T
TheGarg
Guest
NO, since no one on earth is a 100% Jesus Christ, who alone is our Judge.
Can Anyone Really Be 100% Sure They Will Go To Heaven When They Die?
- Status
P
Prester_John
Guest
1John 5:13:
And then start making a practice of actually attending church.
Good luck,
The person who truly doubts your intentions,
Ionnes Presbytri
Paul’s letter, in your string, is perhaps not a great thing of hope. So I prayerfully hope you cease going to your secretive and strange Protestant cult meetings, I hope you think more genorously of us Jews and Reprobate Jews. Please, Don’t consider Homicide as a viable solution, and especialy not a final solution. I recomend that you reflect for a time on the the mysteries of the Holy Rosary. All of them.
And then start making a practice of actually attending church.
Good luck,
The person who truly doubts your intentions,
Ionnes Presbytri
C
c0achmcguirk
Guest
So, you’re arguing that 2 Tim 3:16-17 (which doesn’t speak to the canon issue at all) applies only to the Old Testament. That the New Testament is not God-breathed, and is not able to fully equip the man of God for every good work then?
I find this a curious position, don’t you?
C
c0achmcguirk
Guest
Yes it does. Briefly:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. "
–2 Tim 3:16-17
These verses teach clearly that the Scriptures are God breathed ( Theopneustos ), and thus are infallible. They also teach that Scriptures can make the man of God complete ( artios ) and that Scriptures can equip the man of God thoroughly for every good work ( exartismenos ).
So at this point the Bible teaches that it is infallible and sufficient as a rule of faith, because of its abilities.
Does the Bible say that it is the only infallible rule of faith?
Not in those words, but that’s hardly a critique as you won’t find the word “Trinity” in the Bible either.
However, the Bible does not mention another God-breathed rule of faith for us to follow. Now certainly, in the days when Christ walked the Earth, His words were God-breathed. And when the Prophets were used to write the words of Scripture, what they wrote was God-breathed.
It’s wise to look at what Jesus taught the Pharisees in Mark 7:1-23 (and Matthew 15:1-20). The Pharisees wanted Jesus to follow their handwashing traditions, which they felt was a tradition handed down from God.
NOTE, The Pharisees felt their traditions were from God (handed down from Moses) just as the Roman Catholic believes her tradition is from God.
Jesus responds by saying:
“Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.”
–MK 7:13
or in another passage:
"Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. "
–MT 15:6
These passages are the clearest examples that compare tradition and Scripture. Jesus teaches that all traditions, even those that are thought to be from God are to be tested against Scripture.
So at this point the ball is in your court. Can you show the Bible teaching another God-breathed rule of faith? I’ve shown that the Bible teaches:
(1) 2 Tim 3:16-17 teach clearly that the Scriptures are God breathed ( Theopneustos ), and thus are infallible.
(2) 2 Tim 3:16-17 also teach that Scriptures can make the man of God complete ( artios )
(3) 2 Tim 3:16-17 also teach that Scriptures can equip the man of God thoroughly for every good work ( exartismenos )
(4) MT 15:6 and MK 7:13 teach that you are to test all traditions, even those that you think are from God, against Scripture.
B
bloodwater
Guest
although Jesus is God; on the cross, Jesus gave the thief(or murder) next to him a fast judgement when he said,
“today you will be with me in paradise”
all the theif did was anounce that he stood by Jesus and believed, and Jesus was like BAM your with me in heaven.
A
Angainor
Guest
The title of this thread caught my attention. I read through the responses to see if any Catholics said YES, Jesus was 100% sure he was saved.
[post=p=450900&postcount=10]fellicia[/post] came the closest.
[post=p=450900&postcount=10]fellicia[/post] came the closest.
B
BibleReader
Guest
Here you go, Maggie…from the Jewish Encyclopedia:that explains the difference. It seemed so inconsistent with what is written in the Scripture, because there is indication that the taxes were collected.
The way that I heard it is that the tax collectors paid the money up front to the Romans and that they added a little extra when collecting the taxes. Certainly in the case of Levi and Zaccheus there is no mention of other crimes such as robbery and rape. The Scripture says that Levi (Matthew) was sitting at his booth when Jesus called him and that he left everything where it was.
I always thought that the tax collectors were hated because they were seen to be consorting with the Romans, not because of that kind of behaviour.
Maggie
During the Egyptian government of Palestine the taxes of each city were annually leased to the highest bidder (Josephus, “Ant.” xii. 4, § 3). The lessee paid into the royal treasury a fixed annual sum; and whatever the revenue yielded in excess was his gain, whereas if the sum was not realized he had to bear the loss. Under Ptolemy IV., Philopator, all the royal revenues from Cœle-Syria, Phenicia, and Judea were leased by Joseph ben Tobiah, nephew of the high priest Onias II. He held the office of tax-collector for twenty-two years, and was succeeded by his son Hyrcanus. How exacting the tax-collectors must have been may be judged from the fact that in spite of the increase of the annual rental from 8,000 to 16,000 talents, Joseph and Hyrcanus were still able to accumulate immense riches. The former, according to Josephus (ib. § 4), beheaded twenty distinguished citizens of Ascalon and Scythopolis for refusing to pay their taxes, and then confiscated their possessions.
Clearly, they were essentially as the rabbi-professor described. Josephus adds that those particular tax collectors were generous with the Jews in their own cities, which prospered. However, this was no uniform policy…
**The fact that they were helping the Romans in the exaction of the heavy taxes imposed upon the Jews, combined with the rapacity of some tax-collectors who, taking advantage of the indefiniteness of the tariffs, overcharged the taxpayer, rendered this class of officials hateful to the people. **
K
Kendall
Guest
That “BAM” was the Grace of Almighty God. For it is only by the Grace of God that we are saved. As I’ve said here before, Heaven is an INVITATION only affair - you can’t write your own ticket and you can’t crash the party.
How could it be that one would KNOW that their entry into Heaven is assured? What would happen, if at some later date, the “saved” individual were to become DIS-Graced through an act of grave mortal sin? The common response then becomes, well, he/she wasn’t “saved” to begin with…
BUT he/she thought they were…do you??
God’s Grace flows abundantly to us in many ways, but especially through our acts of charity and good works, by leading a prayerful and Holy life, and most importantly, by participating in the Sacraments.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
The only thing that is curious is the way that you have twisted my words.
I said that I did not understand what you were trying to say because at the time that Paul wrote his letter to Timothy there was no New Testament canon, let alone an Old Testament canon. What I am saying is that the verse cannot be used in the way that it is being used by those who subscribe to Sola Scriptura.
My point is that there were certain manuscripts, from what we know as the Old Testament that were referred to as “Scripture” and were accepted because they contained the words of the prophets.
I am not arguing in favour of the Old Testament alone or against the New Testament as being the writings of those inspired by God to put these things into writing.
I do think that some do get carried away with the definition of “God-breathed” and that they then distort what should be in Scripture by applying their own bent criteria for inclusion, and that includes claiming that it was not in the “Hebrew canon” that did not exist before A.D. 90 which was well after St. Paul had been martyred.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
:tiphat: BR thank you very much for the information. This definitely clears it up for me.
However, I have a conflict here because the first part of what is written by Josephus refers to a period prior to Roman occupation. There is something familiar about the story, and I have not quite put my finger on it, but I have seen the name of Hyrcanus and that of Onias crop up in the Scripture, but not at the time of Jesus.
I am not saying that these things did not happen, because there were some terrible things done at that time. However, what I doubt is the claim that all of the tax collectors were armed robbers.
On the other hand I am more than satisfied with the last paragraph that you have given since this jives with the information that I had already noted: that they were hated because they collected taxes for the Romans and that they overcharged people (thus enriching themselves at the espense of others).
Thank you so much for providing the information.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
The thief on the Cross was saved because of God’s mercy. You left out the important words:
“Jesus remember me when you go into your Kingdom”
He expressed a firm belief that Jesus is the God-Man and he was at the same time asking for forgiveness of his sins before He died. For this reason, he was shown God’s mercy and was promised a place in Paradise. Without that repentance he would not have received the same treatment.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
There are too many extras thrown in here that have nothing to do with the thread. So I will only respond to one portion of what you said.
The “bible” did not exist at the time that Paul wrote to Timothy. Therefore it could not have been a reference to what was written down as you claim.
The context of this quote is that St. Paul was speaking about what Timothy had been taught by himself, as well as at his mother’s knee in the manuscripts that existed.
What you are doing is attempting to confine everything to a written document that did not exist at the time of writing.
As for your dig about the Catholic Church and “traditions of men”, well all I will say is that look in your own backyard first before you go slinging off the mud. You are wrong of course, and if you want to debate this subject bring it up in its own thread.
Maggie
C
c0achmcguirk
Guest
First off, you still haven’t answered my question…do the promises in 2 Tim 3:16-17 only apply to the Old Testament, then? That is what you are arguing for.
The thrust of the passage has nothing to do with the extent of the canon. So why are you beating this drum over and over again? It refers to all Scripture, but you seem to want to redefine this to mean only the Old Testament. I really am baffled as to why you would continue on with such an idea.
Secondly, the New Testament was being revealed and the Apostles knew that what they wrote was Scripture. There is this myth that there was no New Testament until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 A.D. and 397 A.D. respectively.
But this isn’t the case. Consider, for example, that Peter refers to Paul’s writings as Scripture:
"…just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. "
–2 Pet 3:15-16
And Paul certainly felt his writings were inspired:
"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. "
–Gal 1:11-12
There are many more passages that Paul states his belief that his writings were not of man, but from God: 1 Thess 2:13, 1 Cor 14:37.
So it is a canard to assume that there was no New Testament until the late fourth century. And Paul’s writings in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 do not apply only to the Old Testament. They refer to all Scriptures. Even though the New Testament was still being revealed.
God bless,
c0ach
C
c0achmcguirk
Guest
This isn’t a dig, it’s a Scriptural fact. The Pharisees felt their traditions were from God, just like Catholics do. And what did Jesus do? He wasn’t impressed by the supposed credentials of their traditions, he held their traditions accountable to Scripture. mtr01 asserted that the Bible doesn’t teach sola Scriptura, but I showed that the Bible does. Jesus’ treatment of the supposed divine traditions of the Pharisees is one of many evidences of this. What makes Catholic claims to divine traditions any different than the Pharasaical claims to the same?
God bless,
c0ach
F
flick427
Guest
Hmmm, well, if you are in Heaven, you can be 100% sure that you have been saved. That is the only way to know.
Note: this would also apply to the souls in Purgatory, they too know they have been saved, and the Lord is making them worthy of it through His Mercy.
A soul can try her whole life to be saved, but if you turn your back on God, than that implies that you do not desire it any longer. That is why we pray. Were we to know that we were saved, we would not try as hard to work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” as in the Scriptures and as another poster noted.
Note: this would also apply to the souls in Purgatory, they too know they have been saved, and the Lord is making them worthy of it through His Mercy.
A soul can try her whole life to be saved, but if you turn your back on God, than that implies that you do not desire it any longer. That is why we pray. Were we to know that we were saved, we would not try as hard to work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” as in the Scriptures and as another poster noted.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
And the Reformed think they’re the source of all scriptural wisdom and right interpretation…yet you have no Eucharist as the scripture PLAINLY teaches. No scriptural confession, that the scripture PLAINLY authorizes when the NT PLAINLY uses the word absolve…You, by your traditions of men that are only some 487 years old, REMOVE 7 books that the early church considered canon. If you’re so right, then how come you and all your non-Catholic buddies don’t agree on everything? Differences about the necessity and mode of baptism, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, ETERNAL SECURITY…and just boatloads of other stuff. Hit the showers coach…there’s no Holy Ghost teaching among non-Catholics because the Holy Spirit teaches the same thing to everybody…Say whatever you will…there’s no unity of the Holy Spirit among you…
Sola Scriptura is a fantasy…Totally unsupported by anything prior to 1517. Just another reason to blow off non-Catholic religions. NOT ME JACK. Been there for 34 years, done that, and the ONLY good thing that came out of was an anti-Catholic attack that got me looking into the REAL Catholic teachings and led me home where I belong.
Pax vobiscum,
B
BibleReader
Guest
MaggieOH said:
Hi, Maggie.
You missed the word “rapacity” referring to the way the publicans “raped” the population to collect taxes.
In fact, for real, the publicans’ contract with the Romans was, “Whatever you can steal above and beyond the taxes owed is yours!”
A 19th century Bible commentator Alfred Edersheim suggests that we look to Matthew 18 to see how taxes were collected…
23 That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who decided to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began the accounting, a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount. 25 **Since he had no way of paying it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children, and all his property, in payment of the debt. **26 At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.’ 27 Moved with compassion the master of that servant let him go and forgave him the loan. 28 When that servant had left, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a much smaller amount. **He seized him and started to choke him, demanding, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ **29 Falling to his knees, his fellow servant begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’ 30 But he refused. Instead, he had him put in prison until he paid back the debt. 31 Now when his fellow servants saw what had happened, they were deeply disturbed, and went to their master and reported the whole affair. 32 His master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you your entire debt because you begged me to. 33 Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant, as I had pity on you?’ 34 **Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt.**35 So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart." Matthew 18:23-35.In other words, Jesus’ hypothetical was based on everyday experience – common encounters with tax collectors.
E
edwinG
Guest
Hi BibleReader.
Luke 18:9 " Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others."
I don’t see either Job or Paul fitting in to this parable the way you explained it. It possibly fits some people or it wouldn’t be available as an understanding for us. It clearly does not fit everyone either, of those in the past or of those living now or of those in the future. I dare say, a person does not have the wisdom to discern in others and some may be fooling themselves.
"once saved always saved " is a different kettle of fish.
I for one am not talking about how long God’s arm is.
The thread is can anyone ever be sure.
Paul and Job were sure on a daily basis. Job was still sure in the face of his calamity and well meaning wife and friends.
Do you feel in your heart that you are saved and if you die at this very moment you will live in Christ Jesus.
If you do you are answering “yes” to the question.
If you answer “No” or “Don’t know” there must be something you feel is blocking your path. It is up to you to free the path so you dont have any doubts.
Take heed of the parable. Dont trust in your self , in you own goodness,strength or wisdom and dont despise others. Trust completely in Him.
Walk in love
Christ be with you.
edwinG
C
c0achmcguirk
Guest
Church Militant:
christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html
"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent. "
–The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon
catholicintl.com/showdownanimation.htm
Sheesh, it seems there is no unity of the Holy Spirit among you.
"In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures. "
–Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4:17, Emphasis Mine
"Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. "
–Basil of Caesarea, Letter to Eustathius the physician, Emphasis mine
"I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both --the testimony of the Holy Scriptures. "
–Augustine, To Maximin the Arian
"For indeed the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth. "
–Athanasius, Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione
God bless,
c0ach
Oh come now, this is unfair. I’ve never made this claim. It is usually Roman Catholics who feel this way, not Reformed people.
This is another thread entirely.
Never mind the fact that sacerdotal absolution (and the priesthood) was a late development in the church. One could search the writings of Ignatius, The Didache, Clement or Polycarp, Justin Martyr or Irenaeus and find no mention of confession to a priest. But this is another thread entirely.
We didn’t remove them, they weren’t considered inspired by the vast majority of church fathers until Trent.
christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html
"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent. "
–The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon
I would ask the same of you. Why don’t Catholics agree on everything? Why the tiffs between the modernists and the traditionalists, can non-Catholics be saved? Does the earth revolve around the sun? How can there be pro-choice Catholics? Which apologist for Rome should I listen to? Karl Keating or Robert Sungenis? Jimmy Akin or Gerry Matatics? Why is this debate going to happen:
catholicintl.com/showdownanimation.htm
Sheesh, it seems there is no unity of the Holy Spirit among you.
I assume you haven’t read these quotes from the Fathers?
"In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures. "
–Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4:17, Emphasis Mine
"Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. "
–Basil of Caesarea, Letter to Eustathius the physician, Emphasis mine
"I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both --the testimony of the Holy Scriptures. "
–Augustine, To Maximin the Arian
"For indeed the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth. "
–Athanasius, Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione
God bless,
c0ach
W
wcknight
Guest
CoachMcG,
Clearly Catholics do agree on core beliefs, which many evangelicals do not.
What makes Catholic tradition more authoritative than jewish tradition is the direct authorization given by Jesus Himself to St. Peter and Peter’s successors.
It is so convenient for protestant Bibles to so conveniently leave out all the books that have any references to beliefs that they disagree with. Such a text is not only suspect, I would say it would be almost worthless.
Books such as St James letter which clearly states that not by faith alone are we saved, but good works are also a requriement.
Other books like Macabees I and II which clearly state that alms for prayers for the dead is a letigimate practice, even though greatly abused in the middle ages.
How can anyone argue from a text that has all references to the points under debate removed ? How can you argue for or against first admendment rights if you remove all the admenments from the Constitution.
It’s ludicrous to debate such issues when the texts from which you are basing your disagreements are incomplete. Protestantism came about 500 years ago, there is no question about that. That’s history. The only debate is how long can it stand on half a book ?
Clearly Catholics do agree on core beliefs, which many evangelicals do not.
What makes Catholic tradition more authoritative than jewish tradition is the direct authorization given by Jesus Himself to St. Peter and Peter’s successors.
It is so convenient for protestant Bibles to so conveniently leave out all the books that have any references to beliefs that they disagree with. Such a text is not only suspect, I would say it would be almost worthless.
Books such as St James letter which clearly states that not by faith alone are we saved, but good works are also a requriement.
Other books like Macabees I and II which clearly state that alms for prayers for the dead is a letigimate practice, even though greatly abused in the middle ages.
How can anyone argue from a text that has all references to the points under debate removed ? How can you argue for or against first admendment rights if you remove all the admenments from the Constitution.
It’s ludicrous to debate such issues when the texts from which you are basing your disagreements are incomplete. Protestantism came about 500 years ago, there is no question about that. That’s history. The only debate is how long can it stand on half a book ?
- Status