The Catholic Church wrong? Part two

[HankZ]

And you just did it again! **fb19 **was asking you whether the Bible can save you? Both times with the example of Noah and Adam you miss the boat completely.

When will you properly address fb19s point. Does **fb19 **have to explain to you what he means by this question?

Yes it is important because your replies are so way off target.

Non-sequitur means does not follow. Your arguments are non-sequiturs because they do not follow from the post you are responding to.

To Illustrate:
Mr A: I say that it will not rain today because the Sun is shining.
Mr B: You’re wrong. The Sun is the centre of the solar system and the earth revolves around it.

Get that? Mr. Bs comment does not even come close to answering Mr As assertion. And the way Mr B responded is the way YOU have been responding to a lot of posts. Totally non-sequitur.

Am I supposed to be impressed or intimatated by this?

 

[CWBetts]

This is the best you can do to explain the supposed “true church” as a helper of rapists and pedifiles? Lying to people and covering up the acts of perverts who are wrongly trusted to be men of God?

The Roman Catholic Church is dealing with the scandal. Obviously, you ignore the thousands of molestation cases brought against PROTESTANTS. In my community there has only been one child abuse scandal in the last 20 years…and it was at a Presbyterian Church. So drop the molestation thing. You are only using it because you have nothing relevant to answer with. So I say again: Stick to the theological issues at hand with reasond arguments.

 

[joe370]

**

Do not suppose to understand my beliefs or my unbeliefs. "soul’ Sleeping, I have never heard of such a thing, nor do I believe this rubish. It is rude to talk about others and presume to understand their beliefs when it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

**
It certainly isn’t rude to share with others, your beliefs, if you are sharing your beliefs. Why so antagonistic? I apologize if I misunderstood you; I thought you said you did not believe that people go directly to heaven, or God forbid, to hell.

Soul sleep In Christian theology, is a belief that the soul sleeps unconsciously between the death of the body and its resurrection on Judgment Day. Is this not what your church teaches --what you believe?

Honestly, why do you visit this forum if you are so sure in your beliefs. It’s quite commendable to have such staunch beliefs in something, but you should be able to illustrate, why you have these staunch beliefs in your church. I am just not getting it! I respectively ask, Why should I believe what you believe? --Isn’t that why you are here at a Catholic forum ? I initially came here as a former Lutheran due to my own lingering doubts. Seriously, no sarcasm intended, I respectively ask --what are you trying to achieve here? If we know what your goals are, perhaps we can accommodate you.

 

[Alindawyl]

There is only one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus. Isn’t Jesus enough? It was through suffering and death on the cross that Jesus was able to break the curtain which separated us from God and gave us the ability to approach the throne of grace, boldly. To take Jesus work on the cross and go arround Him to saints who can do nothing, is a slap in God’s face. What good is it to pray to saints that can do nothing to help you and avoid praying every prayer to God Himself, who alone is the giver of life?

Is it bad to pray on behalf of another person? Since Jesus and the apostles asked us to pray for others, I think not.

The saints do not answer our prayers; only God can answer prayers. A prayer to a saint is a request for them to add their own voice to ours in praying to God. It’s the same as asking your friend or neighbor to say a prayer for or with you.

We make no distinction between our friends and neighbors who are still alive in this world and those who we know are with God in the next. Those who are in heaven are still our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Are you sure or is this another of man’s doctrines? The bible never addresses praying to those who are no longer alive in the flesh or alive in Christ. Talking to the dead is the same as talking to the dead no matter how you define it.

Speaking of man’s doctrines, the Bible never states that it is the sole repository of truth. But I digress

The Bible says that we are not to use the services of a medium, necromancer, or other third party to attempt to conjure up the spirits of the dead and talk to them. The Bible says nothing one way or the other about us speaking directly to those who have departed this world.

Or does it?

Revelation 5:8 and Revelation 8:3 seem to be saying that the saints in heaven still offer up prayers to God. Not just praise or worship. Prayers. Saints are already in heaven and do not suffer or want for anything. What do they have a need to pray for? It couldn’t be for those of us who are still living in this world, could it?. Surely they don’t offer up prayers which we have asked them to make on our behalf…

 

[twb1621]

Love it! Do you know where I can download a bigger version of that. I want to print it.

Sure, there are several. I will get it for you today…

 

[twb1621]

It is appointed unto men once to die, then the judgement.

Dead to this world or this life. Moses died on the mountain over looking the promised land, right? Why would scripture say he died if he was in fact not dead? There is a difference between being alive in the flesh and alive in Christ.

There is only one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus. Isn’t Jesus enough? It was through suffering and death on the cross that Jesus was able to break the curtain which separated us from God and gave us the ability to approach the throne of grace, boldly. To take Jesus work on the cross and go arround Him to saints who can do nothing, is a slap in God’s face. What good is it to pray to saints that can do nothing to help you and avoid praying every prayer to God Himself, who alone is the giver of life?

Are you sure or is this another of man’s doctrines? The bible never addresses praying to those who are no longer alive in the flesh or alive in Christ. Talking to the dead is the same as talking to the dead no matter how you define it.

Was Elijah a saint or an evil spirit when they conjered him? Weren’t they doing a good thing by your definition to conjure a saint? Then why did they get rebuked for doing such an evil thing?

Your presumption is incorrect. This has nothing to do with OSAS.
It is to the benefit of the seeker to open his eyes… You are failing to realize as many do, that the Bible was compiled and the canons selected and organized and interpreted by the Catholic Church for the Catholic Church, not any other “denomination”. The Old Testament Word of God was first taught by Jesus and the Apostles in the form of the Septuagint then the Vetus Itala, then Latin Vulgate and so on. The bible was never intended to be used as the sole source and complete teaching of Jesus, which is why Sola Scriptura fails so miserably and so many interpretations, are generated leading to such division. With this in mind, why would the Catholic Church incorporate into the inspired word of God, the Bible, anything that had to do with the organizational aspects of the Church itself. They taught by scripture AND through apostolic succession the sacred Traditions handed on to their successors, the chair of Peter and later the Magisterium. With that said, In reading scripture it is clear that a hierarchy was in fact in place and that the apostles themselves appointed bishops presbyters deacons and so one in a definite order of authority one over the other. As the Church grew assignments were made geographically as well. This is undisputable and any confusion can only be the result of trying to teach Christianity with only partial resources.

 

[twb1621]

It is appointed unto men once to die, then the judgement.

Dead to this world or this life. Moses died on the mountain over looking the promised land, right? Why would scripture say he died if he was in fact not dead? There is a difference between being alive in the flesh and alive in Christ.
God Himself, who alone is the giver of life?

Are you sure or is this another of man’s doctrines? The bible never addresses praying to those who are no longer alive in the flesh or alive in Christ. Talking to the dead is the same as talking to the dead no matter how you define it.

Was Elijah a saint or an evil spirit when they conjered him? Weren’t they doing a good thing by your definition to conjure a saint? Then why did they get rebuked for doing such an evil thing?

Your presumption is incorrect. This has nothing to do with OSAS.

In order to show belief in the Bible you have no alternative but to accept the teachings of the first teachers and the Church Fathers if for no other reason than they taught what you read long before it was written. There is no excuss for anything otherwise.
Christians from the earliest centuries of the Church have expressed their communion with those who have died by praying for the dead.

Inscriptions in the Roman catacombs indicate that the early Christians honored and prayed for their deceased relatives and friends.

Tertullian (211)
Wrote that Christians offered prayer and the Eucharist for the deceased on the anniversaries of their death.
St. Augustine (354 - 430)
Neither are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church, which even now is the Kingdom of Christ. Otherwise there would be no remembrance of them at the altar of God in the communication of the Body of Christ.
It is not uncommon that non-believers see the Roman Catholic devotion to the Saints and the dead in general as falling under the prohibition of necrology as found in the Hebrew Scriptures. These people are not aware of the New Life of the Christian who has been called out of this life. They are not dead, but alive!

Rom 6:3-4
Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.
Col 2:12
You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
continued at
catholicapologetics.org/ap070600.htm

 

[benedictus2]

To the moderator,

Just want to clarify what the protocol here is when someone gets banned? Is it good form to reply to his post knowing he can’t reply back?

On the other hand, if there are some erroneous points raised, not responding will perpetuate the error.

Many thanks.

 

[guanophore]

To the moderator,

Just want to clarify what the protocol here is when someone gets banned? Is it good form to reply to his post knowing he can’t reply back?

On the other hand, if there are some erroneous points raised, not responding will perpetuate the error.

Many thanks.

I am not a mod, but you can reply to any post that is still up on the thread. If the post is objectionable it will be removed by a mod, sometimes before the poster is sanctioned. If the thread is really bad, the whole thing might get taken down.

I agree that it is a good idea to answer erroneous posts. If you look at the stats on the home page, you can see that the average rate of lurkers (readers who are not posting) is ten times the number posting. Hopefully these readers will read your reply and learn something important.

 

[twb1621]

Let us then offer additional information in regard to verification of the use of the Deuterocanonical Books right from the start. It has been a custom of Protestant faiths to try and prove themselves righteous by attempting to or accusing the Catholic Church of adding books at the time of the reformation. Lets see how far we can get this time…

Quotes from the Church Fathers regarding the Catholic Old Testament.

“Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments. He who has commanded us not to lie, shall much more Himself not lie; for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie. Let His faith therefore be stirred up again within us, and let us consider that all things are nigh unto Him. By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done ? or, Who shall resist the power of His strength?’[Wisdom 12:12,ll:22] When and as He pleases He will do all things, and none of the things determined by Him shall pass away? All things are open before Him, and nothing can be hidden from His counsel. ‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handy-work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. And there are no words or speeches of which the voices are not heard.’[Ps. 19:1-3]”
Clement of Rome,To the Corinthians, 27:5(c A.D. 80),in ANF,I:12

"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death.’[Tobit 4:10,12:9] Be all of you subject one to another?[1 Pt 5:5] having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles,’[1 Pt 2:12] that ye may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed![Isa 52:5] Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct.
Polycarp,To the Phillipians,10(A.D. 135),in ANF,I:35

" ‘Be just in your judgement’:[Deut 1:16,17 Prov 31:9] make no distinction between man and man when correcting transgressions. Do not waver in your decision. ‘Do not be one that opens his hands to receive, but shuts them when it comes to giving’[Sirach 4:31]"
Didache,4:3-5(A.D. 140),in ACW,VI:17

“Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song off Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.”
Melito of Sardes,Fragment in Eusebius’ Ecclesiatical History,4:26(A.D. 177),in NPNF2,I:206

Additional Information at cin.org/users/jgallegos/deutero.htm

 

[joe370]

Outside the C.C. DIVISION RUN AMOK…

PROTESTANT DIVISIONS AND MUTUAL ANIMOSITIES

1. General Observations

Dissensions plagued Protestantism from the start, even though one would think that a religion stressing individualism and conscience would be free from such shortcomings and would promote mutual respect. The myth of Protestant magnanimity and peaceful coexistence (especially in its infancy) dies an unequivocal death as the facts are brought out:

A. Patrick O’Hare

  "A volume might be filled with indubitable facts to prove the intolerant spirit of Luther and of the various sects which his rebellion originated. The quarrels, hostilities and jealousies that constantly arose among one and all made them a prey to the fiercest dissensions. They anathematized and persecuted each other . . . and indulged in the coarsest and vilest invective . . . The Lutherans . . . denounced and excluded the reformed Calvinists from salvation. The Calvinists roused up the people against the Lutherans . . . Zwingli complained of Luther's intolerance when he was the victim . . . but he and his followers threw the poor Anabaptists into the Lake of Zurich, enclosed in sacks." (50:293)

B. Calvin’s Revealing Letter to Melanchthon

  "It is indeed important that posterity should not know of our differences; for it is indescribably ridiculous that we, who are in opposition to the whole world, should be, at the very beginning of the Reformation, at issue among ourselves." (50:293)

Melanchthon replied:

  "All the waters of the Elbe would not yield me tears sufficient to weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation." (92:88/12)

C. Johannes Janssen

Janssen, author of a 16-volume history of Germany during “Reformation” times, claimed that:

  "The Protestant sects derided each other in just as immoderate and undignified a way as they one and all derided the papacy . . . Cursing and blaspheming were as frequent as praying was rare." (111;v.16:4-5)

We will now examine some examples of this inter-Protestant invective:

1. Luther and Lutherans on Zwingli and His Followers
   
   “I will not read the works of these people, because they are out of the Church, and are not only damned themselves, but draw many miserable creatures after them.” (113;v.1:466)
   
   “Zwingli was an offspring of hell, an associate of Arius (13), a man who did not deserve to be prayed for . . .” (113;v.1:466)
   
   “Zwingli was greedy of honour . . . he had learnt nothing from me . . . Oecolampadius thought himself too learned to listen to me or to learn from me.” (51;v.4:309/14)
   
   “Zwinglians . . . are fighting against God and the sacraments as the most inveterate enemies of the Divine Word.” (111;v.5:220-21/15)
   
   “Heretics who had broken away . . . ministers of Satan, against whom no exercise of severity, however great, would be excessive.” (50:286)
   
   “It would be better to announce eternal damnation than salvation after the style of Zwingli or Oecolampadius.” (46:85)

Luther rejoiced at the news of Zwingli’s death on the battlefield in 1531, and said that he had met “an assassin’s end” (46:86). And when Zwingli’s associate Oecolampadius shortly followed him to the grave, Luther concluded that “the devil’s blows have killed him.” (46:86)

  "It is well that Zwingli . . . lies dead on the battlefield . . . Oh, what a triumph this is . . . How well God knows his business." (45:139)

  "Zwingli is dead and damned, having desired like a thief and a rebel, to compel others to follow his error." (113; v.1:466)

The Lutherans proclaimed in full synod:

  "The Zwinglians . . . we do not even grant to them a place in the church, far from recognizing as brethren, a set of people, whom we see agitated by the spirit of lying, and uttering blasphemies against the Son of Man." (113;v.1:466)

The Zwinglians believed that the Eucharist was wholly symbolic (probably the majority position of Protestants today). Hence, whoever believes the same would have had the foregoing said about them by Dr. Luther, who firmly held to Consubstantiation, i.e., the actual Body and Blood of Christ is present in the communion along with the bread and wine.

1. Zwingli and His Cohorts on Luther

Zwingli, not to be outdone, returned the compliment:

  "The devil has made himself master of Luther, to such a degree, as to make one believe he wishes to gain entire possession of him." (113;v.1:463)

  "To see him in the midst of his followers, you would believe him to be possessed by a phalanx of devils." (113;v.1:464)

  "We do you no injustice when we reproach and condemn you as a worse betrayer and denier of Christ than the ancient heretic Marcion (16)." (50:288).............

 

[joe370]

Oecolampadius was also not without a retort:

  "He is puffed up with pride and arrogance, and seduced by Satan." (113;v.1:463)

Zwingli’s Church of Zurich wrote of Luther:

  "He will not and can not associate himself with those who confess Christ . . . He wrote all his works by the impulse and the dictation of the devil." (113;v.1:464)

At least the insults exhibit some vehemence, perhaps revealing the felt importance of their object. Today, on the other hand, many Protestants are utterly indifferent towards Luther, as if their faith was a product solely of their own invention and ingenuity; oftentimes, such self-professed generic “Christians” eschew even the title of “Protestant.”

1. Luther on Bucer
   
   “They think much of themselves, which, indeed, is the cause and wellspring of all heresies . . . Thus Zwingli and Bucer now put forward a new doctrine . . . So dangerous a thing is pride in the clergy.” (51;v.6:283/17)
   
   “A gossip . . . a miscreant through and through . . . I trust him not at all, for Paul says (18) `A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.’” (51;v.6:289/19)
2. Luther on Calvin and Oecolampadius
   
   “Oecolampadius, Calvin . . . and the other heretics have in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths.” (122:448/20)
3. Calvin on Luther and Lutherans
   
   “What to think of Luther I know not . . . with his firmness there is mixed up a good deal of obstinacy . . . Nothing can be safe as long as that rage for contention shall agitate us . . . Luther . . . will never be able to join along with us in . . . the pure truth of God. For he has sinned against it not only from vainglory . . . but also from ignorance and the grossest extravagance. For what absurdities he pawned upon us . . . when he said the bread is the very body! . . . a very foul error. What can I say of the partisans of that cause? Do they not romance more wildly than Marcion respecting the body of Christ? . . . Wherefore if you have an influence or authority over Martin, use it . . . that he himself submit to the truth which he is now manifestly attacking . . . Contrive that Luther . . . cease to bear himself so imperiously.” (126:46-8/21)
   
   “Luther had done nothing to any purpose . . . people ought not to let themselves be duped by following his steps and being half-papist; it is much better to build a church entirely afresh.” (113;v.1:465)
   
   “I am carefully on the watch that Lutheranism gain no ground, nor be introduced into France. The best means . . . for checking the evil would be that the confession written by me . . . should be published.” (126:76/22)
4. Calvin on Zwingli
   
   Historian Philip Hughes tells us that Calvin “abhorred” Zwingli also. (45:229)
5. Calvin on Melanchthon

Calvin had some sort of friendship with Melanchthon (rare among differing Protestant leaders), but wrote harshly of him in letters to others:

  "He openly opposes sound doctrine; or . . . cunningly, or at least, with but little manliness, disguises his own opinion . . . The inconstancy of Philip moves both my anger and detestation." (126:52,65/23)

1. Melanchthon on Zwingli

The timid Melanchthon was “manly” enough, however, to launch at least one salvo against Zwingli:

  "Zwingli says almost nothing about Christian sanctity. He simply follows the Pelagians, the Papists and the philosophers." (46:261)

1. Bucer on Calvin

Despite theological affinities, Bucer had quite a low opinion of Calvin:

  "Calvin is a true mad dog. The man is wicked, and he judges of people according as he loves or hates them." (113;v.1:467)

1. Luther on Protestant “Heretics”
   
   “Heresiarchs . . . remain obdurate in their own conceit. They allow none to find fault with them and brook no opposition. This is the sin against the Holy Ghost for which there is no forgiveness.” (51;v.6:282/24)
   
   “Those are heretics and apostates who follow their own ideas rather than the common tradition of Christendom, who . . . out of pure wantonness, invent new ways and methods.” (51;v.6:282-3/25)

Grisar adds:

  "In his frame of mind it became at last an impossibility for him to realise that his hostility and intolerance towards `heretics' within his fold could redound on himself." (51;v.6:283)

  "We must needs decry the fanatics as damned . . . They actually dare to pick holes in our doctrine; ah, the scoundrelly rabble do a great injury to our Evangel." (51; v.6:289/26)

  "I am on the heels of the Sacramentaries (27) and the Anabaptists; . . . I shall challenge them to fight; and I shall trample them all underfoot." (46:86)

 

[benedictus2]

I am not a mod, but you can reply to any post that is still up on the thread. If the post is objectionable it will be removed by a mod, sometimes before the poster is sanctioned. If the thread is really bad, the whole thing might get taken down.

I agree that it is a good idea to answer erroneous posts. If you look at the stats on the home page, you can see that the average rate of lurkers (readers who are not posting) is ten times the number posting. Hopefully these readers will read your reply and learn something important.

Thanks Guano. At over 11,000 posts you could probably apply for the job as a moderator.

 

[fbl9]

to all i was getting more than annoyed at the way Hank was not answering the questions i posed to him,so i dropped this thread,for my own sake.i wished he could have tired a bit more though.and i am some what dissappointed that he did get himself banned.
i just can’t understand some people who aren’t catholic that come here and absolutely refuse to back them selves up at all…maybe if they did they would realise that they are indeed the ones in error,not the Church.
i have to admit that every one else did a better job at presenting the truth then myself.

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2:

Okay, here are a few question for you:

1) When you die and presumably go to heaven, are you dead in heaven or are you alive in heaven?
It is appointed unto men once to die, then the judgement.

Which conveniently sidesteps the question. My question was whether one is dead IN HEAVEN or alive IN HEAVEN?

benedictus2:

2) If you answer dead in question one, what is the point of heaven if you remain dead anyway?

Dead to this world or this life. Moses died on the mountain over looking the promised land, right? Why would scripture say he died if he was in fact not dead? There is a difference between being alive in the flesh and alive in Christ.

It seems you have a problem comprehending the question. If you are DEAD IN HEAVEN, WHAT IS THE POINT? So now are you saying that Christ IS DEAD IN HEAVEN SO WE HAVE A DEAD GOD IN HEAVEN?
You are not making any sense at all.

benedictus2:

3) If you answer alive in heaven, then why can’t we ask the Saints who are alive in heaven to intercede for us.

There is only one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus. Isn’t Jesus enough? It was through suffering and death on the cross that Jesus was able to break the curtain which separated us from God and gave us the ability to approach the throne of grace, boldly. To take Jesus work on the cross and go arround Him to saints who can do nothing, is a slap in God’s face. What good is it to pray to saints that can do nothing to help you and avoid praying every prayer to God Himself, who alone is the giver of life?

Okay, I will ride with this point which is really rather invalid considering that you have indicated that Christ is dead in heaven anyway.
The point of this question is if the saints are alive, why can’t they pray for us? You ask your living friends to pray for you. The saints are actually more alive than us. They are much closer to Jesus. They are beholding God face to face.
Oh yep, that’s right. I forgot that you have already said that the saints are dead in heaven. And so is Jesus for that matter.

benedictus2:

You are totally clueless as to Scripture if you equate mediums and the invocation of the dead with the saints in heaven.

Are you sure or is this another of man’s doctrines? The bible never addresses praying to those who are no longer alive in the flesh or alive in Christ. Talking to the dead is the same as talking to the dead no matter how you define it.

What is forbidden is conjuring of the dead or necromancy. The purpose of this is to gather information such as what one does in séances where they have a medium that supposedly channel the spirit of the dead. That practice is evil.
Praying to the saints asking them to intercede for us is similar to asking others to pray for us except that asking those in heaven to pray for you is more efficacious because they are face to face with Christ. According to James, the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. And the fact that these Saints are with Christ means that they have been found righteous.

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2:

Conjuring of the dead is an evil practice. Saints on the contrary are with God.

Was Elijah a saint or an evil spirit when they conjered him? Weren’t they doing a good thing by your definition to conjure a saint? Then why did they get rebuked for doing such an evil thing?

As already explained above praying to Saints is not conjuring them. It is asking them to intercede for us.

benedictus2:

Question 5) And if you say you are not sure these people are in heaven, well then, you are putting your doctrine of OSAS into question. That means even you are not sure you are going to heaven in spite of your claims.

Your presumption is incorrect. This has nothing to do with OSAS

It does. I said if you reason that you are not sure whether these people are in heaven then that debunks OSAS for you.

Presumably, you would know born again Christians who have died. Now OSAS claims that once you have been born again you are already saved and that is it. If these dead born again are already saved, then they must be in heaven. But if you say you are not sure they are indeed in heaven, then there is no such thing as OSAS.

 

[fbl9]

But if you say you are not sure they are indeed in heaven, then there is no such thing as OSAS.

that’s between God and them…

just like when i asked Hank if he repents after sinning.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, fbl9

I too was getting annoyed.

I am reminded of the parable of the wedding guest who was not wearing the proper garment (Matt 22:11-14) For some reason, some folks just have trouble actually doing the right thing.

It is not like HankZ was not told about what type of site he was on, what was expected, or that he was unaware he was not answering the questions presented. He simply chose to be defiant. And, in many ways this is truly sad.

He and the many others like him should be remember in our prayers.

God bless

" to all i was getting more than annoyed at the way Hank was not answering the questions i posed to him,so i dropped this thread,…"

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, fbl9

I too was getting annoyed.

I am reminded of the parable of the wedding guest who was not wearing the proper garment (Matt 22:11-14) For some reason, some folks just have trouble actually doing the right thing.

It is not like HankZ was not told about what type of site he was on, what was expected, or that he was unaware he was not answering the questions presented. He simply chose to be defiant. And, in many ways this is truly sad.

He and the many others like him should be remember in our prayers.

God bless

I think Hank was just being true to himself. He wasn’t answering because he didn’t have an answer.

I have been going through some posts and this seems to be a common style of most protestant posters here except some.
Either they really do not have an answer but wants to post anyway so posts someting totally off tangent, or, they really completely misunderstood your post hence the reason for an off tangent answer.

If it was the latter, a re-direction of their attention to the topic or maybe a re-phrasing of the question should suffice but sometimes it still seems to elude them (intentionally or not).

 

[twb1621]

I think Hank was just being true to himself. He wasn’t answering because he didn’t have an answer.

I have been going through some posts and this seems to be a common style of most protestant posters here except some.
Either they really do not have an answer but wants to post anyway so posts someting totally off tangent, or, they really completely misunderstood your post hence the reason for an off tangent answer.

If it was the latter, a re-direction of their attention to the topic or maybe a re-phrasing of the question should suffice but sometimes it still seems to elude them (intentionally or not).

The hardest thing for a person to acknowledge is that the most important thing they have placed their total self into in life is bottomless. To believe in their salvation and especially to believe one has been “born again” with head held high in proclamation and then be confronted with reality that they have been mislead has got to be heart breaking and certainly cause for denial. Then when presented with support for Truth that can not be credibly disputed, I feel for people in this situation. But we can only provide the seed and pray for our Lord’s mercy and grace to guide them on their path to Him. Hopefully the Hanks out there will continue asking questions but with a more open ear as time goes on.