S
sandusky
Guest
The only true believers are the elect to whom God has promised their safekeeping; therefore, it’s as impossible for the elect to apostatize, as it is to renew the apostate to repentance.
- Status
S
sandusky
Guest
I never denied that, Mike.
It squares with it in that the church doesn’t know what’s in the heart of the one who left; nevertheless, they would always welcome that one back into communion should that one exhibit repentance; time would tell if that repentance were genuine; that’s the teaching of the wheat and the tares in Mt 13, and the perspective the church must take. So I still hold the position that those who act in the manner described by the Spirit through the writer will not be renewed to repentance—it’s God’s call, and He’ll eventually sort that out.
Revert is Catholic language; while it’s possible for a regenerate person to sin in that manner, it’s not very probable.
The church may not teach that officially, but the link I provided earlier clearly states what’s in its heart concerning that:**It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.**That sentiment contradicts what the writer of Hebrews is saying, if, in fact, those in the passage have been baptized and regenerated through the sacrament (which is your understanding of the passage; namely, those spoken of are genuine believers).
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Catholics on this thread have said time and time again that they do not have the same interpretation of this Scripture verse. By what authority do you claim that your interpretation is correct? The Catholics have used Scripture to provide context that supports their interpretation. Your entire premise relies solely on this verse and your interpretation.
S
sandusky
Guest
How do you know that your interpretation is correct?
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
We rely on two principle authorities: The Magisterium that you reject and that the interpretation is supported by practices of Christians since the early Church (Apostles and their immediate successors).
Catholics do not belong to the “Church of Sandusky.” I know that has a bite of sarcasm and no offense is intended. However, because you are the source of your own authority, we find it imprudent to throw out 2,000 years of teaching and practice on the word of single person.
S
sandusky
Guest
How do you know that they’re right?
M
Mickey
Guest
I’ll stick with those who knew the Apostles and their successors for a proper interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures.
How do you know that you are correct? Why should we believe your interpretations?
S
sandusky
Guest
How do you know they’re right?
M
Mickey
Guest
S
sandusky
Guest
How do you know they’re right?
You’ve already determined that I know I’m right based upon private interpretation.
How do you know you’re right?
M
Mickey
Guest
Apostolic succession.
I don’t think that I said that, but if that is a true statement for you, then thank you for answering.
S
sandusky
Guest
How did you arrive at the conclusion that anything the church teaches is correct?
M
Mickey
Guest
Apostolic succession.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
By the same authority that I accept the Bible as the Word of God. They came from the same eternal source via the same temporal source.
Like Teflon said in another thread, “the problem is they can’t square a circle” no matter how hard they try.
The facts of where we got scripture
In the beginning, there was no single source of Scripture. Each individual Church only had bits and pieces of the whole. The Corinthians had their letters and possibly all or parts of one or more of the Gospels. So it was with the Thessalonians, etc. The partial Scripture in each locale was guarded (lest civil authorities find it and destroy it) with great zeal by each Church and only read to the faithful at Mass.
Overtime, faithful monks and Priests copied the Scripture for distribution and exchange with other churches. As all Churches under the Apostolic See in Rome came into possession of them a loose Canon was available for the Scripture readings at Mass and Scripture was more broadly available.
By virtue of this process of reading Scripture in the Masses, guided by the Holy Spirit as was the original authors, errant texts and letters fell into disuse and ultimately lost (except for a few limited texts that have been found over time).
In the 3rd century, the Church Magisterium (all Bishops), under authority of the Pope, came together in two councils and formally canonized what we now know as the Bible.
In short, the Mass preceeded Scripture. Mass was used as both the place for the proclammation of Scripture but also acted as the editor of errant, non-inspired writings. The movement throught Christendom of Bishops and their deputies was how the inspired texts were distributed. And, finally it was the Magisterium that came together to canonize the Bible.
For Sandusky to cast doubt to the early Church fathers, bishops and magisteriums with regard to the interpretation of this verse also casts a cloud on the very Bible she relies upon.
When I accept both the Bible and the interpretation of the early Church fathers (an interpretation the Church still holds today) regarding this text, I am wholly consistent. When Sandusky makes selective private revelation of what the early Church Fathers did, practiced and taught, Sandusky is arbitrarily inconsistent.
S
sandusky
Guest
mikeledes would say that you’re evading the question because you’re afraid to answer.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Short Answer:
Long Answer:
Mickey avoided nothing. He just used less words than me. But I can’t help but notice that you avoided answering the long answer.
M
Mickey
Guest
On the contrary. It is a very simple answer. It is a very simple truth. I do not know what answer you expect to hear. But that is it. Sorry if you do not like it. Perhaps you could ask another Apostolic Christian if you are seeking another response.
S
sandusky
Guest
IOW, you don’t know how you know that what the church teaches is true (you’ve not done any type of investigation in that area), you just know that what it teaches is true—intuitively?
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
We, yes you and I, are promised by Christ that he will never leave us. His earthly present continues in The Catholic Church through apostolic succession. We are both a part of that Church even if one of us claims an unjudged salvation outside the Catholic Church your possible salvation still comes to you thru Christ and his earthly presents, The Catholic Church.
Christ can’t lie! That’s how.
You?
S
sandusky
Guest
Can you provide a link to the infallible interpretation of the passage by your 2,000-year-old infallible teaching magisterium?
I’m not asking about whether or not you’re consistent in what you hold to be true; what I’m asking is how do you know that what you hold to be true is true? What method(s) have you employed to arrive at your conclusion?
- Status