re: As a Catholic, I view the pope the same as I do the English monarch

why do you believe it? I believe it because God has revealed it to me through his word. The scriptures people use to refute it are usually taken out of context. We are supposed to interpret unclear verses with clear verses and the security of the believer is clearly taught in scripture. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be the good news. It would be an even harsher administered law that we had to follow after we came to the knowledge of the truth. In the old testament they couldn't murder, now under the new covenant you can't even hate someone because that is equal to murder. They couldn't commit adultery in the old testament, in the new you can't even have a lustful thought because that is the same thing and so on and so forth. No one could keep these requirements. This isn't good news that now it is even harder to keep the law?

Our job is not to convince anyone of anything. Paul says one man plants, another one waters, but God makes it grow. We are called to earnestly contend for the faith and that is what I try to do and I leave the results up to God.

Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. It makes total sense to me.

If a Methodist or Lutheran cites a Bible passage that cuts against the Doctrine of Eternal Security, and my goal is to argue in defense of the Doctrine, then your advice to me is to explain to them how they are taking the particular Bible verse out of context and tell them that they are incorrect in their interpretation of the Bible and Bible verse? Is this your guidance?

quote:

---

Our job is not to convince anyone of anything.

---

I completely agree that our approach here on the Religion Board should NOT be to "convince anyone of anything". What I think is best for the Religion Board is for us to explain and present support for various explanations and understandings. Once people have a fully informed basis on which to see things clearly, most will be able to find their way. I see the Religion Board more of a "Sharing of Ideas and Understandings" place than a place to preach or convince somebody.

We've got to realize that people of all beliefs and non beliefs come here. They will feel more comfortable if they see this as a place of sharing ideas and understanding. If they see the Religion Board as a place where people are going to attack them for their belief or non belief, then they won't come here often.

quote:

---

Have a great day.

---

You too.

You make a decent argument for the Truth of the Doctrine of Eternal Security.

I know that some Christians reject this Doctrine and I invite them to chime in and help us understand why they reject your belief. Through this dialogue, I hope that ya'll can agree on what the Bible clearly states with regard to our Salvation.

And if we cannot have this dialogue and conversation regarding what the Bible clearly states with regard to the Doctrine of Eternal Security, then, I'll be curious as to exactly why we cannot have this conversation.

I don't have the answer to this discussion. I only recognize the tension between "Security" and "Warning" passages. The Security scripture has been provided already. Some Warning passages are:

quote:

---

Hebrews 6:4–6 — People who were “enlightened” and then fall away
Hebrews 10:26–27 — “If we go on sinning deliberately… there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins”
John 15:6 — Branches “in me” that don’t remain are thrown away
2 Peter 2:20–21 — Worse off after knowing the truth and turning back
Matthew 7:21–23 — People calling Jesus “Lord” who are rejected

---

Those don't sound hypothetical. They sound like real warnings with real consequences.

The question remains: When the bible warns believers about falling away is that warning a real possibility or preventing one?

The answer matters, but I don't know the answer. I believe that people who become believers are transformed and their behavior reflects that. I can say without a doubt that Jesus already did what was necessary to forgive all sins, so works are not required. The beauty of grace is that all can be saved. But what if that grace is abused? Difficult to reconcile, for sure.

Here is my take. I am not saying I am 100% right on the below but this is where I'm at with them. If we cannot lose our salvation, if that doctrine is true as I believe it is, then what can we lose? I say we can lose our fellowship with God while we are here in this life and also have our rewards burned up at the judgment seat of christ. Still saved, but out of fellowship and loss of rewards. I believe we have two levels of our relationship with God. We have Union with him based upon believing in his son alone for salvation. Union is unbreakable because God is responsible for keeping us saved, not us. He won't let us fall away. There are scriptures that support this. However the second level of the relationship is Fellowship and that is where most of the problem verses come about. People confuse fellowship verses with union verses and vice versa. We can definitely lose our fellowship by how we behave or the things we do after we are saved.

Hebrews 6:4–6 — People who were “enlightened” and then fall away

Hebrews 10:26–27 — “If we go on sinning deliberately… there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins”

Both of the Hebrews verses in the very same chapters as these are written have verses that affirm security of the believer. I lean toward the chapter 6 warning being a hypothetical, like even if were possible to fall away... but later on in the same chapter the writer says he is writing to them about things that accompany salvation and also the Christ is an anchor for our soul.

The chapter 10 verse I lean toward the willing sin being going back into the Jewish old covenant law system. In verse 14 of this chapter he says by one sacrifice he has made perfect FOREVER those being sanctified. He can't turn around 12 verses later and say if someone willingly sins they aren't saved anymore. You couldn't trust anything this writer says if he did that.

This entire book is written to jewish believers who are being pressured into going back to the old way.


John 15:6 — Branches “in me” that don’t remain are thrown away
In this one abiding in Christ has to do with discipleship. Discipleship and salvation are not the same. Believing in Jesus and following Jesus are not the same. Some people jump head first into discipleship, some not so much. Both are saved because they have believed the gospel. Jesus says if you abide in him you will produce much fruit. Salvation is not a fruit bearing event. Discipleship is a fruit bearing event.

2 Peter 2:20–21 — Worse off after knowing the truth and turning back
2 Peter is written about false teachers/wolves sneaking in among the flock and spreading false doctrine. This one has always caused me probably the most confusion out of the warning passages. I've never been 100% clear if these verses are about the teachers or people who listen to their false teachings. But compared to the whole of scripture this one passage can't be saying the opposite of countless other passages that are clear that we are eternally secure in Christ.

Matthew 7:21–23 — People calling Jesus “Lord” who are rejected
This passage is about false teachers. What did these false teachers try to use to justify entry into the kingdom? Their defense was their many wonderful works in his name. Jesus says "I NEVER KNEW YOU", not I once knew you but now I don't. He is saying never. Because they never put their faith in him and thought they could work their way into the kingdom. Works saves no one and this is actually a strong defense against works salvation.

This is my take on these you posted. Others may disagree.

I'm late to this debate, but I wanted to share this video that might help explain the catholic position on the papacy.



Basically, he argues, using Luke 22:31 as his starting point.
1) Matthew 16, while it does prove the papacy, it isn't a good place to start. His starting point follows;
2) In Christ's kingdom, the leader is called to serve
3) All of the apostles are called to serve the Church
4) St. Peter is called to serve evden his brethren amongst the twelve. (I took this from his video)

So basically, Jesus calls Peter to be the Servant of the Servants of God. Just as Jesus came to serve, not to be served. He only gave this to St. Peter, so he has primacy.

I don't think he is trying to disprove Matthew 16 or saying we shouldn't use it, but rather that Matthew 16 is complicated, as evidenced by this thread.

I know the argument doesn't argue for his authority, but it does point out his primacy in serving his brethren.

First: The Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God.
Second: The Apostles in themselves have authority to bind and loose, but Peter among them is primary, mostly in being a servant.
Third: Through their successors, Bishops and the Pope are the successors of the Apostles, and the Pope, who is the successor of St. Peter. Remember, they replaced Judas, who betrayed Jesus.

quote:

---

Peter was the one who would “carry the torch” from that point forward by professing the Faith to the community of believers that make up the Church.

---

Is this why Peter authored 9 specific books of the New Testament addressed to seven specific communities of believers?

Ooops...my bad...that wan't Peter. It was Paul.

If Christ had intended that Peter be the one to "carry the torch...to the community of believers", then Peter would have been the one to author Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, and Hebrews. And it would have been Peter, not Paul, to have four separate missionary journeys documented in the New Testament.

And if Peter had indeed been "the one to carry the torch to the community of believers", Paul never would have needed to publicly rebuke Peter for refusing to eat with many of those.

The belief that Peter had this special role given to him by Christ is absurd, and certainly not reflected by what actually happens in Scripture.

If any individual was specifcally charged with "carrying the torch" to believers, it was Paul, not Peter.

Acts 9:15: "But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel".

That was said about Paul, not Peter.

quote:

---

Baptism

---

Did you miss the (saved by grace) as in born again. You are splitting hairs.