"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[zach_dunn]

← continued from post 636 →

BLOOD / SALVATION: Is when we believe the gospel, that is Jesus was sacrificed and died in our place, by so doing, His Blood forgives and atones for our sins, He was raised from the dead, as we will be, and now He is our High Priest in heaven and lives forever, as so will we. By this gospel we are saved. Which is confirmed by Scripture per Rom 10:9-10, 1 Cor.15:2-4 and Eph 1:13.

You have a very faulty interpretation of these passages, not one says we are saved the instant we believe the gospel, let’s look at these:

Romans 10:9-10
“9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.”

The first thing to note is Matthew 7:21 (“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”), this verse explicitly denies that all you need to do is confess with your lips; so what does it mean? Well, it means believing completely in Christ and everything he taught, this is actually illuminated by 1 Cor 15:2:

1 Corinthians 15:2
“2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.”

To believe you have to hold fast to the preaching of the Apostles which is the word of the Lord [Lk 10:16; 1 Pet 1:25]. I’ve already gone over Ephesians 1:13 here somewhere, you never got back to me . . . go figure.

TO SUMMARIZE: 1 John 5: 6, 'This is He that came by “water” (baptism) and Blood (gospel) (emphasis added) So when we believe the gospel, which saves us as per 1 Cor.15:2-4 and Eph 1:13, and then get baptized to demonstrate our repentance per Mat 3:11 and 1 Pet 3:21, that completes the process as commanded by Jesus per Mat 28:19 . ED O.

This has all been refuted above.

 

[zach_dunn]

Ed, Ed, Ed, have you forgotten about ME?

Originally Posted by EdOsiecki
I’ll answer the rest of what you wrote when you answer what I say here. Do we have a deal? ED O.

You said this in response to only a portion of my post number 537. I said “yes” in my post number 566. Then, you replied to my post with your post number 572. This went against your very word from the quote I gave above, which I pointed out. Since then you have simply ignored my posts. You have yet to fully respond to my post number 537.

Besides skipping that post, as you specifically said you wouldn’t, you have yet to reply to my posts 566, 567, 568, 587, 588, and 590. If you could reply to these in time, I would appreciate it.

Thanks!

 

[ryanoneil]

Ryan, God has revealed to me exactly what you have presented here. I NEVER ONCE, ever separated the blood from water baptism BOTH are necessary, where we differ is what the “water” baptism represents.

( A ) Mat 3:11 John ought to know best as to why he was sent, he very clearly states, " I baptize you with water for repentance." In Acts 19:4, Paul very clearly states,“John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance.” THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS AND THAT’S WHAT I BELIEVE. -----( B ) Mat 3:11 John also says, " But after me will come one-----He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." which was also confirmed by Jesus Himself when He states in Acts 1:5,“For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”----I BELIEVE EXACTLY WHAT’S BEING STATED HERE.

Here’s where the problem lies: Nathan and others here, state that the Holy Spirit is somehow infused at “water” baptism. And by being “water” baptized our sins are forgiven and we are then saved, which leaves nothing else left for Jesus to do. His going to the cross would be in vain, since at “water” baptism all is done.

That theology is false. Here’s why! The people in Acts 8:12, were “water” baptized but yet they haven’t received the Holy Spirit. V 16 says so! And the same thing takes place in Acts 19:2-4. That’s very clear isn’t it?

BAPTISM / REPENTANCE: When John says his “water” baptism is for repentance and then in Mat 3:7-8, he illustrates what he means when he refused to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees telling them to go and, “Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance” Just as what 1 Pet 3:21 states about “water” baptism, “it is not the removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience,----.” Which means being sorry for sins, asking for forgiveness and turning to God. We then produce good fruits by doing good deeds and do whatever God wants us to do. As you can see! Not even the slightest hint of the Holy Spirit being infused and people are being born again by “water” baptism. That’s simply not true, according to Scripture.

BLOOD / SALVATION: Is when we believe the gospel, that is Jesus was sacrificed and died in our place, by so doing, His Blood forgives and atones for our sins, He was raised from the dead, as we will be, and now He is our High Priest in heaven and lives forever, as so will we. By this gospel we are saved. Which is confirmed by Scripture per Rom 10:9-10, 1 Cor.15:2-4 and Eph 1:13.

TO SUMMARIZE: 1 John 5: 6, 'This is He that came by “water” (baptism) and Blood (gospel) (emphasis added) So when we believe the gospel, which saves us as per 1 Cor.15:2-4 and Eph 1:13, and then get baptized to demonstrate our repentance per Mat 3:11 and 1 Pet 3:21, that completes the process as commanded by Jesus per Mat 28:19 . ED O.

What I am saying is that the power of Christ’s blood is in the water of baptism, just like it was mixed with the water that pour out from his side. And the power of the Holy Spirit is in the water just like it is in Jesus blood. Just like the Father’s power is there. That is what I mean when I say the two cannot be seperated.

Water baptism is not merely some ritual of repentence like John’s baptism. Christian baptism saves with belief.

Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Nathan Wagar
Ed, immersion isn’t the same thing as indwelling. The Greek word for baptism is used in several different contexts, anything from pouring to immersing. So if you are looking at the fact that there are multiple baptisms of the Holy Spirit, then logically you have to conclude that at some point, one of those is salvific. Given all the Scripture I have shown (including one that you just recently unintentionally posted) linking water and the forgiveness of sins, it makes sense to conclude that the one of these many “baptisms” of the Spirit that actually saved was the one with water, since unless God directly intervened Himself, this was the first baptism. Even when God did intervene, it is not even clear that it was always in a salvific sense, *however *this is beside the point since we believe God can work outside of his sacraments.

Nathan, I NEVER claimed that there are multiple BAPTISMS in the HOLY SPIRIT. There is only Baptism in the Holy Spirit and it does NOT come by “water” baptism. The rest of what you state here is a lot of mumbo jumbo so I won’t comment on it.

The only way YOU would have a point is if you could point out somebody that received the Holy Spirit from an apostle PRIOR to being water baptized. You won’t find it.

I found one, it’s in Acts 10:44 Cornelius and his whole group received the Holy Spirit prior to being “water” baptized.

This lends credence to the Catholic view that when Jesus gave the apostles the power to baptize, it was with the Holy Spirit but through water, since they are never shown laying hands prior to water baptism.

What did Phillip do, wasted the peoples time by “water” baptizing them in Acts 8:12 and yet they never received the Holy Spirit?

Besides, Ed, if the laying on of hands is the infusing of the Holy Spirit as you have contradictorily said,

Your quote, “As you have contradictorily said”, Now let me read what The New American Catholic bibles says on page1329, “Laying on the hands: in Acts 8:17 and Acts 19:6 this rite effects the infusion of the Holy Spirit.” Now would you like the publisher’s name and address so that you can write them and tell them that they made a mistake?

then that assumes they haven’t received the Holy Spirit upon belief. Either way you are caught. I think you are confusing the terms

The only confusion that I see and it’s in your head, Eph 1:13 states,“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a SEAL, the promised Holy Spirit. v14 who is a deposit quaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of His glory.”---- Now to receive the BAPTISM of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, it’s done by the laying of the hands as it is stated in Acts 8:17 and Acts 19:6.------ PLEASE NOTE it doesn’t mention anything at all about “water” baptism. So stop rejoicing, I’m not caught, your theology is bankrupt. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ed, stop ignoring arguments you can’t answer by calling it mumbo jumbo.

Another thing, I said find an example of somebody receiving the Holy Spirit from an **apostle **prior to water baptism. Cornelius recieved it from God Himself, and still had to be saved. We know God can work outside of His sacraments Ed, you’re not saying anything revolutionary here. You don’t even read what’s in front of you before you respond.

Also, I have the NAB, and it does not say the word infusion in the footnotes. So again, if you’re not going to be accurate, Im never going to take you seriously. I’d be happy, even if you did have some off-brand Bible with wacky footnotes, to point you to our authoritative Catechism, or perhaps some Church councils? Or better yet, how about the early Christians you don’t like to listen to?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by ryanoneil
What I am saying is that the power of Christ’s blood is in the water of baptism, just like it was mixed with the water that pour out from his side.

There’s no Scripture that can verify what you say here. It’s what someone told what it means

And the power of the Holy Spirit is in the water just like it is in Jesus blood

How did the power of the Holy Spirit get into the water, there’s no Scripture that supports what you claim. In fact that claim directly contradicts what Jesus said in Acts 1:5, “For John baptized with water but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. v8 But you will receive POWER when the Holy Spirit comes on you;----.” As you can see, Jesus speaks of the POWER that not comes from John’s “water” baptism.

Just like the Father’s power is there. That is what I mean when I say the two cannot be seperated.

This is a fine statement but salvation is based upon Scriptures.

Water baptism is not merely some ritual of repentence like John’s baptism.

That’s exactly what the Scriptures say it is.

Christian baptism saves with belief.whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16

This Scriptures very clearly states those who believe the gospel and is baptized will be saved. It’s the belief in the gospel that saves and the baptism is the showing of repentance. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by NathanWagar

Another thing, I said find an example of somebody receiving the Holy Spirit from an apostle prior to water baptism. Cornelius recieved it from God Himself,

Isn’t Peter an apostle? He was the one that preached the gospel to them.

and still had to be saved.

Cornelius and his group received the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. That means they had to be saved, the Holy Spirit does not indwell in an unsaved person. Let’s say that they didn’t want to get “water” baptized later, would the Holy Spirit then fizzle out out? When are you going to get it in your head that “water” baptism is what John, Paul and Peter says it is, a baptism of repentance.

Also, I have the NAB, and it does not say the word infusion in the footnotes.

Then you write them and ask them why isn’t in there like The New American Catholic Bible does. By the way, please tell me under which Scripture did you try to find it?

So again, if you’re not going to be accurate, Im never going to take you seriously

.Please don’t accuse me of being inaccurate, when you don’t know where to find it the bible.

I’d be happy, even if you did have some off-brand Bible with wacky footnotes, to point you to our authoritative Catechism, or perhaps some Church councils? Or better yet, how about the early Christians you don’t like to listen to?

Simmer down Nathan, don’t get bent all out of shape, this is only a debate that you seem to be confused in. God Bless ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Nathan Wagar
After the Holy Spirit “came down” on the apostles, He was able to be given to others through the laying on of hands for the spiritual gifts necessary for evangelization. This fits in quite nicely with the idea of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and then the laying on of hands for confirmation.

Confirmation is not in the Bible. When the apostles laid hands on the people to receive the Holy Spirit, the evidence that they received Him was that they spoke in tongues. Isn’t that what’s supposed to take place at confirmation? Did you ever see that happen?

What you DO NOT have an explanation for is why Saul supposedly received the Holy Spirit upon belief, but did not have his sins forgiven until he was baptized.

Sins aren’t forgiven until they are atoned for. Pauls sins were atoned for by the Blood of Jesus when he believed the gospel, and was SEALED by the Holy Spirit. As Eph 1:13 states. Water doesn’t forgive sins. Jesus gives us an example with the thief on the cross, his sins were forgiven and atoned for simply by belief in Jesus.

You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that since the baptism happened on the earthly timeline before the cross, that it is nothing more than a ridiculous belief in “magic water,” and that there is no way it could be infused because Christ hadn’t died yet. This argument does not have merit,

In Acts 1:5-8, Jesus was crucified and was resurrected and was about to ascend to heaven when he speaks of John’s baptism as simply “water” . So when does the “water” baptism begin to be infused by the Holy Spirit as you claim?

Lastly, the baptism by the apostles is not merely a baptism of repentance, it is a command to repent, then be baptized.

And that’s what baptism is an act of repentance as John, Peter and Paul state,

Don’t try to confuse the Scripture here

, I won’t.

Ed, or I’ll keep reposting it to keep you honest

Keep on posting that’s fine with me. Hey man! It’s 4:00 A.M. I’m going to bed. Have a good night. God Bless! ED O.

 

[dgfghh]

Yes Ed. Because it is what allows us to take part in Christ’s death, as Paul already said. You can’t ignore Scripture for the sake of your interpretation. It clearly says Ananias was baptized for the forgiveness of sins. We both believe he was saved by his belief. We both believe that the cross and the blood is what atones. The difference is, the Biblical position is that the water baptism in his name is what applies the merits of that blood, not mere “belief” AS YOU DEFINE IT. You seem to have the idea we believe in magical Holy Spirit water that saves in and of itself, apart from the atoning of the blood of the cross. This isn’t my contention at all, Ed. The blood it is what saves, but the baptism is what makes you a partaker in that death, as Paul clearly stated. You are misdefining “belief” as well as ignoring the explicit connection between baptism and Christ’s death. You are essentially arguing with a straw man of your own creation.

My question to you: When did Paul believe?

Confirmation is not in the Bible. When the apostles laid hands on the people to receive the Holy Spirit, the evidence that they received Him was that they spoke in tongues. Isn’t that what’s supposed to take place at confirmation? Did you ever see that happen?

 

[benedictus2]

To Nathan Wagar, benedictus2, panevino, Kevin Wilcox and ryanoneil, it doesn’t matter whether the “born of water” in John 3:5 means water baptism or as I say man’s physical birth when you consider Mat 3:16 which very clearly states that Jesus was “water” baptized. And when He CAME OUT OF THE WATER, only then, did the Holy Spirit come down in the form of a dove and remained on Jesus.
That alone should indicate that the Holy Spirit wasn’t present while Jesus was in the “water” being baptized.

We do not state exactly when the Holy Spirit is given, but during our baptism whether it is during of after our immersion, the Holy Spirit.

The whole point of the matter is water is necessary for this entire process because Jesus SAID SO.

As a result of your theology, that is, that the Holy Spirit is infused by “water” baptism,

No we never said that. That is not our theology at all.

In addition to the above problem, it contradicts what John states in Mat 3:11, that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. And it twice contradicts Paul in Acts 13:24 and Acts 19:4, which says nothing about the Holy Spirit being infused through “water’ baptism,

Again, we never said that the Holy Spirit is “infused through water” baptism.

All we are saving is that we are cleansed from sin during (origina and personal) and that sometime during this process we call baptism, we are also given the Holy Spriit.

The “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is what happens at Confirmation.

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2, You seem to be a cheerleader for Nathan, Would you please show me an example of what you mean because according to you there would have to be a conflict between Jesus and Paul. Yet, all Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit, which is a HE the third person of the Trinity. Can the HE of the Holy Spirit fight against Himself? Also would you show me the Scripture where it states that the epistles can’t negate (overide) what Jesus says.ED O.

No I am not a cheerleader for Nathan (though I do share his opinions so do tend to back him up )

The protestants bring up that seeming contradiction because of their penchant to quote Paul when faced with verses from the Gospel. This is why I wonder whether they think Paul’s writings have more weight than the Gospels.

I was reading a history of the Bible and this habit of over emphasizing Paul’s letters can be traced back to Luther who had a predilection for Paul’s epistles and the gospel of John, and relegated the synoptics to the background.

 

[benedictus2]

Confirmation is not in the Bible. When the apostles laid hands on the people to receive the Holy Spirit, the evidence that they received Him was that they spoke in tongues. Isn’t that what’s supposed to take place at confirmation? Did you ever see that happen?

You got that wrong. When the Holy Spirit descended on the disciple, they did not speak in “tongues” as the term is now used but in different dialects. And this is to enable them to proclaim the Good News to every race, to the gentiles so that the Church will be universal.

Confirmation works in the same way. We are confrimed in the Holy Spirit because this is when we become “soldiers” for God, when we are empowered to spread the Good News.

 

[ryanoneil]

This Scriptures very clearly states those who believe the gospel and is baptized will be saved. It’s the belief in the gospel that saves and the baptism is the showing of repentance. ED O.

We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. (Rom 6:4)

This does not say we are saved through belief then just show repentence. It says we actually die with Christ in baptism, and like Him we are raised to newness of life (born again). His shed blood is present in this death.

You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2:12)

It says in baptism which we were raised. Blood and Spirit raise us to new life in baptism.

but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:11)

This washing doesn’t refer to belief. It refers to baptism. The washing of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification.

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal 3:27)

Baptism!

not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)

Read them all. He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life. Baptism regenerates our souls and is salvific. The washing of regeneration saves us. The phrase “saved us” refers to salvation. By baptism, we become justified by His grace (interior change) and heirs of eternal life (adoption). Because this refers to baptism, the verse is about the beginning of the life in Christ.

 

[panevino]

…

… This Scriptures very clearly states those who believe the gospel and is baptized will be saved. It’s the belief in the gospel that saves and the baptism is the showing of repentance. ED O.

am i missing something (obviously I am) because you appear to contradict yourself above.
the requirement above is belief and baptism. per Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned

then you seperate it to really require belief only.

Though I understand you to believe their are two baptisms (water (repentance) and holy spirit at belief (blood))

but then there is that verse about only 1 baptism

by the way not sure if you have seen the below verse

Num 5:17 KJV *And the priest shall take **holy water *in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:

I think Johns baptism is superseeded by the CHRISTian baptism by the instruction from christ to baptise “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” so is not your discussion on the Blood at the least incorporated into the sacrament as such.

 

[Bob4BVM]

No I am not a cheerleader for Nathan (though I do share his opinions so do tend to back him up )

The protestants bring up that seeming contradiction because of their penchant to quote Paul when faced with verses from the Gospel. This is why I wonder whether they think Paul’s writings have more weight than the Gospels.

I was reading a history of the Bible and this habit of over emphasizing Paul’s letters can be traced back to Luther who had a predilection for Paul’s epistles and the gospel of John, and relegated the synoptics to the background.

Good points.
You are closer to the mark than you may think.
I remember this happening a lot when I was a Protestant.
Back then for some reason I had lots of questions on the Gospels, especially John.
The pastor would always jump off to one of Pauls writings to (seemed to me) try to diminish the impact of some of Jesus’ words.
That was the begining of when I started looking for some objective truth.

 

[Bob4BVM]

No, Ed, it says the Holy Spirit had not yet come down on them. Since I have already discussed the multiple “baptisms” of the Holy Spirit, this argument doesn’t fly. The Holy Spirit was around and with the apostles prior to Pentecost, however during Pentecost it “came down” upon them. This is undeniable, because Jesus breathed onto the apostles and said to receive the Holy Spirit. After the Holy Spirit “came down” on the apostles, He was able to be given to others through the laying on of hands for the spiritual gifts necessary for evangelization. This fits in quite nicely with the idea of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and then the laying on of hands for confirmation. This is also why many Protestants recognize the difference between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit upon belief versus the laying on of hands. So you see, Ed, there is an explanation for this. What you DO NOT have an explanation for is why Saul supposedly received the Holy Spirit upon belief, but did not have his sins forgiven until he was baptized.

You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that since the baptism happened on the earthly timeline before the cross, that it is nothing more than a ridiculous belief in “magic water,” and that there is no way it could be infused because Christ hadn’t died yet. This argument does not have merit, however. Jesus gave the apostles authority to cast out demons, obviously by the power of the Holy Spirit. All the OT sacrifices were looked at through grace IN ANTICIPATION of the sacrifice at cavalry. So it seems, that outside of the temporal timeline, God sees all things as they are, where the sacrifice is in some way eternally present. Whether knowingly or not, you seem to be denying the fact that the Holy Spirit was at work all throughout the Bible,since that can’t happen until Jesus dies on the earthly timeline. The problem is, there are two timelines Ed, temporal and eternal. And the sacrifice of Christ is for the past, present, and future, so your argument does not apply. Now add the fact that Paul connected baptism with Christ’s atoning death, and you literally have no solid argument for denying Paul’s clear words.

Lastly, the baptism by the apostles is not merely a baptism of repentance, it is a command to repent, then be baptized. Don’t try to confuse the Scripture here, Ed, or I’ll keep reposting it to keep you honest.

Nathan-
Very well put, VERY clear. Add me to you cheering section !
Maybe Ed has a verse by Paul that would cancel out Christ’s act of breathing on them to receive the HS ?

 

[Bob4BVM]

benedictus2, You seem to be a cheerleader for Nathan, Would you please show me an example of what you mean because according to you there would have to be a conflict between Jesus and Paul. Yet, all Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit, which is a HE the third person of the Trinity. Can the HE of the Holy Spirit fight against Himself? Also would you show me the Scripture where it states that the epistles can’t negate (overide) what Jesus says.ED O.

Ed:
You state here: “Also would you show me the Scripture where it states that the epistles can’t negate (overide) what Jesus says.”
Are you serious, or do I badly mis-read what you mean to say here ?

“negate (overide) what Jesus says.” ???

Where are you coming from with this ???

btw, what denomination is “etc.” ?

 

[benedictus2]

Nathan-
Very well put, VERY clear. Add me to you cheering section !
Maybe Ed has a verse by Paul that would cancel out Christ’s act of breathing on them to receive the HS ?

I’ll get the pom poms out .

 

[benedictus2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdOsiecki forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
benedictus2, You seem to be a cheerleader for Nathan, Would you please show me an example of what you mean because according to you there would have to be a conflict between Jesus and Paul. Yet, all Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit, which is a HE the third person of the Trinity. Can the HE of the Holy Spirit fight against Himself? Also would you show me the Scripture where it states that the epistles can’t negate (overide) what Jesus says.ED O.

Ed:
You state here: “Also would you show me the Scripture where it states that the epistles can’t negate (overide) what Jesus says.”
Are you serious, or do I badly mis-read what you mean to say here ?

“negate (overide) what Jesus says.” ???

Where are you coming from with this ???

Now I am in your cheering squad! Thank you for picking up on that. Don’t know how I missed that one.

Surely Ed has got to be kidding! Apostles can negate what Jesus said??!!! Wow, there must be apostles then who are higher than God . Hmm, now I know why they go to Paul all the time.

 

[onenow1]

Now I am in your cheering squad! Thank you for picking up on that. Don’t know how I missed that one.

Surely Ed has got to be kidding! Apostles can negate what Jesus said??!!! Wow, there must be apostles then who are higher than God . Hmm, now I know why they go to Paul all the time.

=onenow1, Indeed ! Hence the saying, they rob Peter, to pay Paul.

2 Peter 3​

14 Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

Just a thought as I’m reading along.

Peace, aand God Bless
onenow1