Once Saved Always Saved?

[PRmerger]

No I can’t. Can you? Please tell me where they erred?

Ah, so some men were infallible, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

I will answer that when you show me where I stated the church erred in her recognition of the canon.

Please include the post #(s).

Very good, then.

So then the Church was infallible. (At least as it applies to discerning the canon of Scripture.)

 

[JRRTFAN]

The biblical word for “sin” is hamartia. It literally means to “miss the mark.”

Yes, we are talking about a different religion, and a different spirit, and a different word definition.

My definition is taken from a Greek lexicon.

Where do you get your definition?

I think if you think it through you’ll discover that missing the mark presumes one knows what the mark is, knows the significance of missing it and misses it anyway. Is there any culpability for chosen action on the part of whatever sect you arise from or can one just stumble into sin like a blind man into a hole at night, completely unaware that it is there?

Now if you want to get into the deep Greek, I’m prepared to be amazed. Please translte the following: “George left his car keys on the brown walnut table in the corner in the living room.” (No hurry, I’ll wait.)

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name? 23Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you.* Depart from me, you evildoers.

I love this exchange. It works on several levels.

First of all, it clearly shows how the same bible passage is interpretted differently using different faith traditions as the catalyst. It puts to rest the concept of sola scriptura because it clearly shows that it is the tradition that governs the understanding, not the scripture itself. This then makes the discussion one of credibility of Tradition, and not one of the facts of scripture, which as we have just shown are subordinate to the Tradition being applied to understand it.

So, I submit that the Catholic Tradition is the original and therefore True tradition going back to the Apostles. You can not argue with this, because it is indeed a fact. The reformed tradition you espouse can be clearly traced to John Calvin in the 1500s. It is a human innovation. Calvin has no works to support his claims, no proof from God. He simply had arguments. You can not get around this fact with your interpretation of scripture. Its a matter of history.

Oh, and by the way, Matthew 7:21-23 says nothing about the saved never losing salvation. That is your own unwarranted extrapolation. It says nothing at all about that. At most, you could argue that there are people who never were saved and I grant you that this is a plausible interpetation that is completely in line with Catholic theology. Those that are never baptized are never saved (except in rare instances). Jesus makes this clear in his discussions with Nicodemus in John 3: No one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit.

And it undeniably says that unless you do the will of the Father, you will not enter heaven. It also is clear that Jesus demands the evildoers to depart from him. This clearly supports the Catholic teaching that you must stay in the state of grace through works of love and by avoiding sin to get to heaven.

But again, this is how Catholics understand this passage. In the end, its not the passage but the credibility of the Tradition that is used to interpret it that matters.

 

[PRmerger]

So, by throwning virtually everything out of the window - they must search for traditions they can call their own. One of these traditions of men is OSAS that tries to manipulate God while making false statements like someone was never saved to begin with - as if they know the final disposition of anyone’s soul…

Exactly. The Faux Believer paradigm, which is the most peculiar of all concepts wrought by the Protestant Reformation, IMHO.

Which, ironically, confirms that there is no such thing as assurance of salvation, if such an entity as the “Faux Believer” exists–for how does one know that he’s not one of those poor saps who thinks he’s saved but actually isn’t? That is, there is no assurance of salvation.

 

[Sig]

Ah, so some men were infallible, yes?

Your question is specious.

The writings of Scripture were superintended by the Spirit, who is perfect, and what He wanted written was written. The men were men, the writings are the Word OF GOD!

So no, I don’t agree with your assertion. Men are not infallible.

 

[Sig]

Very good, then.

So then the Church was infallible. (At least as it applies to discerning the canon of Scripture.)

No. What proof do you offer that the church was/is infallible other than the pronouncement of one of her later popes that she is?

 

[PRmerger]

Your question is specious.

The writings of Scripture were superintended by the Spirit, who is perfect, and what He wanted written was written. The men were men, the writings are the Word OF GOD!

So no, I don’t agree with your assertion. Men are not infallible.

What you have just proferred in red is exactly the Church’s definition of infallibility!

So you may call it what you like, but you actually do believe in the concept of infallibility, as the Church defines it.

And if men can be infallible (as you define it) why follow a fallible pastor/preacher/church?

My Church is infallible!

 

[Cat_Herder]

Can you answer our questions or not?

SERIOUSLY PEOPLE, YOU’RE JUST FEEDING HIM. STOP CONVERSING UNTIL HE ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS ASKED OF HIM.

Second.

Put him on the ignore list.

 

[PRmerger]

No. What proof do you offer that the church was/is infallible other than the pronouncement of one of her later popes that she is?

Well, the fact that you can’t name a book that doesn’t belong in the NT or a book that was left out that you believe belongs there.

That is, [SIGN]your own quoting of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is testament to the infallibility of my Church.[/SIGN]

Unless you want to posit that the Church erred here? (And I don’t think you do.)

 

[JRRTFAN]

The better question is, does Scripture list any exceptions?

If so, will you cite the passages in which those you query after are excepted?

The text that you are hanging this hat on is from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans 3:23 I believe. You may be aware, via your study, that St. Paul often quotes the Old Testament (or snippets thereof) to give credence to his teaching. Here’s your task. Sneak on back to the Psalms and find out where Paul gets this stuff about all have sinned and etc., then post it here in complete context. Be sure to post the part about the ones who “devour my people” OK. After posting your response you can offer your comments as to whether Paul would always import the context, sometimes import the context or never import the context of the verses of the OT that he calls forward.

Get 'er done, make pastor proud!

 

[paul_c]

Second.

Put him on the ignore list.

Why would we do that. The entertainment value is way too high… He is challenging us. Nothing wrong with that…

 

[JRRTFAN]

Your question is specious.

The writings of Scripture were superintended by the Spirit, who is perfect, and what He wanted written was written. The men were men, the writings are the Word OF GOD!

So no, I don’t agree with your assertion. Men are not infallible.

So who wrote your bible? Did they write infallibly or not? Yes or no? If yes then your statement is wrong if no, then you just have a novel for a bible.

Aretha Franklin calls forth: Think, think about what you’re tryin’ ta say to me!!! Ya’ll folks need to start analyzing, dontcha know?

 

[Sig]

I love this exchange. It works on several levels…I submit that the Catholic Tradition is the original and therefore True tradition going back to the Apostles. You can not argue with this, because it is indeed a fact.

And what is that Tradition?

Those that are never baptized are never saved (except in rare instances).

Proof?

Jesus makes this clear in his discussions with Nicodemus in John 3: No one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit.

In Mark 16, Jesus says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

Clearly condemnation is based upon unbelief and not, not being baptized.

Furthermore, in Paul’s statement in Ephesians 2, he says that we are ***“saved by grace, through faith, it is not from ourselves, it is not of works…” ***in short, there is no mention of baptism as an integral part of salvation in Paul’s statement.

I should think that if it were an act that saved here is the place the Holy Spirit would clearly state it so.

Moreover, if baptism is the means of salvation, then all of the old testament saints have perished, including Abraham, whom Paul upholds as the prototype for all who receive the promise by faith, and not through the law.

And it undeniably says that unless you do the will of the Father, you will not enter heaven. It also is clear that Jesus demands the evildoers to depart from him. This clearly supports the Catholic teaching that you must stay in the state of grace through works of love and by avoiding sin to get to heaven.

Once more, those evil-doers were not known by Jesus, so they were unbelievers, and not believers so it would be impossible for them to stay in a state into which they had never entered in the first place.

But again, this is how Catholics understand this passage. In the end, its not the passage but the credibility of the Tradition that is used to interpret it that matters.

And there are certainly points of weakness in that tradition, as I’ve pointed out.

 

[Sig]

So who wrote your bible?

You know who wrote the Bible.

Did they write infallibly or not? Yes or no?

I’ve already answered that: the writings are the Word of God, and therefore are infallible, the writers are men, and therefore, are fallible.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Why would we do that. The entertainment value is way too high… He is challenging us. Nothing wrong with that…

He has no interest in engaging in a conversation or in staying on topic, and now we have almost 20 pages full of unanswered questions to this one poster. All of the time and energy that’s going into this thread, from both posters and moderators, should be instead used to provide Catholic Answers to people who actually want them.

Also, all of this entertainment is being paid for by Catholic Answers (the apostolate). The bandwidth costs money, and as you can see from the appeal that’s going on right now, there’s a concern about these issues. The last thing we should be doing is making these problems worse by enabling abuse.

So I’m canceling my subscription to this thread.

 

[Sig]

The text that you are hanging this hat on is from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans 3:23 I believe. You may be aware, via your study, that St. Paul often quotes the Old Testament (or snippets thereof) to give credence to his teaching. Here’s your task. Sneak on back to the Psalms and find out where Paul gets this stuff about all have sinned and etc., then post it here in complete context. Be sure to post the part about the ones who “devour my people” OK. After posting your response you can offer your comments as to whether Paul would always import the context, sometimes import the context or never import the context of the verses of the OT that he calls forward.

Get 'er done, make pastor proud!

Are you trying to say in a roundabout way that you cannot cite any exceptions from Scripture?

 

[Sig]

Well, the fact that you can’t name a book that doesn’t belong in the NT or a book that was left out that you believe belongs there.

That is, [SIGN]your own quoting of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is testament to the infallibility of my Church.[/SIGN]

Unless you want to posit that the Church erred here? (And I don’t think you do.)

Here again is the question I asked you: What proof do you offer that the church was/is infallible other than the pronouncement of one of her later popes that she is?

Are you able to offer any proof other than the church’s own pronouncement, or not?

 

[Sig]

He has no interest in engaging in a conversation or in staying on topic, and now we have almost 20 pages full of unanswered questions to this one poster. All of the time and energy that’s going into this thread, from both posters and moderators, should be instead used to provide Catholic Answers to people who actually want them.

Also, all of this entertainment is being paid for by Catholic Answers (the apostolate). The bandwidth costs money, and as you can see from the appeal that’s going on right now, there’s a concern about these issues. The last thing we should be doing is making these problems worse by enabling abuse.

IMO, you’re projecting, Cat Herder.

I answered a number of questions yesterday, and after those answers asked you some questions. You’ve yet to answer them.

 

[Cat_Herder]

IMO, you’re projecting, Cat Herder.

I answered a number of questions yesterday, and after those answers asked you some questions. You’ve yet to answer them.

Your questions mostly consisted of “dig through my twenty pages of dodginess and give me post numbers.”

No thank you; I have much better things to do.

Farewell.