is what our faith response and our good works do. They give glory to God. This requires our participation. In order for one to be able to give an account for the hope that is in oneself, one must have a testimony. One must participate in the saving grace by which he is transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.

I give no credit to me for my salvation … not a shred. God lifted me from the ashes so to speak & frankly there’s was little about me that a God could like

While we were yet sinners…

Yet, you allowed yourself to be lifted. You did not stubbornly refuse the hand, and insist on staying in the ashes.

There was no freedom in my will – before I was a slave to sin,

This is an error related to the false doctrine of Total Depravity. Slaves do not stop having free will. For the most part, they are indeed stuck in their station in life. However, it is possible for a slave to still exercise free will. A slave can rebel, run away, or dedicate oneself to work as unto the Lord. The notion that being a slave abrogates free will is incorrect. A slave can still choose between right and wrong. This we do by grace. Catholics call this prevenient grace, the drawing or calling grace. If one responds, then one may be regenerated. But that grace is given to all, that is why it does not regenerate in itself. Regeneration requires a profession of faith. .

freed from sin now I’m a slave to God. I’ll be the guy shining Jesus’ shoes in heaven!

If you persevere until the end!

 

[guanophore]

OSAS comes from Paul and Martin Luther, and most respectfully, their theologies are *not *the sum total of Christianity. Paul was invaluable, of course. Nonetheless, he is not the final word on the Christian religion. We must look to the *Catholic Church *for that.

I don’t agree with this. I don’t think Luther believed in OSAS, and further, I am certain that Paul did not, since he was Catholic. I think OSAS comes from the minds of men who read Luther and Paul and are separated from the sacred tradition that produced the NT, so they don’t understand or interpret it right. They are Paulists, and have said that Jesus did not have much to say about salvation, but that the "doctrines’ of salvation are found in the NT epistles of Paul. In so doing they derive a doctrine that is separated from the rest of the NT, and the rest of the OT, and the rest of the Apostolic Teaching.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I agree that we are to reason with our faith, and that God is not the author of confusion, however, you are wrong that the bible cannot be understood as saying things it does not mean. There are members right here in CAF who have championed the notion that Baptism has nothing to do with water, an that Christians are under no obligation to love those who are not part of their own faith community.

There have been Mormons on here that biblically defend that Jesus is not God. Clearly they understand the Bible to say things it does not mean. Once the Holy Writing is separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it, all manner of erroneous interpretations result. On another thread, there is a vigorous debate that John 6 has nothing to do with eucharist.

I’ve also heard these arguments concerning baptism. For example proponents of this idea refer to 1 Cor. 12:13 and 1 Peter 3:21 to support their view (in particular the latter verse, which I will quote):

and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 3:21).

This is a big one for Baptists (who generally hold the position you’re referring to). In other words water baptism is not efficacious but rather is only symbolic, a way to publicly confess our faith. This is also why they do not perform infant baptism, but rather wait until the age where one can coherently form faith.

Frankly, I disagree with the Baptist view (primarily against infant baptism), however, I do not think it’s consequential to salvation. I know of some churches notwithstanding their adoption of the Nicene Creed who perform a ceremonial baptism for new members of the congregation. They do not consider this as a baptism per se; and I think this practice is fine as well.

In Scripture we see entire households being baptized (see Acts 16:15, 16:31-33, 1 Cor. 1:16, etc.), including infants. Matthew 28:19 is where we derive instruction for baptism. However, some early Christian documents indicate a fasting requirement prior to baptism (see the Didache), and they apparently only baptized adults.

The paramount requirement for salvation is faith. There is no other means by which we can be saved. This is made quite clear throughout the NT. In the reformed tradition we hold to the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds and perform infant baptism. However, we also understand without faith there is no salvation.

The RCC views baptism as regenerative; believing the ceremony infuses the Spirit into an infant. Prior to this regeneration it is though that the infant still retains the stain of original sin. I disagree with this view as well.

God said in the Old Testament that we are only responsible for the sins we commit (Ezekiel 18:20). Our sin nature is passed down from Adam but we do not share guilt for his particular transgression. Therefore, there is no guilt for the original sin; but rather a sin nature and spiritual discernment of all humanity that can only be lifted by grace.

Baptism is an objective sign of proclamation. It assures us that we belong to God’s people to whom, corporately, the promises are declared. However, the promise is received by faith and repentance. Baptism does not mean God predestined us unto salvation.

As for the Mormons – a con man wrote their bible, so whatever they think flows from the mouth of a swindler.

I agree, but I don’t think it is possible to understand it in a perfectly consistent manner when the contents of it are separated from the Apostolic Teaching that produced the writings.

Sola scriptura does not mean we ignore our history or tradition altogether. It simply means the Bible is the supreme authority on matters of doctrine. If it’s inconsistent with the plain language of Scripture then we know it is wrong. A proper congregational or Episcopal structure will usually ensure the soundness of doctrine, as imparted by Christ then entrusted to Peter who ensured scripture was completed as God decreed. I think the idea that a single man can be infallible with regards to doctrine actually abrogates this intended structure. When you promulgate an idea of infallibility then inevitably, a single erroneous utterance by a Pope in a matter concerning doctrine, becomes set in stone creating a slippery slope of potential error.

In other words, a Pope in a moment of exuberance makes perhaps on overzealous statement regarding a particular matter. Then, even though it may have only been a minor error or a matter of nuance, the church becomes bound to defend the statement indefinitely. This will magnify the error over time.

Indeed we see the idea that Scripture should not have the final word corrupting Protestant denominations as well. Overall I have little problem with tradition, as long as the traditions of men do not abrogate (in the least way) the word of God. I do view baptism as a pillar of our faith, however, nuances over what exactly it means or when it is to be administered are not the sort things we should be quibbling over (as Paul rightly tells us).

Blessings

 

[TriuneUnity]

Jesus prayed to God for the holiness of His elect. I’m not sure how this should diminish the confidence the elect may have in their own salvation.

Just to pick your brain a little, sola. I do agree with your position on divine election. My question, though, and I am sure it’s one Calvinists get often…How do you know you’re elect?

 

[sola_scriptura]

I agree that the parable is about restoring one to right standing. However, Jesus is describing the attitude of humility and repentance that makes this restoration possible. Not all who have tasted of the heavenly gift or become partakers of the divine grace, after falling away, accomplish this attitude of repentance.

I think you’re deriving this view from Hebrew 6 (I don’t have time to research right now, this will be a rushed post). I do not take this view. Apostasy is an utter rejection of Christ. It is the polar opposite of our acceptance and love for Him. This sort of rejection of Christ means we were never elected to begin with. This revelation is given for the benefit of the elect (as all revelations are).

Although He does not drive them away, they can surely run away. He will not lose them, but they can surely hide themselves from Him. This is the freedom He has granted us, when He made us in HIs likeness and image.

No one can hide from God & none of those predestined can be lost.

God chose them as a people, prepared them as a people. Jesus grieved over them as a chosen people.

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal” (Romans 11:1-4).

Those that were chosen were those who were called and responded to the call. They were obedient, so they were reserved.

If they had chosen obedience, they would have been spared HIs wrath.

There is a “corporate” calling. Baptism into the body of Christ is effectual to this end. However, we are sealed by faith and repentance. Many are called but few are chosen. Thus, not all of those baptized predestined. God only imparts all aspects of grace unto the elect. This is the distinction between common and efficacious grace.

Whether there is an avenue by which others may be saved is a different matter – however, we can know that without enduring faith one is not elected, meaning they will not be saint.

I agree that it is a mystery. However, to be created in the image and likeness of God means (among other things) that we have the freedom to reject Him.

He desires all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. Yet, we see that all do not. How is it that God desires something He does not get?

I agree with your premise here. However, whether all will be saved (in the hereafter, after condemnation) is another matter all together separate from predestination. Rev. 20 seems to indicate a second death and separate judgment for those who are not in Christ. Eternal punishment is also a revealed fact. I agree with Karl Barth in this sort of hypothetical universalism idea, but hypothetical is all it is in my mind. The fullness of this mystery has not been revealed & obviously God had His reasons for not completely revealing these truths to us (which I will not dare question).

This is simply a misperception of responding to grace. We cannot respond to grace without grace. The fact that human will is a factor in salvation does not change the fact that it is based on grace. We are saved by grace, through faith. Faith is the human capacity (gifted to us by God) to place our trust and confidence in something outside ourselves. Faith requires not only an act of the will, but other actions that demonstrate it’s presence (obedience). These are human actions. They are part of God’s plan of salvation. Yet, they are not the basis of salvation, which is by grace.

I disagree

We are saved for the purpose of good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Those works are not the basis of our salvation, yet neither are they separated from it. The good works are part and parcel of salvation, and the reason we are saved.

I agree

This is what our faith response and our good works do. They give glory to God. This requires our participation. In order for one to be able to give an account for the hope that is in oneself, one must have a testimony. One must participate in the saving grace by which he is transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.

In our reference frame certainly we must respond to grace. However, the truth is only by grace are we enabled to seek God and please Him. He gives faith, He gives us saving grace, and that grace will preserve the elect.

While we were yet sinners…

Yet, you allowed yourself to be lifted. You did not stubbornly refuse the hand, and insist on staying in the ashes.

God lifted me – I had nothing at all to do with it.

This is an error related to the false doctrine of Total Depravity. Slaves do not stop having free will. For the most part, they are indeed stuck in their station in life. However, it is possible for a slave to still exercise free will. A slave can rebel, run away, or dedicate oneself to work as unto the Lord. The notion that being a slave abrogates free will is incorrect. A slave can still choose between right and wrong. This we do by grace. Catholics call this prevenient grace, the drawing or calling grace. If one responds, then one may be regenerated. But that grace is given to all, that is why it does not regenerate in itself. Regeneration requires a profession of faith.

There are protestants that believe in universal prevenient grace (Arminians). I used to believe in it. However, I now know there is a difference between common and efficacious grace. Your rejection of the total depravity of mankind is reminiscent of the Pelagian heresy that Augustine spent years debunking.

The RCC has backtracked on this doctrine, and I do not accept its watering down of the absolute truth of Total Depravity.

If you persevere until the end!

The elect always will!

 

[distracted]

I believe that you not correct on this. I think that if a person is truly saved, they are always saved. Now, this doesn’t go without saying that there are many many folks who claim that they have been saved for one reason or another but are truly not changed by Jesus and therefore are not yet saved. When these persons fall away for obvious reasons, they are not saved because they truly never were, but when your name is written in the book of life, it is written in permanent ink. .

my life story is a total contradition to the idea of OSAS… I was filled with the Holy Spirit when veyr young… I was in love with Jesus, totally & completely… for a couple yrs, Then things began to “fall apart” with family, etc… Actually, it is rather mysterious what all happened… have yet to figure it out… but in any case, no one can tell me that i was not, as you call it, “saved”… I was as full of Jesus’ Spriit as a person could possible be… and yet i fell away, gradually, at first… then not so gradually. I didn’t just say one day “I don’t want you anymore, Jesus.” Not even close… but i went away from him… didn’t know how to get back to him… didn’t think i really needed to… of course, i was wrong, but i was young and ignorant… etc… I got very lost… wasn’t catechized, so didn’t know Truth very well… fell into various sins… got to thinking God didn’t want me back because i was “too bad”… (of course, i had gotten that message from people, so, well, you know how that goes…). anyway, it was something Catholic that brought me back to Jesus. And i am here to tel you that only that something (i truly believe) could have done that… The Rosary. then… weird things happend, got angry @ God… & anyway… Very long story… but it was always something Catholic that made me stronger… the thing that helps the absolute most is the Real Presence of Christ in the Church… to spend hours There, in quiet solitude… listening… is to know Him… to appreciate Him… and to know Truth… absolute, irrefutable Truth…

God bless…

 

[mikeledes]

These are profound words by Paul. So what did Christ mean in John 15?

I took a look at Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary on John 15, and to summarize his points (he cites Augustine extensively) he believes this chapter evidences “conditional election.” I quote:

Ver. 7. On account of our being in this world, we sometimes ask for that, which is not expedient for us. But these things will not be granted us, if we remain in Christ, who never grants us any thing, unless it be profitable to us. (St. Augustine, tract. 81. in Joan.) — If we abide in Christ, by a lively faith, and his words abide in us by a lively, ardent charity, which can make us produce the fruits of good works, all that we ask, will be granted us. (Bible de Vence) — These conditional expressions, if you remain in the vine, if you keep my commandments, &c. give us to understand, that our perseverance and salvation are upon conditions, to be fulfilled by us. — (St. Augustine, de cor. & gra. chap. 13.)

haydock1859.tripod.com/id108.html

Whatever can be said of election, it must be noted that Paul felt confident in both his election and the election of those within the church at the time (see Romans 8:38-39 & 1 Thessalonians 5:9). The same can be said of Luke, as expressed in Acts 13:48.

There can be no doubt that those who reject Christ cannot have been elected – therefore from that standpoint we can say election is conditional. However, it is also clear that only those elected by God will be saved. .

Unconditional election and believing that not all of the just will persevere to the end are not mutually exclusive concepts. Both Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther believed in unconditional election, and yet they also believed that not all of the justified will persevere to the end. How can this be, particularly from a Catholic viewpoint? Because Catholics believe that the number of the just is not coextensive with the number of those who are elect for eternal glory. We also believe that perseverance to the end (living and dying in a state of grace) is a gift. It is God who determines who will receive the gift of final perseverance and who will not receive it.

Now those passages that talk about being “confirmed to the end” are meant to emphasize God’s faithfulness. In other words, while you are being led by the Spirit, earnestly submitting youself to God’s will - which results in sanctification - God will not forsake you. Saint Augustine said the following:

**“I have now to consider the subject of perseverance with greater care; for in the former book also I said some things on this subject when I was discussing the beginning of faith. I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. How, then, should he be said to have received or to have had perseverance who has not persevered? For if any one have continence, and fall away from that virtue and become incontinent, - or, in like manner, if he have righteousness, if patience, if even faith, and fall away, he is rightly said to have had these virtues and to have them no longer; for he was continent, or he was righteous, or he was patient, or he was believing, as long as he was so; but when he ceased to be so, he no longer is what he was. But how should he who Has not persevered have ever been persevering, since it is only by persevering that any one shows himself persevering, - and this he has not done? But lest any one should object to this, and say, If from the time at which any one became a believer he has lived - for the sake of argument - ten years, and in the midst of them has fallen from the faith, has he not persevered for five years? I am not contending about words. If it be thought that this also should be called perseverance, as it were for so long as it lasts, assuredly he is not to be said to have had in any degree that perseverance of which we are now discoursing, by which one perseveres in Christ even to the end. And the believer of one year, or of a period as much shorter as may be conceived of, if he has lived faithfully until he died, has rather had this perseverance than the believer of many years’ standing, if a little time before his death he has fallen away from the steadfastness of his faith.”

“But, on the other hand, “of his own will a man forsakes God, so as to be deservedly forsaken by God.” Who would deny this? But it is for that reason we ask not to be led into temptation, so that this may not happen. And if we are heard, certainly it does not happen, because God does not allow it to happen. For nothing comes to pass except what either He Himself does, or Himself allows to be done. Therefore He is powerful both to turn wills from evil to good, and to convert those that are inclined to fall, or to direct them into a way pleasing to Himself. For to Him it is not said in vain, “O God, Thou shalt turn again and quicken us;” it is not vainly said, “Give not my foot to be moved;” it is not vainly said, “Give me not over, O Lord, from my desire to the sinner;” finally, not to mention many passages, since probably more may occur to you, it is not vainly said, “Lead us not into temptation.” For whoever is not led into temptation, certainly is not led into the temptation of his own evil will; and he who is not led into the temptation of his own evil will, is absolutely led into no temptation. For “every one is tempted,” as it is written, “when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed;” “but God tempteth no man,” - that is to say, with a hurtful temptation. For temptation is moreover beneficial by which we are not deceived or overwhelmed, but proved, according to that which is said, “Prove me, O Lord, and try me.” Therefore, with that hurtful temptation which the apostle signifies when he says, “Lost by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labor be in vain,” “God tempteth no man,” as I have said, - that is, He brings or leads no one into temptation. For to be tempted and not to be led into temptation is not evil, - nay, it is even good; for this it is to be proved. When, therefore, we say to God, “Lead us not into temptation,” what do we say but, “Permit us not to be led”? Whence some pray in this manner, and it is read in many codices, and the most blessed Cyprian thus uses it: “Do not suffer us to be led into temptation.” In the Greek gospel, however, I have never found it otherwise than, “Lead us not into temptation.” We live, therefore, more securely if we give up the whole to God, and do not entrust ourselves partly to Him and partly to ourselves, as that venerable martyr saw. For when he would expound the same clause of the prayer, he says among other things, “But when we ask that we may not come into temptation, we are reminded of our infirmity and weakness while we thus ask, lest any should insolently vaunt himself, - lest any should proudly and arrogantly assume anything to himself, - lest any should take to himself the glory either of confession or suffering as his own; since the Lord Himself, teaching humility, said, ‘Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation; the Spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.’ So that when a humble and submissive confession comes first and all is attributed to God, whatever is sought for suppliantly, with the fear of God, may be granted by His own loving-kindness.”” **(Augustine, On the Gift of Perseverance, Ch. I, XII)

God will not fosake you unless you forsake Him first:

1 Chronicles 28:9

9"As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.

2 Chronicles 15:2

**2and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, "Listen to me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: the LORD is with you when you are with Him And if you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you. **

1 Timothy 2:12

12If we endure, we will also reign with Him;
If we deny Him, He also will deny us;

To be continued…

 

[mikeledes]

So what about passages like Romans 8 and John 6? How are they reconciled with the clear teachings found in passages like John 15, Romans 11, Hebrew 6, etc? Obviously, God’s word cannot contradict itself. It has been clearly established that John 15 is about genuine Christians:

**1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. **

A “branch in Me” is another way of saying a “person in Me,” because the “branch” symbolizes a person. Any person who is in Christ is a new creation:

2 Corinthians 5:17

17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

And you cannot be “in Christ” , in the True Vine, unless you have been placed there by God:

1 Corinthians 1:30

30But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God,

As I stated previously, "in Christ,“in Him,” or “in the Son” is never used in the Bible as a reference to mere membership in a Christian congregation ( a false professor). It is a reference to one’s spiritual standing before God. Now Jesus says that the fruitless branch is “taken away.” Taken away from what? The obvious context is that the branch is taken away from the Vine, and hence the person is taken away from Christ, not from a Christian congregation. In fact, a false professor can technically remain in a congregation for the rest of his life. Lifetime membership in a church is not absolute assurance that that person is not a false professor. And what happens to a branch that is taken away from a vine? It dies. And what happens to a person taken away from Christ? He or she spiritually dies. This corresponds to what Jesus says later:

John 15:6

6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

Those who are thrown away are thrown away from what? From membership in a Christian congregation? Is Jesus really saying that those who do not abide in a Christian congregation will be thrown away and burned? So does that mean that if a false professor abides in the congregation, in the “visible body,” he will be saved? That makes no sense. Those who do not stay - because that’s what the Greek word “meno” means - in Christ the True Vine will be thrown away, “dry up”, and are gathered by angels and thrown into the fire. That is very clear.

So what about passages like Romans 8. Those passages refer to what the Catholic Church calls complete predestination - from grace to glory. In other words, those passages are about those who have been elected by God for eternal glory and they give an general overview of the order of execution of God’s salvation plan. The Catholic Church teaches that the number of those elect for glory is immutable, none can be added and none can be lost. However, passages like John 15 and Hebrews 6 indicate that not all those who are justified belong to this group. And we know from Scripture that not all of the just persevere to the end:

Ezekiel 18:24

**24"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. **

Although this is from the Old Testament, the saints of the Old Testament were justified the same way the saints of the New Covenant are justified (Hebrews 11). Now you might say that this man is legally righteous, but not righteous before God. However, who is the one describing the person as rigteous? God Himself. Secondly, there is another verse that proves this person is righteous before God:

Ezekiel 33:13

13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.

The key words are “he will surely live.” That phrase means that God has certified this person as already being righteous in His sight:

Ezekiel 18:5-9

**“But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness,
6and does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period–
7if a man does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, does not commit robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing,
8if he does not lend money on interest or take increase, if he keeps his hand from iniquity and executes true justice between man and man,
9if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully-he is righteous and will surely live,” declares the Lord GOD. **

… or has become righteous in His sight after turning away from his wickedness:

Ezekiel 18:21

**21"But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. **

So in Ezekiel 33:13, God is talking about those whom He has certified as righteous sight in His sight (“he shall surely live”) and, afterwards, turn away from righteousness and commits iniquity and die in that iniquity. In other words, they did not persevere.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Just to pick your brain a little, sola. I do agree with your position on divine election. My question, though, and I am sure it’s one Calvinists get often…How do you know you’re elect?

That is a good question.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Did he?

" Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable one. 26 So I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; 27 but I punish my body and enslave it,** so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified."** 1 Cor 9:24-27

“Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. 16 Only let us hold fast to what we have attained.”
Phil 3:12-16

It seems to me that Paul is saying that OSAS is an immature frame of mind…

There was no response to the actual argument made by guanophore.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4054145]Did he?

" Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable one. 26 So I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; 27 but I punish my body and enslave it,** so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified."** 1 Cor 9:24-27

“Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. 16 Only let us hold fast to what we have attained.”
Phil 3:12-16

It seems to me that Paul is saying that OSAS is an immature frame of mind…

Where do you get the idea from the chapters in which these passages are quote that he is referring to losing your salvation?

 

[distracted]

This thread is very long…

Could sola scriptura and all recent contributors please summarize waht their posiiton is… or was… and how they have changed such a position, if any… becaus of this thread… (and/or whatever else)…?

I don’t have time to read the whole thing… I don’t believe anyone does… :banghead: :hypno:

 

[guanophore]

and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 3:21).

This is a big one for Baptists (who generally hold the position you’re referring to). In other words water baptism is not efficacious but rather is only symbolic, a way to publicly confess our faith.

Do you think I am advocating that water baptism is not efficacious, but only symbolic? If so, why?

I was contradicting your point that the Bible cannot be misunderstood. To support my point, I pointed out that there are members of CAF who believe that baptism has nothing to do with water.

Frankly, I disagree with the Baptist view (primarily against infant baptism), however, I do not think it’s consequential to salvation. I know of some churches notwithstanding their adoption of the Nicene Creed who perform a ceremonial baptism for new members of the congregation. They do not consider this as a baptism per se; and I think this practice is fine as well.

In Scripture we see entire households being baptized (see Acts 16:15, 16:31-33, 1 Cor. 1:16, etc.), including infants. Matthew 28:19 is where we derive instruction for baptism. However, some early Christian documents indicate a fasting requirement prior to baptism (see the Didache), and they apparently only baptized adults.

No, the Didache is a Liturgical manual, and those instructions apply to adult converts. It does not mean that infants were not baptized. Infants were not required to fast, however.

The paramount requirement for salvation is faith. There is no other means by which we can be saved. This is made quite clear throughout the NT. In the reformed tradition we hold to the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds and perform infant baptism. However, we also understand without faith there is no salvation.

Would this not be considered a “work”? Or do you believe a person has no control over their faith?

The RCC views baptism as regenerative; believing the ceremony infuses the Spirit into an infant. Prior to this regeneration it is though that the infant still retains the stain of original sin. I disagree with this view as well.

God said in the Old Testament that we are only responsible for the sins we commit (Ezekiel 18:20). Our sin nature is passed down from Adam but we do not share guilt for his particular transgression. Therefore, there is no guilt for the original sin; but rather a sin nature and spiritual discernment of all humanity that can only be lifted by grace.

The grace that is dispersed during baptism. The Catholic Church does not teach that the infant is guilty of the sin of Adam, but is born into a fallen state, inheriting the consequences of that sin, which is death.

Baptism is an objective sign of proclamation.

You realize that this is not biblical, right?

It assures us that we belong to God’s people to whom, corporately, the promises are declared. However, the promise is received by faith and repentance. Baptism does not mean God predestined us unto salvation.

I agree with you, and also would say that receiving th epromise by faith and repentance does not predestine us to salvation either. As long as we are walking the face of the earth, the possibility exists that we can walk away from our inheritance.

Sola scriptura does not mean we ignore our history or tradition altogether. It simply means the Bible is the supreme authority on matters of doctrine.

You realize that the Bible no where says this of itself, right? and that it says the opposite?

If it’s inconsistent with the plain language of Scripture then we know it is wrong.

The main problem with this is that “the plain language of scripture” is interpreted so differently by so many different people!

A proper congregational or Episcopal structure will usually ensure the soundness of doctrine, as imparted by Christ then entrusted to Peter who ensured scripture was completed as God decreed. I think the idea that a single man can be infallible with regards to doctrine actually abrogates this intended structure. When you promulgate an idea of infallibility then inevitably, a single erroneous utterance by a Pope in a matter concerning doctrine, becomes set in stone creating a slippery slope of potential error.

Only if you don’t think Jesus can keep His promises.

In other words, a Pope in a moment of exuberance makes perhaps on overzealous statement regarding a particular matter. Then, even though it may have only been a minor error or a matter of nuance, the church becomes bound to defend the statement indefinitely. This will magnify the error over time.

I suppose you are right. However, this is irrelevant, since that is not how the infallible proclamation works. It is not a function of " a moment of exuberance". Furthermore, a number of “overzealous statements” have been made by many popes, and none of them are considered infallible doctrine. The Church is not bound in any way to “defend the statement” made under such a circumstance. This rendering demonstrates a misunderstanding of the gift of infallibility.

Overall I have little problem with tradition, as long as the traditions of men do not abrogate (in the least way) the word of God.

How do you tell which is which?

I do view baptism as a pillar of our faith, however, nuances over what exactly it means or when it is to be administered are not the sort things we should be quibbling over (as Paul rightly tells us).

I was quibbling over your outrageous statement that scripture could not be misunderstood.

 

[ellammcg]

I’m not sure why you think this confidence is so bad? Why Christians should go around thinking God might let us down?

I am confident that God wants what is the very best for each and every one of us including accepting His extremely generous gift of Himself crucified and resurrected. God will never let us down but I believe He gives us the free will to decide if we are going to let Him down by turning and walking away after we have accepted His gift even though He knows it is not in our best interest.

 

[sola_scriptura]

So what about passages like Romans 8 and John 6? How are they reconciled with the clear teachings found in passages like John 15, Romans 11, Hebrew 6, etc? Obviously, God’s word cannot contradict itself. It has been clearly established that John 15 is about genuine Christians:

Hello Michael:

I chopped out some of your text to fit in what I’d like to say in response to your post (Michael’s entire original post is here for any who would like to read it – it contains some excellent commentary).

First, some passages that support perseverance as a refresher:

John 6:37-39, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”

Phil. 1:6, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:”

2 Tim. 4:18, “And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

Ephesians 2:10, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

Acts 13:48, When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

Romans 8:38-39, For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Frankly Michael I agree that John 15 is a difficult chapter for the doctrine of perseverance. However, given the weight of scripture in support of perseverance, if we are to think Scripture is consistent, then I think we need to dig deeper for an explanation to John 15 that is consistent with the clear certainty that Paul expressed in his own election and the faithful in the churches he planted.

First of all if we simply read down to John 15:16 we find the following:

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

Also look at Matthew 15:13

But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.

And also Romans 11:17

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree.

Here’s some good commentary I just found on John 15:1

*Here we have one of the chief words of the parable—branch. A vine needs branches: without branches it can do nothing, can bear no fruit. As important as it is to know about the Vine, and the Husbandman, it is to realize what the branch is. Before we listen to what Christ has to say about it, let us first of all take in what a branch is, and what it teaches us of our life in Christ. A branch is simply a bit of wood, brought forth by the vine for the one purpose of serving it in bearing its fruit. It is of the very same nature as the vine, and has one life and one spirit with it. Just think a moment of the lessons this suggests.

There is the lesson of entire consecration. The branch has but one object for which it exists, one purpose to which it is entirely given up. That is, to bear the fruit the vine wishes to bring forth. And so the believer has but one reason for his being a branch—but one reason for his existence on earth —that the heavenly Vine may through him bring forth His fruit. Happy the soul that knows this, that has consented to it, and that says, I have been redeemed and I live for one thing—as exclusively as the natural branch exists only to bring forth fruit, I too; as exclusively as the heavenly Vine exists to bring forth fruit, I too. As I have been planted by God into Christ, I have wholly given myself to bear the fruit the Vine desires to bring forth.

There is the lesson of perfect conformity. The branch is exactly like the vine in every aspect—the same nature, the same life, the same place, the same work. In all this they are inseparably one. And so the believer needs to know that he is partaker of the divine nature, and has the very nature and spirit of Christ in him, and that his one calling is to yield himself to a perfect conformity to Christ. The branch is a perfect likeness of the vine; the only difference is, the one is great and strong, and the source of strength, the other little and feeble, ever needing and receiving strength. Even so the believer is, and is to be, the perfect likeness of Christ.

There is the lesson of absolute dependence. The vine has its stores of life and sap and strength, not for itself, but for the branches. The branches are and have nothing but what the vine provides and imparts. The believer is called to, and it is his highest blessedness to enter upon, a life of entire and unceasing dependence upon Christ. Day and night, every moment, Christ is to work in him all he needs.

And then the lesson of undoubting confidence. The branch has no cure; the vine provides all; it has but to yield itself and receive. It is the sight of this truth that leads to the blessed rest of faith, the true secret of growth and strength: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”*

ccel.org/ccel/murray/true_vine.vi.html

(actually this link provides an entire commentary on John 15, which I think does an excellent job).

So to provide an exegetical answer, I think there is one of two explanations for verse one that seem to fit.

The first – unperfected faith. The second, those “corporately” grafted (baptized) into the church yet who never gain a foothold of faith. The latter explanation is analogous to the Jewish people. Chosen as a people in an objective sense, but not all predestined in a subjective sense.

You’re hypothesis matches the former theory (unperfected faith). Whether faith itself fails to endure or whether one falls back into a life of sin their faith is never perfected. However, I think confidence can be had under either matrix. In fact I think confidence, and even certainty is key to endurance. It binds us to the root of the vine in a firmer way. We know that we rely on the vine for all our nourishment. If the branch looks elsewhere it won’t find nourishment because there’s nothing else that the branch is bound to. When we fail to understand this we obstruct receiving the nourishment we need.

I keep hearing objection to the doctrine of Total Depravity on this board. However, I think understanding that we are totally depraved is also key to enduring. It tells us that we cannot excel in the flesh by our own will power or endeavor. We must rely on God every moment in order to avoid sin, like the branch must rely on the root each moment for its nourishment. If we’re always focused on Christ we can excel – however, we cannot be righteous by our own accord. Any righteousness we posses can only come from God. Indeed Christ repeatedly rebuked the “self-righteous” and self-righteousness means a righteousness that comes from our self – simply stated.

So, however we choose to understand John 15 it should never diminish our confidence. Our trust in the righteousness of God – that He will keep His promises to us. If we believe it He will, if we don’t we have a weak faith. I find great confidence in this position & honestly I’ve never felt closer to God than I have since I’ve adopted this position. As I said I was an Arminian for years, read almost every sermon and book Wesley ever wrote. Read Armius’ work & I find the overall logic of Calvinism superior to any other system.

In the discussions I’ve had with Catholics, Arminians, and Calvinists, whether in bible study or on web boards such as this (and I’ve been posting on Christian sites for about two years) I always had the most difficulty challenging Calvin’s doctrines. It’s not to say the Arminian response isn’t a good one; but it’s just not as good. However, I also don’t agree 100% with John Calvin. I find great merit in Karl Barth’s work for example (though I think he did do quite a bit of speculating). I also have a distaste for “hyper-Calvinists” because their beliefs are even farther off base than Arminian doctrine.

Anyways, look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Do you think I am advocating that water baptism is not efficacious, but only symbolic? If so, why?

No, I didn’t think you meant that at all (I know you’re Catholic)

I was contradicting your point that the Bible cannot be misunderstood. To support my point, I pointed out that there are members of CAF who believe that baptism has nothing to do with water.

It was actually someone else (I think) who you initially responded to and I butted in (sadly, it’s hard for me to keep my trap shut).

I would certainly never say that the Bible cannot be misunderstood. It would make me quite an idiot to say such a silly thing. The Bible is misinterpreted every moment (in fact every time I log onto this board I see this constantly )

No, the Didache is a Liturgical manual, and those instructions apply to adult converts. It does not mean that infants were not baptized. Infants were not required to fast, however.

I was just reiterating the scholarly commentary I read on the document. I do not think there is any evidence supporting your statement. I think they hypothesized because of the seemingly hard fasting requirement – that the group who produced that document only baptized adults. However, you act like the same disagreements we’re having today didn’t exist throughout Christian history. That’s simply not true. Golly back in the old days it used to get bloody (even among different groups of Catholics).

Would this not be considered a “work”? Or do you believe a person has no control over their faith?

Faith is given by God, by grace not of ourselves and not the fruit of our works, efforts, will, etc. Obviously there are those who have faith but a weak and cheap faith. Indeed this is usually not the type of faith that can endure unless it’s strengthened.

I have found the greatest strength in reformed doctrine.

The grace that is dispersed during baptism. The Catholic Church does not teach that the infant is guilty of the sin of Adam, but is born into a fallen state, inheriting the consequences of that sin, which is death.

That’s good to learn. FYI there’s a bunch of erroneous information out there (I think I actually saw a contrary report on Wikipedia).

I agree with you, and also would say that receiving th epromise by faith and repentance does not predestine us to salvation either. As long as we are walking the face of the earth, the possibility exists that we can walk away from our inheritance.

All I’m really saying is that we can have the certainty that Paul had. I just responded to Michaels post on this topic so I won’t be redundant. I provided what I think is a good explanation and justification for the doctrine of perseverance. It is not OSAS (just to clarify once again).

You realize that the Bible no where says this of itself, right? and that it says the opposite?

I guess it’s funny you should say that. However, scripture states that it is sufficient for reproof, correction, etc. It does not tell us that we are required to ignore history. It also doesn’t tell me whether or not I can drink coffee, and I still love my Starbucks? I’m not sure what you’re getting at here?

The main problem with this is that “the plain language of scripture” is interpreted so differently by so many different people!

I agree somewhat. However, core doctrine is agreed on by all mainstream denominations. When I say core doctrine I mean what we see in the Apostles Creed for instance. Soteriology, however, is an entirely different apple. Theologians are like economists with regard to this area of theology.

Only if you don’t think Jesus can keep His promises.

hey … that’s my line. I’m the perseverance guy

I suppose you are right. However, this is irrelevant, since that is not how the infallible proclamation works. It is not a function of " a moment of exuberance". Furthermore, a number of “overzealous statements” have been made by many popes, and none of them are considered infallible doctrine. The Church is not bound in any way to “defend the statement” made under such a circumstance. This rendering demonstrates a misunderstanding of the gift of infallibility.

I understand you’re “technically” right. However, I see much confusion over this doctrine among Catholics even on this board (not all your brethren are as enlightened as guys like you or Michael).

For instance, my understanding (perhaps I’m wrong) is that Mariology was really a grass roots effort. There is a vocal and strong, though small, group within the RCC that has pushed this idea of Mary as a co-mediator for decades if not centuries.

I even saw a quote made by Pope John Paul one time that defined Mary as the prototype for “perfect love” which is just wrong. This is an example of a core doctrine that is repeated in the New Testament dozens upon dozens of times – Jesus is the prototype for perfect love – none other. Certainly Mary’s obedience and holiness can be an example, but we really should be focused on Christ. Anything else is second best. Mary was blessed among women; but there’s no hypostatic union with the Trinity.

These sort of statements create a groundswell. Most Catholics don’t have your fortitude in theology & when a Pope makes a statement they consider it doctrine. Then over the decades and centuries it becomes thought of as a tradition that must of came from the Apostolic era or something to that effect (frankly in much of research into Mariology I hit quite a few brick wall because they just don’t know exactly where some of these doctrines started – some of them suddenly popped up around the 4th or 5th century).

Eventually it flowers into doctrine. This is at least my take on things. So the technical rule is one thing – but isn’t it always the “fruit” that matters? In other words the result, or the practical application?

I was quibbling over your outrageous statement that scripture could not be misunderstood.

That statement was not aimed at you, I should have clarified (apologies) – it was a general statement (I think Christians do quibble too much over these things, which Paul warned against).

My point was is that I do not find the Baptist view (as an example of view that is fairly divergent from both the Reformed & RCC view) as problematic. I disagree with it but I do not think for a minute a Baptist is any less saved than I am because he was baptized at 13 years old and I as an infant.

 

[guanophore]

I would certainly never say that the Bible cannot be misunderstood. It would make me quite an idiot to say such a silly thing. The Bible is misinterpreted every moment (in fact every time I log onto this board I see this constantly )

Ok. I must have misunderstood your post.

However, God is not the author of confusion. The Bible is logical if we have faith. It cannot be understood as saying things it does not mean.

I think the Bible can easily be misunderstood as saying things it does not mean.

I do not think there is any evidence supporting your statement.

This is one of the reasons theDidache was not included in the NT. It was understood to be written for the clergy as a liturgical manual.

I think they hypothesized because of the seemingly hard fasting requirement – that the group who produced that document only baptized adults.

Such a hypothesis would be a poor one, since it contradicts the early fathers. However, I do agree that those instructions concern th ebaptism of adults.

However, you act like the same disagreements we’re having today didn’t exist throughout Christian history. That’s simply not true. Golly back in the old days it used to get bloody (even among different groups of Catholics).

The conflict over infant baptism was about which DAY it ought to happen, the 8th, or sooner!

Faith is given by God, by grace not of ourselves and not the fruit of our works, efforts, will, etc.

Faith is a gift of God to the extent that all we are is His gift. Our will, our mental and physical abilities, etc. However, faith is a human capability to place ones trust in someone outside oneself. The exercise of it belongs to the individual. The necessity for people to act in matters of faith does not change the basis of salvation, which is by grace. Faith is the human faculty or conduit through which the grace is received.

Obviously there are those who have faith but a weak and cheap faith. Indeed this is usually not the type of faith that can endure unless it’s strengthened.

And the responsibility for this lies with the individual.

All I’m really saying is that we can have the certainty that Paul had. I just responded to Michaels post on this topic so I won’t be redundant. I provided what I think is a good explanation and justification for the doctrine of perseverance. It is not OSAS (just to clarify once again).

Yes. I am a frequent visitor to ccel myself.

I guess it’s funny you should say that.

Seriously, don’t you think if this was how the scripture was meant to be used, it would say this of itself?

However, scripture states that it is sufficient for reproof, correction, etc.

This passage is written about the OT. I would like to see a modern day Christian lead a Christian life using only the OT! Paul could write this because he had the fullness of the Apostolic Teaching.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here?

That you are gving a role to scripture that it was never intended to have. Jesus founded a Church, and gave His Apostles authority over it.

When I say core doctrine I mean what we see in the Apostles Creed for instance.

Well, clearly not. Every person “does what is right in his own eyes” and interprets the creed according to their own ideas, just as they do the scriptures.

For instance, my understanding (perhaps I’m wrong) is that Mariology was really a grass roots effort. There is a vocal and strong, though small, group within the RCC that has pushed this idea of Mary as a co-mediator for decades if not centuries.

Perhaps the co-mediator thing, but not the Marian doctrines, which began forming in the 2nd century as a response to heresies. It’s not Roman, either. It is shared by the other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church, and our Orthodox brethren.

I even saw a quote made by Pope John Paul one time that defined Mary as the prototype for “perfect love” which is just wrong. This is an example of a core doctrine that is repeated in the New Testament dozens upon dozens of times – Jesus is the prototype for perfect love – none other. Certainly Mary’s obedience and holiness can be an example, but we really should be focused on Christ. Anything else is second best. Mary was blessed among women; but there’s no hypostatic union with the Trinity.

I agree about the humanity of Mary. But she embodies the goal of God for us. She is a prototype of perfect love because she is "in HIm, with HIm, and through Him, in the unity of His holy spirit. This is Christ in us, the hope of glory.

These sort of statements create a groundswell. Most Catholics don’t have your fortitude in theology & when a Pope makes a statement they consider it doctrine. Then over the decades and centuries it becomes thought of as a tradition that must of came from the Apostolic era or something to that effect (frankly in much of research into Mariology I hit quite a few brick wall because they just don’t know exactly where some of these doctrines started – some of them suddenly popped up around the 4th or 5th century).

Eventually it flowers into doctrine. This is at least my take on things. So the technical rule is one thing – but isn’t it always the “fruit” that matters? In other words the result, or the practical application?

Your understanding of the declaration of infallible doctrine is inaccurate. I suppose that is a matter for another thread.