Some of the best NT verses threatening loss of salvation

[ezra]

Calvinists hate to admit they are calvinists.

they do ? i have a calvinist friend in Scotland should i ask her

 

[ezra]

Ha!
Isn't that what YOU do too?
Show me one verse that says you cannot lose salvation and I'll explain it for ya.

Anyway, who was talking about OSAS?

here is a challenge show me a scripture that has the words lose your salvation. and there is no scripture that says even if we revert back you will still go to heaven .its one word were haggling over called interpretation

 

[Walpole]

very interesting conclusion. I enjoy Church history. Can you provide your source for this? I'd like to read more on that since this is the first time I've heard this take.

Arius was a Scripture scholar, having studied at the Didaskaleion of Antioch, which emphasized Scriptural literalism. (As opposed to the Alexandrian school, which stressed the more allegorical interpretation of Scripture.) Arius and his disciples objected to the Catholic belief that Christ is homoousios with the Father because it is not found in Scripture. Here is the great defender of Trinitarian orthodoxy, St. Athanasius describing the complaint of the Arians against the Catholics...

"Thou hast done well, in signifying to me the discussion you have had with the advocates of Arianism, among whom were certain of the friends of Eusebius, as well as very many of the brethren who hold the doctrine of the Church. I hailed your vigilance for the love of Christ, which excellently exposed the irreligion of their heresy; while I marvelled at the effrontery which led the Arians, after all the past detection of unsoundness and futility in their arguments, nay, after the general conviction of their extreme perverseness, still to complain like the Jews, 'Why did the Fathers at Nicæa use terms not in Scripture, 'Of the essence' and 'One in essence?' "- St. Athanasius, De Decretis, 1:1

“…blaming the Nicene Bishops for their use of phrases not in Scripture…” - St. Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I.9.30

You cannot arrive at the orthodox Trinitarian and Christological dogmas via sola Scriptura.

Do you know what I find somewhat ironic? Arius believed God the Son was not always in Union with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. As a result, he and his followers we're deemed heritics and pretty much banned from the Church.

As your already aware, East and West had two schisims where the Trinity came into play after the incident with Arius. The second one resulted in the Church dividing. (1054)

What I find ironic is how the Church can fracture and divide over an idea and can justify much bad behavior based on an idea.

At least when Rome split to produce the thousands of Protestant denominations that currently exist, it had to do with physical abuses, not high ideas of Trinity.

That is historically inaccurate.

 

[Walpole]

here is a challenge show me a scripture that has the words lose your salvation. and there is no scripture that says even if we revert back you will still go to heaven .its one word were haggling over called interpretation

The example of Judas destroys Calvin's doctrine of once saved always saved / irresistible grace. For Judas, before he would "fall away" (Acts 1:25), was explicitly called the following by our Blessed Lord / Scripture:

- A "disciple" (Mt. 10:1)
- An "Apostle" (Mt. 10:2-4)
- "One of the twelve" (Luke 22:47)
- Sent "to proclaim the Kingdom of God" (Luke 9:2)
- "Chosen" (John 6:70)
- A "sheep" (Mt. 10:16)
- A "friend" (Mt. 26:50)

(Most Protestants believe "chosen" and "sheep" are words used for the saved.)


---> One cannot "fall away" (Acts 1:25) from that which one never belonged.

---> Judas not only resisted grace, but he resisted He who is the source of all grace.

 

[Walpole]

Several of my recent posts have been apologia. I would like to shift gears and now ask for some of you to share your thoughts.

---> What are some of the things you are doing for your children / family to help foster the faith?

---> How are you helping them persevere in their faith in a culture which is hostile to it?

 

[ezra]

The example of Judas destroys Calvin's doctrine of once saved always saved / irresistible grace. For Judas, before he would "fall away" (Acts 1:25), was explicitly called the following by our Blessed Lord / Scripture:

- A "disciple" (Mt. 10:1)
- An "Apostle" (Mt. 10:2-4)
- "One of the twelve" (Luke 22:47)
- Sent "to proclaim the Kingdom of God" (Luke 9:2)
- "Chosen" (John 6:70)
- A "sheep" (Mt. 10:16)
- A "friend" (Mt. 26:50)

(Most Protestants believe "chosen" and "sheep" are words used for the saved.)


---> One cannot "fall away" (Acts 1:25) from that which one never belonged.

---> Judas not only resisted grace, but he resisted He who is the source of all grace.

you answered nothing

 

[Walpole]

you answered nothing

Feel free to offer a refutation and or objection.

If the doctrine of once saved always saved is true, then Judas must be the shining example of it. He must be the doctrine's poster child and patron saint.

 

[GodsGrace]

have a blessed rest

one other question - why are we discussing this? - is there a group you want to exclude from christianity? - you said you are not talking about denominations so am i right to assume the answer is no?

or are you thinking of individuals with strange ideas? - i'm not understanding why we are discussing how to tell who is a christian or what group is a christian group?

Morning TF
NO! There's no group I want to exclude.

Yes. I'm thinking more about individuals with strange ideas.
I don't remember how we got into this, but it's time to give it up.

 

[stovebolts]

Several of my recent posts have been apologia. I would like to shift gears and now ask for some of you to share your thoughts.

---> What are some of the things you are doing for your children / family to help foster the faith?

---> How are you helping them persevere in their faith in a culture which is hostile to it?

This would actually be an excellent stand alone topic!

If you could spin this off to a thread of its own, I would be excited to answer!

 

[stovebolts]

Arius was a Scripture scholar, having studied at the Didaskaleion of Antioch, which emphasized Scriptural literalism. (As opposed to the Alexandrian school, which stressed the more allegorical interpretation of Scripture.) Arius and his disciples objected to the Catholic belief that Christ is homoousios with the Father because it is not found in Scripture. Here is the great defender of Trinitarian orthodoxy, St. Athanasius describing the complaint of the Arians against the Catholics...

"Thou hast done well, in signifying to me the discussion you have had with the advocates of Arianism, among whom were certain of the friends of Eusebius, as well as very many of the brethren who hold the doctrine of the Church. I hailed your vigilance for the love of Christ, which excellently exposed the irreligion of their heresy; while I marvelled at the effrontery which led the Arians, after all the past detection of unsoundness and futility in their arguments, nay, after the general conviction of their extreme perverseness, still to complain like the Jews, 'Why did the Fathers at Nicæa use terms not in Scripture, 'Of the essence' and 'One in essence?' "- St. Athanasius, De Decretis, 1:1

“…blaming the Nicene Bishops for their use of phrases not in Scripture…” - St. Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I.9.30

You cannot arrive at the orthodox Trinitarian and Christological dogmas via sola Scriptura.




That is historically inaccurate.

I think scripture does an excellent job supporting an Orthodox view of Trinity to which I primarily ascribe.

BTW, thank you for your reply. It reminds me of the two theological schools during Jesus day. ( Hillel and Shamia). What we can learn from the Jews is their since of Identity. Although those two lines of thought were polar opposite, neither denied the other citizenship in God's kingdom. I believe this line of thought is represented in many of Paul's writings.

 

[GodsGrace]

I can go all the way back to the beginning if that helps. Throughout salvation history, God has consistently sought to extract a confession from man. For example, in the beginning, we read "Who told you that you were naked?" Or, "Where is your brother Abel?" I could go on and on throughout the pages of Scripture.

I like the story of Adam and Eve...always learning something new from it. What you say above is great. I always knew that God was trying to make Adam aware of his disobedience, but He was also trying to get him to confess...which awareness does bring confession I'd say.
Thanks for that.

History culminates when God actually enters into his creation by becoming Man in the person of Jesus Christ. After His death and resurrection, on the evening of Easter, our Blessed Lord appeared to the Apostles and breathes on them. (This is significant itself given it is only the second time in Scripture where God literally breathes onto man - the first being when He breathed life into Adam.) When Jesus breathes on them, He imparts on them the Holy Ghost, and then gives them the authority to forgive sins. St. John records the event as follows...

"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.'” (John 20:19-23)

I guess we could say that God gave man His spirit the first time with Adam and Jesus gave man God's spirit the second time.

I do have a problem with confession the way the CC understands it. Even priests say that it's not them that are forgiving the sin...but God. They are just declaring that (based on the penitent) the sins are forgiven. I don't understand why it needs to be declared by a priest.

Also, I know this is dumb, but I fail to see why I should confess my sins to another man who sins himself, and, in some cases, his sins DO outweigh mine on the grounds of venial and mortal. On these grounds only...I believe we are all sinning and need God's forgiveness. I know the priest is taking the place of Jesus in the confessional.

I wish the early fathers said more about this.
I know about apostolic succession but I'm not sure Jesus intended to pass HIS authority on to those that came after the Apostles....

This is where the Christian practice of confession became a sacrament. In order for the Apostles (and their successors) to be able to forgive sins, they must first be told the sins. Hence confession, by definition, must be auricular. It has been this way from the beginning of the Church. We see this in practice in Acts when the Ephesians confess their sins to Paul in Acts 19:18. You mentioned St. Paul's epistle to the Corinthians, and to the faithful there the Apostle tells them he is charged with the "ministry of reconciliation." ( 2 Col 5:18) St. James instructs the faithful to make a confession (5:16) and St. John tells us if we confess our sins, they will be forgiven. (1 John 1:9)

At Mass at the Penetential Rite all venial sins are forgiven without having to hear them individually. In some places, abortion had to be forgiven by a Bishop (no longer true - didn't you just know the Pope would extend it to past the year?) I also fail to understand why some sins can be forgiven by God and some need a priest.

Some of the scripture you posted does not seem to me to be speaking of confession the way the CC understands it.
1 John 1:9 sounds close to it...but even that could be debated. It seems to me that if confession were that important, it would have been declared more clearly.

Confession is practiced immediately from the Church's infancy, as testified to in the Scriptures and then in each subsequent century. (i.e. the Didache, St. Irenaeus, Origin, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Augustine, Leo the Great, etc. etc.)

What you reference in the 13th century was the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which did not invent the sacrament, but rather instructed the faithful to confess at least annually. (You can read it here -> http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm#21)

I try not to read encyclicals anymore. I used to have to.
I know the Didache....could you post anything from the ECF regarding communion? I can't find much.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think scripture does an excellent job supporting an Orthodox view of Trinity to which I primarily ascribe.

BTW, thank you for your reply. It reminds me of the two theological schools during Jesus day. ( Hillel and Shamia). What we can learn from the Jews is their since of Identity. Although those two lines of thought were polar opposite, neither denied the other citizenship in God's kingdom. I believe this line of thought is represented in many of Paul's writings.

I've often thought that the sense of identity of the Jew is what kept them together both in the O.T. invasions....Assyrian and Babylonian and in the past 2,000 years when they were spread all over the globe before Israel became a country again.

I can't think of another population or civilization that survived anything like this....

 

[GodsGrace]

I guess what I am having difficulty understanding is why you would profess a creed composed by a Church you do not belong to, which taught things contrary to what you actually believe at the very council in which the Creed was written.

Would you recite Mormon statements of faith?

First,,,how do you know what I believe??
There's nothing in the Nicene Creed with which I do not agree.
There is nothing there that is contrary to what I believe.

They say not to assume, but you sure sound Catholic. So do you think I don't agree with anything the CC teaches? It teaches a lot of good concepts that could even help to understand the bible better.

I must say that I find the bible easier to understand than the CCC,,, but I tell everyone they should read the first hundred paragraphs or so --- it's great!

Do you disagree with everything protestants believe?
If they had a creed all their own and it was full of the truth...wouldn't you be willing to accept it?

 

[GodsGrace]

why not?

christian means follower of Christ and lean their faith on Jesus the Redeemer/Savior/Son of God - obey His commands - and abide in Him

everything else will come by the Holy Spirit leading them into the rest of what they need to know

can you imagine if a believer comes here and tells us he believes the red stuff and then we tell them they are not a believer because they don't agree with the list you made a few posts back?

I'd never tell someone they're not a believer if they tell me they are.

However, I have told persons they're not Christian unless they have Christian beliefs.

I can't say I'm black unless I have black skin.
I can't say I'm a girl, unless I'm a female.

Isn't that right?

 

[GodsGrace]

Exactly. You are making my point, as Protestants don't believe what Catholics believe. Thus, why would they use a Creed from a Church which they oppose?



If you know Church history, the main reason for the Council of Nicea was to define the faith of the Church against the Arians. The Church's Creed declared Christ is homoousios, which Arius and his followers rejected. The Arians rejected it because they were sola Scriptura adherents and argued the Catholics had to go beyond Scripture to define their dogma. (Sound familiar?)

So again, why would you use a Creed from a Church which you reject? I'm just trying to understand the logic and justification for such a position.

Don't Protestants also oppose Arius?
We agree on a lot of things W.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Feel free to offer a refutation and or objection.

If the doctrine of once saved always saved is true, then Judas must be the shining example of it. He must be the doctrine's poster child and patron saint.

You think Judas Iscariot was saved?
He betrayed Jesus, he stole the money.
Then he killed himself.
You think that is an example of a Christian.
Are you a calvinist?

 

[GodsGrace]

You think Judas Iscariot was saved?
He betrayed Jesus, he stole the money.
Then he killed himself.
You think that is an example of a Christian.
Are you a calvinist?

Why did Judas kill himself?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Why did Judas kill himself?

I don't know.
He never told me.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't know.
He never told me.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You knew Judas??
Wow.
I knew you were old...
but not THAT old!!!!

 

[GodsGrace]

This thread is going all over the place....which is fine,

I do believe Judas was saved and then became lost.