I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[Pax]

Ozzie,

I have been as charitable as I can be and I will attempt to continue doing so, but now I must be blunt.

You claim that your exegesis of scripture in your previous posts “is correct.” The truth is that your efforts are merely your interpretation. Yes, there may be others that have discipled you in these interpretations, but they are in the same predicament that you’re in.

You claim that everything that you believe was in scripture prior to Martin Luther. I have heard non-Catholics make this claim a few times and it’s utter nonsense. It is true that scripture has not changed since the day it was written down, but your interpretation and understanding was not shared by Christians anywhere prior to the reformation. It is illogical and contrary to the promises of Jesus Christ that for sixteen hundred years the Church would remain uninformed and steeped in what you believe to be heresy. Moreover, all of what the Church has taught is either directly from the apostles or is consistent and logically connected to everything they taught. None of this can be said for the teachings you have espoused. The entire history of the church including the Church Fathers deny your claims.

I still find it interesting, but certainly not unexpected, that you have not taken me up on my offer for the scriptural refutation of “once saved always saved.” I assume that you are aware of the fact that many non-Catholics also realize that this is a false doctrine. Since you won’t accept Catholic biblical evidence, perhaps you would accept non-Catholic testimony on the matter. You can easily research materials on the internet including whole books on the subject.

You will always have a problem understanding scripture if you believe in “sola scriptura.” You can interpret scripture any way you wish and make it mean anything you want. You become your own church, your own pastor, and your own Pope. You may claim it is the Holy Spirit that is personally guiding your understandings of scripture, but so can everyone else. And believe me, within non-Catholic circles the interpretation of scripture is often up for grabs. And who is to say who has the best interpretation since they all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit? Personally, I find these claims to be sacriligious. Surely, we can’t possibly believe that the Holy Spirit is giving everybody conflicting information. The problem isn’t the Holy Spirit, the problem is everybody claiming that they know better than the Church established by Jesus, Himself.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

It is the church “that is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” It is the Church that wrote down the New Testament, guarded it, protected it from error and corruption, handed it down through the ages, and properly interpreted it for the faithful. The more than two thousand years of Christian witness and testimony of the Catholic Church is more reliable than any other interpreter of scripture.

It is as Paul points out in Eph 3:10, “through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.” Notice Paul never says that it is through scripture alone and individual interpretation. In fact Peter tells us, " First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,"[see 2 Peter 1:20]

Peter even goes on to say that, “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 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.”**Peter 3:15-16] Paul even instructs Timothy to tell certain individuals at Ephesus not to teach because they were teaching false doctrines. In Eph 4:14 Paul warns the believers, " so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles." Moreover, in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 Paul says, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.”

If you don’t believe what the historical church has always taught you have fallen into one of the above traps. I find Peter’s warnings especially pertinent. He warns us that Paul’s teaching can be difficult to understand and that the ignorant and unstable twist it and the rest of scripture to their own destruction. Peter does not say that the Church is ignorant or unstable. The church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. But the ignorant and unstable don’t think they need to listen to Peter, James, Paul, any of the other apostles, or the church. They don’t know that they are ignorant but they are. They think they can do it on their own and that they know better.

Martin Luther thought he knew better and look what happened. He even admitted later that his teaching of scripture alone, “produced as many interpretations as there are heads.” Well, here we are in 2004 and there are literally thousands of Protestant denominations and the number is growing larger all the time. In the midst of all of this, the Catholic Church still prevails and has remained faithful to the gospel and unwavering in its teachings since the day of Pentecost.

Ozzie, one last thing. If you really want to know if Jesus is present in the Eucharist study John 6, study the last supper, study 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, and then get a book like The Lambs Supper written by Scott Hahn. Beyond that there is a wealth of other Catholic materials that will take you deeper into this truth. Once you’ve done this study, pray for God’s grace to see the truth. He will not disappoint you, and you will come to the realization that He wants to give you more than you ever thought or imagined.

 

[Ozzie]

WBB:

Yes of course, we have a better perspective 2000 years hence than a person who was actually taught by the Beloved Disciple John (who ate, drank, laughed, cried, and wept with the Savior and was there for the crucifixion and resurrection). Thank heaven we are so much more fortunate to have the bible.

First of all everything known about Ignatius is derived from his disputed epistiles, and a few short notices by Irenaeus and Origen. While his existence, his position in the early Church and his martyrdom are admitted, everything else about him is called in question. How many epistles he actually wrote, when he wrote them, the actual account of his martyrdom, when it took place, when it was written up and by whom, all are undecided and the subject of protracted controversy. Does Ignatius himself say anything about his Apostolic discipleship?

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Ozzie:

First of all everything known about Ignatius is derived from his disputed epistiles, and a few short notices by Irenaeus and Origen. While his existence, his position in the early Church and his martyrdom are admitted, everything else about him is called in question. How many epistles he actually wrote, when he wrote them, the actual account of his martyrdom, when it took place, when it was written up and by whom, all are undecided and the subject of protracted controversy. Does Ignatius himself say anything about his Apostolic discipleship?

He wrote seven letters to the Christians of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadephia and Smyrna and to Polycarp.

These seven are mentionned by Eusebius and St.Jerome.

According to Eusebius and Theodoret, St.Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch.

 

[Prester_John]

JesusFreak16:

I am Protestant. How many of you already “know” that I will not be going to heaven… and you do not want to hurt me, you want the best for me. I have every confidence in you…
UNQUOTE

There are many stupid eople in in this world, Lisa, and as their greatest in the field of stupidity, I say on my authority that I speak for none but the rest of them…

No one can limit the Mercy of God.
No on can Guage the Mercy of God.

No one can limit the Love of God.
No one can limit the Love of God.

No one can limit His Love of You.
No none can guage His Love of you.

No one can limit the stupid questions of Lisa.
No one can guage the stupid questions of Lisa.

Only Lisa can stop herself from acting like a fool.
Only Lisa can guage the profound depth of her foolishness…:tsktsk:

The arrogant asses that have held the responsibility of your Christian education thus far have only brought your soul questions… regardless,
If this is a satisfactory condition that you imply that you are comfortable with, for all the days of your brief life, then why do you post here?
Aren’t you satisfied?

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

You claim that your exegesis of scripture in your previous posts “is correct.” The truth is that your efforts are merely your interpretation. Yes, there may be others that have discipled you in these interpretations, but they are in the same predicament that you’re in.

Yes, they are my interpretation, and based on an exegetical study of the text. But I am not alone in my interpretations. I have, in fact, on my book shelves many commentaries and theological works that, amazingly, though from various “Protestant” backgrounds, the writers are in accord when it comes to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. You see, Pax, you can get the true meaning out of any literature when you just allow it to speak for itself. Which, as you fully know, is called an exegetical study. But it is impossible to execute an exegetical study of the Scriptures if first filtered through one’s religious traditions, Protestant, Catholic or cult. What one should do is test one’s religious traditions by an exegetical study of the Scriptures. Everything concerning the faith should be tested by the written Word of God.

You claim that everything that you believe was in scripture prior to Martin Luther. I have heard non-Catholics make this claim a few times and it’s utter nonsense. It is true that scripture has not changed since the day it was written down, but your interpretation and understanding was not shared by Christians anywhere prior to the reformation.

There has been doctrinal controversy all down through Church history, East and West. Augustine differed from Aquinas in many aspects of theology. And Augustine and I have a lot in common, although I am not an “Augustinian-Calvinist.” Have you ever read about John Wycliffe who lived in the 1300s, and his followers called the Lollards? He lived long before Luther. Though a Roman Catholic (what else could he be, being born in Western Europe before the Reformation) he taught, based on Biblical exegesis, that Christ alone was the Head of the Church. And also based on an exegetical study of God’s written Word he denied transubstantiation and refused to acknowledge priestly powers in the Mass. He believed that all of God’s elect should read God’s Word and translated the Bible into the English dialect. He insisted on the circulation of the Scriptures among the laity, denied infallibility to the Papal utterances, and claimed that the papacy was not essential to the being of the Church; defining the Church not as the Roman episcopate, but as all of God’s elect. Though he did not specifically teach on “justification by faith alone,” he constantly used expressions like, “to believe in Christ is life.” He denied the doctrine of merit altogether and that Christ’s mediation is all-sufficient. He died in 1384 and was so hated by the Roman church that in 1428, on orders from Pope Martin V, his remains were exhumed, burned and scattered on the waters of the Swift river.
Continued…

 

[Ozzie]

Continued from previous post…

How about John Huss? Ever read of him? He was burned at the stake for his Biblical beliefs. These men lived before Luther and had large followings in Europe amongst Catholics. Many believed the same as they, prior to their lives and after. Your claim that “no one” believed as I do for 1600 years is, of course, inaccurate. Just because Roman church hierarchy ruled Western Europe for hundreds of years, when church and state were inseparable, doesn’t mean there weren’t those of the laity, schoolmen, monks and even clergy who questioned and denied what was forced upon them to “believe” by church hierarchy. Even though their beliefs for years were constantly suppressed by the power of the church-state relationship, it was only a matter of time that this would change. It just so happened in Luther’s day, but it is very naive to believe that none believed like Luther, prior to or at the time of, Luther, or the other Reformers. These doctrines did not originate with Luther but the immutable, written Word of God, which, as you yourself confess, had not changed in 1600 years. All one has to do is do an exegetical study of God’s Word to find out what Christ and the Apostles actually taught concerning faith and practice. We have been provided a divinely inspired written account. Make use of it good man!!

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

I still find it interesting, but certainly not unexpected, that you have not taken me up on my offer for the scriptural refutation of “once saved always saved.”

This is interesting in light of your insistence that no individual has the spiritual insight or capability to interpret Scripture on their own, yet you keep trying to push off on me YOUR personal list of Scriptural verses based on YOUR own interpretation. I suppose then only Pax is exempt from 2 Pet. 1:20? How is this? Were you awarded a dispensation from the Pope?

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."[Peter 3:15-16]

RCs seem to often use this verse. But Peter simply states that “some” things Paul says are hard to understand. Not "all. " Nor does Peter even hint to the idea that he must interpret Paul’s letters for them, in respect to needing to provide them with some sort of infallible interpretation. There are many parts of the Bible that, on a cursory reading, can be hard to understand. That’s why the Bible must be “studied.” It’s not to be read like a simple novel. But MOST of what Paul wrote, as well as the other writers of the Epistles, on salvation, justification, redemption and eternal life are VERY clear, indeed, and can be easily understood if verses are not taken out of context or filtered through one’s own religious traditions.

2 Tim. 4:3-4: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.”

Pax, do you really consider it a “myth” that Christ died once for all time for all the sins of mankind? That He truly is the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29). That based on His finished work on the cross God can now remain totally just when He freely justifies, forever, the one who believes in His Son (Rom. 3:26)? Do you consider it a myth that the one who believes in Christ, and Christ alone, based on His own words “does not come into judgment but has passed out of death into life” (Jn. 5:25)? Is it a myth that on the cross Christ finished the work needed for divine reconciliation, redemption and propitiation? So that the one who repents, that is, turns to Christ in faith is, based on His finished work, (1) perfectly and completely reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10-11; 2 Cor. 5:18), (2) perfectly and completely redeemed (purchased) by the price of His shed blood (Rom. 4:24; 1 Pet. 1:18-19), and (3) that the offended holiness of God, because of man’s sins, is now forever *propitiated *(satisfied) because of His Son’s precious blood shed on the cross (Rom. 3:25; 1 Jn. 2:2)? These you call “myths”? To the contrary, Pax, one does not turn to a myth when he turns to Christ by faith alone. It is no myth that because of Christ, and the cross that He endured, God has the power to save, forever, those who draw near to God through Him (Heb. 7:25). This is the GOSPEL (“good news), dear brother (Rom. 1:16-17), it is "sound doctrine” But to spare you, and respect toward you, I will not go into the list of what I consider the numerous myths that men have turned to down through the centuries of Church history. And still cling to them today.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

Ozzie, one last thing. If you really want to know if Jesus is present in the Eucharist study John 6, study the last supper, study 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, and then get a book like The Lambs Supper written by Scott Hahn.

I have studied all that you list above except Scott Hahn’s book. Obviously, I am not too impressed with the man’s teaching, I’ve heard him speak several times. RC’ism puts a lot of weight on John chapter six for its doctrine of the “Eucharist.” But I see no connection between John six (in context with chapter 5) with what Jesus says at the “Last Supper.” In fact, John doesn’t even record the words of Jesus regarding the bread and cup spoken at the meal. And those Gospels accounts that do record what he said regarding the bread and cup at the meal don’t record what He said in Capernaum. None of the Gospel accounts connect the two events. That’s because Jesus in John chapter six was not speaking in reference to a future event, but merely comparing, by contrast, Himself with the “manna” the ancients ate in the wilderness and died there in the wilderness. In John six Christ reveals Himself as the true Bread that comes down out of heaven and gives LIFE to the world (6:33). The wilderness “manna” being merely a type, Christ being the anti-type. “Eating and drinking” in John six is equivalent to coming to Him by faith: “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (Jn. 6:35-36). “For this is the will of my Father, that every one who beholds the Son, and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (6:40). *“Truly, truly, He who believes has eternal life” *(Jn. 6:47]. It is His resurrected life that Christ gives to everyone who believes. That’s why the life He gives is ETERNAL, i.e., everlasting.

Jesus says in Jn. 6:54 that *“he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood HAS ETERNAL life…” *Yet you, who claim to have literally eaten His flesh and drunk His blood many, many times, still insist that no one can actually know if he HAS eternal life in this life. How is it you practice literally the first and exclude the second?

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

Nicely done, but there are some huge problems here. Your history lessons are of no consequence because your history lacks scholarship. You claim that the writings of Ignatius of Antioch are disputed. They are not disputed except by the desperate few that occupy your side of the argument. There are reliable protestant sources for all of the church fathers including Ignatius and they make no such accusations.

I am familiar with both Wycliffe and Huss and you are in error to say that they had huge followings. Arius, another heretic, had far more. Moreover, you make a big deal out Wycliffe’s English translation of the bible. You fail to realize that his translation was riddled with errors. Wycliffe was not the scholar he thought himself to be. He lacked the credentials to do a proper translation of the bible and his superiors refused to authorize him to do a translation. But even though he had taken a vow of obedience, he did what he wanted to do anyway, which was to produce a poor translation.

Since you seem to have taken a liking to history maybe this will interest you. Wycliffe’s bible was a pre-Reformation Old English translation written around 1380.

Aelfric, Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury from 994 to1005, translated the 1st seven books and the Book of Job into old English. Between 721 and 901, various writers (i.e. Bede, Eadfrith, Alcuin, and King Alfred are believed to have translated parts or all of the bible into ‘‘Old English.’’

The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1452 (i.e.the Latin Vulgate Catholic-bible with all 73 books). Over 200 copies printed in the 1st edition. There were124 editions in the first 50 years, and all were sponsered by the catholic church. By the time Luther’s German New Testament appeared in 1522 there were 14 complete printed editions of the Catholic Bible in German. Parallel with this in time were 11 Italian translations, 10 French, 2 Bohemian, 1 Flemish, and 1 Russian.

The 1st complete Catholic ‘‘modern’’ english translation was the Douay Rheims NT 1582, OT 1610. The King James was completed in 1610.The seven dueterocanonical books were included at the back of the 1610 edition and there was a penalty of one year in prison if a KJV bible was printed without these books.

Perhaps these tidbits will help put some of your own thinking into perspective.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

You can’t be serious in your remarks about my offer to supply you with sixty five verses that refute “once saved always saved.” These verses are very clear and the plain reading of them requires no special exegesis.

Now, if you had these verses in your hot little hand and I were not there to read them to you, it is unlikely that I was interpreting them for you. I have no special permission to interpret scripture apart from the Church. You seem to think that everyone can interpret scripture apart from the Church, but you criticize me for offering verses that the Church uses to teach about salvation and that are consistent with Catholic teaching. I merely offer you scripture and you refuse it, even though under your own rules you can interpret it without the Church. I did not interpret these verses without the Church, but you are free to do so. You will be in error but that is your choice.

You blow off Peter’s warning about Paul’s writings. I never claimed that all of Paul’s writings are hard to understand so you make a point that is nothing more than a red herring. You have a belief that is outside of the mainstream of Christian thought. “Once saved always saved” has no historical track record prior to the reformation and is not held by the vast majority of Christians world wide. It clearly violates scripture and we both know how you can prove that to yourself, if you are but will to accept my offer.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

I have studied all that you list above except Scott Hahn’s book. Obviously, I am not too impressed with the man’s teaching, I’ve heard him speak several times. RC’ism puts a lot of weight on John chapter six for its doctrine of the “Eucharist.” But I see no connection between John six (in context with chapter 5) with what Jesus says at the “Last Supper.” In fact, John doesn’t even record the words of Jesus regarding the bread and cup spoken at the meal. And those Gospels accounts that do record what he said regarding the bread and cup at the meal don’t record what He said in Capernaum. None of the Gospel accounts connect the two events. That’s because Jesus in John chapter six was not speaking in reference to a future event, but merely comparing, by contrast, Himself with the “manna” the ancients ate in the wilderness and died there in the wilderness. In John six Christ reveals Himself as the true Bread that comes down out of heaven and gives LIFE to the world (6:33). The wilderness “manna” being merely a type, Christ being the anti-type. “Eating and drinking” in John six is equivalent to coming to Him by faith: "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst" (Jn. 6:35-36). "For this is the will of my Father, that every one who beholds the Son, and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day" (6:40). "Truly, truly, He who believes has eternal life" (Jn. 6:47]. It is His resurrected life that Christ gives to everyone who believes. That’s why the life He gives is ETERNAL, i.e., everlasting.

Jesus says in Jn. 6:54 that "he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood HAS ETERNAL life…" Yet you, who claim to have literally eaten His flesh and drunk His blood many, many times, still insist that no one can actually know if he HAS eternal life in this life. How is it you practice literally the first and exclude the second?

In response to this, I have but one thing to say. You have not studied it from the Catholic side. If you did, you would know what was wrong with the Protestant arguments and attempts at interpreting the discourse on the bread of life. There is a great deal to study in this regard. I have read a number of works that cover the subject and each one of them had something of importance to offer. If you prefer an audio tape that discusses this most important subject you could get a good one that is very simple to understand from John Martignoni at www.biblechristiansociety.com/ While his tape is not exhaustive it pretty well refutes every non-Catholic objection. His tapes are usually free except for shipping and handling.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Ozzie:

I see no connection between John six (in context with chapter 5) with what Jesus says at the “Last Supper.”

John 6:51 the bread
Luke 22:19 he took the bread

John 6:51 that I will give
Luke 22:19 gave it to them

John 6:51 is my flesh
Luke 22:19 is my body

John 6:51 for the life of the world
Luke 22:19 for you

---

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

It’s getting very late in the evening so I must wrap things up. You said many things that need to be addressed, but to do so would require an enormous amount of time for each item.

This is my last post and it will have to be brief. I do not accept your accusations concerning what you think I hold to be myths.
Surely, by now you should know better than to make such odd remarks. You act as if you have learned nothing of Catholic teaching. You think that I do not believe in the finished work of Christ. Scripture tells us that God desires that all men be saved. Yet we know that this is not the case. Scripture tells us that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Yet, we know that not everyone will go to heaven and that not everyone is saved. So where does the finished work of Christ fit in here? It fits in perfectly with Catholic teaching on salvation, but it does not fit in with your beliefs.

One other thing. Please explain to me how Paul’s statement that “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church”[Colossian 1:24], fits in with your version of the finished work of Christ.

Go in Peace and praise the Lord.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Ozzie:

“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith in this grace in which we stand” (Rom. 5:1-2).

The sinner who, by faith, looks to the risen Christ, is the same as the Israelite who, though bitten, by faith looked to the bronze serpent lifted up in the wilderness and lived (Jn. 3:14-18; cf. Num. 21).

If one believes one acts accordingly. Justification comes by faith and works together. If one accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior (faith) then they must die to their old works.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

As long as I am in the state of Gods grace,I know that I am going to heaven. Thank God for the cross where I can die to sin dailey.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

Yes, they are my interpretation, and based on an exegetical study of the text. But I am not alone in my interpretations. I have, in fact, on my book shelves many commentaries and theological works that, amazingly, though from various “Protestant” backgrounds, the writers are in accord when it comes to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. You see, Pax, you can get the true meaning out of any literature when you just allow it to speak for itself. Which, as you fully know, is called an exegetical study. But it is impossible to execute an exegetical study of the Scriptures if first filtered through one’s religious traditions, Protestant, Catholic or cult. What one should do is test one’s religious traditions by an exegetical study of the Scriptures. Everything concerning the faith should be tested by the written Word of God.There has been doctrinal controversy all down through Church history, East and West.

Ozzie,

There is much more to an exegetical study of scripture “than simply reading it and allowing it to speak for itself.” This sort of thinking explains why there are so many varied ideas on the meaning of scripture and doctrine. You also go on to say, “…it is impossible to execute an exegetical study of the Scriptures if first filtered through one’s religious traditions, Protestant, Catholic or cult.” You made this statement right after saying, “But I am not alone in my interpretations. I have, in fact, on my book shelves many commentaries and theological works that, amazingly, though from various “Protestant” backgrounds, the writers are in accord when it comes to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.” I dare say, Ozzie, that you are proving that your own criticism fits you to a “T.” It is your Protestant mentors that have taught you this heresy, just as it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church [along with Paul and James] that have taught me that the bible teaches that we are not saved by “faith alone.”

I’ll stick with the constant teaching of the Church from the day of Pentecost. I will not follow Huss, Luther, or Calvin or their man made traditions as they are contrary to scripture and the original teachings of the Lord.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

I do not accept your accusations concerning what you think I hold to be myths.

But you do think it is a myth that God is able to save forever those who turn to Christ by faith alone. Right? That’s why you quoted Paul in 2 Tim. 4:3, to call such a belief a myth.

The one who believes that God saved (past tense) him at the time he personally put his faith in Christ, bases that belief on the fact that Christ accomplished on the cross all that divine justice demanded because of sin. Not sins just up to the time of one’s baptism, but the sins of the whole world (Jn. 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; Col. 2:13). When it comes to the work of redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation, there is no more work to be done. Christ proclaimed on the cross, *“It is finished” *(Jn. 19:30). This work could ONLY be accomplished by the unblemished “Lamb of God” (Jn. 1:29) since it demanded a holy, blood sacrifice.It was not Christ’s “suffering” that effected redemption, *reconciliation,*and propitiation, it was the shedding of His precious blood which only He, God the Son, could provide for the proper sacrifice, making it infinite in value. This efficacious work of Christ on the cross is applied completely and perfectly to the sinner at the moment of personal belief, and the believer is given, for the sake of Christ, “eternal life” (Jn. 3:14-18). For this reason Paul expresses reconciliation, redemption, propitiation, and even justification, as past, completed events secured by Chist. Yet it is this Biblical belief that you call a myth. And in so doing you deem the grounds on which this belief is based (the "finished’ work of Christ) a myth as well.

The one who is saved by putting his/her faith in Christ, in response to the gospel message, cannot lose that salvation. For the simple reason that it is a “gift” of God (Eph. 2:8-9). The price of a gift is always paid, in full, by the one giving it. In this case, God, and the price paid for this GIFT is Christ’s blood. No responsibility is transferred over to the recipient of a gift, otherwise it can no longer be considered a gift. Now, those who find this repugnant have retorted that it is the believer’s responsibility to actually “receive” the gift, hence, he can reject it. No, in respect to the gifts of eternal salvation and justification it is only required that a man “believe” in order that the whole salvific work of Christ, which He accomplished and finished on the cross, be applied to him, in full, as a gift, at the time of belief. Scripture is VERY clear on this point.

It was Christ’s finished work on the cross that procured the believer’s salvation, that it might be gifted. It is Christ’s present work in Heaven, where He now sits at the "right hand of the Majesty on High," as the believer’s High Priest and Advocate before the Father, that continuously secures the believer’s salvation (Heb. 7:25; Heb. 1:3; 1 Jn. 2:1-2). This is no “myth” my friend, it’s “sound doctrine.”

Scripture tells us that God desires that all men be saved. Yet we know that this is not the case…so where does the finished work of Christ fit in here

All are saved by grace through faith, however, tragically, countless refuse to believe what God has graciously provided for them through Christ. They will experience eternal damnation not because of their sins, but because they refused to believe.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

One other thing. Please explain to me how Paul’s statement that “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church”[Colossian 1:24], fits in with your version of the finished work of Christ.

First of all, Paul is in no way stating that his “sufferings” are expiatory. Also, the work that Jesus Christ accomplished and finished on the cross was a result of His sacrificial work, i.e., the shedding of His blood, not his suffering: Propitiation (Rom. 3:25), Redemption (1Pet. 1:18-19), Reconciliation (Rom. 5:9-10). “He was pierced through for our transgressions” (Is. 53:5). Paul’s sufferings which he endured on his missionary journeys can’t add to Christ’s work on the cross, they don’t qualify. Only Christ alone could accomplish that work, He being the unblemished “Lamb of God.” Paul in no sense of the word could be considered a co-redeemer (no mere man or woman could - no, not even Mary).

When Jesus stopped Paul on the Damascus road to be His chosen vessel to take the word of reconciliation to the Gentiles, He is recorded saying, “for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Acts 9:16). Christ had to suffer greatly at the hands of men before He wrought redemption through the cross. In a mystical way Christ also suffered through Paul when taking the message of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross to the Gentiles (example, Acts 9:4-5). But Paul’s sufferings experienced on his missionary journeys are not in any way expiatory, and certainly not an extension of Christ’s finished work on the cross. Such a concept is considered blasphemous.

 

[Ozzie]

Greg_McPherran:

John 6:51 the bread Luke 22:19 he took the bread John 6:51 that I will give Luke 22:19 gave it to them John 6:51 is my flesh Luke 22:19 is my body

There are similarities in the words, but in both cases His words are figurative and the contexts are different. At the meal Jesus was speaking in reference to inauguating the New Covenant in His blood. He was speaking only to those who were already His, who were already clean by His word, telling them to eat and drink in remembrance of Him and thus proclaiming his death until He comes.

In John chapter six He was addressing an unbelieving crowd. They were dead and in need of life. He would give them real life if they would believe in Him, i.e., come to Him, the “bread of life,” by faith (6:44).

The “bread” that He would give “for the life of the world” is His body on the cross (6:51). The Life that He gives to those who would believe in Him is His resurrection life - after the cross. That’s why He says to the unbelieving crowd, “Truly, truly, I say to you he who believes HAS eternal life” (6:47). For those same people would hear the message of the cross and His bodily resurrection preached to them by Christ’s Apostles not long after that encounter.