How To Read and Understand The Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter aliciar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Judas was never saved to begin with as shown in John 6:70 “Then Jesus replied, ‘Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!’”

Jesus referred to Judas as a devil before Judas even knew he would betray Jesus!

Ginger
I think we are drifting off topic, but Jesus says, “you have pruned… abide in me…” He doesn’t say, “Well, all of you except Judas”. And we see that the Devil entered Judas on several occasions. It would seem the Holy Spirit does the same thing. In the other Apostles case, we see this in John 20 and Acts 2.

I don’t care if we follow that rabbit trail…
 
Pardon me if I think that statement is hilarious.

Catholics insist Protestants have a man-made doctrine called "Once Saved, Always Saved. Yet, they don’t think Protestants know what it means??? :eek:
**
If I believe in something, I’m certain I know what it is I believe.** 👍
Hilarious, perhaps…but nevertheless, I was once protestant myself, so I think I’m qualifed to atleast tell you that the idea of OSAS is not what you are saying it is… Regardless of who invented it or why, the fact remains that the concept is centered around the erroneous notion that salvation is a one-time past event and that there is nothing you can do from that one event until you die that will remove heaven from being your eternal destiny. That’s exactly what OSAS is. It has nothing to do with God’s sovereign knowledge, nor the fact that if and when He ultimately deems you to be bound for eternal life in heaven, nothing can take that away from you. Both of those things indeed are true, but that’s not what ‘once saved always saved’ means. So, when I said it’s not an accurate characterization, I’m not saying you don’t even know what you believe…I’m saying you believe in something that you think the title “once saved always saved” refers to…but it doesn’t. It refers to something completely different…and erroneous.
 
Hilarious, perhaps…but nevertheless, I was once protestant myself, so I think I’m qualifed to atleast tell you that the idea of OSAS is not what you are saying it is…
Are you saying that when you were Protestant, you were taught that you could lie, steal, sleep with your neighbor’s wife, and even murder someone just for fun, throughout your entire life, and it was irrelevant to your salvation because you had been Baptized and/or confirmed???

Then why do Protestants try to avoid sin and why do Protestants teach you need ask to God’s forgiveness, go to the injured party and ask forgiveness and make amends and be reconciled???

Perhaps you just didn’t understand what it means to have your past present sins forgiven. 🤷 Misunderstanding happens in the Catholic Church, too.

OSAS must have been invented by Catholics, as Luther never taught it.

Ginger
 
Are you saying that when you were Protestant, you were taught that you could lie, steal, sleep with your neighbor’s wife, and even murder someone just for fun, throughout your entire life, and it was irrelevant to your salvation because you had been Baptized and/or confirmed???
Did I say that this is what I was taught? I mean, let me know because I’m pretty sure when I was typing, it was me doing the typing, and not someone else who might’ve been taught all that. Here’s what I did say…the concept is centered around the erroneous notion that salvation is a one-time past event and that there is nothing you can do from that one event until you die that will remove heaven from being your eternal destiny.
40.png
Ginger2:
Then why do Protestants try to avoid sin and why do Protestants teach you need ask to God’s forgiveness, go to the injured party and ask forgiveness and make amends and be reconciled???
I also didn’t say this is how protestants behave…merely what some of them are taught. My, you are taking this to extremes. I don’t personally know a single protestant that lives their life in reckless abandon because of this false doctrine. All I know is that it IS taught…and it IS false.
40.png
Ginger2:
OSAS must have been invented by Catholics, as Luther never taught it.
No, it is still taught in a large number of protestant communities…the reason you don’t see it is because no one labels it as such, and no one ever raises the teaching to the extreme you are trying to take it to. No one preaches “hey, come on down and give your life to Christ…take ya 30 seconds…then go have an illicit affair, lie cheat and steal to your hearts to desire, and just live it up man, cuz yer saved!”. But just because it’s not taken to the extreme like this does not mean that it is not a dangerous teaching. What it does is lower people’s sensitivity to what sin is, and their perception of when they enter into it. It’s not to say protestants are more sinful than Catholics…it’s to say that they’re less sensitive to it because deep down they are resting on Christ to automatically forgive them for their sinful behavior. As a result their guard is down much of the time, especially for the smaller, pesky, daily sins. Most are quite capable of avoiding the most obvious and agregious of sins (like murder and adultery), but smaller sins are often not accounted for, and over time, it is these smaller sins that go unrepented and unconfessed (and likely forgotten) that can quickly lead to larger and larger sins…further and further separation from Christ…and in some, ultimately lead them back to enslavement in them. Again, some Catholics are no better, but because the Church teaches us that salvation is a process, and judgment comes at the end, not the middle, and what reconciliation really is, and what the Eucharist really is…the average Catholic is much more in tune with all sins, can recognize them while they’re happening, and often before. They are more continuously mindful of when they have offended God, and hence make more punctual efforts to reconcile. This is my personal experience as I relate back to my non-Catholic life, and compare it to today. I feel I have extra-sensory perception of sin, and I feel that is truly a blessing, and necessary for a full relationship with Christ.

Looks like I struck a sensitive nerve with you, Ginger. I do apologize, but no one here is trying to tell you what you believe. I’m just telling you that OSAS, in essence - not in name, is taught abundantly in non-Catholic churches all over the world…but it is not done in an overt, ‘license-to-sin’, extreme manner you are suggesting. It is a by-product of teaching that salvation is a one-time event, and that that declaration of eternal life is unchangeable, even by the very person who possesses it. Does it affect all protestants negatively? Not a chance. But I believe it ill-equips most of them to recognize sin and the near occasions of it, and makes them much more susceptible to falling into sins without repentance.
 
Did I say that this is what I was taught? … All I know is that it IS taught…

… it is still taught in a large number of protestant communities…No one preaches …go have an illicit affair, lie cheat and steal to your hearts to desire, and just live it up man, cuz yer saved!".
I hope you will pardon me for having fun with your comments.

Salvation is centered around a single event - the cross of Christ.

And while some Protestants mistakenly thing OSAS is a free pass to sin, or a “Get Out of Hell Free” card, some Catholics also mistakenly think confession is a free pass to sin.

And while a Catholic may avoid mortal sins like murder, he can also weigh the smaller sins against spending a little more time in purgatory and the benefit of avoiding the extra time thru penance and indulgences.

Catholic or Protestant, we can’t avoid the fact there will be some who misunderstand God’s grace, forgiveness and mercy.

As for my extreme examples, it makes no difference whether you steal $5 or $5000, it is still stealing and breaking the 8th commandment.

Protestants don’t rank ours sins. If you reject God, you are worthy of eternal condemnation even if you have never committed a personal sin.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Ginger
 
This is Ed, Hi to you all. Is there anyone on this thread who can precisely tell me how to interpret the following: Paul states 2 Cor.“For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand”. Also 1 John 2:26," I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. v27 As for you, the anointing you received from Him {Holy Spirit} remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things and as His anointing is real, not conterfeit----just as it has taught you, remain in Him." What is the precise interpretation of these two verses by the Catholic Magesterium? What do these verses REALLY mean? ED O.
The persons to whom these letters are addressed have been instructed in, and received the Catholic faith taught to them by their Apostles. If they read the letters in the light of what they were taught, the HS will guide them into all truth.
 
In trying to return specifically to the orginal topic,

Lets take a few steps back, take a deep breath, ask The Holy Spirit for guidance and ask:

“What is the biblical foundational evidence that supports the Formation of Protestant Churches?”

So tell please is the Bible “The Inspired word of God”? I assume this means that what it says is true?

From the Douey Rheims Bible: 2 Tim. 3:16 "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. " As you no doubt know, this Bible is the first English language Bible ever. It was published about fifty years before the King James; which has this quote of the same verse. “all scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness.”

WOW! That’s the same thing the Catholic Bible says??? And I’m sure its simply a matter of coincidence but about 90% of the King James, says the same thing, teaches the same thing as the Catholic Bible. So are the Catholic Church, and its ORGINAL BIBLE, just a little bit true or what???

And was The Bible the Inspired Word of God after it was written. It was completed at the end of the First Century and the Canon was set around the year 400. Or did God wait on his promise of Inspiration until about 1650??? Until Luther had time to correct God’s mistakes???

So where I need your help, your insight is if the bible is true??? And If the Bible is the Inspired Words of God Himself??? Then on what authority did Luther, Calvin Ect., claim as their justification to change at will everything in the Bible they choose not to agree with??? And this some 1,200 years after the Canon was finalized.

I have wondered about this for along time. I’m sure looking forward to you setting me straight 🤷

Love and prayers,

Pat
 
QUOTE]by guanophore
the persons to whom these letters are addressed have been instructed in, and received the catholic faith taught to them by their apostles. If they read the letters in the light of what they were taught, the hs will guide them into all truth

] Hi gunophore, thanks for your reply. What in the world are you talking about,"and received the Catholic faith ect.—?’ It’s not the faith in the Catholic church that saves, It’s the faith in Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross that saves. Even children, without the help of any Magistrium, can clearly understand when they read about it for themselves. ED O.
 
…If the Bible is the Inspired Words of God Himself??? Then on what authority did Luther, Calvin Ect., claim as their justification to change at will everything in the Bible they choose not to agree with??? And this some 1,200 years after the Canon was finalized.

Pat
Hello Pat,

First, the canon was not set until the Council of Trent. Before Trent the RC used Jerome’s Vulgate as their official Scriptures. Trent declared a different canon then Jerome’s Vulgate.

Second, Luther didn’t change Scripture, at all. Luther’s translation into German included all the same books as Jerome - including appending the apocrypha just like Jerome did.

🙂
 
=Ginger2;5725318]Hello Pat,
First, the canon was not set until the Council of Trent. Before Trent the RC used Jerome’s Vulgate as their official Scriptures. Trent declared a different canon then Jerome’s Vulgate.
Second, Luther didn’t change Scripture, at all. Luther’s translation into German included all the same books as Jerome - including appending the apocrypha just like Jerome did.
Hi Ginger,

Not doubting your word but how can I verify Trent and a different Canon?

On your second point are you saying that Luther did not alter the text of the Catholic Bible.

His bible, if I may apply that term, is the Kings James, correct?

Love and prayers,

Pat
 
] Hi gunophore, thanks for your reply. What in the world are you talking about,"and received the Catholic faith ect.—?’ It’s not the faith in the Catholic church that saves, It’s the faith in Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross that saves. Even children, without the help of any Magistrium, can clearly understand when they read about it for themselves. ED O.
The Faith that the Catholic Church teaches is the Faith in Jesus’ Sacrifice. They go hand in hand. I can’t follow the Catholic Church and Her teachings and NOT follow Christ.

Why do people think these are inseparable? The Church is the Bride of Christ and what God has joined, let no man tear asunder.
 
Hello Pat,

First, the canon was not set until the Council of Trent. Before Trent the RC used Jerome’s Vulgate as their official Scriptures. Trent declared a different canon then Jerome’s Vulgate.
Wrong. What was in the Canon of Trent that was not in Jerome’s Vulgate? Jerome followed the Pope’s order to follow the Canon’s determined at Carthage, Hippo, and the Synod of Rome. These were in the later 4th century and early 5th, I believe.

And though the Canon was not made a Dogma until Trent, the Church treated it as Doctrine as of these Councils and all the Canons match the one set at Trent.
Second, Luther didn’t change Scripture, at all. Luther’s translation into German included all the same books as Jerome - including appending the apocrypha just like Jerome did.

🙂
No. Jerome, who was a translator, not an authority on determining Scripture, held an opinion that the Deutero’s were not Scriptural, but they were placed in the Vulgate as Scripture.
 
Wrong. Jerome followed the Pope’s order to follow the Canon’s determined at Carthage, Hippo, and the Synod of Rome.
According to Catholic scholar Gary G. Michuta, Trent adopted a different from that contained in Jerome’s original Vulgate.
“On March 29, 1546 the Council Fathers took up the fourth of fourteen questions (Capita Dubitationum) on Scripture and Tradition. At issue was whether those books that were not included in the official list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, Fourth Ezra, and Third Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence.”

It just occurred to me, Protestants have an older canon then Catholics! 😃

Ginger
 
Ahhhhh, Ginger2. It’s all coming back to me now. I just reviewed a thread in which a lot of this came up on the past. While reading through the thread, I realized something. There was someone on that thread that simply wouldn’t listen to all the facts presented. I realize now, that if things haven’t changed (and that seems to be the case for the same old tired assertions are raising their head), then the rest of this thread is a waste of time.

For any of you who wish to read and learn a lot about the books that Ginger2 is referring to, and to learn the un-varnished truth, pay attention to ItsJustDave’s quotes, starting around post 500 of the following thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=297080
 
According to Catholic scholar Gary G. Michuta, Trent adopted a different from that contained in Jerome’s original Vulgate.
Is this the key phrase? Jerome’s original Vulgate? Does this Vulgate match those decisions made by the referenced Councils and Synods that were approved by the Pope. Did subsequent Vulgate’s have the three books mentioned?
 
NotWorthy,

You said Jerome’s Vulgate has been the official Catholic canon until Trent, 1000 years.

Trent did not adopt the same bible canon as Jerome’s Vulgate, therefore Catholics used a different canon until Trent. If Trent is indeed the correct canon, that meqans Catholics used an incorrect canon for over 1000 years.

Simple as that.

Ginger
 
NotWorthy,

You said Jerome’s Vulgate has been the official Catholic canon until Trent, 1000 years.

Trent did not adopt the same bible canon as Jerome’s Vulgate, therefore Catholics used a different canon until Trent. If Trent is indeed the correct canon, that meqans Catholics used an incorrect canon for over 1000 years.

Simple as that.

Ginger
No. I said the Canon’s determined by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, and the Synod of Rome (?) and were approved by the Pope are the Official Canon of the early Church. It was considered Doctrine. It was not made Dogma until Trent.
 
=Ginger2;5725693]NotWorthy,
You said Jerome’s Vulgate has been the official Catholic canon until Trent, 1000 years.
Trent did not adopt the same bible canon as Jerome’s Vulgate, therefore Catholics used a different canon until Trent. If Trent is indeed the correct canon, that meqans Catholics used an incorrect canon for over 1000 years.
Simple as that.
Ginger nice dodgeball move.

I looked it up and the Vulagte had 76 Books. Trent Approved the “standard” and current 73, and you have how many? 67 is the answer so you don’t have to look it up. And you say Luther didn’t remove “any books”? So much for that theory. The books omitted were not ruled as bad, just innecessary and Trent settled on the same 73 books that the Vvulgate had.

But you ignored my first and second questions. You claim also that Luther altered “no text”? Because my first question was: If the Bible is the Inspired Word of God, which the Vulgate, DR, Current Catholic Bibles and your King James version is indeed the truth; 2 Thess. 3:16] then on what basis did Luther alter Gods Inspired Word. Which were in use and accepted for about 1,100 years. Was God waiting for Luther to correct God’s errors?

That friend was the question begging an answer:shrug:

Love and prayers,
 
{quote=Ginger]You said Jerome’s Vulgate has been the official Catholic canon until Trent, 1000 years.
I said the Canon’s determined by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, and the Synod of Rome (?) and were approved by the Pope are the Official Canon of the early Church. It was considered Doctrine. It was not made Dogma until Trent.
Flashback:
Jerome followed the Pope’s order to follow the Canon’s determined at Carthage, Hippo, and the Synod of Rome.
Are you now saying Jerome did not follow the pope’s orders to "follow the Canon’s determined at Carthage, Hippo, and the Synod of Rome " when translating the Scriptures into Latin???

You can’t have it both ways.

Ginger
 
Ginger nice dodgeball move.

I looked it up and the Vulagte had 76 Books. Trent Approved the “standard” and current 73, and you have how many? 67 is the answer so you don’t have to look it up. And you say Luther didn’t remove “any books”? So much for that theory.
Luther didn’t remove these books. They were removed later due to high printing costs. Since these apocrypha were not inspired, it was not important to keep them.
… on what basis did Luther alter Gods Inspired Word. …
I said Luther did not alter God’s word.

Ginger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top