Questions about when people get "saved"

[Reuben_J]

It’s ok. I was just responding to your post where you said you had authority, your Church and local Shepherd. It was a misunderstanding. I would never ask for personal information in this Forum, I am long enough here, I know. That was not my purpose. I was asking what denomination or sect, like I am a Catholic and therefore my church is the Catholic Church.

It seems Protestants have somewhat different understanding on this, perhaps because your church is so small that when you tell what it is, you’ll have to invariably tell which church on which street it is. No, I didn’t want that.

 

[MT1926]

You say I did not explain how I got my interpretation and how the word, “WORD” is singular.

No I already told you I have no problem with God’s word being truth.

His WORD includes every single word beginning with Genesis 1:1 all the way to the last chapter of Revelation. I think you believe that.

Of course I believe this, but I’m the one questioning if you believe this? I believe God only needs to say it once and it is truth. What I said you didn’t explain, is …

In other words, when you gather all the added parts of any given subject, and find the common message shared, you, then, have arrived at truth. According to Ps. 119:160

this means two are three other people are saying and concluding on the exact same thing on any given subject, then that word is established. Lifting a verse here and a verse there does not mean you have the truth on anything.

I’m good with God’s Word being truth. Never said I wasn’t . This is my question which you still haven’t answered in this post either? Instead you take what I say, out of context, and ignore the question.

If we interpret it to mean only one specific word, then we are left with the question. Which word would that be?

I fully explained in my post the reason why I brought up “Word” being singular…

ALL of thy WORD is truth. Which to me would mean everything you say in the Bible is true, regardless of whether you say it once, twice or three times.

I hear your concern how I only gave my opinion that truth comes from adding up all of what God’s word has to say on any given subject. I suppose it is my opinion, but it is also a

theological deduction based on the word SUM and how it is used in other places of the bible. The psalmist took liberty to suggest that we must sum it all up if we want arrive at a truth.

And I already pointed out the psalmist didn’t say “SUM”.

rōš- 160

רֹאשׁ־ 160

[from] the beginning 160

də·ḇā·rə·ḵā

דְּבָרְךָ֥

Your word

’ĕ·meṯ;

אֱמֶ֑ת

[is] true

ū·lə·‘ō·w·lām,

וּ֝לְעוֹלָ֗ם

[endures] forever

kāl-

כָּל־

every one

miš·paṭ

מִשְׁפַּ֥ט

of Your judgments

ṣiḏ·qe·ḵā.

צִדְקֶֽךָ׃

righteous

The interpreter took the liberty to suggest the psalmist meant the word SUM and now you are taking further liberties to form your opinion on what the interpreter meant when he used that word. I mean no disrespect but that is why I called you a hypocrite. You expect us to blindly accept your liberties but won’t accept anything from us unless we can show you who taught it in the first century.

Only when I come to know and understand it from the totality of what God has said, will determine my own personal level of truth on any given subject.

Personally I think God deserves for us to follow the Truth in His Church, not our own personal level of truth.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

By asking such simple questions as who were those of the first century inner-circle who agreed, is reasonable and responsible. And I do apply that same rule to myself. If I cannot prove it was something embraced by the apostolic circle, I need to reconsider why I believe it. And by the way, I have already crossed that bridge.

Since you already crossed this bridge then it should be very easy for you to show me the writings, of the first century disciple of one of the Apostles, who agreed with your interpretations.

I’m sorry to have called you a hypocrite but you are the one who has set the level of the proof required.

You refuse to accept the writings of early Church Fathers because you say someone like St. Ignatius of Antioch, who died in like 107 AD, is to far removed, that tells me you must have some writings of men earlier than that.

When you tell me this is your criteria, which you judge the Catholic Church, you are in essence telling me I shouldn’t believe a single thing you say unless you can show me evidence earlier than 107.

Since I’ve already asked you for this proof and it sure seems like you keep ignoring my question. That is the reason I said you set rules for others that you yourself do not follow.

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

No problem Reuben_J,. I am only one stone in the one holy Catholic church. But my local affiliation is connected to a Protestant denomination that reaches around the world.

 

[tgGodsway]

You expect us to blindly accept your liberties but won’t accept anything from us unless we can show you who taught it in the first century.

MT, The root of the Hebrew word ro-sh = roshe 7218 from Strongs Concordance, means to shake the head, or principle, literally or figuratively, but the idea carries into the KJV as having to do with the “beginnings.” Thy word is true from it’s beginnings.

Jamieson-Faussett-Brown, in his commentary on Psalms says this word means, from the beginning, (or) every word from Genesis, (called so by the Jews from it’s first words, ‘In the beginning’) to the end of the scriptures is true."

Hengstenberg translates it more literally, “The sum of thy word is truth. Again, according to Jamieson Fausset Brown, Luther wrote that the sense (of the word) is substantially the same. The whole body of revelation is truth. Thy word is nothing but truth”

At least six other English translators agree on the word SUM as a literal translation of H7218 and does no robbery of the Hebrew word.
The English Standard version, the New American Standard Version, known for it’s literal translation and The Holman Christian version, along with the Young’s Literal translation, all convey the very same meaning that I have been trying to convey to you on Ps. 119:160.

 

[tgGodsway]

CONTINUATION FOR M.T.

I stand by my point and back it up with a large body of Ecumenical Hebrew and Greek scholars who all agree that in order to arrive at a truth, you must collect all of the added parts on any given subject. This was their deduction as well. Why won’t you concede this point? God’s word in its’ totality is God’s word, agreed! but extracting the truth on a matter requires a supernatural unity of thought between authors, seeing that we both agree the bible does not contradict itself. So this idea that I am simply taking liberties here by people who are taking liberties in their translation is a cheap shot.

You say I won’t accept Catholic teaching because it is 50, 100 or 200 years after the death of the last Apostle. Okay… I never said any such thing but let me re-state my position.

It’s not as much about the time-line as it is about the content in the time-line. In my opinion, all doctrine, dogma or tradition, both in Protestant and Catholic circles, MUST come under the scrutiny of holy scripture to determine whether or not it is in compliance with the spirit of the New Testament. My personal opinion on this does not stand alone, but shared by capable and bright students of God’s word.

But in order to exalt God’s word above all else, one must first believe that God’s word gets the last word on all doctrine. This is the primary problem in RC thinking.

For you, a new decree or a new position in doctrine coming from a Church counsel, keeps the N.T. ink alive. God is still speaking and evolving in His ways. This is a tragedy.

Finding the truth of a matter is more than pronouncing a decree. The RC cardinals must come together to discuss it, hash it out, chew on it… etc. I don’t know if that is the way they do it, but that is certainly one needed part of it. Above human intellect and the skill of interpretation is the divine element of revelation given to those who humbly submit to God’s way of doing things.

Jesus said, we could know the truth and the truth would set us free… Knowing the truth is for those willing to pursue it God’s way.

It is not unreasonable for me to ask how did the Roman Catholic Church come to the conclusion that Mary was born sinless. If there was a special miracle I want to see this important revelation treated as an established fact within the apostolic circle. This is not unreasonable thinking.

 

[tgGodsway]

But you must understand that I too try to subject myself to the same standards and hopefully will not exempt myself. If there is something I’ve learned by others without actually verifying it by my own study, and there is, I want to repent of it and be willing to see it from another point of view, as long as God’s word is exalted in that view.

When I originally stumble upon this website forum. The first thing I noticed was the absolute attack on the protestant faith. Honestly I have never personally known such hostility existed between RC and Protestants until here. It is one thing to read about it in history, but to find it so alive and well on a web site was shocking.

I realize this is a Catholic web site and you have the absolute right to express Catholic views and it certainly is generous that this site allows me to come on and give a countering view. I’m impressed with that. But until now, I never realized just how different these two groups really are. It is scary to me. The one consistent message I hear on this site is this: we were here first, … we are superior, and we are doctrinally correct, you are not. Perhaps there are protestants who do the same thing. They too, I believe, are wrong.

But, again, I stand by the principles of interpretation I have learned over the years, and the method of establishing a truth by collecting biblical witnesses who were not only there, but testify to what they saw and what they believe. It is a proven and biblical approach to scripture in my humble opinion.

Lets move on MT We will not agree here. What about the vine issue. What is wrong with my interpretation?

 

[MT1926]

I stand by my point and back it up with a large body of Ecumenical Hebrew and Greek scholars who all agree that in order to arrive at a truth, you must collect all of the added parts on any given subject. This was their deduction as well. Why won’t you concede this point?

The word sum does not bother me. But you have shown me no reason to concede that Psalm 119 is there to show us how to interpret scripture. Be honest and think logical here. If our roles where reversed would you concede? Keep in mind not only does the Catholic Church have a large body of Ecumenical Hebrew scholars, but they also have a Greek Catholic Church, who from the beginning to this present day use the Greek Scriptures, not a translation. They don’t have to go back to the Greek to come to an interpretation they read the Scriptures in the original Greek. So why would I start believing your Greek scholars over mine?

You say I won’t accept Catholic teaching because it is 50, 100 or 200 years after the death of the last Apostle. Okay… I never said any such thing but let me re-state my position.

You said…

These kind of issues tell me something is seriously wrong with that. You quote people in history but most of them are too far removed to bring any historical or spiritual accuracy to the table. The further out you go, the less people will know or understand what the Apostolic circle was all about. But of course, they are the experts.

This is the whole reason I am having a hard time believing this so called “experts” you keep bringing up. Because by your own rules, which I’m sure they taught you, they are to far removed and you shouldn’t accept them either.

But in order to exalt God’s word above all else, one must first believe that God’s word gets the last word on all doctrine. This is the primary problem in RC thinking.

OK. Let’s be completely honest here. Tell me exactly how God’s Word gets the last word when it is a fallible human interpreting what God’s word means. You’re not the only person I talk to on the web. The one thing you all have in common is this exact statement, but the thing is you don’t have much more than that in common. How can that be if you all are letting God’s Word have the last word? I’m not trying to be mean or arrogant here. I honestly want to know the answer to this question. How can 40 different people claiming they have the Holy Spirit as their guide be having different interpretations? Once again put yourself in my shoes here. Every non-Catholic you talk with eventually throws this in your face as the Catholic Church’s “problem” yet not a single one of them admit they have a problem in that they don’t agree with each other.

…continued

 

[MT1926]

It is not unreasonable for me to ask how did the Roman Catholic Church come to the conclusion that Mary was born sinless. If there was a special miracle I want to see this important revelation treated as an established fact within the apostolic circle. This is not unreasonable thinking.

Why would you think we would see this fact established within the Apostolic circle? Wasn’t their mission teaching about Jesus?

Couldn’t we also say I want to see this important revelation, about the Trinity, treated as an established fact within the apostolic circle?

If you are going to claim everything had to be established within the Apostolic Circle then we have no Bible. Think about it, the entire Apostolic circle was dead when St. John wrote his gospel and revelation. Therefore we need to throw both of those books out because how do we know St. John didn’t do what he wanted now that everyone was dead?

That being said, Mary being sinless comes from Biblical interpretation that shows her to be the New Eve. This interpretation was held by many of the greatest theologians to ever from the very beginning. These interpretations were even affirmed to be true by Martin Luther, who believed in many of the Marian dogmas.

Is me simple stating these facts enough for you to concede this fact? If not why?

I’m on my way to Church now. Would love to talk about the vine, probably Monday morning.

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

Personally I think God deserves for us to follow the Truth in His Church, not our own personal level of truth.

MT this is what you do, you make short little statements like this to draw a contrast but it only shows how you don’t know what you are talking about. Any person understands God’s word at a certain level. The RCC also has a certain level of understanding. You assume this level is the highest level because you agree with it. I do not. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the common theme on this site is that you are right, we are wrong, your ways are superior to ours. etc.

I too am a member of God’s holy Church along with millions of non-Roman Catholics. You dismiss us as if we are non-essential or defective. We are not. As I have mentioned on this site before, our God does not see labels like Protestant and Catholic. He only sees those in his family and those not. It is up to us to adopt his way of thinking.

 

[tgGodsway]

Since you already crossed this bridge then it should be very easy for you to show me the writings, of the first century disciple of one of the Apostles, who agreed with your interpretations.

My interpretation of what?..

 

[tgGodsway]

Since I’ve already asked you for this proof and it sure seems like you keep ignoring my question. That is the reason I said you set rules for others that you yourself do not follow.

I have ignored nothing MT. Honestly some of what you say sounds like crazy making. Here’s the bottom line; any doctrine that doesn’t have N.T. roots, which come from either Catholic or Protestant circles will come under suspicion to me. This is my standard. I am not asking you to adopt it. I use it as the Lord leads me to do so.

 

[tgGodsway]

The word sum does not bother me. But you have shown me no reason to concede that Psalm 119 is there to show us how to interpret scripture. Be honest and think logical here. If our roles where reversed would you concede? Keep in mind not only does the Catholic Church have a large body of Ecumenical Hebrew scholars, but they also have a Greek Catholic Church, who from the beginning to this present day use the Greek Scriptures, not a translation. They don’t have to go back to the Greek to come to an interpretation they read the Scriptures in the original Greek. So why would I start believing your Greek scholars over mine?

Please do not pull the “our scholars are better than yours” card. I could easily name Hebrew and Greek scholars with all of their PHD’s in the same way you can. So what! Consider the work of William Tyndale, one of the greatest masters of both the Hebrew and Greek languages. The man spoke I think five different languages. He risked his life to give us the English translation of the bible. The RCC burned him at the stake. What was him crime? He wanted to give the body of Christ the word of God in English. This was a totally political act of evil by the spiritual authorities in Rome.

The bigger problem is not about what is in the bible or how it should it be interpreted. The bigger problem is the ex-cathedra pronouncements, decrees and Church council decrees that set themselves up on equal par of authority with inspired scripture.

These are the top-heavy branches and leaves that have no biblical root. They claim to have all of the root, but when we go searching for those roots we can’t find them. This is why the RCC fought so aggressively to keep the bible un-translated to any modern language for so long.

It wasn’t that long ago that all Mass was spoken in Latin only. No RC in the English speaking part of the world had any idea of what was being said at Mass for centuries. This kept the average Catholic member at a disadvantage and without knowledge. I have met many RC’s in my life. Most of them understand almost nothing from scripture. This is by design. I recently spoke with a lady at a party my wife and I went to, who claimed to be a devout Roman Catholic. When I began to talk to her about her faith she said, I don’t need to know what the bible says, that’s why I have a priest. He can interpret it for me, and I’m okay with that.

Very sad.

 

[tgGodsway]

How can 40 different people claiming they have the Holy Spirit as their guide be having different interpretations? Once again put yourself in my shoes here. Every non-Catholic you talk with eventually throws this in your face as the Catholic Church’s “problem” yet not a single one of them admit they have a problem in that they don’t agree with each other.

I agree that on many issues there are various interpretations within the Evangelical world, at least on most non-essential doctrine. But please tell me that all RC’s think alike and all have the same beliefs. wait… they don’t. But they don’t have a choice. They are told that this is the official stance (on any given subject) and you must agree with it and fall in line.

If you don’t agree, too bad. The Church or the pope decreed it and that settles it. If you don’t agree you will be in danger of hell. Don’t say I’m exaggerating. I have three siblings who all went to Catholic school and heard these things directly from the nuns who taught them.

You can’t afford to disagree with the RCC because you will find yourself at the end of a pointy finger threatening your very salvation.

Evangelicals agree on the deity of Christ, the trinity, the fall of man, new birth, the second coming of Christ and many more things. The things that cause diversity all have to do with how one makes an interpretation. Some do it well and others do not.

 

[MT1926]

I have ignored nothing MT. Honestly some of what you say sounds like crazy making.

Are you serious? You just ignored the question by saying you ignored nothing.

Quit twisting things and trying to rephrase what you said.

You said the Church Fathers (my people in history) were to far removed from the Apostles and the further you get from the Apostolic circle the less you understand.

Now that I call you on this you are trying to avoid the question, by not telling me who your so called experts are, that lived earlier than the Church Fathers.

You no it doesn’t really matter, the fact that you won’t answer is proof enough for me. I just think you need to pray about this, because whether you want to admit it or not this is how you are judging the Catholic Church and I think you and Jesus need to figure out why you do this to the Church and don’t hold yourself to the same judgement?

 

[MT1926]

Please do not pull the “our scholars are better than yours” card. I could easily name Hebrew and Greek scholars with all of their PHD’s in the same way you can.

I wasn’t trying to pull the mine are better card. Sorry if it came off that way, I honestly didn’t mean to because it made you miss the point I was making. I was trying to say exactly what you said here we can both name our Greek scholars so why would I accept your 20th century Greek scholars when you claim my 2nd century scholars aren’t good enough. If our rolls were reversed would you?

 

[MT1926]

My interpretation of what…

Take your pick doesn’t matter. Anything we talked about thus far. Name one first century disciple of an Apostle who agrees with you.

 

[tgGodsway]

Wait a minute here. These so called church fathers ARE far removed simply because they decreed things contrary to what the true biblical church fathers, (such as the gospel writers like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Apostle Paul, Barnabas, James) taught. A Church father by definition is one who is foundational to the faith. These RC fathers were not their to see the resurrection. They were not their to see how the holy spirit descended at Pentecost. They were not their to see the wonderful ministry of Philip in the book of Acts. Why weren’t they their? They weren’t born yet.
Most of their extreme heresy today was decreed within the last few hundred years, based on what? It wasn’t the biblical narrative.
The only fathers I can quote, to answer your question, is the biblical fathers. Those are the only ones who wrote inspired scripture. None of the rest qualify in my opinion.

 

[Reuben_J]

I just believe that everything should be brought into the light and not to be hidden in the darkness. The latter is not the work of God.

 

[MT1926]

Wait a minute here. These so called church fathers ARE far removed simply because they decreed things contrary to what the true biblical church fathers, (such as the gospel writers like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Apostle Paul, Barnabas, James) taught.

Do you not honestly see what you are claiming here? You are claiming men who wrote within the first hundred years, even before we had a complete Bible, wrote contrary to what the Apostles actually taught. Other than your current day theologians disagree with them, what evidence do you have? Other than you have chosen to believe this without asking these same questions what reason would I have to believe this. This is a valid question. One that you yourself said would be irresponsible for a Christian not to ask. Be honest here, if you can’t provide evidence then you are just following what someone told you.

A Church father by definition is one who is foundational to the faith. These RC fathers were not their to see the resurrection.

Actually by definition this is considered an Apostolic father. The definition of Church father is a disciple of the Apostles, or the disciple of a disciple of the Apostles.

They were not their to see how the holy spirit descended at Pentecost. They were not their to see the wonderful ministry of Philip in the book of Acts. Why weren’t they their? They weren’t born yet.

And neither were you or your so called experts. So what’s your point? What does this prove? You honestly don’t see the claims you are making? You are claiming Jesus was unable to guide the Church for 100 years. You are claiming the Church went Apostate before the death of the last Apostle.

The only fathers I can quote, to answer your question, is the biblical fathers. Those are the only ones who wrote inspired scripture. None of the rest qualify in my opinion.

Yes what the Bible says is so important to our faith. But in the end if that’s all we have to go by then what we believe in the end is what we think the Bible is telling us. Like you already said, our own personal level of truth.