A Case for Once Saved Always Saved

[1beleevr]

Huh?? Paul taught the Crucufixion AND the Resurrection.

You - and many other confused Protestants would like to forget what he had to go through in order for the Resurrection to have happened.
NOT Paul. That’s why he said we preach Christ CRUCIFIED.

In post 1164, you said the following:

Apparently, you don’t hold this event in as high regard as the
Resurrection. Without it - you’re eternally lost, my angry anti-Catholic friend.

Here is a little Christianity-101:
The Crucufixion REDEEMED us. This is how we are saved.
The Resurrection was proof of our everlasting life.

Belief that the Crucifixion redeemed us and opened the door to salvation? You’re right - must be a Catholic thing . . .

Taking things out of context again, I see! I said, believing that one MUST wear a crucifix must be a catholic thig! Geeeez!

 

[1beleevr]

Absolutely not - IF you consider yourself a Christian.

There is NO salvation without the Crucifixion and death of Jesus. It always amazes me how many Protestants (not all) do their best to forget what Jesus did for them.
Paul said that we preach Christ CRUCIFIED (1 Cor. 1:23).

I can’t believe that you are arrogant enough; oh wait, yes I can, to say that someone who doesn’t wear a crucifix is not a Christian! When I witness to others, we talk heavily on crucifixion; just no crucifix!

 

[Xavierlives]

I’m sure we will all have a nice laugh about this at the resurrection.

 

[1beleevr]

Whoa there, my protestant brother. (Remember… more flies with honey than vinegar).

Trust me, elvisman is someone whose anger always comes out in his posts, and sometimes we must fight fire with fire!

 

[Loboto-Me]

Elvis didn’t say that Catholics MUST wear a crucifix. Some of us choose to and others don’t. Most Catholics have crucifixes in our homes and honour what a crucifix signifies and that is the main reason that we are saved. Each and every wound Jesus suffered was for our sins, not just the crucifixion itself but also the crown of thorns, the whippings and so on… but the end, his death on that cross is the ACTION that saved us.

Elvis is right, the crucifixion was what saved us (his suffering and death) The resurrection itself was the proof that we needed to believe. He didn’t HAVE to prove that He had come back from the dead to have save us, but Jesus did because He loved us enough to prove it. Jesus did because He wanted to continue the last steps of our conversion, so that He could start His Church and breathe the Holy Spirit upon our Apostles… but really, He didn’t HAVE to do that (but He loved us THAT much!)

 

[1beleevr]

Jesus died on the cross so that we can be saved.

In doing this he opened the gates of heaven for us - we now have access to Eternal Life. This is salvation.

However, just as when a murderer has been found guilty he must serve his sentence, we too must make reparation for our sins. We have to do penance to prove that we are serious in our intention never to repeat our sins. We are told "Be Holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy (Lev 19:2).

We may fall again and repeat that sin and will be forgiven if we repent. The fact of the matter is we must do reparation for our sins.

So what is the problem here? Why do Protestants believ**e that all we have to do is repent and that’s it! Some even believe that we don’t have to repent because Jesus earned our salvation for us on the cross!!!

This does not make sense. We have to be contrite and accept Jesus’ gift of salvation by being truly repentant.

The Church is going through a crisis right now with some priests who have committed the most terrible sin - they betrayed God, their victims, the faithfull and themselves. Some have said they are sorry and so have the bishops but people say that this is not enough! Of course it is not enough. They must be punished and the Bishops have to take strict measures to ensure that this does not happen again.

Sinners must serve time for their sins!
God have mercy on us sinners
Cinette

It is true, Jesus died on the Cross, was removed from it, buried and rose from the dead; so that we may be saved from eternal damnation! And it is a tragic thing that so many of the catholic clergy got caught up in the scandals around the world! As Christians, we must pray for healing and restoration!

 

[elvisman]

Well, greetings, my equally ANGRY anti-Protestant brother! I thought you were smarter than a fifth grader, but you continue making inane statements, that you can’t back up historically or scripturally! Where does it state(other than someone’s opinion) that Christians should wear a crucifix? Are you reallyso stupid, that you believe that we don’t appreciate the crucifixion; solely because we choose not to wear a crucifix? For many of us, Jesus died ONCE, and once is enough! Because of His sacrifice, we only have to die once! And I bet one can preach crucifixion, without a crucifix I can look at an empty Cross, and feel the love, and the pain! This is all about a difference of opinion, and free will. You can’t bully someone into wearing a crucifix, because you believe that it’s right

Taking things out of context again, I see! I said, believing that one MUST wear a crucifix must be a catholic thig! Geeeez!

I can’t believe that you are arrogant enough; oh wait, yes I can, to say that someone who doesn’t wear a crucifix is not a Christian! When I witness to others, we talk heavily on crucifixion; just no crucifix!

Ummm, your immature and frightfully ignorant posts notwithstanding – I never said you had to wear a crucifix to be a Christian. More of your putting words into people’s mouths.

**I was arguing your preposterous point that Catholics wear them because we are somehow “stuck” in Crucifixion mode and haven’t moved onto the Resurrection. On the contrary – It was the Catholic Church who told the world about the Resurrection in the first place.

We simply refuse deny the Crucifix by only dwelling on the Resurrection like you do.

By the way – the sacrifice of Jesus’ death is ETERNAL. – not a one-time-occurrence. He is ETERNALLY presented before the Father as propitiation for our sins. Rev. 13:8 tells us that he was slain before the foundations of the world.

Crack a Bible open once in a while . . .

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I’m sure we will all have a nice laugh about this at the resurrection.

Some - the ones who work out their salvation with fear and trembling and don’t presume upon God’s mercy - will have a nice laugh. For those who do presume upon God’s mercy and live lives unworthy of their faith - they will be a little too warm to be laughing, I’m afraid.

 

[1beleevr]

Ummm, your immature and frightfully ignorant posts notwithstanding – I never said you had to wear a crucifix to be a Christian. More of your putting words into people’s mouths.

I was arguing your preposterous point that Catholics wear them because we are somehow “stuck” in Crucifixion mode and haven’t moved onto the Resurrection. On the contrary – It was the Catholic Church who told the world about the Resurrection in the *first *place.

We simply refuse deny the Crucifix by only dwelling on the Resurrection like you do.

By the way – the sacrifice of Jesus’ death is ETERNAL. – not a one-time-occurrence. He is ETERNALLY presented before the Father as propitiation for our sins. Rev. 13:8 tells us that he was slain before the foundations of the world.

Crack a Bible open once in a while . . .

If I remember correctly, I said,“I respect your right to wear a crucifix, would you respect my right to not wear one?” And you said,"No way, not if you profess to be a Christian! How else can one interpret this? And I am not stuck on the Resurrection, but you continually diminish it, by saying PREACH CRUCIFIXION! Quit re-crucifying Him! And I "crack open my Bible every day! Difference is, I don’t have to go to church, and have someone else read it to me!

 

[StMarkStLuke983]

First of all, Catholics are not required to wear a crucifix, although it is encouraged.
Secondly, A crucifix does not re-crucify Christ; the implication of a Catholic wearing a crucifix re-crucifying Christ is reading more into it than what is actually there.

Whoever started that propaganda “that we are re-crucifying” Christ, such propagandist obviously did not know what they were talking about and they obviously do not know either the Bible or the Church very well; they were only a Novie Rand Amateur at best.

On another note: When a person says “It’s just God, the Bible and me”, which implies that they are their own one person Church and their very own personal infallible Pope, so to speak.

“Bible Alone” implies that there is no such thing as infallible interpretation of Scripture and Scripture teaches that the Bible is not to be left to private interpretation or judgment.
2 Peter 1:20. This does not condemn the study of Scriptures, but your studies need to be supervised to insure accuracy because that each Christian can’t even trust their own interpretation of Scriptures as accurate.

On any given passage, where is the proof that your interpretation is correct?
What methods are you using to interpret Scripture properly?
Where is the proof of that accuracy?
Where is the biblical basis for the proof of their accuracy?

A good tree does not produce bad fruit. Likewise a bad does not produce good fruit.
Bible Alone produces Religious anarchy (Protestantism Alone harbors more than 38,000 denominations and non-denominations who disagree with each other of what the Bible teaches). Hence Bible alone, along with Bible Alone itself NOT BEING BIBLICAL, Bible Alone is a bad tree. And no, Bible Alone and the Bible itself are not the same thing.

 

[brb3]

First of all, Calvinism is not being replaced. Calvinism was always just an extra odd-ball in the group to begin with. Calvinism was not taught prior to John Calvins time (the Divinely Inspired Apostles NEVER taught Calvins theology on TULIPand they could not since Calvinism is Anti-Biblical (contradicts the Word of God) as well as TULIP being a self-contradictory doctrine)

Today, people who are calvinists are people who still live in ignorance of the Sacred Text because they still have not learned how to interpret the bible correctly; they suffer from Bible illiteracy even though they are literate when it comes to reading modern day literature.

If your interested, I would be glad to teach you how to interpret the Bible correctly.

OK … start a thread on the topic. Guess it could be entitled “How to deprogram the errant dogmas from Calvin’s disciples”.

 

[StMarkStLuke983]

Dear brb3:

I like your suggestion!

For a title: What about “Biblically based correct method for correct interprretation of Scripture”?

I am already on several threads now. Once I have noticed that a thread has fallen into debate, I have entered in and suggested that we must first come to common ground and agreement of correct methods, non-Catholics have a tendency to fall to silence.

It seems to me that Calvinists are far more interested in studying and reaping the, however falsely promised, benefits of the theology then they are actually to learn something from the Bible.

If you impose the question; “if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, from a perfectly Biblical perspective that TULIP is not Biblical, would they renounce TULIP?”

Most of them will not even respond to the question properly; they tend to dance around it.
The rest of them say they would, but once you bring up the topic of correct methods of correctly intepreting Scirptures, they fall to silence.

One thread, I started a thread of simply that; correct methods, Catholics were eager to get their hands on resource materials, so I ended up answering their questions and pointing them to those sources. So far, Protestants have remained silent on the issue.

Go figure

 

[elvisman]

If I remember correctly, I said,“I respect your right to wear a crucifix, would you respect my right to not wear one?” And you said,"No way, not if you profess to be a Christian! How else can one interpret this? And I am not stuck on the Resurrection, but you continually diminish it, by saying PREACH CRUCIFIXION! Quit re-crucifying Him! And I "crack open my Bible every day! Difference is, I don’t have to go to church, and have someone else read it to me!

First of all - I suggest you calm down and take a deep breath, my angry anti-Catholic friend. You’re going to cause yourself to have have an aneurysm.

We celebrate the Resurrection because, as I already pointed out to you - it was the Catholic church that revealed it to the world with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We’ve knew about it first, and as such, have a a huge stake in it.

**Secondly - Catholics don’t re-crucify Jesus. We, as the writers of the NT and the Early Church did, realize that Jesus’ sacrifice is eternally presented for our sins before the Father. You don’t understand this so you have no grasp on what Christ’s sacrifice means.
I already pointed this fact out to you and proved it to you - with Scripture.
(1 Pet. 19-20, Rev. 13:8).

So, I’ll say it again - crack open a Bible once and a while and you’ll see what the Scriptures really teach about these things.

 

[elvisman]

And… Christ was teaching the resurrection before the death (see below).

**Right - and one doesn’t negate the other. **
Too bad some of you can’t see that . . .

 

[StMarkStLuke983]

elvisman:

I am also a Catholic; specifically, I have been certified by the diocese as a Catechetics Minister after completing the PFLM. I teach RCIA and 5 progressive levels of Scripture study and my entire syllabus has been critiqued and approved by the Church!

You Said “Secondly - Catholics don’t re-crucify Jesus. We, as the writers of the NT and the Early Church did,”

**My Response: ** Nope, you are half right and half wrong. You are right is saying that “that Jesus’ sacrifice is eternally presented for our sins before the Father”, but your wrong in saying that we “re-crucify Christ” and that’s because you can’t repeat what never ends, so it’s not a re-crucifixion, as in repeated sacrifice, it is one and the same crucifixion until the end of time; in other words, it’s once and for all time single sacrifice.

Christ Jesus only suffered and died once, in the physical sense then He was ressurrected. If you take at the liturgical imagary in Revelations you would realize when John said: “I saw a lamb standing as though it had been slain”

the standing is what the priest does when he officiates, but it is a lamb standing as though it had been slain. Christ Jesus is our High Priest and King, but you can’t have a priest without a Sacrifice, as it is stated in Hebrews.

**You said: **You don’t understand this so you have no grasp on what Christ’s sacrifice means.

**My Response: **With this you are just way out of line. You obviously did not know who you are dealing with!

I am educated, certified and authorized by the Church to instruct in RCIA and Scripture Studies.

Can you say the same?

 

[1beleevr]

Right - and one doesn’t negate the other.
Too bad some of you can’t see that . . .

True, but it still doesn’t validate wearing of a crucifix, my antiProtestant brother in Christ! You see, we startedwith a discussion about “to crucifix, or not to crucifix”, and it has evolved into a mud-slinging tirade, that we don’t appreciate the crucifixion! This is pure speculation on your part(as always)! And Xavirlives beat me to it, I was about to say, Jesus taught of the Resurresction before the death! Good doing battle with you again, though!

 

[elvisman]

elvisman:

I am also a Catholic; specifically, I have been certified by the diocese as a Catechetics Minister after completing the PFLM. I teach RCIA and 5 progressive levels of Scripture study and my entire syllabus has been critiqued and approved by the Church!

You Said “Secondly - Catholics don’t re-crucify Jesus. We, as the writers of the NT and the Early Church did,”

**My Response: **Nope, you are half right and half wrong. You are right is saying that “that Jesus’ sacrifice is eternally presented for our sins before the Father”, but your wrong in saying that we “re-crucify Christ” and that’s because you can’t repeat what never ends, so it’s not a re-crucifixion, as in repeated sacrifice, it is one and the same crucifixion until the end of time; in other words, it’s once and for all time single sacrifice.

Christ Jesus only suffered and died once, in the physical sense then He was ressurrected. If you take at the liturgical imagary in Revelations you would realize when John said: “I saw a lamb standing as though it had been slain”

the standing is what the priest does when he officiates, but it is a lamb standing as though it had been slain. Christ Jesus is our High Priest and King, but you can’t have a priest without a Sacrifice, as it is stated in Hebrews.

**You said: **You don’t understand this so you have no grasp on what Christ’s sacrifice means.

**My Response: **With this you are just way out of line. You obviously did not know who you are dealing with!

I am educated, certified and authorized by the Church to instruct in RCIA and Scripture Studies.

Can you say the same?

Why are you writing this to me?
I think you have confused what I said. THIS is what I said:

"Secondly - Catholics don’t re-crucify Jesus. We, as the writers of the NT and the Early Church did, realize that Jesus’ sacrifice is eternally presented for our sins before the Father. You don’t understand this so you have no grasp on what Christ’s sacrifice means."

I NEVER said we re-crucify Jesus. Where did you get that from what I wrote? I even gave the Scripture verses that support the fact that the Lamb is eternally slain and presented before the Father ((1 Pet. 19-20, Rev. 13:8).
In the future - please read my entire post before condemning what I said.

Lastly - why are you taking this personally? Do I know who I’m dealing with?
**I was speaking to 1beleevr - not you. **
I am also certified to teach RCIA and Confirmation - but that doesn’t make me any taller or better.

 

[elvisman]

True, but it still doesn’t validate wearing of a crucifix, my antiProtestant brother in Christ! You see, we startedwith a discussion about “to crucifix, or not to crucifix”, and it has evolved into a mud-slinging tirade, that we don’t appreciate the crucifixion! This is pure speculation on your part(as always)! And Xavirlives beat me to it, I was about to say, Jesus taught of the Resurresction before the death! Good doing battle with you again, though!

Ummmm . . . you still don’t get it so let me explain one last time:
**It simply means that we, who wear and/or display the crucifix preach Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:23). **
To the unbeliever - this must FIRST be understood and accepted before they can grasp the meaning of the Resurrection.

You don’t evangelize backwards.

Simply put - you cannot hide the fact of the Crucifixion. We boast in what the Lord has done for us. That is the ONLY thing we can boast about (I Cor 1: 31, Jer 9: 23-24).

 

[StMarkStLuke983]

elvisman:

First of all, you are reading into my posts (and others) stuff that was never in the posts.

Seconcly, you have it backwards, you are quick to speak, but slow to listen (read) when it’s supposed to be the other way around. You need to take the time to study the post, respectfully consider what is said, contemplate and then take your time responding.

In most of your responses you have launched off totally half-baked, you are not properly discerning the posts correctly and you are failing to exhibit any professionalism, as in, proper conduct. You stand corrected!

 

[elvisman]

elvisman:

First of all, you are reading into my posts (and others) stuff that was never in the posts.

Seconcly, you have it backwards, you are quick to speak, but slow to listen (read) when it’s supposed to be the other way around. You need to take the time to study the post, respectfully consider what is said, contemplate and then take your time responding.

In most of your responses you have launched off totally half-baked, you are not properly discerning the posts correctly and you are failing to exhibit any professionalism, as in, proper conduct. You stand corrected!

READ your post #1210.
You are accusing me of things I didn’t say - and taking my words out of context.

**Secoondly - show me where I have "*launched off *off totally half-baked" in most of my posts and we’ll discuss it. Otherwise - don’t falsely accuse me of anything.

As for “professionalism” - we are not professionals here. Just people with a voice.