Can Anyone Really Be 100% Sure They Will Go To Heaven When They Die?

[c0achmcguirk]

serendipity:

This would be the fact that the abbreviated Old Testament used by the Protestants is the collection that was abbreivated by a Pharisee, Jarius, after the collapse of Rome in 70AD.

The Synod of Jamnia theory goes back to Heinrich Graetz in 1871, who proposed that Jamnia led to the closing of the Canon. There is no consensus on this, and it has been completely refuted by J.P. Lewis and S.Z. Leiman. They’ve concluded:

1. The term “synod” or “council” is inappropriate. Rather, the academy at Jamnia, established by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, was both a college and a legislative body and the occasion in question was a session of the elders there.
2. The date of the session may have been as early as AD 75 or as late as AD 117.
3. The dicussion was confined to the question whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (or maybe just Ecclesiastes) make the hands unclean, or are divinely inspired.
4. The decision reached was not considered authoritative, since contrary opinions continued to be expressed until the third century.

If you can find it, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church by Roger Beckwith is a great resource for the Jewish Canon.

By looking at the fact that there were books laid up in the Temple, from the writings of Josephus, and, of course, the Jewish writings themselves it is plain that the OT canon was clearly understood, and clearly functional in Jesus’ day in Palestine. And what is also clear is that the canon Jesus and the apostles used did not contain the apocryphal books.

As for the Luther stuff, I don’t feel Luther is infallible. Plus Luther never threw any books out of the Canon, and he even quoted from Hebrews and James late in life.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Tom]

c0achmcguirk:

I don’t know that you read post #51 above. I pointed out that the apostles did believe their writings were inspired, and Peter even refers to Paul’s writings as Scripture. I don’t see you dealing with the passages I brought up. I’d love to see what you have to say about that in light of your assertion that the Apostles didn’t believe they were inspired.
God bless,
c0ach

Coach, I hate to hit and run like this but I’ve been unbelievably busy, please excuse me. Yes, I read post #51, and it’s very interesting, however, as you well know Paul, being very well versed in OT Scripture, used to use OT Scripture to prove that Jesus was in fact the promised messiah. Many Jews rejected his teaching, twisting and distorting the OT Scriptures, this I believe is what Peter is referring to. He is not saying the Gospel is in fact Scripture, he is saying they people rejected Paul’s’ teaching of OT Scripture to prove Jesus was the savior.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ be with you
Tom

 

[MaggieOH]

Tom:

Coach, I hate to hit and run like this but I’ve been unbelievably busy, please excuse me. Yes, I read post #51, and it’s very interesting, however, as you well know Paul, being very well versed in OT Scripture, used to use OT Scripture to prove that Jesus was in fact the promised messiah. Many Jews rejected his teaching, twisting and distorting the OT Scriptures, this I believe is what Peter is referring to. He is not saying the Gospel is in fact Scripture, he is saying they people rejected Paul’s’ teaching of OT Scripture to prove Jesus was the savior.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ be with you
Tom

Tom,
this is very well stated. I agree with your comments. Peter was not referring to any of the teachings of the Apostles as Scripture, but as you said, he was referring to the OT Scriptures that point to Jesus as the Messiah.

These same Scriptures that were twisted back then are still twisted by Jews today, for they still believe that their messiah will be someone who will lead them in physical battle against their enemy.

Maggie

 

[Tom]

This is going to be my last post on this thread; the name-calling and accusations are unchristian. We each have beliefs others don’t understand, rather than attacking each other I would like to understand each other. Understanding does not mean agreeing. I understand why someone could feel many of the non-Catholic teachings, I feel they are misreading Scripture, but I understand their confusion. There is absolutely no reason to call names or be abusive; I’m embarrassed by my fellow Christians. Does anyone even remember what the subject of the thread was?
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you all.
Tom

 

[MaggieOH]

edwinG:

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

Edwin

I can see that your faith is strong and that you have a real sense for what the Scripture is saying to you. I like your answer.

God Bless

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

c0achmcguirk:

The Synod of Jamnia theory goes back to Heinrich Graetz in 1871, who proposed that Jamnia led to the closing of the Canon. There is no consensus on this, and it has been completely refuted by J.P. Lewis and S.Z. Leiman. They’ve concluded:

1. The term “synod” or “council” is inappropriate. Rather, the academy at Jamnia, established by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, was both a college and a legislative body and the occasion in question was a session of the elders there.
2. The date of the session may have been as early as AD 75 or as late as AD 117.
3. The dicussion was confined to the question whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (or maybe just Ecclesiastes) make the hands unclean, or are divinely inspired.
4. The decision reached was not considered authoritative, since contrary opinions continued to be expressed until the third century.

If you can find it, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church by Roger Beckwith is a great resource for the Jewish Canon.

By looking at the fact that there were books laid up in the Temple, from the writings of Josephus, and, of course, the Jewish writings themselves it is plain that the OT canon was clearly understood, and clearly functional in Jesus’ day in Palestine. And what is also clear is that the canon Jesus and the apostles used did not contain the apocryphal books.

As for the Luther stuff, I don’t feel Luther is infallible. Plus Luther never threw any books out of the Canon, and he even quoted from Hebrews and James late in life.

God bless,
c0ach

Regardless of the date that is claimed by revisionist historians, the fact remains that the Christians were under no obligation to follow any decision made at Jamnia. The decision making from that meeting took place in order to exclude the Christian writings.

I see a diversion here regarding Martin Luther. I personally do not bring up what Luther did in regard to his attempt to get rid of certain books from the canon of Scripture because they did not suit his ideas. That is an argument that draws away from the fact that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint and the Alexandrian canon included all of the books. Also Jesus most definitely referred to these books, if not directly he did so indirectly. A good example is in the Olivet discourse where he refers to the abomination of the Temple. That prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when the Hellenes took over Jersualem, and the history of that event is contained in the books of the Maccabees.

All we see are phony excuses as to why these books have been excluded from the canon, yet the truth happens to be that if they were included many would realise that they are being duped and would leave those denominations in droves.

Maggie

 

[Jlrami1]

 Therefore I say to you:  walk according to the Spirit and do not give way to the desires of the flesh!  For the desires of the flesh war against the spirit, and the desires of the spirit are opposed to the flesh.  Both are in conflict with each other, so that you cannot do everything you would like.  But let the Spirit lead you:  this has nothing to do with submitting to the law.
  You well know what comes from the flesh:  Immorality, impurity and shamelessness, idol worship and magic, hatred, jealousy and violence, anger, ambition, division, factions, and envy, drunkenness, orgies and the like.  I again say to you what I have already said:  **those who do these things shall not inherit the kingdom of God**.

(Galatians 5:16-25.)

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Tom:

Coach, I hate to hit and run like this but I’ve been unbelievably busy, please excuse me. Yes, I read post #51, and it’s very interesting, however, as you well know Paul, being very well versed in OT Scripture, used to use OT Scripture to prove that Jesus was in fact the promised messiah.

Tom, thanks for your civil attitude, you’ll be missed. I’ll let you have the final word and let the reader decide.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

MaggieOH:

Tom,
this is very well stated. I agree with your comments. Peter was not referring to any of the teachings of the Apostles as Scripture, but as you said, he was referring to the OT Scriptures that point to Jesus as the Messiah.

Maggie, what did Peter mean when he said:

"…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

Why did Peter group Paul’s writings with the other Scriptures?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

MaggieOH:

Regardless of the date that is claimed by revisionist historians the fact remains that the Christians were under no obligation to follow any decision made at Jamnia. The decision making from that meeting took place in order to exclude the Christian writings.

No, Jamnia had nothing to do with the deuteros. I’ll restate #3:

The dicussion was confined to the question whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (or maybe just Ecclesiastes) make the hands unclean, or are divinely inspired

I see a diversion here regarding Martin Luther.

Agreed. It’s irrelevant but an all-to-often overused argument.

That is an argument that draws away from the fact that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint

This is true. But as I pointed out–all the Jews who used the Septuagint recognized that just because a book was included in the Septuagint didn’t mean it was inspired.

and the Alexandrian canon included all of the books.

The Palestinian vs. Alexandrian Canon is just a theory that was all the rage in the 19th Century, but has fallen from grace as of the last 100 years. It basically says that during Jesus’ time there were two canons floating around, the Palestinian, which did not contain the apocrypha, and the Alexandrian, which was Hellenistic, and in fact contained some of the Apocrypha.

As F.F. Bruce writes,

"It has frequently been suggested that, while the canon of the Palestinian Jews was limited to the twenty-four books of the Law, Prophets and Writings, the canon of the Alexandian Jews was more comprehensive. There is no evidence that this was so–indeed, there is no evidence that the Alexandrian Jews ever promulgated a canon of scripture. "
–FF Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, pp. 44-45

All we see are phony excuses as to why these books have been excluded from the canon, yet the truth happens to be that if they were included many would realise that they are being duped and would leave those denominations in droves.

Maggie, why are they phony? It seems you haven’t even responded to the arguments I’ve given for rejecting them…Did I miss your response to the Jerome’s canon argument, the “no prophet in Maccabees” argument, the vast majority of Roman scholarship until Rome argument? I don’t recall you interacting with these arguments, other than to call them “phony.”

If this is the way you’re going to continue arguing in this discussion, perhaps it is best that we cease this “debate.”

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Maggie, just a few questions that have been missed in my last few posts. I think they are important, so I’m reposting them since they are getting lost in our wake.

**Do you think that Scripture is able to make the man of God fully complete and fully equipped, able to meet all demands?

But I still ask you–where does the Bible speak of another God-breathed, infallible rule of faith for the normative condition of the Church (for us today)? 1 Tim 3:15 doesn’t speak of one. Do you have any other examples?

What compelling reason can you give to tell me that the Pharasaical claims to divine traditions are any different than the Roman Catholic claims to divine traditions?**

God bless,
c0ach

 

[MaggieOH]

c0achmcguirk:

Maggie, just a few questions that have been missed in my last few posts. I think they are important, so I’m reposting them since they are getting lost in our wake.

Do you think that Scripture is able to make the man of God fully complete and fully equipped, able to meet all demands?

But I still ask you–where does the Bible speak of another God-breathed, infallible rule of faith for the normative condition of the Church (for us today)? 1 Tim 3:15 doesn’t speak of one. Do you have any other examples?

What compelling reason can you give to tell me that the Pharasaical claims to divine traditions are any different than the Roman Catholic claims to divine traditions?

God bless,
c0ach

These questions are not related to this topic. Therefore I will not be answering them. They are rather stupid questions anyway.

MaggieOH

 

[Church_Militant]

c0achmcguirk:

Perhaps you missed Post 57 on this thread?

God bless,
“great preacher man”
c0ach

No…I saw it…so what?
Start a thread on the Eucharist if you like…you cannot justify your position on it, I’ve heard it all before…it’s all just twisted interpretations of man.

As for “sacredotal confession” so? The Form of the sacrament evolved over the history of the church as she came to better understand it. The Catholic sacrament is still the most Biblical form around. Your argument won’t hold water anyway because you probably know (or should anyway) that prior to aural confession a great many people would withhold themselves from baptism until they were dying because they had no sense of a way to deal with sins after baptism. Case in point…the emperor Constantine… Ours is still more scriptural than the “me 'n Jesus” approach of non-Catholics.

The canon was settled in 405 after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage and they all affirmed (as have every council since), the 73 book Canon. No one tinkered with the Bible until after 1517.

As for the topic we are discussing… This is nothing but a platform for a presentation of OSAS, which is anything BUT scripturally accurate. Man does indeed lose the life of the Spirit within him every time he falls into mortal sin (“sin unto death”) which he shouldn’t do very often if he is really doing his best to follow Our Lord. THAT’S what Confession and Reconcilliation are for.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[c0achmcguirk]

MaggieOH:

These questions are not related to this topic. Therefore I will not be answering them. They are rather stupid questions anyway.

MaggieOH

I don’t blame you. They’re tough questions for those who reject sola Scriptura. Pssst…About the off-topic thing–you responded to these very topics in the past, so just between you and me…why are these off-topic now?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Church Militant:

As for the topic we are discussing… This is nothing but a platform for a presentation of OSAS, which is anything BUT scripturally accurate. Man does indeed lose the life of the Spirit within him every time he falls into mortal sin (“sin unto death”) which he shouldn’t do very often if he is really doing his best to follow Our Lord. THAT’S what Confession and Reconcilliation are for.

I know, I know…I’m the Protestant. I’m not allowed to discuss the topics the Catholics bring up. I’ll try to be better in the future.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[dennisknapp]

c0achmcguirk:

I know, I know…I’m the Protestant. I’m not allowed to discuss the topics the Catholics bring up. I’ll try to be better in the future.

God bless,
c0ach

Hey, check your private messages.

Peace

 

[una_fide]

MaggieOH:

I submit that it is an error to use the word doctrine and that your translation is rather limited. The quote from the letter to Timothy states:

“All Scripture is inspired by God and can be profitably used for **teaching, **for refuting error, for guiding people’s lives and **teaching them to be holy” (2Tim 3:16)

Maggie**
ok if you want to get into that The RSVCE, one of the most accurate vesions their are says, All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

c0achmcguirk:

I know, I know…I’m the Protestant. I’m not allowed to discuss the topics the Catholics bring up. I’ll try to be better in the future.

God bless,
c0ach

We try to stay with the topic of the thread.Oh the victim complex does not work here Stay with the thread topic and talk or ask questions for the purpose of understanding and you will have no problems.God Bless

 

[una_fide]

MaggieOH:

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

It was both

 

[serendipity]

Few people had as great faith as Paul, but he was not sure of his salvation, so why should any of us be?