Split:OSAS (from Father Corapi ... on Baptism & Protestants)

[Seeking12]

yes. sure it is.

we know who is preaching another Gospel, dont we?

to the Church was promised the HS to guide Her into all Thruth. it is all there. on the other hand what i do not see is the promise of the HS to each individual to enterpret the Word of God. do you see it? show me.

**
“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the
Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
St. Athanasius, Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D…**

If it is all there as you say, then provide your evidence…since it is all there it should take you but a few minutes…right?

 

[SteveGC]

The message is so simple; Jesus is saying that those who overcome; will be clothed and don’t worry friends you CAN’T be blotted out.

That’s strange…my Bible doesn’t say “CAN’T”…it says “WILL NOT”. Does your’s say “CAN’T”?

Interesting that you infer it is “Can’t”, which infers “is not possible”, which suits your theology.

Whereas “Will Not”, infers possibility, and that Christ’s WILL is the determining factor, which does NOT suit your theology of OSAS.

God Bless

 

[wisdomseeker]

If it is all there as you say, then provide your evidence…since it is all there it should take you but a few minutes…right?

obviously you got nothing to prove your assumption, so you go around in circles. i am waiting.

"Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the
Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian."
St. Athanasius, Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D…

 

[Seeking12]

That’s strange…my Bible doesn’t say “CAN’T”…it says “WILL NOT”. Does your’s say “CAN’T”?

Interesting that you infer it is “Can’t”, which infers “is not possible”, which suits your theology.

Whereas “Will Not”, infers possibility, and that Christ’s WILL is the determining factor, which does NOT suit your theology of OSAS.

God Bless

**Show where it is possible to be removed; the Bible says these names were written from before the foundation of the world. It is also clear that the names are of the elect; if you are part of the elect can you lose that salvation?

Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, {everyone} whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. **

 

[Zenas]

To Seeking 12, ppasa316 and others who advocate OSAS, I pose this question: If OSAS is an important and valid Christian doctrine, why was it not conceived until the 16th Century? Before Calvin, this doctrine was not debated or written about because it didn’t even exist. All Christians everywhere just assumed that falling from grace was a concept as integral to Christianity (and as undebatable) as the fact of Jesus dying on the cross. Don’t you think that if OSAS were a valid doctrine, someone somewhere would have proposed it over a span of 1550 years?

And since it wasn’t proposed, don’t you think that makes a mockery out of these words of Christ?

• But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. John 14:26.
• I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not over power it. Matthew 16:18.
  
  If the Holy Spirit were to make everything known to the apostles, how could they have overlooked this important doctrine?
  And if the gates of hell were not to prevail against the Church, how could it have fallen into error so early and stayed in error more than 1500 years? Rather than reading 20th Century theologians who make up their doctrines to suit their beliefs, I recommend that you read the early church fathers. Do you really think that you have more insight into the scriptures than these men who actually knew the apostles and learned under them?

 

[wisdomseeker]

To Seeking 12, ppasa316 and others who advocate OSAS, I pose this question: If OSAS is an important and valid Christian doctrine, why was it not conceived until the 16th Century? Before Calvin, this doctrine was not debated or written about because it didn’t even exist. All Christians everywhere just assumed that falling from grace was a concept as integral to Christianity (and as undebatable) as the fact of Jesus dying on the cross. Don’t you think that if OSAS were a valid doctrine, someone somewhere would have proposed it over a span of 1550 years?

And since it wasn’t proposed, don’t you think that makes a mockery out of these words of Christ?

• But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. John 14:26.
• I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not over power it. Matthew 16:18.
  
  If the Holy Spirit were to make everything known to the apostles, how could they have overlooked this important doctrine?
  And if the gates of hell were not to prevail against the Church, how could it have fallen into error so early and stayed in error more than 1500 years? Do you really think that you have more insight into the scriptures than men who actually knew and learned under the apostles?

oh they will tell you that the Bible was not understood until they got a hold of the Bible in the 1600s.

**
“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the
Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
St. Athanasius, Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D…**

 

[ppasa316]

You are running away ppasa. You have not even addressed a single thing I have said. All you have said is “I am not rightly dividing God’s word” but you have not used scripture to demonstrate that. What have I said that does not make sense?
I have given you dozens of scriptures supporting my position but you have ignored every single one of them without even asking a single question for clarification or proving one of them “wrongly divided” (as you say it). Why am I getting the impression that you think that you are the only one on the planet who knows how to rightly divide scripture? Do you think you are infallible in your scripture interpretation and no one else is?

You are not making a good defense of your faith by not presenting any evidence to show where Catholics are wrong.

James

I told you i was not going anywhere. Is that too hard for you to understand as well. I gave you answers but you do not want to research yourself. I will always stand by God’s Word. I do not get into subjects that i do not understand. I also stand by what scholars say on the subject. Have a blessed day. God Bless Friend:thumbsup:

 

[ppasa316]

To Seeking 12, ppasa316 and others who advocate OSAS, I pose this question: If OSAS is an important and valid Christian doctrine, why was it not conceived until the 16th Century? Before Calvin, this doctrine was not debated or written about because it didn’t even exist. All Christians everywhere just assumed that falling from grace was a concept as integral to Christianity (and as undebatable) as the fact of Jesus dying on the cross. Don’t you think that if OSAS were a valid doctrine, someone somewhere would have proposed it over a span of 1550 years?

And since it wasn’t proposed, don’t you think that makes a mockery out of these words of Christ?

• But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. John 14:26.
• I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not over power it. Matthew 16:18.
  
  If the Holy Spirit were to make everything known to the apostles, how could they have overlooked this important doctrine?
  And if the gates of hell were not to prevail against the Church, how could it have fallen into error so early and stayed in error more than 1500 years? Rather than reading 20th Century theologians who make up their doctrines to suit their beliefs, I recommend that you read the early church fathers. Do you really think that you have more insight into the scriptures than these men who actually knew the apostles and learned under them?

I thought the subject was on Baptism and confessing your sins to a priest. I haven’t said anything about OSAS. I do agree with Seeking 12 though.

 

[SteveGC]

This was helpful for me in understanding folks like Seeking12. It helps reveal some things that we can all agree on, and things that are off limits. I recommend it for anyone here who is aggravated at the incessant arguments made by him at CAF. If he himself has not read this article, I would recommend it to him, as well

A TipToe Through the TULIP

 

[Michael_Francis]

Over 109 posts pruned, edited, or deleted in order to make this topical split.

Please maintain the very soul of charity in all subsequent postings and scrupulously remain on topic.
Very sincerely,

 

[WMM]

(Edited)

Secondly, show me where in the Bible, that a person receives 100% saving grace from God at one time.

God Bless you

I would like to see that verse too,

 

[Church_Militant]

**You are reading into the passage a common error when applying your misunderstanding. **

Not so. Just look at what it says. The fact that Our Lord says that those who overcome will not be blotted out also means that those who do not overcome will be.

**Taking a poll to see if other natural men can see is a exercise in redundancy. **

There you assume that we are “natural men”, a fallacious premise.

The message is so simple; Jesus is saying that those who overcome; will be clothed and don’t worry friends you can’t be blotted out.

In an apocalyptic message directed to one of the 7 churches mentioned you take that exhortation and force your own theological bias onto the passage?

Sorry, the sense is very plain and I have no problem at all with the Word of God. I just disagree with your errant modern personal interpretation of it.

Often times the Scripture will present a positive, then the negative to emphasize a point.

1 Peter 3 has a few examples, but in this aspect in being consistent with Scripture you don’t get the negative because it doesn’t exist unless, someone like yourself, imposes you misunderstanding on the text. :hypno: Though you are correct on that blue part I disagree on the rest, and would point out that that is pretty much how I would sum up your own situation.

You are forcing your theological interpretation onto a text that plainly contradicts it.

What is it that the Word of God says about this? Oh yeah…

James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.

 

[Church_Militant]

The bible is very clear about what happens to those who proclaim a gospel that is not the gospel of Jesus Christ; it is also far worse for those that expose those beliefs to others; like yourself for example.

Yeah, well I have already shown who that would be and the verse from James 3:1 also deals with that. I think you’re in some jeopardy there S12.
Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

 

[Church_Militant]

That’s strange…my Bible doesn’t say “CAN’T”…it says “WILL NOT”. Does your’s say “CAN’T”?

Interesting that you infer it is “Can’t”, which infers “is not possible”, which suits your theology.

Whereas “Will Not”, infers possibility, and that Christ’s WILL is the determining factor, which does NOT suit your theology of OSAS.

God Bless

My point exactly. Thank you!

 

[Church_Militant]

I will always stand by God’s Word. I do not get into subjects that i do not understand. I also stand by what scholars say on the subject. Have a blessed day. God Bless Friend:thumbsup:

Then let’s look at the scriptures on confessing sins.

John 20:21-23 is so important.
“21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

My thinking is that if our Lord had not intended to make the Sacrament of Reconciliation a means of grace unto salvation, then why in the world would He have made this statement and given both this power and command to the presbyters of His church?

James 5:16 & 1st John 1:9 also offer us more insight into this doctrine.

James 5: 14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

1st John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

All these passages expressly speak of confession of sins and so I have to ask, then just how will those outside the Catholic Church explain the obvious link between these passages?

Here is a further outline for study on this sacrament courtesy of John Martignoni and his Bible Christian Society.

Confession

A. Confess your sins to men
~ Leviticus 5:5-6 (“All scripture…”: 2 Tim 3:16)
(Law is a shadow: Hebrews 10:1)
~ 1 John 1:9
~ James 5:16

B. Can men forgive sins?
~ Only God has the power to forgive sins but He exercises this power through men.
~ Mark 2:7
~ Matthew 9:1-8
When the crowds saw it, they were afraid , and the glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

• Matthew 9:8

To me, the scriptures are clear, and I can’t help but praise and thank God for His wisdom and mercy that (knowing the weaknesses of mankind) equipped His church with the means to help His children overcome our weaknesses and sins.

 

[guanophore]

You said it perfectly; so stop talking after that. How are you going to use semantics to change the truth you just stated? Can’t wait to see how you pull this of; if you do, then you are in the right religion.

Semantics do not change Truth. The Truth taught by Jesus, received by the Church through His Apostles, is not perceived in the same way by all people. Semantics refers to “meaning”. What I understand of “faith working through love” may be different from what you understand. The Apostles are the ones that govern Catholic meaning. We understand what we read by using the same lenses they used when they wrote the NT.

I find it quite cheeky of you to direct me to “stop talking”. In fact the Apostles did not “stop talkingafter that”. Therefore, if I am to accurately represent the Apostolic faith, I will need to follow their lead.

If you actually have a point, can you spell it out. We are speaking of being saved; either you are or you aren’t.

Seeking12, you must realize by now that Catholics are not at liberty to exchange the gospel we received from the Apostles for “another gospel” concocted 500 years ago by persons who were angry the church founded by Chris.

Your notion of “you are or you aren’t” are not consistent with the Apostolic Gospel. The Apostles told us that it was presumptious to judge ourselves, and that we should not assume that we have "already attained. So for us, it is not like that.

If you want to talk about sanctifying work of the Spirit after one is saved, then we can. Please try to stay focused. Thank you.

For us, sanctification is part of salvation. If you wish to moderate a non-Catholic discussion, I suggest you take it elsewhere, or perhaps consider starting a non-Catholic forum of your own.

 

[guanophore]

Interesting that the comment of St Athanasius makess claims that you nor anyone else can affirm from Jesus mouth or the Apostles mouths. Unfortunately for him; if he held to those views he is forevermore in a place I would not desire.

Indeed they ARE verifiable, as the unbroken and infallible Catholic Teachign since the beginning.

 

[CentralFLJames]

For completeness to prior posts I wanted to give some references to the MP3 files for the debates between Dr. Martin[sup]†[/sup] and Fr. Pacwa that were seen on the John Ankerberg shows in the 1987 debates.

I want to retract a prior statement I made that Dr. Martin was an anti-Catholic since he did resist a lot of pressure from fundamentalists to declare Catholics a cult as he did so many other pseudo-Christian sects and other religions in his books (in particular: The Kingdom of the Cults ) [sup]†[/sup] Note: Dr. Martin died shortly after these debates in June 26, 1989.

Context:
1987: “The John Ankerberg Show,” a fifteen episode debate between Dr. Walter Martin, Ph.D. and Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, S.J. on Evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism, February to April, 1987.

BIO of Fr. Pacwa:
Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, S.J. (Jesuit) received his B.A. in Philosophy and Theology from the University of Detroit, summa cum laude. He received his Master of Divinity and S.T.B. from the Jesuit School of Theology of Loyola University, magna cum laude. He was ordained a Catholic priest in 1976 and then continued his studies, receiving a Ph.D. in Old Testament from Vanderbilt University in 1984.

http://archive.salvationhistory.com/spcImages/2008 Media Package-Father Pacwa PHOTO.jpg

BIO of Dr. Mitchel
See here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Martin#Broadcaster.2C_debater_and_lecturer

The UTUBE files are from John Ankerberg’s TV shows and are all chopped up on the UTUBE site to get them under posting limits. They are also highly edited and reformatted to fit into a multi-week TV program for Ankerberg’s TV program. That reformatting gives Ankerberg 40-50% of each segment’s air-time to artificially put Ankerberg in front of the camera (after the fact) to re-contextualize and re-frame the debates and editorialize them to meet his agenda for HIS TV audience.

The following MP3 files do not have the video but are the uninterrupted audio from the dialog without all the Ankerberg embellishments and cut-to-commercial interruptions and naked edits.

I think Fr. Pacwa comes across extremely viable and competent and I really like the man. I sense that the “debate” on Justification (which I studied with great interest) shows the two men forgetting about the debate and focusing instead on sharing points of view and interest in getting to the the truth and deeper meanings of the scriptures (which is great!). I confess after listening I can respect Dr. Martin since he does understand a fair amount of the Catholic position - but just is arbitrary in choosing the Protestant new tradition over the 2,000 year old Catholic teaching. Martin tries the typical Protestant maneuver to try to construct strawman arguments on what the Trent Council texts mean to corner Catholics into Protestant polemics - but Pacwa does not let him get away with it. Sadly, Ankerberg often tries to interrupt to drive constructive dialog between the two back into a “contest” and pit each man against the other like gladiators forced to entertain him in a fight – which behavior and relish for entertainment puts an ironic twist on some Protestants calling Catholics “Romanish” if you ask me.

[Walter Martin vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa on Peter and Papacy MP3](http://www.bringyou.to/Mart(name removed by moderator)acwaPapacy.mp3)

[Walter Martin vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa on Justification by Faith MP3](http://www.bringyou.to/Mart(name removed by moderator)acwaJustification.mp3)

[Walter Martin vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa on Marian Doctrines MP3](http://www.bringyou.to/Mart(name removed by moderator)acwaMary.mp3)

[Walter Martin vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa on Confession and Penance MP3](http://www.bringyou.to/Mart(name removed by moderator)acwaPenance.mp3)

[Walter Martin vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa on Purgatory MP3](http://www.bringyou.to/Mart(name removed by moderator)acwaPurgatory.mp3)

James

 

[guanophore]

“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the
Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached
by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
St. Athanasius, Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D…

Interesting that the comment of St Athanasius makess claims that you nor anyone else can affirm from Jesus mouth or the Apostles mouths. Unfortunately for him; if he held to those views he is forevermore in a place I would not desire.

It is amazing you could make such a comment, Seeking12. It demonstrates a lack of appreciation for your own family history. St. Athanasius is a champion for the faith. He also wrote this before the NT was canonized, and during those centuries the tradition of the fathers, the Apostolic tradition, that prevented the Church from falling into heresy. You might wish to consider learning more about Athanasius someday, and the heresies that he helped defeat, some of them almost single handedly. Without him, you would not have the NT that you are using today to condemn him to the pit.

These are the Traditions the Apostles instructed the disciples 'hold fast" and St. Paul commended the disciples for holding to them. St. Athanasius, as do all Catholics today, follow this Apostolic command about the Sacred Tradition. It was from this Tradition that the NT was penned and formed (canonized).

 

[sodak]

I am not going anywhere. If you knew what you were talking about and rightly dividing God’s Word I wouldn’t mind debating you more. You just don’t make any sense. You seem to be an angry Catholic and that’s now way to be is it. Your not doing the Catholic faith any good by your replys and lack of knowledge. Anyway I said my piece and now its on to another subject. God Bless you my friend. You will be in my prayers

In other words, you don’t have a rebuttal, so you’re bowing out via redirection. Nice try.

If you actually have a point, can you spell it out. We are speaking of being saved; either you are or you aren’t. If you want to talk about sanctifying work of the Spirit after one is saved, then we can. You are all over the map and slinging a little mud along the way. Please try to stay focused. Thank you.

Correct. None of us are saved. Some of us, however, are working on our salvation in fear and trembling. You’re saved once God tells you that you are saved, at the moment of your death. Until the, it’s a matter of faith.