Once Saved Always Saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shocktrooper
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fhansen said:
I don’t know where that conclusion came from. All men can be inspired, if the HS so chooses. All men aren’t inspired, or else they’d agree on the meaning of scripture.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your anticipated backpeddle. 🙂
 
PRmerger said:
It’s right after the verse that says I have to “answer from Scripture” any theological questions. 😉
Click to expand...
Another roundabout way of yours to say “I’m unable to answer the question from scripture.”

You probably have a million of 'em, eh? :ehh: 🙂
 
PRmerger said:
I’m quite certain that you believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not make any theological errors in faith and morals. Why? Because I keep asking to tell me where they did make any errors and you’ve not been able to provide a single instance.

That’s all I’m saying. Nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...
Sisyphus. 😃
 
PRmerger said:
Actually, it’s not a circular argument, but what is described in Philosophy 101 courses as a SPIRAL argument.

"We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument.

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.

From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.

And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.

This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired." source
Click to expand...
The circular argument to which I’m referring is that concerning the Pope’s “infallibility,” dear.
 
Hi, TinaG,

You really have this quite backwards - look at the ‘fruit’ that 40,000+ Protestant denominations have produced - none of them can agree on anything (if they could they would have combined and stopped discrediting each other).

God is quite articulate. In fact, take a look at what he so very clearly says and none of the OSAS crowd agrees with:

1.) Christ builds His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter, gives him the authority to bind and lose and gives him the keys to the kingdom as a sign of his unique authority.

2.) Christ tell His listeners that unless they eat His Flesh and drink His Blood they have no life in them - His listeners walk away because they understood Him correctly but rejected what He said. Christ asks the Apostles if they too will leave, too - and Peter responds that Christ has words of eternal life.

3.) After the Resurrection, Christ enters the locked room where the Apostles were hiding, breathes on them and they receive the Holy Spirit and Christ tells them that they now have the power to forgive (or not forgive as the case may be) mens’ sins.

4.) In the 25th Chapter of Matthew there are three parables of people who thought they were ‘The Elect’ but found out they were quite wrong.

5.) Christ tells the Apostles - and now us - that we must persevere to the end because this is how we cooperate with the Grace of God and will join Him in Heaven.

I could go on - but, what we see is that God has given men a free will - starting with Adam - and our role is to freely obey God. Adam failed, but God did not give up on us - and He sent His Son for all men.

The biggest flaw that I see is that there are some (?) who only think that are ‘The Elect’ but find out later that they were really ‘Reprobate’. There is NO scriptural evidence for us knowing where who has gone to Hell except the Devil and 1/3 of the Foolish Angels who followed him into eternal damnation. Anyone claiming they know a particular human being went to Hell is simply camping out with the Father of Lies.

So, what are your thoughts on this, TinaG?

God bless
TinaG said:
So God is inarticulate? So much so that someone has to explain what He said to everyone else? And as if the Catholic Church has delivered us from chaos and confusion…

-Tina “Expert in Being Inarticulate” G
Click to expand...
 
PRmerger said:
We have no idea if he lost his salvation, Lisa! We are saved, essentially, when we die. And as we don’t know what would have happened if he had died an hour after denying Jesus, no one can answer this question.
Click to expand...
LOL. Let me help you: Peter didn’t lose his salvation. :tiphat:
 
PRmerger said:
This actually is an uniformed position about Catholic teaching.

I don’t know if you’re aware that the Catholic Church reserves an entire feast day to a bunch (some say thousands) of souls who were never baptized. It’s called the Feast of the Holy Innocents. It is, coincidentally or not, observed this month!
Click to expand...
That doesn’t change the fact that the church’s position that the unbaptized are never saved consigns all of the OT saints to hell.

A kind act doesn’t negate the bad consequence of the church’s position concerning the condemnation of all the OT saints. 🤷
 
fhansen said:
Well, OK, we certainly can’t prove anything by scripture alone, seeing as Protestants come down on both sides of this question. So, bearing in mind that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, I’ll prove it by the Catechism, the testimony of the only entity granted authority to speak on these matters:

**1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:621
**

That should settle it then.
Click to expand...
There’s that circular argument again. 🙂
 
Sig said:
Thank you for your anticipated backpeddle. 🙂
Click to expand...
I should’ve anticipated this response, you don’t seem to take much care in reading the posts and seem more interested in arguing than the truth.
 
pablope said:
Yes, one can indeed lose salvation.

Have you not come across Rom 11…

17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but **kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. **

What do you think being cut off mean?

What do you think “provided that you continue in his kindness” means?
Click to expand...
Let’s start off slow.

You’re the one making the assertions, so the burden is upon you tell me what that means, and then to back up what you say with biblical support.

Mkay?
pablope said:
Does that not mean that one has to persevere in being clean to remain grafted in?
Click to expand...
You’re doing it again! It’s your assertion, you tell me what it means, and than back it up.

Do that, and we can move forward with this.
 
fhansen said:
No, it was quite straightforward-again. 🙂
Click to expand...
No, it’s circular. The argument is, according to the RCC, that the church wrote the Scripture, and the church is the only entity that has the authority to say what the scriptures mean.

That’s a circular argument.
 
Sig said:
No, it’s circular. The argument is, according to the RCC, that the church wrote the Scripture, and the church is the only entity that has the authority to say what the scriptures mean.

That’s a circular argument.
Click to expand...
The argument is actually that the church was given authority to hold and preach the faith. Writing scripture is part of her tradition. She was preaching the faith before one word of the NT was written.

So what’s your non-circular reasoning for holding scripture to be authoritative? Or for your authority in interpreting it?
 
fhansen said:
The argument is actually that the church was given authority to hold and preach the faith. Writing scripture is part of her tradition. She was preaching the faith before one word of the NT was written.
Click to expand...
According to who? The church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top