D
Dokimas
Guest
Simple isn’t alway correct as in this case.
- Status
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Greetings Dokimas,
I hope I’m following o.k. at a glance but here goes. Since God is outside of time I would say no that doesn’t make OSAS true. Here is why, in this sense I am equating “saved” with “regenerated” and one’s can be regenerated and be lost from a Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran/Arminian perspective.
I hope I’m following o.k. at a glance but here goes. Since God is outside of time I would say no that doesn’t make OSAS true. Here is why, in this sense I am equating “saved” with “regenerated” and one’s can be regenerated and be lost from a Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran/Arminian perspective.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I’m trying to understand what your response means in relation to my question. You are saying that OSAS is untrue from GOD’S perspective. That is from God’s view point, those He fore knows to go to go to Heaven can’t be understood as once saved always saved.
IYO, can some be ‘saved’ lose their salvation and gain it again? If so, many times?
C
cruisin
Guest
I don’t normally post but I have some questions, well maybe only 1
How does OSAS have anything to do with the topic?
Since Dokimas started the thread i guess he can take it anywhere he wants. i have no problem with that.
responding to the subject of OSAS, and what Nicea325 said:
Ro 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Ro 6:2 God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?
Ro 6:3 Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Ro 6:4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
Ro 6:5 For if we have become united with [him] in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of his resurrection;
Ro 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;
Ro 6:7 for he that hath died is justified from sin.
Ro 6:8 But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him;
Ro 6:9 knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over him.
Ro 6:10 For the death that he died, he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Ro 6:11 Even so reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus.
Ro 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts thereof: …
As Baptized believers, Paul calls us to a higher standard. Just because we have been buried with Christ does not give us license to just go on our merry way and do what ever we want.
well my $.02 what ever its worth.
How does OSAS have anything to do with the topic?
Since Dokimas started the thread i guess he can take it anywhere he wants. i have no problem with that.
responding to the subject of OSAS, and what Nicea325 said:
I think Paul has already addressed this idea to the Roman Church some 2000 years ago. evidently this is not the first time this little problem Nicea has mention has cropped up.
Ro 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Ro 6:2 God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?
Ro 6:3 Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Ro 6:4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
Ro 6:5 For if we have become united with [him] in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of his resurrection;
Ro 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;
Ro 6:7 for he that hath died is justified from sin.
Ro 6:8 But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him;
Ro 6:9 knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over him.
Ro 6:10 For the death that he died, he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Ro 6:11 Even so reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus.
Ro 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts thereof: …
As Baptized believers, Paul calls us to a higher standard. Just because we have been buried with Christ does not give us license to just go on our merry way and do what ever we want.
well my $.02 what ever its worth.
D
Dokimas
Guest
The idea of God and OSAS goes back to my response to someone who answered my question about Mary being the Ark in Heaven when It clearly existed before Mary was born according to the writer of Hebrews. The answer was something like well God sees the future in the past so He used that ability to make Mary the Ark (not exactly the a quote; you’ll have to look back to see how well I did in restating the person). That’s why I asked if, from God’s perspective, OSAS was true.
I agree with the rest of your post; however Paul, in Romans 7 spoke of an internal struggle because as Christians, we have two natures, one of which we did not have before we became a Christian. The two natures are our sin nature and God’s divine nature that now dwells within us. We still sin because our sin nature is NOT gone. By obedience to God we have dominion over our sin nature (actually God has the dominion which we have the priviledge to live in).
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Yes. I’m saying thatt, but I should now add the disclaimer that; I can’t be sure…just my guess.
I guess terms need to be defined as I was mentioning last post. What do you mean by “saved”?
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
Why do these threads always degrade into a disputation on OSAS?
TO understand the concept of Mary being the New ark, you have to udnerstand Old Testament Typology. Paul tells us that Jesus was the new Adam (1cor 15:45), so we know that to be one example. Another is the reference to Jesus being THE ROCK which followed the Israelites through the desert. I will take it as an understood that the old testament prefigured the new, while the new fulfills the old.
Since we know that, lets look at the comparisons between Mary and the Ark.
Old Ark: A cloud of glory covered the tabernacle and ark (Ex 40:34-35, Numbers 9:15)
Mary: “And the angel said to her: ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’” :Luke 1:35
Old Ark: Spent 3 months in the house of Obededom the Gittite (2Samuel 6:11)
Mary: Spent three months in the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth
Old Ark: King David asks “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?”
Mary: Elizabeth asks “Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
Old Ark: David leaps and dances before the Lord when the Ark arrives in Jerusalem (2Samuel 6:14-16)
Mary: John the Baptist leaps for joy in Elizabeths womb when Mary arrives
Old Ark: Contains the written word of God (Ex25:16)
Mary: Contains the living Word of God (John 1:1,14 and others)
It is quite clear that the Blessed Virgin is the New Ark if you understand old/new Testament typology. Take Revelations for instance, Revelations 11:19 “And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.” followed Immediately by Revelations 12:1 “And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars”
The thing to remember with Revelations is that it was what John saw occurring in heaven and on earth at that moment. Like the old testament prophecies it was referring to current events, but also to future events. When read in that light, both literal and prophetic, Revelations takes on a whole new look that clearly shows Mary being the “Woman” clothed with the sun with a crown of twelve stars about her head commanding the angels in heaven.
Since Woman is only used for two women as a title (Eve after her intial sin in the Garden and Mary at the wedding feast at Cana and at Jesus’ crucifixion) then the above makes ABSOLUTE sense.
Just my 2 cents
FSC
D
Dokimas
Guest
Snatched for eternal hell’s fire to be with Jesus and His Bride forever.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I do have somewhat of a grasp on Old Testament typology, thanks.
A fellow poster answered your verses pointing Mary to the Ark by showing similar verses with another Bible character (I don’t remember who it was - poster and character) you can’t just pull out verses to make a point. There’s got to be other Bible reasoning to make conclusions.
Hebrews 8 & 9 writes in the past about the Tabernacle. It refers to the Ark Moses made being a copy of the true one. Seeing it’s past tense, the question is 'did Mary pre-exist before she was born?
G
guanophore
Guest
If you are referring only to the church militant, yes, but as far as the Church triumphant, I think He considers them all OSAS.
Rev.22
[5] And night shall be no more; they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they shall reign for ever and ever.
G
guanophore
Guest
The Church teaches that human life begins at conception, though we don’t know at which point God actually ensouls the body.
However, God’s intention and plan for the Ark that was to bear His Own Son was present before the foundation of the world.
C
cruisin
Guest
Dokimas,
I was trying to respond to what Nicea325 wrote above.
I dont’ disagree with what you are saying about chapter 7. but I still think God calls us to something more.
** “Be Holy because he is Holy”, **
** “be in the world but not of the world”**
On the note of “Mary being the Ark” I don’t get it.
the writer of Hebrews takes great pains to contrast the reqiurements of God thru the temple before Christ died and After Christ died.
If this was such an important part of Gods plan, why is Mary not mentioned once here?
Especially when discussing the Ark. it makes no logical sense to me.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think this is one of the Truths about the Gospel that was not immediately clear to the disciples. Jesus said there were things that they were not ready for yet, but that would come later. I think at first, the focus needed to be on the identity of Christ. All that we know about Mary flows from that.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Our goal is to be like Jesus. Agreed.
I don’t understand why Mary is not mentioned. That’s a great point. If the writer of Hebrews had mentioned Mary being the New Ark or real Ark, that would clear that issue up.
G
guanophore
Guest
You are right, but the Holy Scriptures were never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith. They reflected the faith that was delivered once for all to the Church. They affirm the faith of the Church that produced the NT. It is this Church to which Mary’s role was revealed.
It is the faith of this Church that is reflected in the Gospel of Luke, when He carefully parallels the journey of Mary with that of the Ark.
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
Oh if only the writers of the bible had mentioned that pesky Triune God thing, that would have cleared everything up…
But they didnt, yet it is still evident in scripture, as is Mary being the New Ark. Honestly, can you explain what the New Ark is without being Mary? Since everything in the New testament is pre-figured in the old (Manna, Ritual Sacrifice, the Mass, etc.) then what/who else could it be?
I had to quote this, for the bolded part above. And I know, I quoted almost the entire thing.
FSC
D
Dokimas
Guest
Take your Scriptures for why you believe Mary is the Ark and all the Scriptures that point to God being the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to as many non-believers as you can and ask them which doctrine makes more sense using Scripture.
The Tabernacle is best understood, IMO, to be Christ Jesus the Lord in ALL it typology.
Moses’ Ark held the 3 elements ‘forever’ from the time Moses placed them in the Ark. Mary held Jesus for 9 months. The divinity of Jesus was in Jesus’ Human body the moment of the incarnation and still is in His Human Body that was raised from the dead.
G
guanophore
Guest
What you are trying to commend to us here, Doki, is to use an heretical method to discern the Truth. Using the wrong ruler will not allow anyone to arrive at the right measurement.
We do not extract our beliefs about Mary from the Scriptures. We receive them from the Apostles’ teaching, some of which we find reflected in the Scriptures.
Asking non- believers to confrim the doctrine of the faith makes absolutely no sense. Right doctrine is to be RECEIVED from those to whom it was committed by God.
I agree. The Ark is not the Tabernacle.
I think you are missing out on the fact that Mary was the first Christian, Doki. She received Him in her heart before she received Him in her womb. She has carried Him this way from the announcement of Gabriel until now, and will for all eternity. She is twice blessed, She is blessed to have borne the Son of God into the world, and blessed because she heard the word of God, and did it.
D
Dokimas
Guest
If someone is going to equate your doctrines about Mary with the teaching of the Trinity, then my comments are logical and appropriate, IMO.
I did not intend to imply that asking a non-believers’ (name removed by moderator)ut should establish truth but that they could be asked as an impartial bystander to tell which doctrine is directly implied in the Bible and which most likely are read into the Bible and can’t be reasoned directly from the Bible.
Seems an honest reply. I haven’t found them in Scriptures no matter how many verses are shown.
I believe I’ve addressed this.
It is PART of the Tabernacle. If it is missing the Tabernacle is not complete. Take the humanity of Jesus from His and His life on earth or resurrection means little to nothing, IMO.
Then we are like Mary because Jesus lives in true believers. Paul said, **Ga 4:19 **“My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you,”
Maybe this is what Jesus said when He implied we all could be His mother: Lu 8:21 “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Well that seems like saved in the past sense, so yes I believe that somebody could by their own free will and while they are on earth, forfeit their “saved” status so to speak. From God’s view I don’t think (but can’t be sure) that such a person was OSAS even if they were restored to the status of being “saved” again and died in this “saved” status, because to me there was the very real possibility that they could have been lost once “saved” of their own free will and by their own doing.
I’m sure you might have heard other Cathlics on here explain that they were “saved” (past tense) so long as they remain in a state of Grace they are being saved (present), and have a hope that they will be saved (future.)
That being said I think the possibility exists of one being OSAS, so long as that doesn’t exlude the very real possibility of them forfeiting that salvation by their own “works” so to speak; works of iniquity (mortal one’s.)
But the teaching of OSAS, doesn’t allow for that possibility. It teached that whatever one may do, if they are saved, they cannot be cut off from Christ by [mortal] sin.
It seems like you are coming at it from a different angle (God’s) and saying that as long as that person finall ends up in heaven, weren’t “they once saved always saved”, and I would say no if they committed mortal sin along the way.
- Status