Someone can lose their salvation?

[Randy_Carson]

Who and what did the OT point to? Wasn’t that what Paul is reminding Timothy? verse 15 "and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. The New Testament are the things the Apostles were teaching and preaching…how hard is that?Really? The New Testament contains EVERY SINGLE THING that the Apostles could recall about their THREE YEARS with Jesus? Of ALL the things that the Apostles could teach, EVERY SINGLE doctrine is dutifully recorded in the pages of scripture?

Scripture itself refutes you:

Mark 4:33-34
With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

We’re never told in the Bible what these other “similar parables” were, but Mark obviously knew that Jesus had told them. Therefore, knowledge of some of Jesus’ teaching existed outside of the written pages of the scriptures.

Luke 24:27, 32
27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself…32They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

The Bible does not record those things that Jesus taught them as they walked along.

John 20:30-31
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John acknowledges that the disciples knew more from direct eyewitness observation than he had recorded in his writings.

John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

John reiterates that there was much more from the life of Jesus than was contained in his small book. As an eyewitness of those things, he would have been able to share those memories with those to whom he passed on the faith.

i don’t know if the the Septuagint includes some books not found in the Hebrew Bible. Many Protestant Bibles follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional books. Roman Catholics, however, include some of these books in their canon while Eastern Orthodox Churches use all the books of the Septuagint.

 

[Matariel]

I don’t recall the Apostles or Jesus being very formal; but the Catholic tradiiton with all its pageantry, rituals and traditions could certainly classify as formal. I don’t know how much the clothing that the Pope wears when he is decked out, but I would bet its more than most of us make in a year or two, but it appears very formal. I wonder what Peter would think and if he would be jealous because he did not get all that. This would be a new thread, in fact now that I’m at the end…I think all of this might be somewhat off topic.

culturalcatholic.com/PopeBenedictXVI.htm

The vestments that the Pope, bishops, priests, and deacons wear is for the glorification of God and His holy Sacraments.

And just because the Lord Jesus Christ was born in a smelly stable, does that mean we should keep him there? No, we should honour Him with
gold, silver, and the finest we have-- just like the Three Magi who offered gold, frankincense, and myrrh to the Lord, so the Church offers such things to Him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t recall the Apostles or Jesus being very formal; but the Catholic tradiiton with all its pageantry, rituals and traditions could certainly classify as formal. I don’t know how much the clothing that the Pope wears when he is decked out, but I would bet its more than most of us make in a year or two, but it appears very formal. I wonder what Peter would think and if he would be jealous because he did not get all that. This would be a new thread, in fact now that I’m at the end…I think all of this might be somewhat off topic.

I’m not sure whether you’re just kidding or not…in case it’s the latter, here’s an article that explains the difference between formal and material sufficiency:

**MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY **
By JAMES AKIN
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (*Tradition and Traditions *[New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it.

As for the Pope wearing distinctive clothing, well, so do doctors and firemen and judges, and no one thinks badly of them.

Peter probably wouldn’t care one way or the other about the fancy clothes…but I’m sure he would recognize the authority of his successor.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Guanophore,

Your patience is both a marvel and an inspiration. This was truly an excellent post

No, I am sure he was referring to the Early Church Fathers. They were all Catholic.

Sorry about the confusion. Yes “ECF” is Early Chruch Fathers.

Again, Bravo!! I think you answered all of these objections very well.

God bless

 

[SemperReformada]

Consequently, while the Greek Septuagint was known to Jesus, Paul and Timothy, modern Protestants insist upon using an Old Testament that was altered by the removal of books (such as Maccabees and others) at the Council of Jamnia in 70 A.D. Unfortunately, Jamnia was not a real council; it was a meeting of rabbis, and their decision concerning the canon wasn’t binding on all of Judaism.

I’m pretty sure the article you posted by Steve Ray on Jamnia clearly states that there is no evidence that the council of Jamnia ever discussed the books you call the deutero’s.

You say one thing in the above post and post a link to an article that completely disputes your position…

 

[Matariel]

I’m pretty sure the article you posted by Steve Ray on Jamnia clearly states that there is no evidence that the council of Jamnia ever discussed the books you call the deutero’s.

You say one thing in the above post and post a link to an article that completely disputes your position…

No, they didn’t like the Greek Septuagint, since that’s what the Christians were using.

But we do know that the Deuteros were quoted, alluded to, and had prophecies about/in the New Testament. And that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint.

And that they were used as Scripture (whether secondary or not) for ages before the Protestant Revolt of the 1500’s when the Protestants threw them out. However, they didn’t succede in throwing out Esther, Revelation, James, II Peter, or the other books they wanted to throw out.

The Anglican Church, however, unlike the Protestants, did retain the accepted Scripture, but considered the Deuteros as secondary in nature.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NonCatholic,

I have been very impressed with the quality of posts that have been sent in response to your various statements. Truly, just taking the time to read and reflect on what was written by these generous posters is an education all by itself. I know I have learned a lot.

Only the deceived are deceived. All I can tell you is that the Holy Spirit will witness to your spirit; just as the Bible tells us. If you are walking according to the will of God; your will will be His will…now that is unity in spirit and in truth; just as the Bible tells us. Also, when you are walking according to your own will as a believer, the Holy Spirit will warn you through your conscience and one does not yield, He will chasten you…that is not very desirable from a human standpoint.

If this is true, does this mean that … only the correct are correct? only the tall are tall? only the short are short? Probably so

The Holy Spirit knows … and, as the Spirit of the Catholic Church He has protected it from error and the Gates of Hell, ever since Jesus built HIs Chruch upon Peter - the Rock - **( Matt 16:18 ). **

Coming to grips with God’s plan for salvation can be a real challenge. But, it is God’s Plan to do work out one’s salvation in fear and trembling **( Phil 2:12 ). ** within the the love and affection of Holy Mother Chruch.

My thinking about the Holy Spirit warning people is that He has chosen to work through men to get His message to all. From what I have been reading, the Word of God has been given to you and you have been instructed. The ball is now in your court. The various anti-Catholic statements you have been spewing forth are not helping your understanding … and, they are certainly not helping the quality and charity of your posts. I am confident you can do better! But, please understand, it will take prayer, time and work to get over these prejudices.

God bless,

 

[SemperReformada]

No, they didn’t like the Greek Septuagint, since that’s what the Christians were using.

No, they didn’t like the LXX but I’m not sure what your point is.

But we do know that the Deuteros were quoted, alluded to, and had prophecies about/in the New Testament. And that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint.

What version of the LXX did Jesus and the apostles use? We have no way of knowing which books were contained in the LXX of the first century or if their was more than one version. The earliest manuscripts we have date only back to the 4th century and are Christian manuscripts and they contain differing indexes of books. I believe they are the Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sainaticus,…I thinkt there is a fourth but I forget the title of the manuscript.

As far as quoting goes non-canonical works were quoted in the NT so a mere quote, if there is one, doesn’t prove anything.

If Jesus or the apostles had quoted the deutero’s with “Thus sayeth the Lord…” or “It is written…” that would be proof that the deutero’s were thought to be canonical.

And that they were used as Scripture (whether secondary or not) for ages before the Protestant Revolt of the 1500’s when the Protestants threw them out. However, they didn’t succede in throwing out Esther, Revelation, James, II Peter, or the other books they wanted to throw out.

The Anglican Church, however, unlike the Protestants, did retain the accepted Scripture, but considered the Deuteros as secondary in nature.

The anglican church is a protestant church is it not?

Anyway, even at Trent you will find the council fathers debating the status of the deutero’s. Since Trent was the first dogmatic, infallible proclamation of the OT canon effectually promulgated to the church universal one had quite a bit of freedom in what OT books to accept. For example, Cardinal Cajetan rejected the deutero’s and he was sent to the Diet of Worms to question Luther.

 

[NonCatholic]

I’m not sure whether you’re just kidding or not…in case it’s the latter, here’s an article that explains the difference between formal and material sufficiency:

**MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY **
By JAMES AKIN
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (*Tradition and Traditions *[New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it.

As for the Pope wearing distinctive clothing, well, so do doctors and firemen and judges, and no one thinks badly of them.

Peter probably wouldn’t care one way or the other about the fancy clothes…but I’m sure he would recognize the authority of his successor.

You crack me up and have an answer outside of Scripture for everything. All of you spend more time defending the Church than you do Scripture…I wonder why that might be. npatrol:

 

[NonCatholic]

Hi, NonCatholic,

I have been very impressed with the quality of posts that have been sent in response to your various statements. Truly, just taking the time to read and reflect on what was written by these generous posters is an education all by itself. I know I have learned a lot.

If this is true, does this mean that … only the correct are correct? only the tall are tall? only the short are short? Probably so

The Holy Spirit knows … and, as the Spirit of the Catholic Church He has protected it from error and the Gates of Hell, ever since Jesus built HIs Chruch upon Peter - the Rock - **( Matt 16:18 ). **

Coming to grips with God’s plan for salvation can be a real challenge. But, it is God’s Plan to do work out one’s salvation in fear and trembling **( Phil 2:12 ). ** within the the love and affection of Holy Mother Chruch.

My thinking about the Holy Spirit warning people is that He has chosen to work through men to get His message to all. From what I have been reading, the Word of God has been given to you and you have been instructed. The ball is now in your court. The various anti-Catholic statements you have been spewing forth are not helping your understanding … and, they are certainly not helping the quality and charity of your posts. I am confident you can do better! But, please understand, it will take prayer, time and work to get over these prejudices.

God bless,

The pot calling the kettle black! :hammering:

 

[Shlomey]

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those** who were once illuminated**, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.

Apostasy is not possible with a “once-saved-always-saved” idea.

You are once saved always saved in heaven alone. Not on earth.

 

[Shlomey]

You crack me up and have an answer outside of Scripture for everything. All of you spend more time defending the Church than you do Scripture…I wonder why that might be. npatrol:

I wonder how people think they can use Scripture properly without the Church by whose God-given authority it was compiled.

 

[SemperReformada]

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.

Apostasy is not possible with a “once-saved-always-saved” idea.

You are once saved always saved in heaven alone. Not on earth.

Yup…that’s a tough one. But I’ve always wondered what people do with the back end of the verses you quoted. It says that it’s “…impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance”?

 

[guanophore]

You crack me up and have an answer outside of Scripture for everything. All of you spend more time defending the Church than you do Scripture…I wonder why that might be. npatrol:

I should think that would be pretty obvious. You are not attacking the Scripture.

 

[Matariel]

No, they didn’t like the LXX but I’m not sure what your point is…I thinkt there is a fourth but I forget the title of the manuscript.

This is admittedly not my area of expertise, so I’ll let Guanophore and **ChurchMilitant **deal with this section of your post.

The Anglican Church is a Protestant church is it not?

No, the English Revolt was a separate movement and resulted from quite different reasons than the Protestant Revolt of Luther and Calvin and the rest. Only later were the Anglicans began to be called (and even sometimes refer to themselves as) “Protestants”, but really most historians consider them a separate branch now. They are admittedly stylistically and theologically quite different from Protestants.

Anyway, even at Trent you will find the council fathers debating the status of the deutero’s. Since Trent was the first dogmatic, infallible proclamation of the OT canon effectually promulgated to the church universal one had quite a bit of freedom in what OT books to accept. For example, Cardinal Cajetan rejected the deutero’s and he was sent to the Diet of Worms to question Luther.

Well, this is admittedly not my area of expertise, but I do know that there was a debate over their secondary nature-- I thought before that they were generally accepted as Scripture though. After all there was the Synods of the 300’s which accepted them, and that would be an example of Ordinary Magisterium.

 

[NonCatholic]

Jesus distinguished between sacred tradition, and the traditions of man. So did the Apostles. As long a no traditions of man interfered with the Sacred

But they do; once you go in that direction, then the traditions become as or more important than Christ. Look at the history of Christian religion.

Looking at things through anti-Catholic lenses colors ones observations. In fact, Jesus and the Apostles upheld and practiced the bulk of tradition, both sacred, and non.

What non “sacred tradition” did they follow; I remember Jesus chastising the religious leaders for this very thing (i.e healing on the Sabbath ,not doing the ceremonial washing before eating, eating with tax collectors - had to throw that one in there.)

Any recognition by a “body of men” would be worthless, really. No body of “men” is qualified to make judgement on the Word of God. The canon was formed by the Church, whose Head is Christ, and who is ensouled by the HS. It is these divine elements, not the human elements, that make the Church infalible.

When did God say the Catholic church was infallible; I don’t recall that one. When has the HS took up resident within an institution; I thought He took resident with individual believers that make up a body with “each member” contributing by the direction of the Head.

No, it is not. It is a library of material. The Church compiled all these separate books and placed them in a collection. None of those references apply to any book other than the one about which they were written. The Church has the authority to add and subtract from the Bible. The books themselves do not make this determination. They cannot, any more than they can teach themselves.

Quote: “The Church has the authority to add and subtract from the Bible.”
Is that Catholic or did you just step out of bounds?

No, it is a collection of Holy Writings created to support the Gospel.

Is this Catholic?

There is nothing in scripture that refers to Baptism or the Lord’s supper as an “ordinance”. Neither is this consistent with Apostolic Teaching. This term is a man made invention of the Reformation.

Ordinance: An authoritative command or order. Yes I believe we are commanded to be Baptized and to partake in the Lords Supper; so yes “ordinance” is the correct term.

However, the NT does reflect the Oral Traditions. It was created out of them.

I think I agree as stated.

The Church is also God Breathed, and it did not stop being so after the NT was written.

I assume you are speaking of the Catholic Church. I don’t remember a religious institution being God breathed, but I do know that Scripture is God breathed.

I agree. the context of the NT is the Catholic Church. It was written by, for , and about Catholics. It is impossible to understand it correctly apart from this context.

According to your learning, but not according to the Bible.

Because we don’t believe that. We believe that the Holy Writings, though they are profitable, cannot save. Only Jesus is sufficient to save a person from condemnation.

Since, the Bible comes from His mouth; how do you separate the two?

It is a work of the devil for the Body of Christ to be united?

No.

If you think it is “of the devil” to be united with Catholics, why are you here on this forum?

I apologize; I believe it is the work of the devil because there are few representatives on both sides, if you will, that speak contrary to both positions and try to represent those they do not necessarily represent. This causes confusion in my opinion.

 

[SemperReformada]

No, the English Revolt was a separate movement and resulted from quite different reasons than the Protestant Revolt of Luther and Calvin and the rest. Only later were the Anglicans began to be called (and even sometimes refer to themselves as) “Protestants”, but really most historians consider them a separate branch now. They are admittedly stylistically and theologically quite different from Protestants.

I didn’t know that about the anglicans.

 

[NonCatholic]

I should think that would be pretty obvious. You are not attacking the Scripture.

That cracks me up to, you say I attack because I tell you the truth of the Bible.

 

[NonCatholic]

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those** who were once illuminated**, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.

Apostasy is not possible with a “once-saved-always-saved” idea.

You are once saved always saved in heaven alone. Not on earth.

This is the third parenthetical warning in the Book of Hebrews given in very specific terms to a group who have intellectually responded to the Gospel, who have, on the outside, made a profession of faith in Christ, but who are not real believers.They know the truth. They believe it. They even follow some of the patterns of Christians, but they aren’t for real; and they are warned periodically through the Book of Hebrews that they better be for real lest having heard the Gospel so much and become so familiar with it, they find themselves falling away into an evil heart of unbelief, and it is impossible for them to be saved. Nothing to do with the assurance of salvation; more to do with the assurance of destruction.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

That cracks me up to, you say I attack because I tell you the truth of the Bible.

You need to read what guanophore wrote again.

Originally Posted by guanophore
I should think that would be pretty obvious. You are not attacking the Scripture.

He stated you were not attacking the Scriptures.

God bless