Quick help needed.. salvation

[guanophore]

**First; I get my information from the Bible, which is what the apostles and those associated with them gave to us through the work Holy Spirit; it is you and your organization that have distorted the apostolic teaching by adding a myriad of extras over 1700 plus years IMO. **

I think you have the opinion that extras have been added because you are so far separated from the Apostolic Tradition that produced the Bible that you are suffering from a highly abridged “readers digest” form of the Christian faith.

I am sure you really believe you are getting your information from the Bible, but everyone who reads, interprets. You are interpreting what you read according to your experiences, and education (or lack of it).

John 16:8-11 gives the clear purpose of the Holy Spirit: " 8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;  9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

Therefore; one can and will receive a head knowledge of both what is good and what is not concerning the gospel and be convicted one way or the other; receiving or rejecting, salvation or condemnation.

I am sure you are acting in accordance to the measure of truth that you have been able to apprehend, in spite of the abridged nature of it.

An apostate is one exposed to the gospel, but not convicted in their hearts as to the truth; therefore rejecting what they have been exposed to and walking away.

No, Tanner, this does not flush. You cannot just dispense with these verses by redefining what the Apostles meant by the word “apostate”. They defined it differently than you have here. Changing the meaning of the word enables you to dispense with the teaching, so that you can cling to the OSAS view. The fact is that one cannot fall away from something that one has not espoused. No one escapes the defilements of the world without the blood of Christ. This passage was written to those who have been enlightened. Exposure to the gospel does not guarantee that one will embrace the faith, and one cannot “fall away” unless one first clings to something.

Nice try, but no cigar.

By the way you said:  *"The entire NT was written by, for, and about Catholics" *Really?  You believe this with all of your heart, mind and soul?

Yes, of course! Is your knowlege of your faith so shallow that you did not know? Jesus only founded One Church.

I thought it was written by men under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, these of mostly Jewish descent, for Jesus told the Samaritan woman that salvation is from the Jews.  I thought it was God's plan of redemption, about Jesus and His sacrifice on behalf of sinners; that they may be cleansed by His blood, not water; unto salvation or reconciliation to God, not Catholics.

Yes, it was Jews, inspired by the HS, who wrote from God. For that reason, the Scriptures are inspired, and inerrant. Indeed, Scripture does reflect God’s plan of salvation for mankind. The way His cleansing blood is applied to the individual is through baptism, during which we are born again of water and Spirit, and we are reconciled to God. This Catholic, and the scriptures reflect this Catholic faith.

A completely different gospel and contrary to a myriad of Scripture. Good works are the result of saving faith as Paul put it in Romans 10 stated in the previous post. You add 1/2 of 1% to saving grace through you good works; grace is no longer grace…period.

Without a doubt, it is a different gospel than the one you were taught. Your spiritual ancestors separated themselves from the Apsotles Teaching some 500 years ago, and the gospel has been “evolving” a little each generation. In some ecclesial communities, it cannot even be recognized as Christianity anymore!

Yes, good works are the result of saving grace. I am not sure what you mean by “adding”. Good works are the outcome of being in a state of grace. It is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us. This is what it means to walk in grace. It is not “adding” anything. Branches that are attached to the vine will bear fruit. The fruit is not “added” to the vine, making the vine no longer a vine.

Fruit is the natural function of the vine. It cannot be separated from it.

 

[Tanner9188]

I think you have the opinion that extras have been added because you are so far separated from the Apostolic Tradition that produced the Bible that you are suffering from a highly abridged “readers digest” form of the Christian faith.

I am sure you really believe you are getting your information from the Bible, but everyone who reads, interprets. You are interpreting what you read according to your experiences, and education (or lack of it).

Getting a liitle testy here; so Christ-like.

I am sure you are acting in accordance to the measure of truth that you have been able to apprehend, in spite of the abridged nature of it.

**Another show of your love.
**

No, Tanner, this does not flush. You cannot just dispense with these verses by redefining what the Apostles meant by the word “apostate”. They defined it differently than you have here. Changing the meaning of the word enables you to dispense with the teaching, so that you can cling to the OSAS view. The fact is that one cannot fall away from something that one has not espoused. No one escapes the defilements of the world without the blood of Christ. This passage was written to those who have been enlightened. Exposure to the gospel does not guarantee that one will embrace the faith, and one cannot “fall away” unless one first clings to something.

**Perhaps you can bring the Scriptural definition of apostate into the discussion rather than giving your opinion of what an apostate is. By definition used in the verb form: Not faithful to religion or party or cause the noun form: A disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend.

Your rational does not make sense from a practical life experience. Have you never been exposed to something, like maybe a musical instrument, where you first found out, read about it, got excited, then started into and found it too difficult, then walked away. It was never truly in your heart, it was superficial.

Do you believe that the parable of the sowers is about 4 types of true believers?**

Yes, of course! Is your knowlege of your faith so shallow that you did not know? Jesus only founded One Church.

Another show of Christian love.

Yes, it was Jews, inspired by the HS, who wrote from God. For that reason, the Scriptures are inspired, and inerrant. Indeed, Scripture does reflect God’s plan of salvation for mankind. The way His cleansing blood is applied to the individual is through baptism, during which we are born again of water and Spirit, and we are reconciled to God. This Catholic, and the scriptures reflect this Catholic faith.
Without a doubt, it is a different gospel than the one you were taught. Your spiritual ancestors separated themselves from the Apsotles Teaching some 500 years ago, and the gospel has been “evolving” a little each generation. In some ecclesial communities, it cannot even be recognized as Christianity anymore!

Do you mean be evolve, things like the eating of flesh and drinking of blood, the immaculate conception, the perpetual virginity, co-meditrix, queen of heaven, the pope as vicar of Christ as opposed to the Holy Spirit; if this is what you refer, then we are in agreement.

Yes, good works are the result of saving grace. I am not sure what you mean by “adding”. Good works are the outcome of being in a state of grace. It is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us. This is what it means to walk in grace. It is not “adding” anything. Branches that are attached to the vine will bear fruit. The fruit is not “added” to the vine, making the vine no longer a vine.

Fruit is the natural function of the vine. It cannot be separated from it.

**Some of what you have added is listed above; but the sacraments were also added as a means of saving grace dispensed in increments, which is not Biblical. In the same manner the Church co-joins justification and sanctification; it also co-joins saving grace and general grace making the gospel something different than what was given by Jesus and the apostles. **

You have made the choice to blind yourself to what is obvious and your own history shows what I say to be true; you in essence have turned your back on what you once knew was the truth to something different IMO.

 

[guanophore]

Getting a liitle testy here; so Christ-like.
**Another show of your love.
**

Sometimes people make a personal comment because they have not good response to the comment. I note that you did not respond to my assertion that everyone who reads interprets. I fail to see what is “testy” in my post, but if you or anyone else can point it out to me, I would be grateful for the feedback.

**Perhaps you can bring the Scriptural definition of apostate into the discussion rather than giving your opinion of what an apostate is. By definition used in the verb form: Not faithful to religion or party or cause the noun form: A disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend. **

This one is servicable for now. A person cannot be faithful to something they have never espoused. One cannot betray that to which they have not pledged loyalty. In order for a “last state” to be “worse than the first” some sort of change needs to have taken place.

One cannot be “enlighted” without the HS, and one cannot be delievered from the entanglements of the world without Christ. No one 'tastes of the heavenly gift" (communion with Christ) who is an unbeliever. These descriptions are all about people who are “in Christ”. This is not “threshhold” talk.

Your rational does not make sense from a practical life experience. Have you never been exposed to something, like maybe a musical instrument, where you first found out, read about it, got excited, then started into and found it too difficult, then walked away. It was never truly in your heart, it was superficial.

Yes, of course! I cannot be said to have apostasized if it was “never truly in your heart”.
One cannot fall away from what one never embraced.

Do you believe that the parable of the sowers is about 4 types of true believers?

No.

Another show of Christian love.

It would be unloving to withhold the truth from you Tanner. Jesus only founded on Church.

Do you mean be evolve, things like the eating of flesh and drinking of blood, the immaculate conception, the perpetual virginity, co-meditrix, queen of heaven, the pope as vicar of Christ as opposed to the Holy Spirit; if this is what you refer, then we are in agreement.

If you ever find your courage, and read what the early church believed and practiced, you may be shocked to find that these were the beliefs of those who put together the NT from which you now believe your faith emanates.

**Some of what you have added is listed above; but the sacraments were also added as a means of saving grace dispensed in increments, which is not Biblical. **

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? We have followed the Apostolic command to hold fast to the traditions, and these were committed to us by the Apostles. Since we have recieved our faith from them, when we read the NT, we understand it in the light of the deposit of faith they gave to the Church.
Tanner9188;5489069:

In the same manner the Church co-joins justification and sanctification; it also co-joins saving grace and general grace making the gospel something different than what was given by Jesus and the apostles.

I am sure it seems this way to you . However, the Apostles never separated the parts of salvation from one another. The apostles taught that justification, sanctification, and glorification are seamless parts of one eternal event. Since you never had the privilege of receiving the Apostolic faith, it makes sense that these concepts would seem like a different gospel to you. :yup:

You have made the choice to blind yourself to what is obvious and your own history shows what I say to be true; you in essence have turned your back on what you once knew was the truth to something different IMO.

Well, Tanner, you don’t know me very well, so I am going to let this go by. If you are able to follow the forum rules, and you are fortunate to remain on CAF, your understanding of me might be revised with a more accurate perception, as may be your understanding of Catholicism.

 

[jlhargus]

Guanophore your posts are consistently well done and charitable, you have made some excellent points I hope to remember when I need them.

 

[jlhargus]

Do you mean be evolve, things like the eating of flesh and drinking of blood, the immaculate conception, the perpetual virginity, co-meditrix, queen of heaven, the pope as vicar of Christ as opposed to the Holy Spirit; if this is what you refer, then we are in agreement.

JL: You missed at lest two big ones, the Trinity and the canon of the bible, both evolved to definitional understanding in the 4th century.

Getting a liitle testy here; so Christ-like.
Another show of your love. You have made the choice to blind yourself to what is obvious and your own history shows what I say to be true; you in essence have turned your back on what you once knew was the truth to something different IMO.

JL: Getting a liitle testy here;. Well I can’t speak for all converts from Protestantism, but as for me I did not turn my back on my former Protestant faith and people whom I respect and have a good relationship with. So I did not apostatize from those faith trues they held, but came to the fullness of those faith trues in the Catholic Church. Since you are a former Catholic, do you veiw yourself as an apostate.

 

[Tanner9188]

Sometimes people make a personal comment because they have not good response to the comment. I note that you did not respond to my assertion that everyone who reads interprets. I fail to see what is “testy” in my post, but if you or anyone else can point it out to me, I would be grateful for the feedback.

This one is servicable for now. A person cannot be faithful to something they have never espoused. One cannot betray that to which they have not pledged loyalty. In order for a “last state” to be “worse than the first” some sort of change needs to have taken place.

One cannot be “enlighted” without the HS, and one cannot be delievered from the entanglements of the world without Christ. No one 'tastes of the heavenly gift" (communion with Christ) who is an unbeliever. These descriptions are all about people who are “in Christ”. This is not “threshhold” talk.

I see people everyday that hear the gospel “enlightened” and never come to Christ; don’t you?

Yes, of course! I cannot be said to have apostasized if it was “never truly in your heart”.
One cannot fall away from what one never embraced.

You have it backwards; the apostate never had the right heart; as demonstrated in the parable of the soils; which you agreed were not believers, yet they were all “enlightened” to a degree by the gospel. You are having it both ways here.

It would be unloving to withhold the truth from you Tanner. Jesus only founded on Church.???

If you ever find your courage, and read what the early church believed and practiced, you may be shocked to find that these were the beliefs of those who put together the NT from which you now believe your faith emanates.

Why would I need to go internally to a Church history; which picks and chooses what they want history to be; it is self defeating and suspect. If we went with the history of some, there would not have been a holocaust; I hope you see the point. This is why we search the Scriptures to see if these things are true.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? We have followed the Apostolic command to hold fast to the traditions, and these were committed to us by the Apostles. Since we have recieved our faith from them, when we read the NT, we understand it in the light of the deposit of faith they gave to the Church.

** I have asked this several times without a sufficient, logical or rational answer, but what the heck. What are the traditions that Paul referred to; keep in mind they already existed.**

However, the Apostles never separated the parts of salvation from one another. The apostles taught that justification, sanctification, and glorification are seamless parts of one eternal event. Since you never had the privilege of receiving the Apostolic faith, it makes sense that these concepts would seem like a different gospel to you. :yup:

Eph 1:1314 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of {God’s own} possession, to the praise of His glory. This is justification, no sanctifying work done here at this point, but if this person were struck by lightening and died, they would be glorified.

Well, Tanner, you don’t know me very well, so I am going to let this go by. If you are able to follow the forum rules, and you are fortunate to remain on CAF, your understanding of me might be revised with a more accurate perception, as may be your understanding of Catholicism.

Time to leave this thread as once someone; seems like the same people, bringing up a forum rule(s), which one I don’t know which you are referring to, but since I value being in the forum, I must leave a thread as soon as someone hints at impropriety; particularly if that person is a Catholic. Since this is the second time you, personally have done this; I will no longer respond to anything you have to say for my own sake. God bless and my prayer for you is this; I hope you see the Light of the gospel as presented by Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[Tanner9188]

JL: You missed at lest two big ones, the Trinity and the canon of the bible, both evolved to definitional understanding in the 4th century.

JL: Getting a liitle testy here;. Well I can’t speak for all converts from Protestantism, but as for me I did not turn my back on my former Protestant faith and people whom I respect and have a good relationship with. So I did not apostatize from those faith trues they held, but came to the fullness of those faith trues in the Catholic Church. Since you are a former Catholic, do you veiw yourself as an apostate.

We will all know in the end if what you claim is true…good luck with your new religion.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore your posts are consistently well done and charitable, you have made some excellent points I hope to remember when I need them.

I appreciate your kind words, jl. I have been trying to curb my snarky. I have saved posts of this kind from other members, and liberally recycle them. I have an apologetics folder now where I save my favorite stuff. I find that similar themes continue to re-emerge repeatedly, so once I find or write a reply, I can save time by pulling it up. Sometimes I even surprise myself!

 

[guanophore]

I see people everyday that hear the gospel “enlightened” and never come to Christ; don’t you?

No, not a bit. In this context, enlightenment is a condition of having one’s perceptions changed by the light of the HS. These person’s so enlightened are described later in the letter:

Heb 10:32-39

32 But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to abuse and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on the prisoners, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised.

37 “For yet a little while,
and the coming one shall come and shall not tarry;
38 but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him.”

39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

This passage clearly refers to the enlightened ones as having been persecuted for their faith. It is also clear that those who shrink back from that faith for which they suffered may lose their souls. They cannot hope to “receive what was promised” if they have never entered into the covenant where the promise is given.

You have it backwards; the apostate never had the right heart; as demonstrated in the parable of the soils; which you agreed were not believers, yet they were all “enlightened” to a degree by the gospel. You are having it both ways here.

Tanner, you are proposing a definition that is different than what the Apostles used. To the Apostles, an apostate was one who had embraced the faith, then rejected it. One does not embrace the faith without a right heart. Those without a right heart, as you say, walk away. Three fourths of the seeds in the parable embraced the faith. Only one fourth were not believers. Those are the ones that never sprouted. The other 75% were enlightened, sprouted, and then two thirds of those fall away(apostasized) - one choked by weeds, the others did not root. All of those 75% “sprout” (are born again).

** I have asked this several times without a sufficient, logical or rational answer, but what the heck. What are the traditions that Paul referred to; keep in mind they already existed.**

I am trying to explain them to you right now! They are the teachings of the Apostles, referred to in the NT as “the Way”. They constitute a lifestyle and a world view that was committed to the Church by the Apostles. It is through this world view (lens) that we read the scriptures, and that is why our understanding of them differs so much from those who have been separated from the Apostolic succession.

Eph 1:1314 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of {God’s own} possession, to the praise of His glory. This is justification, no sanctifying work done here at this point, but if this person were struck by lightening and died, they would be glorified.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

Time to leave this thread as once someone; seems like the same people, bringing up a forum rule(s), which one I don’t know which you are referring to, but since I value being in the forum, I must leave a thread as soon as someone hints at impropriety; particularly if that person is a Catholic.

Have you ever considered just following the rules, instead of quitting the game?

Since this is the second time you, personally have done this; I will no longer respond to anything you have to say for my own sake. God bless and my prayer for you is this; I hope you see the Light of the gospel as presented by Jesus and the Apostles.

A person must do whatever it takes to attain perfection. There are times when it is proper to flee from occassions of sin, and I understand this. If you are unable to curb your hostility, or unable to comply with the rules, then you are rigtht, it is be circumspect in this matter.

 

[jlhargus]

We will all know in the end if what you claim is true…good luck with your new religion.

JL: Yes we will all know in the end. Thanks for the good luck, however I am not a new Catholic as I have been Catholic for 35 years. I believe you have been in your new Protestant religion a Calvary Chapel Outreach about 20 years.

 

[guanophore]

…good luck with your new religion.

Such a comment seems to imply that Catholicism is a “new religion” in the sense that it is recently developed (instead of started at Pentecost). It also seems to imply that the writer does not consider Catholicism to be Christian, but some other non-christian religion.