C
- Status
E
Eternaly_Secure
Guest
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi Eternaly Secure,
I do have four questions based upon what you said. All I am asking you is what do these scriptural verses mean to you? I have copied and pasted these from a Catholic Bible. I encourage you to look at your own Bible and see how well they compare: there will be no content difference between your Bible and mine.
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ** What does that tell you?
2.) If you only trust the scriptures in your Bible, and you turn to **John 6:53-56
"Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” **What does that tell you?
3.) If you only trust the scriptures in your Bible, and you turn to Mark 14:22-24
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.” What does that tell you?
4.)If you only trust the scriptures in your Bible, and you turn to **John 20:22-23
"And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” **What does that tell you?
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
God bless,
I do have four questions based upon what you said. All I am asking you is what do these scriptural verses mean to you? I have copied and pasted these from a Catholic Bible. I encourage you to look at your own Bible and see how well they compare: there will be no content difference between your Bible and mine.
1.) If you only trust the scriptures in your Bible, and you turn to **Matt 16:18-19
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ** What does that tell you?
2.) If you only trust the scriptures in your Bible, and you turn to **John 6:53-56
"Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” **What does that tell you?
3.) If you only trust the scriptures in your Bible, and you turn to Mark 14:22-24
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.” What does that tell you?
4.)If you only trust the scriptures in your Bible, and you turn to **John 20:22-23
"And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” **What does that tell you?
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
God bless,
E
Eternaly_Secure
Guest
G
Ginger2
Guest
A logical sequence would follow thus:
Luther writes his 95 Theses defending the Pope’s right to sell indulgences,…
38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.
…and condemning those who abuse the selling of indulgences by claiming contrition is not necessary.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
**my next question is **
why did the pope not sanction Tetzel and stop the abuse?
and
why did the Pope respond by issuing a papal bull defending his right to sell indulgences when Luther plainly said 38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.
If pope Leo x had acted honorably, Luther would have stayed in the church, instead it took another two years of dissension to force a council to take appropriate action against the abuses. Even then the RC’s upper most concern appears to have been to save face in the midst of the scandal - otherwise those who perpetrated the abuses would have been disciplined. In stated Luther was excommunicated. Luther turned from a church that turned on him when he was defending the faith.
Why does it come as a surprise that after years of fighting the highest authorities in the church, who persisted in defending their impropriety as righteous, Luther would begin to question the churches authority?
E
Eternaly_Secure
Guest
Hi, to you too!Hi Eternaly Secure,
I do have four questions based upon what you said. All I am asking you is what do these scriptural verses mean to you? I have copied and pasted these from a Catholic Bible. I encourage you to look at your own Bible and see how well they compare: there will be no content difference between your Bible and mine.
1.) If you only trust the scriptures in your Bible, and you turn to **Matt 16:18-19
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ** What does that tell you?
2.) If you only trust the scriptures in your Bible, and you turn to **John 6:53-56
"Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” **What does that tell you?
3.) If you only trust the scriptures in your Bible, and you turn to Mark 14:22-24
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.” What does that tell you?
4.)If you only trust the scriptures in your Bible, and you turn to **John 20:22-23
"And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” **What does that tell you?
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
God bless,
Where you have quoted me, what I actually meant was anything other than the 66 books of my Bible.
- Upon this rock, is Christ telling Peter that he(Christ) is the rock on which he was going to build his church. Keys speak of access to the Kingdom of heaven here on earth. When the church acts in the name of the Lord and does his will, the stamp of God is upon their deeds.
- To eat his flesh and drink his blood means to believe on him, the Jews did not realise that the Lord was using physical things to teach spiritual truths.
- The bread signified his body given, the cup his blood shed.
It was the confirmation of the new covenant and all who believe have part in it. - This is in connection with preaching of the gospel, when a person repents the disciples were authorised to tell them that their sins had been forgiven and like wise when a person rejects the gospel they are to tell them that they are still in their sins. You see you have to compare scripture with scripture and not isolate verses or you get into trouble. And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
G
GKC
Guest
I was a Southern Baptist for many years. There is no general statement of a “Baptist faith or book of discipline” that binds Baptists generally, or Baptists within a specific convention. Baptists don’t work that way. Somewhere around here I have Boyce’s book on systematic theology (missing), but if I found a statement on this subject there, the Baptist church next door could deny it.
GKC
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Ginger2,
There are a couple of problems with your explanaiton of OSAS
allaboutgod.com/once-saved-always-saved.htm
av1611.org/etern.html
gotquestions.org/once-saved-always-saved.html
At no time has the Catholic Church ever taught that anyone is saved through their own works. We are saved through the Divine and Loving Actions of Jesus Christ Who willingly died on the cross for our sins.
Here is one item to seriously consider Matthew 13:18-23 The Parable of the Sower. Some of those ‘seeds’ fell on a rocky place that did not have much soil to develop roots. When persecution came along they fell away. Now, the issue is,of course, “Well, they were never saved anyway - they only had the appearance of being saved!” (Calvin had a major issue with this). Guess what: what makes you think you are any different?
In the Last Judgment account given in Matthew 25:31-46, there were those who had said, “Lord, Lord” but, had not done the deeds required by God (WORKS!
) like: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned…! Imagine! These souls are being judged to see if they actually followed Christ’s commands! Now, it does not stop there: these are not just nice acts - but actions done in the name of Christ.
God bless,
There are a couple of problems with your explanaiton of OSAS
That is the first error: there is no unifying element in Protestant teaching because there is no unity in Protestantism. There are 40,000+ denominations, sects, cults, groups, etc all claiming to be Protestant - and all having some distinction between their beliefs and the beliefs of the group down the street. Contrast this with the defined teaching of the Catholic Church. If there was no other reason for seeing the unifying Power of the Holy Spirit in God’s Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) there it is.
Not to be critical, Ginger, but, this is really pretty lame: those Catholics just bullied those weak Protestants into defending something they did not believe in to begin with… or, was that denying something they never believed (all 40,000+…) and then later admitting to it just to keep the conversation going?
You may be interested in these links that actually and clearly identify OSAS exists and is what to believe (I am providing this strictly in the interest of advising that there is such a doctrine floating around and it is not something made up by Catholics as Ginger is claiming.) Here are 3 links with enough mis-applied scripture quotes to keep this doctrinal error floating around for quite some time:
allaboutgod.com/once-saved-always-saved.htm
av1611.org/etern.html
gotquestions.org/once-saved-always-saved.html
At no time has the Catholic Church ever taught that anyone is saved through their own works. We are saved through the Divine and Loving Actions of Jesus Christ Who willingly died on the cross for our sins.
Here is one item to seriously consider Matthew 13:18-23 The Parable of the Sower. Some of those ‘seeds’ fell on a rocky place that did not have much soil to develop roots. When persecution came along they fell away. Now, the issue is,of course, “Well, they were never saved anyway - they only had the appearance of being saved!” (Calvin had a major issue with this). Guess what: what makes you think you are any different?
In the Last Judgment account given in Matthew 25:31-46, there were those who had said, “Lord, Lord” but, had not done the deeds required by God (WORKS!
) like: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned…! Imagine! These souls are being judged to see if they actually followed Christ’s commands! Now, it does not stop there: these are not just nice acts - but actions done in the name of Christ.God bless,
B
bobregan
Guest
You are incorrect, Edwin.
Let me refer you to a Catholic apologetics web-site called www.biblechristiansociety.com. There are excellent MP3 downloads explaining Church teachings. One is title “Apostolic authority and the Infallibility of the Pope”. It is excellent, and explains clearly and fully the teaching of the Church on Apostolic Authority and papal infallability. The downloads refer much to Scripture explaining these teachings. Trust me when I say they’re excellent and answer all questions, much better than I can.
If you don’t want to access the downloads, let me know. I’ll try and summarize the major points, there is much information.
Bob
Perhaps not too rare an event. A few years ago I was listening to EWTN on my way to work (I had Sirius then), and the morning devotional used the words from A Mighty Fortress. Yes, I double-checked the dial.
Jon
G
Ginger2
Guest
Woo-hoo! in just a matter of a couple days the numbers has jumped from 30,000 to 40,000!!
Funny, since I was just told today for the umteenth time that I and another Protestant sound like the same person! How is it Catholics can confuse so many, many different Protestants as being one person, if we are all so very different in our theology?
FYI, we all adhere to the same basic doctrines of Christianity - that’s why you guys can’t tell us apart!
Not exactly, you just forced us into a corner of correcting a false definition.
I have repeatedly been accused by Catholics of believing things I don’t believe. OSAS is one example of that. The only reason I ever tried to define it was to explain I don’t believe what Catholics think I believe. I had never, ever before used the terminology “OSAS” nor have I ever, ever heard anyone in any church I attended preached OSAS.
I will check out your links.
Ginger
E
Eternaly_Secure
Guest
What church do you go to?Woo-hoo! in just a matter of a couple days the numbers has jumped from 30,000 to 40,000!!
Funny, since I was just told today for the umteenth time that I and another Protestant sound like the same person! How is it Catholics can confuse so many, many different Protestants as being one person, if we are all so very different in our theology?
FYI, we all adhere to the same basic doctrines of Christianity - that’s why you guys can’t tell us apart!
Not exactly, you just forced us into a corner of correcting a false definition.
I have repeatedly been accused by Catholics of believing things I don’t believe. OSAS is one example of that. The only reason I ever tried to define it was to explain I don’t believe what Catholics think I believe. I had never, ever before used the terminology “OSAS” nor have I ever, ever heard anyone in any church I attended preached OSAS.
I will check out your links.
Ginger
G
Ginger2
Guest
Apparently you did not read the entire explanation or you did not read well. These do not prove what you claim.
First link includes this disclaimer: “Someone who continues to willingly and blatantly live in sin has not truly accepted Christ”
While I didn’t see in the first link a specific denomination source,
Second link is not a Protestant denomination at all. There are lots of heretics out there both Catholic and non-catholic. They are free to start Websites to use as platforms to spout their nonsense - that doesn’t mean they know the first thing about what Christians believe.
The third,… I was almost thinking I was going to have to acknowledge this link taught error.
I consider this a valid Protestant site. The response was, IMO, incomplete. But when I reached the bottom of the page where there were related questions. I clicked on the one saying: “If our salvation is eternally secure, why does the Bible warn so strongly against apostasy?”
The answer began by explaining about …
So you see, this site is not promoting the Catholic definition of OSAS.
The two that appear Protestant in nature agree OSAS does not mean you can blatantly continue in sin. The middle one sounds cult-ish to me.
Now you have presented no Protestant denomination that promotes the false teaching.
Ginger
G
Ginger2
Guest
I was raised Catholic. Since leaving the Catholic Church, I have attended mostly Baptist churches, but also Methodist and non-denominational.
I am not currently involved with a church.
Ginger
K
kalt
Guest
Then it includes all the books that the Septuagint did?The Old testament I use is the very same one that Jesus Christ used and he should know, it’s his Word after all.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
The book of James was never taken out, even by Luther. Luther did not spend a significant amount of energy trying to remove James. It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books, including James. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534. During these years, various incomplete editions were released. He also translated and included the Deutero-Canonicals.
When Luther published his Bible, a layman found the entirety of the canon. Luther expressed his thoughts on the canon in “prefaces” placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books. These prefaces were not out of the ordinary. Luther was not engaging in any sort of outrageous scholarly behavior.
Luther had doubts about the canonicity of James, but these were not enough to deter him from citing or preaching from the book. For instance, in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21.
A common myth I’ve found among Catholics is the notion that Melanchthon stopped Luther from removing James from the New Testament. The funny part about this, is usually Melanchthon is seen as this meek and mild scholar who cowered in Luther’s shadow. In regard to the canon though, Melanchthon was somehow able to “control Luther.”
For instance, Catholic apologist Steve Ray has made this assertion: “If it weren’t for his theologian Philip Melanchthon, Protestants would no longer consider James, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude and a few other books as inspired Scripture.”
I’m not exactly sure where Mr. Ray came up with this, I’ve never found any documentation to its factuality. The most in depth treatment of Luther’s Bible in English was done by M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible: An Historical Presentation Together with A Collection of Sources (Ohio: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1934). This book is the most in-depth thorough treatment on this subject. Within 600 pages, Reu makes no mention of such an important discussion between Luther and Melanchthon.
for more information on Luther’s canon issues, you may find my paper helpful:
Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture
James Swan
K
kalt
Guest
My hand is up, can I answer?
Am I saved? Hmm. Well, God has offered me salvation. I have been baptized, but I am not guaranteed salvation any more than any other person on the planet is, including you.
K
kalt
Guest
So then no one can know that they are saved. Case closed.
E
Eternaly_Secure
Guest
Certainly not.
E
Eternaly_Secure
Guest
Then my friend you are not saved, having not put all your trust in Christ.My hand is up, can I answer?
Am I saved? Hmm. Well, God has offered me salvation. I have been baptized, but I am not guaranteed salvation any more than any other person on the planet is, including you.
I am saved, but not by works, by faith.
- Status