- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Paging Aubie101 re: "Once saved always saved"
Posted on 11/14/23 at 10:14 pm to tgerb8
Posted on 11/14/23 at 10:14 pm to tgerb8
Here is the thing…a genuine salvation experience is referred to in past tense for a reason. The Holy Spirit comes in, you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in essence, and he would prevent someone from “backsliding” beyond the point of salvation loss. My contention is nobody, save for a mental illness that happens post salvation, would bear certain types of fruit. The Bible clearly states that once a person is a new creature in Christ, they will NOT be plucked from the Lord’s hand.
Now can one sin excessively post salvation and sin unto death? Yes. But the unpardonable sin is to reject the Holy Spirit’s call on the heart to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. Everything else can be forgiven and most likely would NEVER happen in the fist place. I noticed your OP pulled out the Hitler card…when that is the starting point to prove a point, one of the most extreme examples which can be used. You’re already on shaky ground with your argument…if you are arguing against “once genuinely saved, always saved”.
Now can one sin excessively post salvation and sin unto death? Yes. But the unpardonable sin is to reject the Holy Spirit’s call on the heart to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. Everything else can be forgiven and most likely would NEVER happen in the fist place. I noticed your OP pulled out the Hitler card…when that is the starting point to prove a point, one of the most extreme examples which can be used. You’re already on shaky ground with your argument…if you are arguing against “once genuinely saved, always saved”.
1
Posted on 11/14/23 at 10:47 pm to wfallstiger
quote:
Am not debating his status as one of the 12....calling into question his belief in the context of this post.
Again, how does a Believer allow Satan into one's life as did Judas? It does not work, fit. Peter, on the other hand, did not allow Satan that manner of sway.
And, if Judas was a Believer why didn't he avail himself to the same forgiveness extended Peter?
Jesus Christ Himself appointed Judas as one of the original 12 Apostles. At that point, Judas met the requirement for Protestant Salvation - he confessed with his mouth and announced that Jesus was his personal Lord and Savior - by the Protestant metric, Judas was Saved.
Therefore, according to the Protestant doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved, Judas enjoyed Eternal Security of his Salvation and nothing could change that.
THEN Judas took money to betray Jesus so that Jesus would be crucified, then Judas committed suicide.
BUT, good for Judas that due to the doctrine of Eternal Security and Once Saved Always Saved, Judas went to Heaven anyway and is up there right now with Jesus.
Doesn't this prove that Once Saved Always Saved is ridiculous heresy? No? How about the fact that NOBODY ever suggested OSAS until about Fifteen Centuries after Christ walked the Earth? Nobody in over 1,500 years ever mentioned OSAS, then suddenly - here it is!
Not even all Protestants agree to this OSAS doctrine.
Posted on 11/14/23 at 10:51 pm to Crimson1st
quote:
The Bible clearly states that once a person is a new creature in Christ, they will NOT be plucked from the Lord’s hand.
That is absolutely false. I know the Bible verses that you have handy to "support" your argument, but, for over 1,500 years, nobody in Christendom supported that interpretation.
Eternal Security and Once Saved Always Saved are heretical false doctrines and not even all Protestants believe in those.
Posted on 11/14/23 at 10:55 pm to Champagne
quote:Sola Ecclesia
That is absolutely false. I know the Bible verses that you have handy to "support" your argument, but, for over 1,500 years, nobody in Christendom supported that interpretation.
Eternal Security and Once Saved Always Saved are heretical false doctrines and not even all Protestants believe in those.
Posted on 11/14/23 at 10:57 pm to Champagne
quote:
That is absolutely false. I know the Bible verses that you have handy to "support" your argument, but, for over 1,500 years, nobody in Christendom supported that interpretation. Eternal Security and Once Saved Always Saved are heretical false doctrines and not even all Protestants believe in those.
Just because you say all this does not make your objection true either. This would have to be cussed and discussed with a lot more time than I have at the moment. I’m just glad the God I know and what I find in the Bible doesn’t make me walk through my days questioning my salvation. Why would a loving God want his children, his believing children to feel like they have no certainty in their future? This simply does not hold water.
I quickly Googled and the first article that popped up is this one:
LINK
I know you have all the answers so I’m sure you’ll tell me how wrong everything is in that article but what I said is FAR from heretical and I can suggest your take is equally heretical and false.
This post was edited on 11/14/23 at 11:06 pm
Posted on 11/14/23 at 11:36 pm to Champagne
What? There is no record whatsoever that Judas confessed Jesus as his Lord and Savior...he felt remorse, not repentance
Who taught you this understanding of Judas? Jesus called him the son of perdition...don't even try to tell me he was one of Jesus's when Jesus identified him as such.
John 17:12
Who taught you this understanding of Judas? Jesus called him the son of perdition...don't even try to tell me he was one of Jesus's when Jesus identified him as such.
John 17:12
This post was edited on 11/14/23 at 11:40 pm
Posted on 11/14/23 at 11:54 pm to tgerb8
Hitler replaced Jesus with his own Jesus that would fit his agenda.
Posted on 11/15/23 at 6:08 am to Revelator
quote:
Who claims this? This is insane. Of course we sin. We all sin because we are sinners. That’s precisely why our works can’t save us. Our sins don’t take away our salvation, it simply hinders our relationship with Christ.
Just asking a question.
If someone sins how can they not be cut off from Christ?
Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think you distinguish venial and mortal sin. Mortal sin or deadly sin cuts us off from Christ, but thanks be to God if we commit mortal sin he can still forgive us.
edit: 1 John 5:17
What is John referring to when he says not all sin is deadly? What then is deadly sin?
This post was edited on 11/15/23 at 6:16 am
Posted on 11/15/23 at 7:03 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Sola Ecclesia
Explain please
Posted on 11/15/23 at 7:26 am to catholictigerfan
quote:Sola Ecclesia (the church alone) is contrasted with Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) in regards to final authority in terms of the ultimate difference between Catholics and Protestants.quote:
Sola Ecclesia
Explain please
When a Protestant looks to the Bible for support, a Catholic responds with support from the church.
Posted on 11/15/23 at 7:32 am to Flats
quote:
They were more noble because they didn't just accept the authority at face value, they compared what was being taught to scripture. It supports the opposite of apostolic authority.
quote:
"10 The brothers[b] immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."
No. This is clearly you reading that into the text. Both groups examined the scriptures. So why were the Bereans more noble-minded than the Thessalonians who examined the same scripturs? It's because they accepted the WORD, the oral preaching, the apostolic authority of Paul due to them confirming that the Messiah he spoke of was indeed prophecied in the scriptures they were reading.........which was the Old Testament.
It's a text-book example of apostolic authority. Otherwise the Thessalonians, who examined the same scriptures, wouldn't have been considered less noble-minded.
Posted on 11/15/23 at 7:36 am to catholictigerfan
It's a red herring that Calvinists throw at Catholics claiming we derive authority from the church alone, which the church doesn't teach, as opposed to the three-fold authority of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magesterium. It's a phrase that was popularized by James White in the 90s whilst being skull dragged in debates by junior Catholic apologists.
This post was edited on 11/15/23 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 11/15/23 at 8:05 am to Champagne
quote:The contradiction here is endless.
once a person begins to logically analyze the Protestant heretical doctrine
Posted on 11/15/23 at 8:07 am to FooManChoo
quote:and the veil that remains intact
When a Protestant looks to the Bible for support, a Catholic responds with support from the church.
Posted on 11/15/23 at 9:00 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Sola Ecclesia (the church alone) is contrasted with Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) in regards to final authority in terms of the ultimate difference between Catholics and Protestants.
When a Protestant looks to the Bible for support, a Catholic responds with support from the church.
Ok I see someone else responded to this and I'll echo what he said.
We don't argue that it is the Church alone is the giver of truth. Rather the Church has always taught scripture and tradition are authoritative, and the Church is the one established by Christ to authoritatively teach faith and morals. The Church is not above the scripture, instead she is the authoritative voice on earth.
You seem to argue that a Christian by him/herself can come to truth by reading the scripture alone. We see this as an error.
Posted on 11/15/23 at 9:14 am to Stitches
quote:
No, it's meant to help you reflect on your sins, and hopefully not continue to commit them. Every priest I've ever confessed to has given penance that actually dealt with my specific mortal sins, and wasn't some vanilla prescription of Hail Mary's, though I do acknowledge that does happen.
There is an understanding in Catholic theology of the debt of punishment and the guilt of sin.
When we sin we are guilty of committing the sin and that guilt demands eternal punishment. When God forgives us through confession we are forgiven of the guilt of that sin, saving us from eternal punishment,
However there is also what is called the debt of punishment, basically we have some type of punishment to pay for the sins we have committed. The penance the priest gives us helps us pay the debt of punishment due to sin. That is why the priest should give a penance based on the gravity of the sin committed.
A couple of Catechism passages may help us here.
quote:
1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."
1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him."63
The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.64
and
quote:
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."85
Penance is more than just something good to do, it actually has something to do with our relationship to the Church and the people of God.
I think it of kinda like the sentence given by the judge for the sin we have committed.
Absolution forgives the sin (or God uses absolution to forgive sin) penance satisfies the wrong we have done.
I have been given Hail Mary's for a penance before, but maybe that's what my sin called for. I leave that up to the priest to decide.
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:35 am to catholictigerfan
quote:I'm certainly aware of the official teaching.
We don't argue that it is the Church alone is the giver of truth.
quote:When you have more than one "final" authority, one will eventually win out over the other, being more final than the other.
Rather the Church has always taught scripture and tradition are authoritative, and the Church is the one established by Christ to authoritatively teach faith and morals. The Church is not above the scripture, instead she is the authoritative voice on earth.
In this case, it is the church that always wins out over the word of God. The fact of the matter is that there are teachings that the church of Rome promulgates that are either not supported by the Bible alone or are opposed to the otherwise clear teachings of the Bible, but the church always goes back to her own authority to declare what is right (which clearly won't contradict what she already teaches).
A common argument I hear from Catholics is that it is the church that decided what books of the Bible are canonical. This argument presumes that it is the church's authority that makes scripture scripture rather than scripture being objectively what God has inspired for the church to accept and receive. The focus is on the authority of the church, not the authority of the scriptures in this case.
Next, Rome teaches that only the church has the authority to interpret the Bible. This means that if I think the Bible is very clear about a point of doctrine but it conflicts with what the church has taught or teaches, then it is me who has to be wrong. This presumes that the church is infallible in its interpretations.
Finally, Rome teaches that sacred tradition is co-equal in authority as the Bible for binding the consciences of Christians. As with the scriptures, the church of Rome is the one who determines what is sacred tradition, and the church of Rome is the only one who can interpret and apply sacred tradition.
So, if the church is the one who determines what is scripture and the church is the one who can interpret scripture, and if the church is the one who determines what is sacred tradition and how to interpret and apply sacred tradition, then functionally, it is the church that has the highest authority, not the scriptures and not even sacred tradition.
Whatever standard you use to judge everything else by is what is ultimate. I use the scriptures to judge everything else while you (Catholics) use the church to judge everything else.
quote:I believe the Bible teaches that the Scriptures are sufficient for teaching Christians (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and that the Spirit teaches the truth (1 Cor. 2:13) that the natural man (the one who has not been born again by the Spirit) cannot understand (1 Cor. 2:14). The church is given as a gift for the Christian to guide, but not to bind the consciences of people beyond what the scriptures allow.
You seem to argue that a Christian by him/herself can come to truth by reading the scripture alone. We see this as an error.
Posted on 11/15/23 at 10:52 am to FooManChoo
quote:
When you have more than one "final" authority, one will eventually win out over the other, being more final than the other.
In this case, it is the church that always wins out over the word of God. The fact of the matter is that there are teachings that the church of Rome promulgates that are either not supported by the Bible alone or are opposed to the otherwise clear teachings of the Bible, but the church always goes back to her own authority to declare what is right (which clearly won't contradict what she already teaches).
A common argument I hear from Catholics is that it is the church that decided what books of the Bible are canonical. This argument presumes that it is the church's authority that makes scripture scripture rather than scripture being objectively what God has inspired for the church to accept and receive. The focus is on the authority of the church, not the authority of the scriptures in this case.
Next, Rome teaches that only the church has the authority to interpret the Bible. This means that if I think the Bible is very clear about a point of doctrine but it conflicts with what the church has taught or teaches, then it is me who has to be wrong. This presumes that the church is infallible in its interpretations.
Finally, Rome teaches that sacred tradition is co-equal in authority as the Bible for binding the consciences of Christians. As with the scriptures, the church of Rome is the one who determines what is sacred tradition, and the church of Rome is the only one who can interpret and apply sacred tradition.
So, if the church is the one who determines what is scripture and the church is the one who can interpret scripture, and if the church is the one who determines what is sacred tradition and how to interpret and apply sacred tradition, then functionally, it is the church that has the highest authority, not the scriptures and not even sacred tradition.
Whatever standard you use to judge everything else by is what is ultimate. I use the scriptures to judge everything else while you (Catholics) use the church to judge everything else.
I get what you are saying but this is just your opinion on how the Church and those in the Church approach the scriptures.
The scripture is a part of Divine Revelation, what it deposits as truth must be upheld at all times. When the Church teaches it is doing so at the service of the scripture, not that it has more authority than the scripture.
Let me try an analogy. It will fall short in some ways as all analogies do but it may help explain the Church's position.
Say for example you are taking a class on biology. The professor is the authority in the room and you assume that what he teaches is the truth. Does that mean the professor has authority over the truth of biology? Certainly not, rather he is at the service of the truth of biology. Make sense?
I have to go but the Catechism may help here.
quote:
The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
Bold is mine.
Basically Divine Revelation is higher than the teaching authority of the Church. However the teaching authority of the Church is more than just a mere opinion. It has the backing of God himself and the Holy Spirit (basically the same thing).
If something is seemingly contradictory to scripture then it's not enough to simply say, well the Church has taught the following. Instead we should discuss it, how does X scripture passage make sense with Y interpretation.
Ok I'll be back at this later today. Have a good one!
Posted on 11/15/23 at 11:49 am to catholictigerfan
To add to this, the Magesterium has dogmatically defined only a small handful of passages (I think 8 or less), and allows a range of interpretations on most passages so long as they're theologically acceptable interpretations (Amillennialism and Postmillenialism views of Eschatology, for example).
Posted on 11/15/23 at 4:04 pm to Stitches
If we are credited for losing our salvation, then we must be credited for gaining it. Nothing in Scripture supports such. Christ did it all, full stop. We only come to Him by a supernatural act on His part. Spiritually speaking, we were dead in our trespasses and sins before He brings us to life.
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News