There's no OSAS

[elt1956]

We have salvation through the cross, through the death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and it is true that we don’t need to make any other such sacrafices.
However, faith without works is a dead faith! If we were not meant to imitate Christ in everything, then why tell us to do so?
Why should we clothe the naked, or feed the hungry? Why should we give shelter to the homeless, or comfort to the sick? Do you not remember that there will be a judgement day? If all we have to do is claim the sacrafice of Our Lord, and do nothing ourselves, then why would our Lord even bother with judgement day?
There will be many who will dare to claim the blood of the Lamb alone for their salvation with no works to back it up and our Lord said what He will do with these, He will ask why they didn’t do anything for Him and when they try to make out they never saw Him in need, He will deny them and cast them into the fire. The best way to understand what is expected of us is to read revelations.
Also, who do you think we serve when Christians(children of God) fight amongst themselves? When some of us refuse to acknowledge the Christianity in other Christian faiths and spread such biased statements? Do we serve our Father in Heaven when we hurt other Christians or do we lower ourselves to fallen one’s level?
Before any of us go off and say things about any other religions please get all of your facts in order, and not just repeat things you might have heard. Try reading the Cathicism of the Catholic Church, its an eye opener!

And didn’t Pope John Paul II say in one of his encyclicals that all churches have an element of the truth, whether it be partial, or whole? Therefore all churches are in some respect members of THE CHURCH ie. body of Christ.

Intelligent and non judgemental exchanges of beliefs is true Christianity, not opinionated accusations of what we feel is lacking in the beliefs of others.

 

[elt1956]

First of all, a gift is not a gift if there are continued requirements to even accept it. The bible is clear about that in Romans.
Being able to even accept God’s gift of salvation is also a gift of God. We do not earn that gift over a period of time following requirements the way you describe it. We could boast otherwise: “Thank you Lord that I am not like the publican over there. I…I…I…Me Me Me” . Grace alone here too.

You can not reject Christ’s Church when you are already sealed into that Church by the Holy Spirit.

The instrument of God’s grace comes completely through the gift of faith in Jesus alone and what He did to redeem me. I will not insult Jesus’ perfect work and gift by adding other “required instruments” to complete His already perfect work for my salvation.

These “required” instruments were given by Christ to His apostles as visible guides to remind us that Christ is with us always. These “guides” in turn were passed from the Apostles to the Church Fathers who were then studied rigorously. The Church Fathers and scripture has always been deeply studied by those pronouncing dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church. Nothing has been added to the teachings of the Church that Christ did not Himself teach.

 

[elt1956]

These “required” instruments were given by Christ to His apostles as visible guides to remind us that Christ is with us always. These “guides” in turn were passed from the Apostles to the Church Fathers who were then studied rigorously. The Church Fathers and scripture has always been deeply studied by those pronouncing dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church. Nothing has been added to the teachings of the Church that Christ did not Himself teach.

Nothing has been added to the revelations in the
scriptures and by Christ that is new, only perhaps a new and deeper undrstanding of those teachings.

 

[elt1956]

You also get my “coveted” award of winning the argument by default. Congratulations! You won with that post and you even get an extra two stars, which are redeemable for three hours off in “purgatory”.

Dear brkn, are you being sarcastic, or is this humor?

 

[elt1956]

**We must have different definitions of “grace” because what you say is self-contradictory— “work hard” to remain in a state of “grace”???

Paul taught the truth when he said:**

"But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."

**Grace and works are mutually exclusive. If you have one, you don’t have the other. No one can “work hard” to maintain grace.

What I think you mean is you have to work hard not to sin**, because in your thinking, if you sin (and especially if it’s mortal sin), you lose your “salvation” and are on your way to hell if you don’t get to the priest in time to confess and get absolution. Since you have no security, least of which “eternal security,” you are “in” a state of “grace” or “out” of it, depending on your sinning and confessing. In one minute, out the next. Back in, back out. So you can be “saved” and lost again and saved again, millions of times before you ever die and face the judgment. Then it is only your hope that the LAST state, at death, is IN and not OUT. And you think that is scriptural and the truth???

And to top it all off, you think your works will keep you IN or lessen your chances of being OUT at death. NOT!!!

No, depending on, or trusting in, Jesus, is exactly that and no more. Look at the example of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40). The normative means by which God chooses to save us is clearly seen— the preaching of the Gospel to an open and receptive heart, which results in a believer in Christ going on his way rejoicing after God removed Philip from the scene. No “church” here except one member of His Body, a deacon (Acts 6:5), who certainly did not exhort the eunuch to depend on him! It is the Gospel that saves us, not the church. God may use a member of His church to present that Gospel, but it is not the church or any member that does the saving, normative or otherwise.

You may be correct, but to many Protestants “salvation” is not a process, though there are past, present, and future aspects of it. We have been saved; we are being saved; and we shall be saved. On the other hand, “sanctification” is certainly a process whereby we grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord and are being conformed to His image, day by day. But even sanctification has completed, present, and future aspects. Notice Heb. 10:

** 10. By that will we have been sanctified** through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13. from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
14. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

That sure sounds like OSAS to me-– "He has perfected forever…"

Paul tells the Ephesian Christians that they "were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, Who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory" (Eph. 1:13-14). But he also says, they are “sealed for the day of redemption” (4:30). The preposition rendered “for” is eis, meaning “to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.)” according to Strong’s Lexicon. So, the seal lasts until, to, and into the day of redemption, i.e., when He comes back for us. There is no thought in either use of seal by Paul of anyone “falling from grace after this” as you say. They are sealed until the day of redemption. That is OSAS pure and simple.

Perhaps you are confusing “works” with repentance? Sin is a turning away from God/Christ. Repentance is walking back to God/Christ and knowing He will be there with open arms.

 

[elt1956]

I just saved some of your post to make a point.

I do not reject Christ’s One Church, of which all born again sinners become members of by the Holy Spirit becoming a permanent indweller of that soul.
You mentioned Revelation, which is an interesting book of the Bible that addresses different parts of Christ’s Church individually.
Could you show me where the Roman Catholic Church is the only established ONE of those churches?
The different parts of the ONE Church that Jesus established are shown to be individually responsible to Christ alone for their actions as members.
Maybe you could point to the Roman Catholic Church in another part of the Bible that I may have overlooked, but Jesus does not seem to address that church by such a name in Revelation.
It is the individual true members of the churches making up His One Church that Jesus seems most interested in; not any general member that may only be a church member in name, without also being a true church member set by the permanently sealed baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Since you believe only in your own interpretation of the Bible as a means of salvation, I am afraid you will not be able to enjoy the fullness of faith and the understanding of the One True Church until you come to understand, 1, the history of the Catholic Church, 2, Read the Fathers of the Church 3. Admit that the Magesterium of the Church, the teaching branch of the Catholic Church, knows more about interpreting the Bible than an individual does.

 

[elt1956]

Does Jesus breathe on the Pope, Bishops, and priests?
I should like to see that happen!!!

Jesus prepared His Apostles to preach, not to be judges that go out forgiving and condemning whosoever they meet.
It must be the preaching, or not preaching, of the gospel of Jesus that is what causes the forgiving or retaining of sins. The Bible is clear about the effects of first hearing the gospel and then receiving it; which then causes the Blood of Jesus to remit the recipients sin.

Where are all the examples of the Apostles acts of forgiving and retaining sins in the Bible?
A book by the name of Acts should have plenty of them.

I found one example of “loosing and binding”:
(Acts 15:28,29) “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay no greater burden than these necessary things;”

“That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.”

You don’t need a lawyer or Magisterium to figure those rules out. They make perfect sense too! Plus they are in the Bible !

“Where are all the examples of the Apostles acts of forgiving and retaining sins in the Bible?
A book by the name of Acts should have plenty of them.”

Shouldn’t it be enough, since you believe only in scripture, that Christ gave this directive to the Apostles? Why do you need proof? Read the History of the Catholic Church. You will see that the truths given to the Apostles by Christ are also given to the priestly order of the Catholic Church. The Apostles couldn’t live forever could they? Therefore, throughout history and through the centuries, these truths, as given by Christ, have been held inviolate by the Catholic Church. The Scriptures and teachings of Christ to the Apostles are interpreted today as they were orignally given by Christ and interpreted by the Apostles and their successors.

And yes, Chirst continues to this day and will continue to breathe on the Pope, Bishops and Priests each and every time they make an ecclesiastical decision; this is done through the auspices of the Holy Spirit which gave strength to the Apostles of Christ on Penticost Sunday. These same Popes, Bishops and Priests are the inheritors of that apostolic strength given that day.

 

[guanophore]

OSAS theology usually understands that if someone is Saved, they receive a new “incorruptible” flesh when they die, one free of sin and the proclivity towards sin.

This is another one of the problems with OSAS. There seems to be a belief that sinfulness is in the flesh, an once we are separated from it, then we will be pure. Jesus taught the opposite, though. He chose to sanctify human flesh by taking it upon Himself, then taking it into heaven.

He also taught that sin was as much a matter of the heart (soul) of man than anything in the flesh.

Matt 15:18-20
18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."

 

[LutheranDK]

I wonder how protestants explain this passage:
Mtt 10,22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
To the end…
Almost 5 centuries of contradicting the Scripture is definitely too much.
God bless.

You assume that all protestants believe in OSAS - while the truth is that only orthodox calvinism teaches this (yet, this heresy has unfortunately spread slightly into other traditions).

Having said that, I know that calvinist theologians have a somewhat cohesive Scriptural argument for it - though I do not know what it is.
This is more than the Roman church has for various dogmas that contradict Scripture (ex papal infalibility, various Marian dogmas, etc), where the only “reasoning” is:
“The pope said it”, or “it was decided on this or that council”.

The fact that these dogmas have no support whatsoever in a cohesive, contextual reading of Scripture is deemed utterly irrelevant…

 

[guanophore]

Where will they be "burned up’? Or how will reparation for bad works be atoned? Sounds a lot like the Catholic belief in Purgatory.

I think that Calvanists, and all other denominations springing from that foundation, don’t believe in reparation for sins. It seems that they believe that all sins, past, present, and future are already forgiven, and that there is no responsibility on the part of the person to repair any damage that has been created from personal sins.

It is difficult to use the word “atonement” in this context, since Calvanists understand “Jesus only” as the perfect, complete, and permanent atonement for sins.

"… the Catholic Church,… our belief is that one destroys oneself, or one saves oneself through the teachings of Scripture, the Church Fathers and the doctrines of the Catholic Church which can be traced back to the Apostles. Neither the Catholic Church, nor its members can destroy anyone’s belief if that belief is true and real. God/Jesus through His Church, bestows the Grace to be able to see what is true and not true.

I don’t think the Church teaches this. On the contrary, the Church teaches that all are under the penalty of original sin (death) and are by default, separated from the grace of God.

Secondly, no human can “save oneself”, because we are separated from saving grace.

The Catholic Church teaches that people are saved by the shed blood of Jesus on the Cross.

I do agree, however that we can access the grace by which we are saved through Christ in the Church.

But one acting, or interpreting scripture by oneself, is more open to false/misguided…
As you can see from the postings and personal interpretations of scripture on this forum, mistakes and misunderstandings abound

It seems that you have demonstrated this well.

Divine revelation is not a “consensus” of people.

 

[guanophore]

** We must have different definitions of “grace” because what you say is self-contradictory— “work hard” to remain in a state of “grace”???**

No, not different, but the Catholic concept of grace is broader. Catholics do not sever the grace that justifies from the grace that bears the fruit that befits repentance. No one can remain in God’s grace without God Himself keeping one’s soul.

“Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing” Jude 24-25

God is able to keep us from falling, but He will not do this if we are determined to depart from Him.

“Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.” Heb 4:11-12

Rest is in God’s grace. How do we enter by 'striving"?

**
Paul taught the truth when he said:**

"But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."

Grace and works are mutually exclusive. If you have one, you don’t have the other. No one can “work hard” to maintain grace.

You are creating a dichotomy that does not exist, and you are mixing up sacred works with works of the flesh. Grace and works are certainly NOT mutually exclusive. You are referencing a passage about works of the flesh, and applying it (incorrectly) to sacred work.

Yes, works of the flesh exclude grace, and vice versa. Sacred works proceed from grace, and are an integral part of grace.

** What I think you mean is you have to work hard not to sin**, because in your thinking, if you sin (and especially if it’s mortal sin), you lose your “salvation” and are on your way to hell if you don’t get to the priest in time to confess and get absolution.

You are right that Catholics work hard to maintain holiness.

" Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Heb 12:14

Anyone who thinks it is not necessary to strive for peace is living in a fantasy world.

However, you are in error about how confession and the forgiveness of sin operates. Catholics do not presume upon God about salvation. We consider ourselves washed clean at baptism, working out our salvation here on this earth, and looking forward to a hope that is ready to be revealed in the last day. One cannot “lose” what has not already been obtained. We wait for it with patience.

** Since you have no security, least of which “eternal security,” you are “in” a state of “grace” or “out” of it, depending on your sinning and confessing. In one minute, out the next. Back in, back out. So you can be “saved” and lost again and saved again, millions of times before you ever die and face the judgment. Then it is only your hope that the LAST state, at death, is IN and not OUT. And you think that is scriptural and the truth???**

No, I think that you understand neither the scripture, or the Apostolic teaching on salvation. The notion that one is “saved” at one point in time for all time is not the teaching of Jesus.

** And to top it all off, you think your works will keep you IN or lessen your chances of being OUT at death. NOT!!!**

You have again demonstrated that you do not understand Catholic teaching. Human beings cannot be saved by works of the flesh. The only salvation for man can be found in Jesus Christ, through His shed blood on the cross. There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved. Works of the flesh cannot “merit” heaven. Only the blood of Christ, by which we are cleansed, can do this.

** No, depending on, or trusting in, Jesus, is exactly that and no more. Look at the example of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40). The normative means by which God chooses to save us is clearly seen— the preaching of the Gospel to an open and receptive heart, which results in a believer in Christ going on his way rejoicing after God removed Philip from the scene.**

I think you left out one very important “sacred work” in your rendering of the story.

** No “church” here except one member of His Body, a deacon (Acts 6:5), who certainly did not exhort the eunuch to depend on him**! It is the Gospel that saves us, not the church.

The two are not separated. Men attempted to separate them in the Reformation. Jesus identifies Himself completely with His church.

** God may use a member of His church to present that Gospel, but it is not the church or any member that does the saving, normative or otherwise.**

Jesus formed a Church. The Church is His Body. Those who are in Him, are members of His Body, the Church. Jesus is not separate from His body, and the members of Christ are one in the Body.

** You may be correct, but to many Protestants “salvation” is not a process, though there are past, present, and future aspects of it. We have been saved; we are being saved; and we shall be saved. On the other hand, “sanctification” is certainly a process whereby we grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord and are being conformed to His image, day by day. But even sanctification has completed, present, and future aspects. Notice Heb. 10:**

It is completed from God’s perspective, but not from ours. It is we who are bound in time, not He.

** 10. By that will we have been sanctified** through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13. from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
14. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

That sure sounds like OSAS to me-– "He has perfected forever…"

I know, and it does, so long as you keep it separated from other passages which may influence the understanding of it. However, Catholic doctrine is not based upon a single verse, or cherry picking of several verses. Catholic doctrine is based on the teaching of Jesus, and the whole of that teaching is taken to gether.

** Paul tells the Ephesian Christians that they “were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, Who is the guarantee** of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory” (Eph. 1:13-14). But he also says, they are “sealed for the day of redemption” (4:30). The preposition rendered “for” is eis, meaning “to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.)” according to Strong’s Lexicon. So, the seal lasts until, to, and into the day of redemption, i.e., when He comes back for us. There is no thought in either use of seal by Paul of anyone “falling from grace after this” as you say. They are sealed until the day of redemption. That is OSAS pure and simple.

I know it seems that way, and we do agree that the seal placed upon the believer makes a permanent mark. That is why, for those who have fallen from grace, scripture always says that their last state is WORSE than the first. To be marked as God’s own posession, then to forswear that mark is worse than never taking it in the first place.

 

[brkn1]

“Where are all the examples of the Apostles acts of forgiving and retaining sins in the Bible?
A book by the name of Acts should have plenty of them.”

Shouldn’t it be enough, since you believe only in scripture, that Christ gave this directive to the Apostles? Why do you need proof? Read the History of the Catholic Church. You will see that the truths given to the Apostles by Christ are also given to the priestly order of the Catholic Church. The Apostles couldn’t live forever could they? Therefore, throughout history and through the centuries, these truths, as given by Christ, have been held inviolate by the Catholic Church. The Scriptures and teachings of Christ to the Apostles are interpreted today as they were orignally given by Christ and interpreted by the Apostles and their successors.

And yes, Chirst continues to this day and will continue to breathe on the Pope, Bishops and Priests each and every time they make an ecclesiastical decision; this is done through the auspices of the Holy Spirit which gave strength to the Apostles of Christ on Penticost Sunday. These same Popes, Bishops and Priests are the inheritors of that apostolic strength given that day.

You must have been drinking a lot of coffee lately, since I see a lot of posts by you here. (That is a poor attempt on my part at humor.)

You established my requirement of Scriptural support for Truth and then you tell me to read the History of the Catholic Church to understand what is Truth.

You mention Popes and priests, but the only priests I find being part of the Church on earth in the New Testament are the “holy priesthood” and the “royal priesthood” described in (1Peter5,9).
I belong to that group, but the RCC seems to have invented another group of priests that does not exist in Scripture.

We know that we have a Mediator in Heaven that acts as our High Priest and I’m satisfied that Jesus is sufficient in His role as the only High Priest necessary for my salvation. His one and only redeeming Sacrifice on Calvary, along with His present Mediation with the Father to cleanse and make me more like Himself by the Holy Spirit does the job.
The earthly apostles, bishops, deacons, etc have an appropriate and biblically described place in serving God here, but only as they obey and follow God’s Word. Once they show themselves to no longer be following what God commanded them to do as ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I reject them as being in error. The indwelling Holy Spirit gives all the Beloved sheep an inate sense of being wary of false or hired shepherds.

 

[distracted]

How do you know he was a ‘born-again Christian’?

I’ve read books on the subject…

He was active in his Pentecostal church, but whether he was truly Saved or not, no one but God and he can know.

I could be mistaken because it was a long time ago i read up on him but he himself, i believe, called his experience being “born again”… You are either filled w/ the Holy Spirit or you are not… but once filled, you can start “leaking”… until you are virtually drained… **and to defy the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin… **

oAlso, reading up on him in Wikipedia (unreliable, but still useful), it seems he was highly mentally disturbed

Do we need Wikipedia to tell us this???

the victim of a dominating/abusive mother

Boo hoo. So was someone else i know (extremely)… but that person did not murder anyone, is a devout Christian…

had two bad marriages (including infidelity on the part of his two wives).

Again, boo hoo… I know a guy who had 2 women cheat on him & again, he has (far as i know ) not killed anyone… goes to Church every Sunday, lovesthe Church…

It would seem to me he had some kind of mental illness.

goes without syaing…

I believe even Roman Catholic theology makes room for someone like that…

If he repents… To not repent is to blashpheme the Holy Spirit who calls on ALL to repent…

If he were truly Saved and died unrepentant, I believe he would be Saved, although he might have no rewards in Heaven.

why can you believe in rewards in the afterlife, but not Purgatory? This man had the sin of murder staining his soul and you believe he is going straight to Heaven??? You are just re-inforcing my belief in Purgatory… (not that i need it re-inforced…).

 

[trustinyou]

I see the usual ignoring of the chapter context in this quote.
Jesus was speaking to the apostles and you might have noticed that Jesus said: “But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say to tou, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.” Matt 10:23

That does not apply to us, but you would seem to say that it does by pulling verses out of context.

Why not go down to verse 32 “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.”
It does not say that I have to confess the church or pope before men either. That is nowhere to be found in Scripture.
I confess the Lord Jesus Christ alone as my Redeemer and this I can honestly do, since I know that I have been saved eternally by the gift of God through the Holy Spirit, Who sealed me as an permanently adopted born again child of God. There is no such thing as being unborn physically and the same thing applies to never being unborn spiritually. A child of God is forever a child of God.
I can thank my Lord and my God for that gift of eternal salvation, but you can not honestly do so, since you are not sure in your faith that God has given you that gift, which makes your faith incomplete and therefore possibly of no value towards saving you. You can’t trust or have complete faith in God because you see your life as a form of roulette, where you need to work at being “lucky in the state of grace” at death. You also have to depend on the church for salvation, which means it is not only Jesus that saves you. You believe that you can earn or merit the “gift of salvation”, which the bible clearly tells you can NEVER be earned or deserved, since it would no longer be a gift.
Go ahead and laugh at what I have just said here. I don’t fear you, or believe that you or your church can “destroy both soul and body in hell”. Jesus alone is my Judge and Redeemer, and I will put my trust in Him alone for my salvation. Peter is not biblically described at being at Heaven’s gate either. Jesus is the door or gate, and a person can spiritually enter now as a child of Heaven. A born again child of God is only a pilgrim and he becomes a grateful and willing servant of the Lord on this earth, until the Lord receives him finally in Heaven. OSAS makes sense to me.

once saved,always saved? heres a question for you,and its probably already happened to…A man marries a woman has children…5yrs down the road he decides he doesnt like her anymore(she has done no wrong) He decides he likes his secertary better(prettier,curvier,etc) soo the man divorces his wife and marries the secertary…1yr later he dies in this sin…but,listen now 5 yrs before his 1st marriage he was saved,the man believes hes osas and dies this way believing this BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT HE WAS TAUGHT…what happens to this man?He died in the mortal sin of adultry…Jesus says they’ll be no adulters in heaven…the man has read that in the bible,but he also believes osas…what do you think would happen?

 

[elt1956]

You assume that all protestants believe in OSAS - while the truth is that only orthodox calvinism teaches this (yet, this heresy has unfortunately spread slightly into other traditions).

Having said that, I know that calvinist theologians have a somewhat cohesive Scriptural argument for it - though I do not know what it is.
This is more than the Roman church has for various dogmas that contradict Scripture (ex papal infalibility, various Marian dogmas, etc), where the only “reasoning” is:
“The pope said it”, or “it was decided on this or that council”.

The fact that these dogmas have no support whatsoever in a cohesive, contextual reading of Scripture is deemed utterly irrelevant…

Hello. Some clarification and a question I have many times thought about. First the Pope doesn’t “say it” without much prayer, consultation and thought from the Church’s Magesterium. These decisions are not made on a whim of one, or many individuals. Even the Pope cannot unilaterally create new doctrines. And this goes without saying, it is an impossibility for either the Pope, or the Magesterium, the teaching body of the Church, to create new scripture. What needs to be understood, however, is that for the most part, the men who have been elected Pope, have been and are very learned, serious students of the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, the History of and the Traditions of the Church from the time of Christ and the Apostles. What seems to be forgotten by many Protestant religions is the History of the Church which can be traced back to the earliest beginnings. Not all of the Popes have appeared to be Saints in our eyes, but what they have taught as doctrines of the church stands to this day and will stand. Although a different and more complete understanding of a doctrine can been found and interpreted by the Pope/Magesterium, the essence of these doctrines remains the same. For instance when I was a child and teenager, some Catholics believed, as did/do? some Lutherans, that unless one belonged to that Catholic Faith, or that Lutheran Faith, one was condemned to hell.

Now, we have in an encyclical by Pope John Paul II,a different view of what is meant by the “Church”. This is paraphrased, (not by me, but by one more learned than I), but should be clear. "There is no about face as to previous doctrine of salvation outside the Church, but what we have through John Paul II is a broader understanding of ecclessiology. When In the past it was said that there is “no salvation outside the Church”, John Paul II says ‘let’s re-examine what we mean by Church.’

“He teaches that the Church is found where her truths are found, even if they are only SOME of her truths. Therefore, these communities, whether we like it or not or whether they like it or not, are still connected to the Catholic Chuch.” With this connection, the members of these churches continue to receive graces for redemption through their membership in the Mystical Body of Christ, ie.the Catholic Church and her members throughout the world.

Now, the question. When Martin Luther separated from the Catholic Church, why did he take so little of proven Roman Catholic doctrine with him? Indeed, the Catholic Church needed a “house cleaning” in many areas, but not in the areas of doctrine and dogma. Why throw the baby out with the bath water? That said, do you know what some of these beliefs, aside from the belief in the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals, have been erased? What is the main dividing factor, do you think, between the Catholic and Lutheran church?

 

[elt1956]

You assume that all protestants believe in OSAS - while the truth is that only orthodox calvinism teaches this (yet, this heresy has unfortunately spread slightly into other traditions).

Having said that, I know that calvinist theologians have a somewhat cohesive Scriptural argument for it - though I do not know what it is.
This is more than the Roman church has for various dogmas that contradict Scripture (ex papal infalibility, various Marian dogmas, etc), where the only “reasoning” is:
“The pope said it”, or “it was decided on this or that council”.

The fact that these dogmas have no support whatsoever in a cohesive, contextual reading of Scripture is deemed utterly irrelevant…

nsper7:

 

[guanophore]

You established my requirement of Scriptural support for Truth and then you tell me to read the History of the Catholic Church to understand what is Truth.

Since there is not contradiction between the two, there should be no problem! I would qualify this, though, by restricting the Truth to the Teaching on faith and morals, since we agree that many things have occurred through the history of the church (the fallible persons who are members of Her) that are not consistent with the Truth.

You mention Popes and priests, but the only priests I find being part of the Church on earth in the New Testament are the “holy priesthood” and the “royal priesthood” described in (1Peter5,9).
I belong to that group, but the RCC seems to have invented another group of priests that does not exist in Scripture.

Yes, we are all members of the royal priesthood, and to that extent, participate in the priesthood of Christ, reconciling the world to Him by our witness. It only seems that the sacramental priesthood is “invented” to those who do not know the history of the Church. Our word “priest” is an English derivative of the word “presbyter”, which is found many places in scripture.

We know that we have a Mediator in Heaven that acts as our High Priest and I’m satisfied that Jesus is sufficient in His role as the only High Priest necessary for my salvation. His one and only redeeming Sacrifice on Calvary, along with His present Mediation with the Father to cleanse and make me more like Himself by the Holy Spirit does the job.
The earthly apostles, bishops, deacons, etc have an appropriate and biblically described place in serving God here, but only as they obey and follow God’s Word. Once they show themselves to no longer be following what God commanded them to do as ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I reject them as being in error. The indwelling Holy Spirit gives all the Beloved sheep an inate sense of being wary of false or hired shepherds.

Well, this is quite judgemental of you. However, each man is free to reject the Teachings of Jesus.

Have you seen the bishops, priests (presbyters) and deacons failing to follow the commands of God?

 

[johnnydigit]

Does Jesus breathe on the Pope, Bishops, and priests?
I should like to see that happen!!!

…

You don’t need a lawyer or Magisterium to figure those rules out. They make perfect sense too! Plus they are in the Bible !

there’s a half of the Bible called the Old Testament, which is just as important as the New Testament. there’s a few thousand years of tradition that Jesus’ people, called Jews, practiced. they had what are called priests, and Jesus is the high priest. they passed on the priesthood by laying on of hands. the Apostles were our first priests, called bishops.

there is a whole world in the OT that protestants seem to overlook. they assume that with Jesus, he abolished everything that his ancestors did. the NT is only half the story, and it doesn’t replace the OT, it fulfills it and makes it complete.

in the OT there’s also this thing about kings and kingdoms. how when the king was gone, he would leave a minister in charge. he would give him the “keys to the kingdom”, because he would leave his authority with him. the kingdom would never be without someone in charge. Jesus was a king of his kingdom. do you think there’s no connection? there are so many connections it will blow your mind. because you think you can figure it out without anyone’s help, you will never see these and understand the Bible fully…

 

[brkn1]

there’s a half of the Bible called the Old Testament, which is just as important as the New Testament. there’s a few thousand years of tradition that Jesus’ people, called Jews, practiced. they had what are called priests, and Jesus is the high priest. they passed on the priesthood by laying on of hands. the Apostles were our first priests, called bishops.

there is a whole world in the OT that protestants seem to overlook. they assume that with Jesus, he abolished everything that his ancestors did. the NT is only half the story, and it doesn’t replace the OT, it fulfills it and makes it complete.

in the OT there’s also this thing about kings and kingdoms. how when the king was gone, he would leave a minister in charge. he would give him the “keys to the kingdom”, because he would leave his authority with him. the kingdom would never be without someone in charge. Jesus was a king of his kingdom. do you think there’s no connection? there are so many connections it will blow your mind. because you think you can figure it out without anyone’s help, you will never see these and understand the Bible fully…

Revelation has Jesus claiming to have the keys.
Jesus also said that His kingdom is not of this world. Jesus’ kingdom does not get its authority from anything that is part of this world, but from the Father above. You want me to believe the Kingdom is of this world. Look at the Vatican with all of its worldly property and claim to civil power. Jesus did not even have a place to call his own in this world. He had to borrow a coin to demonstrate the render unto Cesar the things which be Cesars. Some Popes ended up being “Cesar”, or just about the same thing as a Pontif.
We all have that key when the Holy Spirit indwells us. He opens God’s Word as we let Him guide us onto all Truth.
If we depend on ourselves to get the answer, we will fail.
If we depend on other fallible men to give us the answers, we risk even worse failure, since we insult and grieve the Holy Spirit by not looking in true faith to Jesus for our salvation, as the Holy Spirit was sent to reveal to us. The saving Gospel is way more simple than you want to make it. It reminds me of Naamun who did not want to listen to Elisha who told him to wash seven times in the Jordan. He almost rejected doing it, because it was too simple. Man always wants to muck things up by making it complicated.
Even a child could figure out the simple Gospel according to God’s Wisdom. It really is not nearly as complicated as some would have everyone to believe.

 

[brkn1]

once saved,always saved? heres a question for you,and its probably already happened to…A man marries a woman has children…5yrs down the road he decides he doesnt like her anymore(she has done no wrong) He decides he likes his secertary better(prettier,curvier,etc) soo the man divorces his wife and marries the secertary…1yr later he dies in this sin…but,listen now 5 yrs before his 1st marriage he was saved,the man believes hes osas and dies this way believing this BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT HE WAS TAUGHT…what happens to this man?He died in the mortal sin of adultry…Jesus says they’ll be no adulters in heaven…the man has read that in the bible,but he also believes osas…what do you think would happen?

Well, since we are talking “probably already happened”, my best guess is that God will have to reopen limbo until somebody figures out what needs to be done. It just doesn’t sound fair that some people get to go to purgatory for sins that are “venial”. My understanding of the law is that if you are guilty of ANY sin, then it is the same as being guilty of ALL sin.
My understanding, also according to Scripture, is that if anyone dies, while still being guilty of the least sin, he goes directly to hell.